Henry Parkes: a biography 9780522841749, 9781597406536

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Preface (page xi)
Conventions adopted in quotations (page xiv)
1 Migrations 1812-1839 (page 1)
2 New South Wales 1839-1848 (page 25)
3 Radical activist 1848-1850 (page 46)
4 The Empire 1850-1854 (page 71)
5 Aspiring politician 1850-1854 (page 98)
6 Honourable member 1854-1858 (page 125)
7 Crisis 1858-1861 (page 155)
8 England 1861-1862 (page 187)
9 Faction politics and the upward climb 1863-1866 (page 200)
10 Colonial secretary 1866-1868 (page 218)
11 Limbo 1868-1871 (page 240)
12 The Spartan kings 1871-1879 (page 266)
13 Power 1879-1882 (page 304)
14 In the wilderness 1883-1887 (page 336)
15 The Grand Old Man 1887-1890 (page 360)
16 'How much longer?' 1890-1896 (page 394)
The Parkes family (page 425)
Notes (page 426)
Bibliography (page 469)
Index (page 475)

Citation preview

HENRY PARKES

A Biography

A. W. MARTIN

MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1980

First published 1980 Printed in Australia by Wilke and Company Limited for Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria 3053 U.S.A. and Canada: International Scholarly Book Services, Inc., Box 555, Forest Grove, Oregon 97116 Great Britain, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean: International Book Distributors Ltd (Prentice-Hall International) 66 Wood Lane End, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP2 4RG, England This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Acct, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Enquiries should be made to the publisher.

© Allan William Martin 1980 National Library of Australia Cataloguing in Publication data Martin, Allan William, 1926Henry Parkes: a biography. Index

Bi kopraphy ISBN 0 522 841740 1. Parkes, Sir Henry, 1815-1896. 2. Statesmen — New South Wales — Biography. I. Title. 994.403’1’0924

This book was, and is,

for Jean.

Contents

Preface Xl

Conventions adopted in quotations XIV

1 Migrations 1815-1839 l

2 New South Wales 1839-1848 25

3 Radical activist 1848-1850 46

4 The Empire 1850-1854 71

5 Aspiring politician 1850-1854 98

6 Honourable member 1854-1858 125

7 Crisis 1858-1861 155

8 England 1861-1862 187 9 Faction politics and the upward climb 1863-1866 200

} 10 Colonial secretary 1866-1868 218

11 Limbo 1868-1871 240 12 The Spartan kings 1871-1879 266 13 Power 1879-1882 304

14 In the wilderness 1883-1887 336 15 The Grand Old Man 1887-1890 360 16 ‘How much longer?’ 1890-1896 394

Notes 426 Bibliography 469 Index 475

The Parkes family 425

Illustrations

facing Stoneleigh, the birthplace of Henry Parkes, Sydney Mail, 6 July 1882 = 18 (National Library of Australia, Canberra)

‘The Gathering of the Unions’ on Newhall Hill, 7 May 1832, from 18 Conrad Gill, History of Birmingham, 1952, vol. 1 (Reproduced by courtesy of the Birmingham City Council)

Edgbaston Old Church, a drawing by John SteepleinJ.A.Langford,A 19 Century of Birmingham Life, 1871, vol. 2

Parkes’s election in 1854, Illustrated Sydney News, 6 May 1854 (Mitchell 50 Library, Sydney)

Parkes in 1853 (Mitchell Library, Sydney) 51 William Bede Dalley in 1857 (Mitchell Library, Sydney) 51 Helene, Ryde, from a watercolour by G. V. F. Mann, 1932 (Mitchell 114 Library, Sydney)

William Charles Windeyer and Mary Windeyer, c. 1857(Reproduced by 115 courtesy of the Hon. Sir Victor Windeyer)

Father and daughter: Henry and Menie Parkes 146 (Mitchell Library, Sydney)

Werrington as it appeared in 1932 (Reproduced by courtesy of Mr John 147 Lethbridge) The attempted assassination, I/lustrated Sydney News, 25 March 1868 147 (National Library of Australia, Canberra)

The supposed ‘unholy alliance’, Lictor, 21 October 1869 (Mitchell 242 Library, Sydney)

Faulconbridge House, the main residence, about 1880(Mitchell Library, 243 Sydney)

X Illustrations facing

Sir Hercules Robinson (Mitchell Library, Sydney) 274 Lady Clarinda Parkes, about 1880 (Mitchell Library, Sydney) 274 Robertson and Parkes in 1881, from C. E. Lyne, Life of Sir Henry Parkes 275

A picnic party at Faulconbridge (National Library of Australia, 306 Canberra)

Parkes with Annie in San Francisco, 1882 (Mitchell Library, Sydney) 307 At the White House, Washington, J/lustrated Sydney News, 18 March 338 1882 (National Library of Australia, Canberra) Parkes with Isabella Murray in San Francisco, 1883 (Mitchell Library, 339 Sydney)

Lady Eleanor Parkes (Mitchell Library, Sydney) 370 Lord Carrington (National Library of Australia, Canberra) 370 The colonial secretary’s office, 1891 (National Library of Australia, 371 Canberra)

Parkes and Lady Julia (Mitchell Library, Sydney) 402 Kenilworth, in Annandale, from C. E. Lyne, Life of Sir Henry Parkes 403

In the garden at Kenilworth (Mitchell Library, Sydney) 403 CARTOONS

page The old Parkes ministry and the new Parkes ministry, Bulletin, 6 April 376-7 1889 (National Library of Australia, Canberra) ‘Federation’ in the air, Bulletin, 23 November 1889 (National Library of 387 Australia, Canberra)

‘Neutrality!’, Bulletin, 27 September 1890 (National Library of Aus- 399 tralia, Canberra) ‘A quiet, simple life’, Bulletin, 28 November 1891 (National Library of 408 Australia, Canberra)

The Arthur Streeton portrait of Henry Parkes used on the jacket is reproduced with permission of the Trustee of the Howard Hinton Collection, Armidale, N.S.W.

Preface

I seek in this book to sketch and in some degree to understand Henry Parkes, that strange man whoin the later nineteenth century intermittently dominated the public life of New South Wales and whose active political career in the colony spanned almost fifty years, from 1848 to 1895. I do not use the word

‘understand’ in too ambitious a sense, for I appreciate only too well the chastening words, from the pen of Alfred Deakin, with which Professor J. A.

La Nauze so modestly prefaces his most distinguished of all Australian biographies: For me the effect of my life experience is to discredit most of the personal

estimates of history and many of its interpretations of times ... though—when men have done or written or said much—their orbits can be fairly estimated, their endless variations of mood and temper, of credulity and scepticism, and the cross currents of influence to which they have been subject, are so numerous [that] no man knows himself thoroughly, or anyone else more than superficially except by accident or inspiration.

So there will be other books—other ‘understandings’—about Parkes, for accident and inspiration are not only uncertain: they also vary with time and person, and the historical materials for imagination to play on are in this case

rich and diverse. Furthermore, I have barely touched on many aspects of Parkes as public man and policy maker: these range from his role in the imperial affairs of his time to his interest in what we now call conservation, and

each could merit a study in itself. One person cannot attempt everything: I have chosen to try to tell of the man’s personal life as far as the documents permit it to be glimpsed and of his successes—and failures—in mastering his political environment. In many ways the rigid chronological framework I have given to my story represents something of an intellectual and artistic defeat, for I long dreamed of taking clues from John Dollard, as once recommended to Australian scholars by A. F. Davies, to explore Parkes’s life history under other categories, eschewing chronology in order to structure the study around those

intersecting patterns of experience, personality and circumstance which mould a man’s responses to the contingent and hence lie beneath the existential surface. That that in the end proved beyond me requires some apology to the students and colleagues with whom, during 1971-72 in our ‘biography’ seminar at La Trobe University, I was able to talk over this and much else of Xl

Xil Preface profound human significance. I hope they will sense, however, that not everything has been lost. In particular I have tried, albeit in the simplest of ways, to hold to our vision of personality as a changing gestalt, Allport’s ‘Becoming’, not a given entity unfolding in the story of the life. Many years of thinking, collecting, writing and rewriting have gone into the making of this book and my debts to others have become great. I have had material assistance from various sources. I gleaned most of my knowledge of Parkes’s early years while a Nuffield Dominion Travelling Fellow in London, as long ago as 1957. Thanks to an award from the Australian Research Grants Committee in 1970 I was able, though then myself living in Melbourne, to have the items in the Mitchell Library’s Parkes Papers fully listed—a long task which Anne Norrie carried out with the greatest skill and care. With support from the research funds of La Trobe University Anthea Hyslop subsequently helped me

index Anne’s work and incorporate with it the documents I had already gathered from the same and other collections. La Trobe grants also permitted me from time to time to call on the help of two Sydney research assistants, Paula Coombes and Patricia Burke. Then in 1973 the University of Melbourne

awarded me its Senior Research Fellowship and Greg Dening and his colleagues in the History Department gave that warm hospitality and companionship which enabled me, among many other good things, at last to begin writing.

I have collected documents from the Mitchell and Dixson libraries in

Sydney, the National Library in Canberra, the Fryer and Oxley libraries in Brisbane, the British Museum in London, the National Library of Scotland in

Edinburgh, the Birmingham Municipal Library, the Turnbull Library in Wellington, New Zealand, and the libraries of La Trobe, Melbourne and the Australian National universities. I wish to acknowledge the great courtesy of the staffs of all these libraries and the good fortune I have in being permitted to quote from material in their collections. I offer thanks to individual people who have helped me to find and permitted me to use materials outside the established repositories. Lord Carrington and the Lady Cynthia Postan enabled me to locate the papers of the first Lord Carrington, in the care of Brigadier Tony Llewellen Palmer, who in turn gave me free access to them in 1969 and now kindly permits me to publish extracts from them. I owe a special debt to Sir Victor Windeyer, who has shown interest in my work almost from its beginnings, giving unstintingly of his time and showing me many invaluable letters and photographs from his collection of family papers. I also thank Mr H. A. Gorman who sent me copies of letters which Parkes wrote to his grandfather. Those Parkes descendants whom I have been able to trace have been generous in discussing and making available what

; relics they have. The late Cobden Parkes permitted an interview, Mrs Jane -\a-4 Grey gave me access to the Murray—Parkes papers, then in her keeping, and ae Mrs Jean King helped me with documents and information about the Parkes

a family in the Blue Mountains. Mr Fred Thom and his son Mr D. W. G. Thom, mabe descendants—like Mrs King—of Menie Parkes, offered the kindest hospitality and mementoes which greatly assisted me. Friends and colleagues to whom I owe debts that they may by now have forgotten include Alan Atkinson, Weston Bate, Dietrich Borchardt, Mike

Preface Xiil Bosworth, Magda Bozic, Maurice Careless, Manning Clark, Inga Clendinnen, Gavan Daws, Gwen Dow, Stephen Foster, Bryan Gandevia, John Harrison,

Cameron Hazlehurst, John Hirst, Michael Hoare, Ken Inglis, Rhys Isaac, Hugh Jackson, Roger Joyce, Graham Little, Laurie Fitzhardinge, Oliver MacDonagh, Margot Mahood, Bruce Mansfield, Ged Martin, Stephen Murray-Smith, John Salmond, Jessie and Geoff Serle, Barry Smith, Alan Powell, Pat Weller. Like other researchers I have often sighed with gratitude for the Australian Dictionary. of Biography, but have in addition been privileged to receive personal help from its creators, particularly the late

Douglas Pike, Bede Nairn, Martha Rutledge, Chris Cunneen and Jim Gibbney. In Canberra Jean Dillon, Lois Simms and Janice Aldridge patiently

typed and retyped drafts and in Edinburgh Eleanor Brodie did the same, zestfully absorbing the while a strange antipodean culture.

There are special debts. John La Nauze’s prodding and—far more important—inspiration have been more effective than he ever thought. With cheerful efficiency Jan Brazier and Ann Millar checked hundreds of references and answered many queries as I wrote the last chapters at the other end of the world. My old friend and collaborator Peter Loveday read almost the whole manuscript and gave me the benefit of his wise and astringent comments. My family has lived out what seems a lifetime with Parkes. My mother, Bill and David have helped in a variety of ways they will perhaps never fully understand. The dedication is the poor best I can offer now for the one who made it all possible and whose gentle criticism, wisdom and love will always greet my eyes on every page. It is, too, a token of helpless remembrance for our long

dialogue on Parkes, life, and death over the terrible Edinburgh winter of 1978-79.

A. W. Martin Canberra, 1979

Conventions adopted in quotations Throughout the text the use of ‘sic’ in quotations has been avoided. The quotations are nevertheless in all cases literal renditions of the original. Occasionally, however, it has been necessary to add words or letters to make the sense clear, and these additions have been placed in square brackets.

CONVERSIONS

1 lb 0.45 kilogram

11 mile foot 0.30 metre 1.60 kilometres 1 acre 0.40 hectare Id (penny) 0.83 cent Is (shilling) 10 cents

£l (pound) $2

Migrations

1815-1839

Henay PARKES was born on 27 May 1815 at Canley Hamlet, Warwickshire, in an old half-timbered dwelling known in the neighbourhood as the Motthouse. This was the home of his parents, Thomas and Martha, and stood by the fields from which as tenant farmers they drew a simple livelihood. Coventry was close on the northern side and the village of Stoneleigh lay a few miles to the south, near the junction of the rivers Sowe and Avon. Stoneleigh’s

church of St Mary, dating from the twelfth century and built of venerable redstone ashlar, formed the pivot of a wide rural parish and its quiet ceremonial life. Henry was baptized there on 2 July 1815. A company of Cistercian monks who came to the place in 1154 were the real

founders of Stoneleigh. They built an Abbey and founded an estate which became the economic hub of the region. The Cistercians were the great farmers of the late middle ages; and by their system of recruiting from the peasantry lay brothers for field-work and useful trades at once provided training for the wider community and bound it to the fortunes of the monastic enterprise. When in the sixteenth century Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries took Stoneleigh Abbey from the order the fortunate layman who received its lands

found himself the owner of a large, long-established and well-organized manorial estate. He was Sir Thomas Leigh, Alderman of London, who added to the property by purchase, received a patent of confirmation from Queen Elizabeth and built a spacious mansion on the site of the old Abbey. Leigh’s descendants still lived there when Parkes was born. They inherited a family

tradition of seclusion and of interest in agriculture and rural sports. The Leighs’ too ardent attachment to the lost cause of the Stuarts, it was said, was the real reason for their withdrawal from the world of affairs. Charles I had

once slept at Stoneleigh Abbey when refused proper accommodation at Coventry and in gratitude had made his host’s eldest son a baron of the realm—the first Lord Leigh of Stoneleigh. Contemporary descriptions of the Leigh mansion suggest that by the early nineteenth century seclusion there

cannot have been too heavy a burden. “The spacious residence, termed Stoneleigh Abbey’, ran one in 1820,

is in one the Avon, most luxuriant and picturesque of the county of situate Warwick. Theof river here rendered wide even toparts a magnificence of amplitude, ornaments the ground in the most attractive way with its classic waters; and woods, venerable and far-spaced, bestow an air of dignified quiet on the neighbourhood. ]

2 Henry Parkes The baronetcy lapsed when in the late eighteenth century the last Lord Leigh

died mentally deranged and childless and the property passed through his sister to an untitled nephew. But the name remained (James Henry Leigh owned the estate in 1820) and the Leighs’ ascendancy in Stoneleigh parish must have seemed to the common folk an eternal verity. They were ever present, as landlords to whom rents were paid and caps were tipped, as patrons

who traditionally financed village schools and almshouses, as people of quality, stone effigies of whose dead ornamented family vaults in vestry and chapel. The Parkes family had long been reliable tenants of the Leighs. Henry’s father Thomas, born in 1773, was the son of Edward and Sarah Parkes, also of the Motthouse. He was married in 1800 in the Stoneleigh Parish Church to Martha Faulconbridge, ‘the daughter of an old family in the same county’, as Henry was years later to describe her. As their ‘mark’ on the marriage register indicates, neither of the young couple could read or write. Thomas took over the farm from his father in 1801. This meant that the tenancy had now spanned at least three generations, since Edward’s father, also Thomas, is recorded in the earliest surviving Stoneleigh Abbey rent book, that for 1766, as tenant of the same land. It is probable that the family’s attachment to their plot went back much further than that. Henry was the last child of Thomas and Martha’s marriage. He had three sisters and two brothers living and at least one brother who had died. This was Henry, born in July 1813 and dead in June 1814, ‘aged 0’, as the burial register starkly records. It was not unusual for grieving parents to use the same name when a lost child was replaced. The circumstance may also help to explain the warmth of the love—particularly that of his mother and sisters—which Parkes always remembered as lapping him round when a child. Of those earliest days at Stoneleigh there is, however, little clear record. During a trip to England in 1882 Parkes went to Stoneleigh and wrote in the school logbook: ‘Visited this School which as a child I attended myself. Henry Parkes (Sydney)’. He had in fact left the district before he was eight, so he could not have been long at the school. His brothers and sisters, who were all literate up to a point, may have attended classes when they could be spared from work in the fields. Since 1731 the school had been open, thanks to the charity of Hon. Ann Leigh, to all sons and daughters of the inhabitants of Stoneleigh, irrespective of class or condition. If as a small boy Henry went sometimes with his sisters, he would have

been unlikely to forget the experience: the walk from the Motthouse into Stoneleigh was at least four miles. At the time of Henry’s birth there was no reason to doubt that the Parkes children would grow up to follow the family’s traditional rural ways. In that very year their father Thomas, evidently prosperous and optimistic after years

of good agricultural prices brought by the long French wars, took on the tenancy of an extra farm of 100 acres at Tocil, near Canley. But as things turned

out, he could not have chosen a more unfortunate time to add to his burdens.

Peace pricked the bubble of inflation, and although poor harvests on the Continent created demand which delayed catastrophe until 1822, prices fell steadily. As early as 1816 the Board of Agriculture, responding to widespread complaints of distress, sent circular letters to all parts of the country to ask for

Migrations 1815—1839 3 information on the state of farming. The replies from Warwickshire retlected

malaise and impending adversity: in less than a year landlords had been obliged to reduce rents by sometimes as much as twenty-five per cent, unemployment was evident among agricultural labourers and tenants in arrears were being evicted. Thomas Parkes’s new commitment more than quadrupled his rent (it went up from £57 10s a year to £245) and as times worsened the Leighs, unlike some landlords, were not prepared to reduce rents. The Stoneleigh rent books show that by 1822 Parkes was £814 5s 6d behind in his payments. Then an enigmatic entry records a drastic turning point in his affairs. The whole debt is entered as ‘received’ though £539 5s 5d is noted as ‘lost’, a circumstance amplified in the estate’s ‘General Statement’ which lists among disbursements ‘cash lost by Mr Parkes of Tocil, £539 5s 5d’. How did Parkes raise asum so immense, given the times and his circumstances, and by what extraordinary happening did he lose it? Or was this a strategem by which some benign—or corrupt—bailiff arranged

his escape from an impossible predicament? Whatever the explanation Thomas Parkes had no future at Stoneleigh. His name disappears from the rent books, apart from a note in March 1824 that poor law levies had been paid ‘for late Park’s farm’. By then the family had left, in what was a traumatic break with the identifications and certainties of at least three generations.

They moved first to Glamorganshire and then to Gloucester where, as Henry later recalled it, his father ‘became completely beggared, losing the remnant of his little worldly means in a small retail shop’. The old family life seemed altogether disrupted. Henry’s elder brothers had already been forced out into service: But in the fields, where we together play’d In life’s sweet morning, now no more we stray’d, Each had to seek at strangers’ hands a home, And far in weary search each had to roam; With weeping hearts we parted,—that distress Left an afflicted mother comfortless. Thomas took day labouring work as a reaper and Henry, not quite ten years of age, briefly worked in a rope manufactory for fourpence a day. Later that year,

1825, the lad found another job, breaking stones on roadworks between Cheltenham and Cirencester. He knew ‘extreme suffering’ as autumn deepened into winter, often working without food, until his father, unable to find employment, decided to return to Warwickshire. Martha had a brother in

Birmingham who might give them shelter and a nephew who owed her husband £40—in their misery a veritable fortune if it could be recovered. Henry, his parents and his eldest sister, Sarah, made the trip on foot. When they arrived, weak and ill, the boy’s uncle greeted them kindly and gave them their first decent meal for many months; but there was no money. The nephew said

he had honoured his obligation by paying out the £40 to a man to whom Thomas himself owed money. But that claim proved false and when the creditor in question, a Mr Gilbert of Coventry, heard that Parkes had come back, he had him arrested as a debtor. This second catastrophe put Thomas in

prison for more than a year and left Martha and Sarah dependent on the

4 Henry Parkes eleven-year-old Henry, who now had a 6-shillings-a-week job digging clay in

: a brick pit.

But their travels were over and, though they came to realize it only gradually,

a new life was beginning. One by one Henry’s brothers and sisters, save the eldest, who had married in Wales, rejoined them. The boys took up trades, Henry himself becoming apprenticed to an ivory turner when in the winter the brickworks suspended operations until the spring. Sarah learnt staymaking and set herself up with the younger girls assisting and even Thomas found a niche when he came out of gaol. As Henry later put it, ‘My father now obtained employmentin attending to gentlemen’s gardens, a day or two at one, and then a few days at another ... And thus we lived more happily than we had done for years’.

When the Parkes family came to it, Birmingham was a fast-growing industrial city. Originally a market-town, it was by the seventeenth century the home of tradesmen who specialized in metalware: cutlers, makers of firearms, manufacturers of small items ranging from buckles to spurs. In the eighteenth century, as the pace of Midlands industry quickened and a network of canals cheapened carriage, Birmingham became the commercial metropolis of an expanding region based on iron and coal. At the same time the range of its

traditional manufactures widened. As one historian of the place put it, the trades of Birmingham offered almost indefinite scope for enterprise. Nearly every kind of metal fitting or furniture to be found in houses, ships or coaches, could be made in this town; together with tools for the workshop, nails, pins and needles, and everything that was made from wire; articles of use, such as pots, pans and kettles; articles of adornment, such as jewellery, picture frames, and statuettes. There was no end to the new designs. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, Birmingham was the ‘toyshop of Europe’, its products reaching every part of the world, ‘from Archangel to tropical Africa, from the palaces of Indian princes to the homes of American planters’. In the hundred years between 1701 and 1801 the town’s population rose from around 12 000 to 70 000. It doubled again before 1830 and when Birmingham received its Charter of Incorporation in 1838 more than 170 000 people lived there. Despite the stresses which absorption of migrants on this scale implied both for housing and for industry, Birmingham had still not taken on in the 1820s the features of an ugly and crowded city. Situated on rising ground above the river Tame, it had good views, enjoyed breezes which dispersed smoke, and managed— as its historian John Langford fondly wrote in 1868—‘to wear those

country robes of garden and field which, combined with its admirable situation, made it ... a place lovely to behold’. In some areas speculators were buying up gardens and building working men’s hovels around courts which

came later to rank among England’s worst slums. But for the time being Birmingham coped with the stream of newcomers chiefly by a rapid expansion of suburbs. ‘The neighbouring hamlets’, wrote one observer, ‘are approached by her streets, and ere long will merge in her arms the great and multitudinous

assemblage of one people—one vast manufacturing community—one Bir-

Migrations 1815-1839 5 mingham’. Private gardens and leafy walks still studded the older parts of the town and Birmingham’s citizens were proud of public parks like Vauxhall and Spring Gardens, with their fireworks displays, their picnics and their open

Spaces for every type of communal gaiety. Most important of all, an old Birmingham tradition was for a time jealously preserved even in the newest of

suburbs. James Drake, presenting in 1825 a ‘Picture of Birmingham’, described the result as it could be observed from one elevated spot, the Crescent:

From the west end of this area we enjoy a pleasing and lively summer-view over a considerable tract of land, laid out in small gardens. This mode of applying plots of ground, in the immediate vicinity of the town, is highly beneficial to the inhabitants . . . [These] gardens in different quarters round Birmingham, letting from 10s 6d to two guineas per annum, .. . promote healthful exercise and rational enjoyment among the families of the artizans; and,vegetable with goodstores, management, an ample supply of by those wholesome which areproduce comparatively seldom tasted the middling classes, when they have to be purchased.

Langford observed that these ‘workmen’s pets’, as he called them, added immeasurably to the beauty, the health and the material prosperity of the town. Thomas Parkes, who in addition to his other gardening work rented one of these plots, became an expert on vegetables and seeds and his case illustrates another important function of Birmingham’s ‘robes of garden and field’. At a time of great social and economic change they offered proud but redundant

farmers, too old to learn new skills, the means of self-respect and salvation from absolute failure. The Parkes family may have been among the migrants who at first lodged in the new suburbs, but they seem soon to have found a house in Moseley Street, near the heart of the town, and this was to be the home in which Henry lived out his adolescent years. Although as a young man he still looked back with sadness at his parents’ sufferings—‘a father and mother bowed down with years of affliction, and steeped in poverty and wretchedness. The very thought seems to make me unhappy for ever . . .—he also remembered his home in Birmingham asa place of warmth and support, where his mother and his eldest sister Sarah were the central figures. As he wrote to Sarah in 1838, when his mother died:

Poor dear mother! How good a mother she has been to me! ... Oh! how happywas I have that little old in Moseley-Street, after my day’s work donebeen at theinbrick-yard, as Ihome have sat by the fire in my clayey clothes, and she took my hand and held it in her’s, and told me parts of Robinson Crusoe to while away the dull hours till you came home from Attsop’s. Yes, I was happy then, though dear father was lying in a distant debtor’s prison.

He wrote a fuller description of the house, in verse, many years later: Home of a Birmingham Artisan Fifty Years Ago One of a brick-built row in street retired A lowly dwelling, so for comfort planned, No foot of room was lost; in nothing grand,

6 Henry Parkes Yet wanting nought the humble heart desired. Parlour—with creeping plants the window wired, The furniture soilless kept by woman’s hand— In summer like some nook of fairyland. .For winter nights well hearth-rugged and coal-fired; Snug kitchen in the rear, with childhood’s sports Gracing the threshold, and the home-cured flitch Within—fair picture gainst the poorcourts. man’s wall; Ope to a garden-plot, not crowded Such our mechanic’s: nor wanted stitch His decent clothing: and content blessed all.

Parkes’s first essay in apprenticeship, with a master who proved to be a drunkard, lasted only three months. But then he found an elderly craftsman, John Holding of Moseley Street, who accepted him as under-study and proved as a teacher to be all that one could desire. In the flux and growth of industry in early nineteenth century Birmingham guild control was defective and bad

masters often treated their apprentices as low-paid contract labourers. But Holding took the apprenticeship agreement seriously, while Parkes for his part served his articles fully, staying eight years to learn all his master knew. Then, as a journeyman not yet twenty, he decided to leave Holding’s workshop and

launch out in a business of his own. It was a natural step to take. In the Birmingham of that day ambition was prized and men of all classes learned to dream of achieving independence and the respectability that went with it, and to think of this as a goal to be won through hard work, the exercise of stern self-control and dedication to the task of self-improvement. What made these ideals potent was that the dream was not necessarily a will-o’-the-wisp: it fitted the structure of the town’s economic life with a neatness paralleled in no other industrial centre in England—except perhaps London itself. Birmingham’s industry, as we have seen, rested on skilled trades and its technology, which depended on machines like the stamp, the press and the. lathe, had made the small workshap the town’s accepted unit of production. The unparalleled growth which took place in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries did little to change the old method of industrial organization and the large factory, so characteristic of other industrial cities like Manchester and Leeds, was not to be seen in Birmingham. In 1844 the Penny Magazine _ summed up the most important of the consequences by observing that ‘with the exception of the metropolis, there is perhaps no town in England where there are sO many persons combining in themselves the character of masters and workmen as in Birmingham, and none in which there is more observable a chain of links connecting one another’.

Historians are agreed that this ‘chain of links’ goes far to explain the peacefulness which Birmingham society displayed through the turbulent years of the early nineteenth century, when other large urban centres in England suffered great social tensions and periodical explosions of violence. In 1791 Birmingham had experienced what E. P. Thompson calls ‘the last great action of an eighteenth century mob’—three days of grievous rioting, looting and burning when a marauding crowd, inflamed by a combination of sectarian and class hatreds, ran amok. There were also minor food riots in the town in 1795.

Migrations 1815-1839 7 But after that no serious disturbances occurred for more than forty years and

this during a time marked by phases of acute economic distress. The old Workhouse in Lichfield Street, built in 1733, stood as a dour reminder of the destitution never absent from the town. Fluctuations in iron and corn prices caused periodical distress and unemployment. During a slump in the iron trade in 1811, for example, over 9000 people had to be given poor relief. In a better year, when the Guardians could rejoice at ‘the general revival of trade in Birmingham and the low price of provisions’, 3400 paupers still needed assistance and there were more than 300 children (‘diligent subordinate and peaceable’) in the Workhouse Asylum. The lot of the poorest classes—the men

without skills, the widows, children and invalids unable to support themselves—was grim but the town was celebrated for the charity of its better citizens and the strength of that evangelicalism which reconciled both poor and rich to their earthly estates and at the same time assured the former that it was proper to aspire through diligence and rectitude to the status of the latter. It was a while yet before the more underprivileged began to find this hope a bitter irony and to imagine other ways of improving their position. Meantime trade difficulties—experienced particularly in 1811, 1819 and 1830—spurred the growth of movements which channelled social and economic dissatisfactions

into demands for parliamentary reform and drew power from the steady alliance they forged between the town’s business and manufacturing leaders and its working classes. Though the heyday of this alliance was the early 1830s, Cobden was still able in the 1850s to talk of ‘the healthy and natural’ character of Birmingham society—its ‘freer intercourse between all classes’-—which made it so effective as a base for reformist movemeats.

Parkes was a young man when Thomas Attwood consolidated the most powerful of these movements, to fight for the political changes eventually won

in the First Reform Act of 1832. A banker who first came into prominence when elected High Bailiff of Birmingham in 1811, Attwood was convinced that

the fluctuations in trade from which Birmingham suffered were due to mismanagement and in particular to the government’s failure to use its power to manipulate paper currency and ensure monetary stability. Though looked on elsewhere as a crank inflationist, Attwood quickly gained a great following in Birmingham. His ideas chimed in with the belief of the common people of England that parliament had the power to relieve distress but refused to do so.

Though conservative in inclination he soon found natural allies among radicals who had formed a ‘Hampden Club’ to agitate for parliamentary reform. Under its leader, George Edmonds, the Hampden Club pioneered mass agitation in Birmingham and offered Attwood a model of organization when in the late 1820s despair at his failure to catch the government’s ear drove

him to the belief that parliament must be made over. In 1830 Attwood, Edmonds and other prominent townsmen established ‘a General Political Union between the lower and middle classes of the people’ for the ‘promotion of an effectual Reform in Parliament, and the redress of public Wrongs and grievances’. This was the Birmingham Political Union, formed in the belief ‘that the General Distress which now afflicts the country . . . is entirely to be ascribed to the mismanagement of public affairs, and that such mismanagement can only be effectively and permanently remedied by an effective

8 Henry Parkes reform in the Commons House of Parliament’. For Attwood aclear philosophy lay behind the Union. It was an emanation of Birmingham’s peculiar social system: The interests of masters and men are, in fact one. If the masters flourish, the men are certain to flourish with them; and if the masters suffer difficulties, their difficulties must shortly affect the workmen in a threefold degree. The masters, therefore, ought not to say to the workmen, ‘Give us your wages’,

but take their workmen by the hand, and knock at the gates of the Government and demand redress of their common grievances.

The Union was formally set up at a ‘meeting of the Merchants, Manufacturers, Tradesmen, Mechanics, Artisans and other Inhabitants of the town of Birmingham’. It was said that 15 000 people were present. The youthful Parkes

could well have been there, for the gathering was held in Beardsworth’s Repository, an enormous block of buildings used normally for a horse-market (the biggest in the Midlands), which straddled the space between Cheapside

and Moseley Street and was thus close to where he lived and worked. Parkes was certainly one of the 9000 people who joined the Union within the first year

of its life. Sixty years later he still remembered with pride how ‘I became a member of the famous Political Union, and wore my badge openly till the [Reform] Bill was carried into law by the Grey Ministry’. That badge was the work of his own hands, made of ivory, hanging on a ribbon of red, white and blue, and carefully carved to fit the official prescription formally approved by a special meeting in Beardsworth’s Repository in May 1830: Obverse of the medal—the British lion rousing himself from slumber; legend

above, “The Safety of the King and of the People’; legend below, “The Constitution, nothing less, nothing more’. Reverse of the medal—the Royal Crown of England, irradiated; immediately below the crown, onascroll, the

words Liberty, " Tosperity ‘God1830”. Save the King’; legend ‘Unity, below, ‘Birmingham Politicallegend Union, above, 25 January, In the long months of excitement between Grey’s first introduction of a Reform Bill into the Commons in March 1831 and the final passage of his third Bill through parliament in April 1832, the Political Union through its agitation both stirred up public excitement and laboured to direct that excitement into peaceful channels. At crucial points, such as the Lords’ rejection in October 1831 of Grey’s second Bill, indignation in Birmingham, so Langford tells us,

| ‘was terrible ... and but for the strong power of the Political Union, fearful consequences would have inevitably followed’. During these days the young Parkes thrilled to a succession of orators who passed through the town and was a faithful follower of the Union’s outdoor demonstrations at Newhall Hill, that great natural amphitheatre where sloping ground and surrounding houses conjoined to provide the site for meetings of unprecedented size and exci-

tement. He ‘hung upon the voice of Daniel O’Connell with unspeakable interest, on occasions when he spoke in Birmingham on his journeys from Ireland to London; and the tones of that marvellous voice, and some of the Liberator’s images, have never left my memory’. Nor could he ever forget the

Migrations 1815-1839 9 climactic meeting held on the eve of the Lords’ third consideration of the Reform Bill: ‘I was a solitary listener’, he wrote, ‘among the 250 000 persons who attended the great Newhall Hill meeting in Birmingham, my whole being

stirred by the solemn strains of the Union hymn as they were pealed forth under a thousand waving flags of that gathered multitude’. The permanence of the memory is understandable. Birmingham’s modern historian calls this meeting, held on 7 May 1832, ‘the greatest and most stirring in the history of the movement’. Contingents poured into Birmingham with banners and bands from all the neighbouring towns to join the mass of local demonstrators and form a procession four miles long: Silence was secured for the speakers by means of a bugle-call. The speeches, as befitted the occasion, were both emphatic and solemn. A petition to the

House of Lords was adopted, urging them to pass the Bill without any material alteration and ‘not to drive to despair a high-minded, a generous and fearless people’. But two unrehearsed episodes were remembered more clearly than the speeches. The procession from Bromsgrove arrived rather late, and when they reached Newhall Hill they were greeted with the Union’s

hymn, sung by practically the whole of the assembly, for the words and music were familiar at that time throughout the Midlands. It is worth while to recall the last verse, as an expression of the spirit and the hopes which stirred the reformers of that day: God is our guide! no sword we draw; We kindle not war’s fatal fires. By union, justice, reason, law, We claim the birthright of our sires! And thus we raise, from sea to sea, Our sacred watchword, Liberty!

When the petition had been read, Thomas Clutton Salt, standing on the platform, ‘acting as it were on a sudden inspiration’, called for a renewal of the Union’s vow; and the whole assembly stood bare-headed while they repeated the words: ‘In unbroken faith, through every peril and privation, we devote ourselves and our children to our country’s cause’.

As part of the political excitement of these days there was an upsurge of sentiment on behalf of the Polish revolutionaries who rose in Warsaw late in

1830 and in 1831 fought their fruitless war of national liberation against Russia. The leaders of the Political Union were deeply stirred by the spectacle of Poland’s fight for freedom and in the autumn of 1832 Thomas Attwood and

his son George de Bosco established a Birmingham Polish Association to defend in England the cause of Polish liberty and independence. On 29 November the new Association held a splendid dinner to commemorate the anniversary of the Polish revolt. The highlight was Thomas Attwood’s speech moving the main toast—‘the ancient and heroic Polish nation; may their cause never be abandoned by the British people’—and its sequel, a Polish war-song translated by George de Bosco Attwood and sung with great effect by a Mr Barker:

10 Henry Parkes Skrenetski leads on! |

Leads on! leads on! Each battle blade shall be Speedily gory: On! On! to victory, Freedom and glory! Attwood senior presented the guest of the evening, Count Ladislas de Plater, with the banners of Poland and England, and his son declared in rousing tones his belief that ‘Poland shall wake again’. During 1832-33, the Polish enthu-

siasm kept Birmingham’s reformist leaders in touch with the European revolutionary movement: Plater continued to exchange flags with them and from Paris Lafayette wrote to Attwood to solicit money for Poles in Europe or direct help for Polish refugees in England. George de Bosco, whose sentimental enthusiasm for Poland exceeded that even of his father, became the hero of the romantic young of Birmingham. It was to him, in 1833, that Henry Parkes dedicated a poem he had written on the wrongs of Poland. Parkes’s habit of versifying, here evident at the age of eighteen, was to last to the end of his life, a legacy of his early years as a literate working man striving—like so many of his fellows—to find a form for expressing his more elevated thoughts and refined feelings. In fact, thanks to his parents’ unsettlement and poverty during his childhood and early adolescence, his education had been—in his own words—‘very limited and imperfect’. We do not know how he learned to read and write. Perhaps his profound sense of indebtedness to his sister Sarah means that she gave him his most elementary lessons. Or perhaps, like G. J. Holyoake, the radical artisan who grew up in Birmingham at the same time as Parkes, he had been to one of the free Sunday schools which

benevolent non-conformists conducted for the children of the working classes—‘anything I knew’, writes Holyoake, ‘had been taught to me by these generous believers’. At least there is no doubt that, as a youth in the early 1830s, Parkes was a member of the Birmingham Mechanics’ Institute and that some

of the teachers he met there were of great importance in his intellectual development. The Institute was founded in 1826—as the original circular put it—‘for the promotion of knowledge among the working classes, by means of elementary schools, a library, and lectures on the different branches of Art and Science’. It offered classes in writing, arithmetic, drawing, French and Latin, as well as lectures on Natural and Experimental Philosophy. But it suffered, like other

mechanics’ institutes of the time, from what the editor of the Mechanics’ Magazine, Joseph Robertson, once called ‘a want of system’. In 1835 Robertson told a Commons committee on arts and manufactures that regular courses of instruction were not followed in any of the institutes he knew, and that in the lecture programmes “all sorts of topics are discussed, and in every variety of order’. It was thus impossible to know what a man had learnt even if he attended an institute regularly for years. Parkes took some pride in having

attended Mr Toulmin Smith’s Latin class but his accomplishment in the language was never such as to provide contradictory evidence for Robertson’s claim. Likewise the lectures he could attend were catholic in coverage and disconnected in arrangement: those offered in one series in 1835, for example,

Migrations 1515-1839 I] ranged from Manners of the Ancient Romans through Respiration (‘including

a narrative of the discovery of a toad in a bed of sandstone during the excavation of the Birmingham and London railway’) to Music of the Age of Elizabeth (illustrated by ‘a select number of performers led by Mr. Mungen at the pianoforte’). In addition, though the Birmingham Institute got off to a good start in the late 1820s, it never proved the success which its promoters thought ‘might have

been anticipated in a town so justly celebrated for its manufactures and mechanical skill’. Membership fell away in the thirties and those who remained could not raise enough money to erect a building of their own. Explanations for this failure varied. Noting that membership fluctuated according to the season of the year one reporter observed that ‘it requires strong determination in persons whose employments give them but small leisure, to give up evening after evening of the most attractive months, to the pursuit of knowledge’. At the Institute’s annual meeting in 1838 Edmonds said plainly that the poor could never be expected to show an interest in education until their physical condition was improved: ‘they might lay before a hungry man the most splendid and interesting treatises, founded upon either truth or fiction, and he could have little relish for them until the cravings of nature were satisfied’. The Institute’s president, W. Hawkes Smith, observed at about the same time that membership numbers had forsome years been less than one per cent of the size of the town’s working population and that the members tended

not to be artisans at all, but ‘master manufacturers of the humble grade, .. . clerks and others employed in warehouses, and their sons’. He explained the failure of real mechanics to join by referring to the character of the town’s industry: Knowledge they want, if they did but knowit, as all work people, as all people want knowledge; but knowledge does not serve them at the casting furnace,

the stamp, or the lathe; nay, the nature of these employments tends, to a certain extent, to disqualify them from participating in the means offered for

intellectual improvement. The fabricator of the most classically formed candelabrum, the finisher of the most beautifully polished article of plate or plated ware, is not the better workman because he has listened to lectures on Geology, Shakespeare, or English haut-music, or has attended classes for

French or Drawing. He is himself the better finished human being... The corporeal fatigue of hardware manufacturers indisposes for mental exertion; and the very grime inseparable from our Birmingham workshops is an impediment in the way. It is less trouble to go to a public house, and enjoy there the social cup and the political discussion, than to undertake the lustration which renders a person presentable at a lecture or a class. Parkes was never given to drinking in public houses and as ivory turning was not a grimy occupation he could present himself at classes with less preliminary ‘lustration’ than many other workmen. He seemed indeed very like the model workman Hawkes Smith pined for. John Hornblower, a printer friend of these

days, looked back many years later and remembered an intensely serious young man. Parkes, he said, gave much satisfaction to his employer . .., was somewhat reserved in his demeanour, had but few companions, and occupied his leisure hours in

12 Henry Parkes mental improvement. The cheap pocket editions of the ‘British Poets’ had more attraction for him than the outdoor sports and pastimes common to youth, and versification became a habit before he had acquired sufficient mastery of language to efficiently clothe “The thoughts that burst their channel into song’. [ was his printer, and, unknown to my employer, worked many an hour overtime to put his evanescent thoughts into print. Parkes liked to think that the educational legacies of his Birmingham days were

a love of literature learned through sensitive reading and an appreciation of man’s social and political nature learned at the feet of the town’s great orators. He wrote of the latter many years later: “These were my teachers, together with the living poets of the time, such as Byron, Moore, Shelley, and Leigh Hunt’. Parkes was grateful to the good men of the Mechanics’ Institute for whatever down-to-earth knowledge they gave him, but their most lasting influence was generalized and thus more akin to that of his other ‘teachers’: their inculcation

of the idea that education was power, that it was most effective when systematic, and that it was both socially desirable and a matter of abstract right that it should be universal. Hawkes Smith put this view of education with special clarity in a lecture at the Mechanics’ [nstitute in 1835. If Parkes did not hear this talk, he is almost certain to have read it, since it was printed in the Mechanics’ Institute’s journal, the Analyst. Smith’s central concern was to counter the influence of people who wished to keep the working classes ignorant ‘because they apprehend that the diffusion of knowledge would inevitably lead to searching inquiries into the means of a better diffusion of comforts’. He himself, on the contrary, warmly endorsed the view of the Institute’s respected president, Chandos Leigh (of Stoneleigh):

There are some who boldly say that wherever faculties exist, they may be safely cultivated;—and who fear not that the great social system will suffer

damage, even should the gradual of castes be the consequence of such cultivation. Observing the destruction nascent desire of improvement, they see

no evil, and apprehend no danger from its increase, and would urge it forward as the probable means of extensively communicating general happiness; interposing their assistance as guides, not standing in the way as checks. They would lay down rail-ways—not hang on drags. They unhesi-

tating ly declare, with the too enlightened and may liberal Chandos .. . “The people cannot easily know much;—they easily know Leigh, too little.’ Too little for the best interests of a well-conducted society. The lilt and the nuances of words must have come through to Parkes even more vividly in such rhetoric than in the poets he read. It was akin in style to the speeches he heard at Newhall Hill and it had, if in more muted tones, the same balanced periods and stern sense of commitment which he and other serious young men learnt so well at the feet of preachers in Birmingham’s churches and chapels. The most celebrated of Birmingham’s chapels was the New Meeting House in Carr’s Lane, conducted by the town’s leading divine, John Angell James. In August 1819 James had laid the foundation stone of the chapel Parkes knew and attended. It was the third Meeting House to be erected on the same spot

Migrations 1815-1839 13 in seventy-two years, a fact which dramatically reflected population growth and the strength of non-conformity among the town’s business and working people. The new building had been completed in two months, ‘as an instance’, commented one journalist, ‘of unparalleled dispatch in the erection of public buildings in this town’. It could accommodate congregations of 2100 people, with 350 free sittings reserved for the poor and another 300 for the children of the Sunday school. The church prospered financially: ‘wealth draws to wealth’, ran one paean to James’s efforts, ‘and when an assembly largely composed of the opulent and the well-to-do are once brought fairly under the power of the gospel, the results are highly gratifying’. Artisans and working men were

numerous among James’s followers, but class boundaries were carefully

drawn. A reserved pew and regular attendance were the hallmarks of respectability and in the church’s membership lists domestic servants were not

accorded the prefix ‘Miss’. There were special week-night meetings for ‘Christian Tradesmen’, ‘Female Servants’, and ‘Artisans’, and the chapel minutes of the 1820s record how earnest deacons set about forming ragged schools for ‘little sweep-boys and beggar children, too poor and wretched for admission into the ordinary Sabbath Schools’. Under James’s long rule (1805-59) Carr’s Lane became the chief centre of Midland congregationalism. Its members founded and serviced new churches in the expanding suburbs and James was sometimes playfully referred to as “The Bishop of Carr’s Lane’—a title which had a special piquancy considering his suspicion of the Church of England and his hatred of the Church of Rome. James’s extraordinary influence is to be attributed to his oratorical gifts, to the distinctness and narrowness of his Calvinistic principles, and to the skill and industry with which he ministered to the widespread hunger for instruction and enlightenment. ‘In a series of pamphlets, mostly reprints of addresses and lectures,’ writes the modern historian of Carr’s Lane, ‘we find Young Men and Women Guided, Widows Directed, Families helped to Domestic Happiness, Christian Professors Counselled and Cautioned, Quarrels Settled, Servants

Advised, and Scoffers Admonished. These hortatory booklets had an incredibly brisk circulation . . . In this sphere he exactly fitted into the demands of his day’. James preached a dour asceticism which took small note of this world, except to denounce its grosser pleasures, especially those available in

, public house and theatre. He thought the imagination one of the inferior faculties of the mind, anathematized art in religion as a Popish perversion and

objected to the performance of Handel’s oratorios, which he thought blasphemous and incongruous, as if guilty prisoners were to have their ears tickled by hearing the views of their judge set to music. His concern was with another

world, to whose stern realities he was a firm guide. G. J. Holyoake always remembered his mother’s distress for her dead children after hearing James

preach a sermon describing hell with its ‘infants not a span long’ eternally damned for the sins of their parents. For Holyoake this was the beginning of a silent terror of Christianity: ‘that Mr James believed it seemed to us the same as its being in the bible’. Parkes for a time attended Carr’s Lane chapel and walked the four miles to Yardley, a village which Birmingham was overtaking and in which the Carr’s Lane folk had established a ‘missionary’ church, to teach in the Sunday school

14 Henry Parkes and exchange tracts with the children’s parents. Though he always vividly remembered James it was as a ‘thunderous preacher’ rather than as a teacher of precepts—a model of style, not the source of a world view. Memory distilled the truth accurately enough. For while James’s stern advocacy of rectitude accorded well with the young Parkes’s sober sense of duty, his contempt for art cut across all Parkes’s dreams of cultural self-betterment. Again, James’s narrow Calvinism separated sacred from secular so rigidly that it left no room for the idea that Christianity might have a social mission. As the historian of Carr’s Lane has put it, James ‘lived through the days of the Chartist agitation with apparently little sense of the significance of that ferment of discontent, born of hunger of body and hunger of spirit, or appreciation that the extremes of misery and comfort were not of the ordained nature of things’. An attitude like this could only be alien to so ardent a supporter of contemporary reform movements as Parkes. In any case we may doubt whether Parkes, though given to uttering the

conventional pieties of his day, was even as a young man very deeply committed to Christianity. When in 1838 he needed endorsement of a certificate of good character, he wrote asking his sister to approach the Rev. George Cheatle, minister of Lombard Street Baptist chapel: ‘. . . the certificate must be signed by a clergyman or minister and he is the only person of that class

who can know anything of me, from living in his own neighbourhood and being with Mr Houldin a near neighbour of his so long and my brother George and his wife attending his chapel’. To say the least of it, these were thin grounds on which to claim acquaintance with a clergyman. What of the Carr’s Lane connection? Perhaps Parkes had reacted to James’s severity in the same way as

Holyoake, who admitted that ‘my feeling towards him was one of awe, dreading a near approach’, and had simply never spoken to the frightening man. Or perhaps the devotion to Carr’s Lane had been short, tenuous and prompted by something other than religiosity. There is a hint that such might have been the case in Hornblower’s memoir. ‘It may interest you’, he wrote to Parkes’s daughter in 1890, ‘to know that your mother’s influence and example had no inconsiderable share in the formation and development of your father’s

religious convictions. For some years they were both regular attendants at Carr’s Lane Independent Chapel, under the pastorate of the Rev. John Angell James’. There is unfortunately no way of knowing whether Hornblower was

speaking of the days before or after Parkes’s marriage. But much else is

explained if we take the simple conclusion that to win the heart of a religious-minded girl, Parkes had himself to pay attention to religion. Parkes married Clarinda Varney on 11 July 1836, at the Anglican Church in the Birmingham suburb of Edgbaston. He was twenty-one and she twentythree. They had been engaged for two years and decided to marry a few months after Clarinda left home because of ill-treatment by a stepmother. Her father, Robert Varney—later described by one of Clarinda’s daughters as ‘a man well to do in his little world’—was a whipmaker in Moseley Street and disapproved of the match. He did not speak to Clarinda again after she left home and would have literally cut her off with a shilling had it not been for Sarah’s intercession. The only witness at the wedding was the church verger, and the young couple went home alone from Edgbaston to live in a small room where Clarinda had lodged after walking out of her father’s house.

Migrations 1815-1839 15 It amused Clarinda in later years to tell her children that the blood of Varney, the villain of Kenilworth and vampire of Gothic novels, ran in her veins. It was certainly true, as her independent behaviour towards her father showed, that she was a young woman of spirit. She was also patient, modest and

unselfish and supported by deep and uncomplicated Christian convictions learnt at the feet of the Baptist pastor, Reverend George Cheatle, and his lay

missioners. Cheatle conducted from 1810 onwards a ministry from the , Lombard Street chapel destined to be overshadowed in Birmingham church annals only by the work of John Angell James himself. Cheatle taught, if anything, a more dour form of Calvinism than James and men and women accepted for baptism and church membership had to expect close and constant

scrutiny of their private lives by minister and deacons. Non-attendance at chapel, ‘immorality’, intoxication, or the frequenting of theatres, dances or horse-races were the main lapses for which culprits were tried by the brethren and reprimanded or excluded if convicted. Clarinda does not seem to have formally joined the church but for seven years she taught in the Sunday school attached to a missionary chapel in Garrison Lane. The Lombard Street chapel was not licensed for solemnizing marriage until the end of 1837, which may partly explain the young couple’s acceptance of the Anglican service at Edgbaston. The match was, at all events, a happy one.

Henry was able at once to give his wife the warm family life she seems previously to have lacked: his sisters accepted her with affection and a tinge of deference which suggests that they thought of her as slightly their better, and she herself developed a particular fondness for old Thomas Parkes, whom she visited regularly with her small brown dog. For her, devotion to Henry was its own best reward while for him that devotion came as a climax to the feminine admiration and care which as long as he could remember had given support and meaningfulness to his life. Soon after Parkes’s marriage he was caught up again—though, as it turned out, only briefly—in exciting political agitations. Early in 1837 its old leaders re-established the Political Union, dissolved in 1834 when its work had seemed to be done. The Birmingham men were disillusioned at the ineffectualness of the 1832 parliamentary reforms, which they now saw as having brought no gains in social or monetary policy but rather, as R. K. Douglas (editor of the Birmingham Journal) put it, as having ‘effected a transfer of power from one domineering faction to another, and left the people as helpless as before’. A

trade depression at this point ended four years of prosperity and brought distress likely to favour agitation: as T. C. Salt-lamp manufacturer and the man who in 1832 had transfigured the great Newhall Hill meeting with his spontaneous call for the Union’s vow—said, the sticks were dry and only a match was needed. The Union held its first mass meeting at Newhall Hill on 19 June. It seemed like old times: 50 000 people rallied enthusiastically to hear the speakers. But the mood was in fact very different from that of 1832, as the

aims approved at the meeting showed: household suffrage, vote by ballot, triennial parliaments, payment of members of parliament and the abolition of property qualifications for parliamentary candidates. In November the Union leaders added universal suffrage to the list. They were driven by despair at Lord John Russell’s declaration that the reform of 1832 would be final and by the government’s failure to act to alleviate distress, even after a delegation from

16 Henry Parkes Birmingham had waited on the prime minister to explain their fears and difficulties. For the moment Attwood displayed a new radicalism, denouncing the existing House of Commons (‘if the Queen’s speech had been made by the

Emperor of China, it could not have had less reference to the wants of the British nation’) and declaring that the destiny of the country must be committed into the hands of the masses of the people. ‘We have been long and patiently silent’, announced the Birmingham Journal, but A period has at last arrived when silence is shame. . . That the Reform Bill may become what you hoped it would be, a Great Charter of English liberty,

depends on the People alone. Let them speak and it is done! Before the majesty of their united will, Whigs and Tories and all dark and deceitful things will flee away as the shadow disappears before the rising sun. The Union set out its aims in a National Petition which Douglas dreamed would be signed by two million men and then drawn, ‘like a Cheshire cheese of twenty feet in diameter, in a cart of white horses to the House of Commons’. The Birmingham agitation was of course only one, if for the moment the most spectacular, manifestation of that groundswell of lower class dissatisfaction which was producing the first tragic phase of the Chartist movement. In the

winter of 1837 distress brought by the economic recession aggravated the cruelties of the new Poor Law and brought into sharp relief the human suffering and despair inseparable from the vast economic changes which the nation was undergoing. For the London Working Men’s Association William Lovett drew up the People’s Charter, embodying the same principles as those for which the Birmingham Political Union stood and which, carried by eager

missionaries to mass meetings, torchlight gatherings and newly-formed radical associations, swept the country in the next few months as an agonized call for thoroughgoing social reform. The Charter was, as Asa Briggs has aptly put it, a political vessel into which all the social grievances of a discontented

Britain were poured—or, to use Carlyle’s different metaphor, ‘the cry of pent-up millions suffering under a diseased condition of society’. Birmingham ceremonially accepted the Charter at a giant meeting held under Union auspices on 6 August 1838 at Holloway Head and attended by a crowd (of 200 000, it was claimed) from the neighbouring counties as well as from many other parts of England and Scotland. Attwood presided and spoke of the power the movement would generate to reform the Poor Law, the factory system, the Corn Laws and the currency. Muntz moved the adoption of the Charter and the Petition. Both stressed, as usual, the sanctity of peace and order. And the meeting enthusiastically endorsed a proposal that a national Chartist convention be held in London to co-ordinate the whole movement. According to Hornblower, Parkes, engulfed by the ‘turmoil of excitement’ in which the Political Union had been re-established, was at this great rally. It was a thrilling experience but, though he did not know it yet, it was to be the last Birmingham demonstration he would attend. And by a strange coincidence, this meeting was also to be the town’s last great affirmation, for a long time, of

middle and working class solidarity. nn

As we shall see, Parkes and his young wife left Birmingham in November 1838, spent the winter in London and then, in March 1839, sailed for Australia.

Migrations 1815-1839 17 Clarinda never saw Birmingham again and he was not to return for another twenty years. The couple were in London when the Chartist Convention first met there in February 1839 and Parkes, who read the Charter (a weekly paper

established in January by the London Working Men’s Association), undoubtedly followed its early deliberations. But he had gone from England before the Birmingham delegates, alarmed at the Convention’s excited debates and the strength of those demanding direct rather than peaceful action, withdrew. At home, mass meetings boycotted by the old leaders, denounced the actions of the Convention delegates and signalled the end of the Political Union’s authority as the local vehicle of Chartism. Under the pressure of economic distress and extremist agitation the alliance between middle and

working classes cracked. Chartist agitation, shifting to the town’s central market-place, the Bull Ring, became increasingly tumultuous. Finally in July, after the Convention, pressed by Midland enthusiasts and worried by police

attention, moved from London to Birmingham, serious rioting occurred, bringing to an end the town’s long record of civil peace.

It is of great importance for an understanding of Parkes’s subsequent political attitudes to observe how through the accident of timing his departure meant that none of these later events assumed direct personal meaning for him. He learnt of them remotely, after a considerable lapse of time, and was not forced to face up to the question which in 1839 drove so many Birmingham men of his class to support direct action by working men: how far, in the tense atmosphere of crisis produced by the economic recession, the old political formulae were still viable. Emigration gave him a means of sidestepping that question—a personal solution which left him, for good, a Birmingham man of 1832 rather than of 1839: a radical, but dedicated to middle and working class co-operation as the key to reform and progress.

In his memoir of Parkes, Hornblower noted: The 1837 andto1838 perhaps thejourneymen most trying of of his [his]trade, life. he With too muchyears self-respect join were the ranks of the rented

premises in Bradford-street and commenced business on his own account; ut although his samples of turnery would bear favourable comparison with the best, yet lack of capital and the pressure of competition forced him to retire. To push one’s way upward to independence was, as we have seen, in the true Birmingham spirit, but at a time of depression and slackened trade success was too much to hope for. Parkes had somehow saved enough to buy his own lathe but the purchase of working materials soon put him in debt and at the end of 1838, convinced that Birmingham could not satisfy his ambitions, he decided on the desperate course of taking Clarinda to London to seek business success and independence there. The couple set off in November on the newly completed railway—a great

adventure, if not a very comfortable one. ‘For the first fifty miles of the journey’, Parkes reported to Sarah, ‘the rain and wind beat through the nothing

but naked windows of our second-class carriage with such bitterness that I

began to think we should surely be the subject of a tale in the “Penny

18 Henry Parkes |

Storyteller’, entitled “The Weather Slain” ’. But the clouds cleared and at thirty-five miles an hour ‘the ghost of a devil that dragged us along tore out

from Primrose Hill with a bright crescent moon above us in a calm and beautiful sky’. Then they were in London: provincials trapped into doublepaying porters who got them into a coffee house, and looking fruitlessly for

proper lodgings next day—‘wasting all morning and being treated with “London gin” at my Own expense’. Hornblower, who had also migrated to London (could his example have originally inspired Parkes?) and knew the place, came to the rescue. ‘He could do nothing for the first two or three hours but tell me how glad he was to see me, and stuff nre with good things’, Parkes wrote irritably; but then Hornblower took him to a rooming house in Hatton Gardens run by two respectable old ladies and there secured a comfortable furnished room. Before long the Parkes couple and their hostesses were firm friends, Henry being, as Clarinda wrote, ‘quite idolized’ by the old ladies. London did not impress the migrants. Good Birmingham patriots, they were soon convinced that living was dearer in the metropolis and everything ‘of an inferior quality’.

We had one piece of Bacon-stuff since we have been here and it tasted like soap and fish mixed. The water comes out of the Thames which all the filth of the‘town is emptied into. They say it is cleansed before it comes to us but all I know is that it is quite yellow. This water we must drink as it is or in tea or coffee. As for milk that is quite out of the question none under 4d. per quart and beer as good as the worst in Birmingham so far as I can learn would be a novelty. Gin is all the go with the Cockneys . . . the fogs too choak us.

A little later Clarinda expressed a profounder malaise:

I have seen the fine park and the Quens palace and the Quens caraige but they are not all of them worth a fig to see the park crowded with people like a fair the palace guarded every ware with soldiers with their bayonets fixed I wld. rather walk in a rural lane than in such places where you can go so far and no further without being stopt by a soldier with a bayonet in his hand there are fine seats under the trees for people to sit upon but there are also great canons stuck all about and police men are here and there and every ware [like not the grandure and misery of this great Place I Picture to myself more

beauty and happiness even on the wide wide Ocian... When they had been in London only a little over a week Henry wrote home:

You will remember that I hinted to you that, in case I did not succeed in London, I should go further. I had almost forgotten that I ever had such thoughts, among the fresh and astonishing scenes of this strange, glorious place, till it seemed as if there was no place for me among the countless multitude of its inhabitants. My thoughts then returned to Emigration.

When he said that, he had already been to the office of John Marshall, ‘Australian Emigration Agent’, to confirm that he and Clarinda, being young,

childless and in good health, were eligible for free passages to New South Wales. Parkes must have known of New South Wales and of Marshall because

? : Na be :.

wee . ox cobomcnennanepenenanannn ned nee te HAN annem anthro “RIRR Steer ARMY: Ange SANaNaA tt neem 4 ont

x Ss 4 , . ~~ ~~ ~ ES in oe “aS Se ., ee % tes ne by snes ER? ER . rae be Se ites: RS ie me” . Pee anc an ic ie ae gi De es Bre usSE aae| ee

NO AAAI nea AN do Ot AA i aeNnCHION OE OIA YS ee Ne “7 Ann ter rrr one ORNS TEOEH RR RE Nr RRA gs Goo gtca ent soeonoen ecw

BO et pak Pitts, ARES * NN gypxe : saa.:we 2 ile Se et ~ Be BalAe mes 2 ‘-—. pee eens sosBIE NS IS, BOSS bay3oS Seem dase CAR Bp,

: ea,; be | .

‘ i, 3 3s} : a 4 lee = om a a . eee! on i 3 ah Store, FAR tooehes "5Poe Bote m rem ee ME ee aS 1?* — fag as .-.2tee es ais gts See . seen ac. eS aoe aR wenee ease ens cm~papas “os ‘2“ge FSpee pe NS arena eSare % snes pe |a WeAB .ee _ : Pewee uy OS Be a Sheet ae 3| kegel *ine “>.Rte: ginVes ae : +. : “eee BSS. SF ‘$ ART, B% > Pay | Ce es 2 a oe Lon eas) cd ME Beal a s : pie eeeeeVPN ag Be ig CRS Hi ae BE 2 wee aeSEER Rae. ‘ wees BagSe 3 Bape i. ye ged a4 FS STN ier gn,eee eR a ee myset Be Bo. mesKisMasses. ; om4eet RNsSsSE REF

Bea=e om Ymei a " AOE-toePela. Sex Se BaSerer § date re EAE ATER 2 a DO PSFORE Ake ie SSS seoe x aoeeee RR ey ee Pete: PR = Be RPA f aaoe"ae.ce ee ; Rens 8a Sstyoa SPSL os ie ew *at ae. Ses & eee aS3asSs aSis atSo ene es,eae Ge FE Bae PF 8_eee -oes as Fg ee ge ots OF ese By eee — Ree egRR ES Pai: sak | BY 2re aeare coa Bie See SS: ou See BeeTRS Suen SS osoS epee BR SsPe .- ae ae SPER: Bence J. SeES okFiBe aePeaS5 SS Pe&® £ef # Seaman Sy eRe es ee — eed _i

eae’ Fee 2 ee | > ie Be ie OS aes S Ae _ lss—sCS a

. Seg ee ee aBe sof ee cE Boe SE: Be es eS3eSoe ESS BOSEOe es Soares > eater es jsee bos ge by S %Sees ? arEO BER & ae: SsSee aeee| eeeeeeee RM es wt Re Beg oe eae a BRS SB See: se. eae : PSS Ree coer AER See ee eames ee oe . : ieee oo ¥RE gS reeeSec +ed 38> eeCo | aek ease>a:——— S. Sheneees Se See SS 2eees : jo Bo Ss peeee eS AS .aee ee SS SfER SY 2: Re Pee oe Co Se Bees Bee SeeSE : Sfgee 2 Rey See |. aeSee BeeSee seg See HSed agaae ee Se & oe eo Bibstiiccck | Ege ae eA. py ae .ee eS cece fegPa Bee ee peeeSee BRL ER SR gee a.a : PO ieON Saroe cae se —«" sf a won ARES PYeee eeBes Bees |. ees pe

_ SRR Be ek es SS See 2 aaa idan: “et OE eB E- Sees ee SS x eee fee $3 SE \O ; és SS. eS AS fee PREY, ie So Soper rr. aeaior OY 2ae SE aeae—h.rCOCSsS 2 os & Boe Se fae EP en ea oe eae oe ae Poe =F) ee A aBeene eygS i gee Rs le “4 = AOS ee -CsC§ Sg eae OO oe Se i po gge 8 ee Anos es ee Se Seg ag xade ee ae ST ae he ges ac :wee °Oeue eae See ‘soe oo eS etc.ae— oo ;.RNa Pook Ss et ae . Pe! Se ce ae OS Say eta SSS SES Ges os ae :oeeee ee.SB he Bee ee PS se Pe oe BS eee Pais * . Ps ee Se See r—sCi OBL Ag RO are Sao a a nae eS SS REE EES gee .. Co aga le es ar ok 2 ee © = a . ; i ee ee BO cee oo . Se

ae Se Beg TFi: er Be _— gf a_ ans Ae ) earenee Bee =eCivics ee ee See

Rage aea es gepony fore -eos a ge Eee 3: ERRORS FR PeSamer RR PeeSeen | BS:Bro PoeSen eg fe Be oo ; iee . be whe aBO ”GP . poten ye SeeSe Bhs Preciosa :. roe gs Be a Pee Voge gn OF Sime BREE & NSE ow Sees oe..ky eS ae a- es fe Se D SRR Raters SB ELAS |teRae BR aSeems Rae eee eee en aaeens Sea oo eg Se See Be Sg weas ABE t BR a4 boo eeSES Bs ee ae ee kk oSHear EQi Se yew ee Bee. 3 -2OSE ESE $s" .tee See s =SAE Sse SS See BR :ee Poy fe See, Saye” eae etPee. eeegRP Cae aare ee}teF oeSia SPS eeen Ree Eee. Sere aene See eadae) ee es ce Becret e * ncSe . Bae Pe g ESSer 2S gees Ss Sas aS Me gee aehae. ae ee PRae es es: LoS ae Saat Be iaaeeeat esaeos esnee eeom;

a eee wee eS [ae Pec eS iae +,. . Cs . we oe : 8Bg SES BoE REee Scat we - ee : ee:ee aaeeae Bo Boe ae ee, ee BEES Fy #3 a a ee es We SE ae i Bo 3 en SES ae t : SES ae Bee a Sees Re eeeg geee ee . 7 a eee ee es ct SO egies aed x = SSS Sole [pr Ce es 3 a oO % a oe pee CC | Rare ee SS a“So “ee REa arRga oa Ig Bt tt ._f eai .=Lor, ER Bs eee ota RNR Saas Somes et ates —. oe io OR eS BRE eats “— Be % 3 PR a ee Soo Ss fF oe Re Sis ae PRS go sssties ge — pet ey SES SS So SSSR Seana Soe Se ees poh ee ghasges ae’ofROSES oe Lae ix"&©3oish : BeBe. + See cae Se RRR nee foe oo: | EE ee Ba a BSS RB ome % . . nr ae os Sees: .. See Tord Pacis , ras8srlegeen eee Po ORS RG ge |. . eee ae4 aES +ets eR aSs otek ec we Pages ee PSU esaes -ES: ES raed ok -aby te §es$Poe hee ak SoaERE © gecpeae sss Pees hmonl ree at 37 Pe RS 3, wt »ae Sea Bt Cy _Se ERE SS aes Ste er ae ee ar foe ae aie, ek: aad go. ~~ Sees cD) = BRE a” a LE tee See oe tee” cos ee BE og ., : aaa eee aaa eee se (ee . Pee ek _ Se 2 es a = ae _. cis a #2 EES ran: : | i. | _ ee es erviga €SSae ee SeBE: Epeges ak, ee | eae Ree eh. 3 4.. BOSS teoe ie:got ee aRe 2 ee. ee eer ai beeps 6fa cee A | — ee Bee Seb M8 -aae ge tRaia sy FF oo gg Fos Se a ee Sa he ae z a ae i= eee Bae gees. oe eee es ee Ye, ee e re fo . {=a Seat ae OS ae See eee oor he : 3S ee eS A aye ee ed. reas hee Phe : eee ee be! SREP agin : Peelne)

maa’ cob atk ie ; | : a - fg fl

Be irae age RS Se a Reeas eeeee: :angers q Fa A Bee a anefF eae aaa ae we Sere soee Ee S RSOe BRrs SSSseS wg 0 css AE gsBERS —Ss.)SoS ee —

.:SeCe Serene eaeec. a Seas SR ee ofoe ee ous Weegee . +ae .er +gio Sere Bessy st po es RS Oo ee: Soa (Foy asge =‘—— -££££ ° . ee ee trce aeSe ee ff_|.an *oe eeeee Oe aaA ce ee cc |age eS SR a ea ee TL eeFy Be SE Se.-Rees Ras see . * ae ae eae Se Se. re es a) : = oo flame eS meee: ee ee Se a, 7 | . ego- ee eS a Ege oe_ oSes bet Be “ae Be pon .Ne — rt~—~«sSTN a aae Saaes onc: Re Rs“s caeee oe Bene fy eat Begeen es Reg oes see : Bs SS SSeS See ere ; 2.=. ccry : . . as et es Ee Be aef a3egas..eSeee ee .: :Bee eR < se gre eS i# .a Seee Ree ee ae “ RRR eee Fee aoo spe a .es pss Reoe Se ae. > & ee ce |[_ i #§ao) CF he ot eed . me “ae — ‘eee ==. : ee re 3 J ne . @ eee aes Pos ee ae ee Ss a. neneeoe Pe Te as=eeéoe .egSEO ae caBeer oe 2Sa— Fees :eRe |.oe. RRLR See eg Pg PF Se oo Ae ae& ~S.*. eg Pein ees Se Sores oe =3 |.aa ce aYea SRR sg Ree. oe EES Ses A 8 FB” Bycue £ et ee Pee ee + ee . 2 ‘ft Le :ee eee aS eee PP gees oe eS aes: oe a. UrUrC~C~sS cee ORES Pee ed Ey , Rg nt Pe: BE ee Bee ERS eee eee ae ee eam tae es ee ; eee. cS oa eee ee 4a eee aot eee re : Sees ,rrtrt~=SsS ee | AS Agee ee oo ee SS ce Be ee Fey SSS eee et ae —f. P ee Se SS a a. Se fe ee POLS ek SRS ge 2 ae ee es a co ; :.Del ge 0 co BRE ee2S 23.ES Se Se - EE BBs Pena. Se Set. 2 RENE. SSSee fslhl Cs aes a2” Bet es AS ee _> 00UmUm™mrt~wQWQ ran} SeSg. ee ee wor oe gape MOMs Ae aOEE get eeee eT Be tS ayee UE eeeo OSoeeeaie ee eS . Sg Rey ERS > _ oo 5 See fo _— eek ooee : - D)

. : i I ¥ To ae eg BP Ps S Se oe . = | ss yy

Sr Bele’. a : | aa oO

:ee. Low og oe ce CS eee 8aaaCC aSecr .-§ : eh Bo eee NS:2S ene a se SSS eeeEE Be ae.UrUmrCOC ye 7oe OR SSESJs £5 aa7: eee go Shaehees eeSee SiresSe eee -a Eeoeeeeeae Rogie 3eens eeEESamm

1Be EES eRe eSBR Seabe goad =apu BEY Saas me a eo Os ESS = .ae aS Se Soars Ges pee pe al ) ee eee oes . ee See RA eg aeeeaae Seis

Be os ee Be %yr . ee8Scae oe o ‘aca —Ea . .-.egvee ; BS . =ees ae ae Sees ge TREES Sohn Le So ONES hea ta ey a aed Ss See Siete BOGS OE es CSS aR a a pees

Res “Sega IEESS pt feefoke : .“ee SeOe etseeea oS co gS oy RES eeSS eebasses eeeacs ES ea a 3° eee oUy . ioEe — ~eSng ae eee | eRe ee Se | Ee a 2Ss=easce es 28a ae ge: ee. a eo OE |FP ae Se ooaRee RR esee. ee . ras ‘gf eeeSeat eeeee ae es eats Seog ene gle a BER ee eeeae . SoBESS SsSR eS Po LES US Peek oape | -— BRE Sa ORS Samed

oe.*eees.eeape aell okeo . ; cg . = #8 ae ogS ooi i oe ia . eee 28 eS eS ae : ae Fg RoR Se Pee ES ae rr Sok A SESE ee ne oe aes prensa ircneaceaso” ns ae age aan pega ROSS SES Saeeroatne Seema, sae eee Se = ee ce

pO Se ae Recker eee Se SC oa r_

OBER RES.JERS SRS SU Geate ime gan SansSy Soe 7 OR RB Serene eae ah 8 we . aes \so, aos eeee Cee. oe:oe > BeSee. eenTa - ER Seas: SSRteREGS SEE ae ae ae St oteesyy s Sle Sheet sees .asOES PUES hh -RRS esORES ea cS .Bo1 eee SAS eS Rene PeeARS SSooieRE Ee Pee Se ae

ne ee Bae SeEure eeesSERENE G eR ikBee. aeSette * Pa AUER ee nes: Spo Bee eee gee :.eee BR akBe es. .: 5) UME ARS aaa S Berra 2 2pee Ses rT — JyOs eeRS SeSeen hae =: . pV ESERG ec Rete RE _

+ OE eo ee ieee os©og ‘ _ott BR ae ese &2eeeee aBoe = eeekee _a Re ge aSeae ae Ree Ot»RS Ears Se RE Lass Re¥te ae gE .Bees ae cent Le Eee ee esge? a |i & oeSophanen Ls BR es Spee: ae; :ee aoe.ees er ee the SS Seen ea oe map} : Rehr ies ete igh SE A Seige Be . at ee: 3 oe fe ae ee tater aoa eas Sgt Rr ee Ss aeer PSiaese pc Rete 2 See * eR— eee og a ae a” sciisbie BE,rae. BSSR ie SMe oF2D bEFRR ES Bes ees Soeeeeee URES Recut ies— Coe oe oe ae Fo ee ARE SS eg oe se ees Sopa Ene a MEd SS[ae SF. Sasee Cpe See BOE a“Saar es oay1LEFh eee ceao DS 7 : Cage ES eeSee Ss eee iene: Re Berries ar eee seis: ee a 32 Soothe” - RSLS S Rouen See Poe:es oe oo oS Pees FES SEAS ogres ee Beg a eR ges

: ey &oogeSSOO 2 ee ae oeoo. ee eeee aesere 2 2 PSs LSee Ss [oe

, os er ag GES Bscany gee’ pT ay a Se ae Rene Se Sh ee sae es Bored

y|:. a:oeBe Cee | ve Ca ee =SSE oe ee Bee eee &TREN RRSeaSoa ES. bee: Se 2 © Oe una Re Oeae iota a See cet aSSScena: See aN ise a£3 Ty.Sele a OSSie OR Ss Se SSR eRpases ae $y a Saas: Ta Seenoo a a aSEES see FO RLES, Tes — ae SS Se es oo . : gee eeHERERO 8 Sh a te RIE ak SR a :ae Pee Se en Bae wee ee See Saar Santee acaBe: aa > :ee2 BRS EEE Saher SE Se Seen Sgt eeht, TERS pee cms eSES SRSoe wih o>abo FERS Bee eesae, Bee eesee : age a oo eeeee ce: Re Se‘(eee ees lo SeSES SReNS Se eee 228ee7 See net Be ee ee a arora “See: . EON aBg BPE aR Perea. oc ee SSE eres ote §aeoo 7 Lely RES SaSSceSe OeRS SEE ae RRR es eee eek RRS eeparen hans Seek ae SoS Rae Se . aes wk. . Poe Tg Pee ge ca ESO eae RR go: ESS Lee SEce we Poa - Se =ESR pence gtagts Blears 8Bas. 2 Pe SER Mogens ce, ee See So oeaae eees Poe pe esoe ae Shae ES ane ga See ok Se Raa Sey Egae po ae SoEh eere HELE PS eee eee Lee Pe aCieBORE re See Sk AE ee ee SSE aes: ees eae Soares Ae = ~)

ce | foe

SS US: Ee Peee_ i.ae .os og SE BE feetEoge a ne “LES oC aRohe ee aeeae SeeSee hease eeaee iCS : : Soe ae ae a. a8

Migrations 1815-1839 19 the latter regularly advertised in Birmingham newspapers to assure intending migrants that A regular succession of first class well-appointed ships, from 500 to 700 tons, with very superior accommodation, supplied in the most liberal manner and

each carrying a skilful Surgeon, will be despatched with strict punctuality every seven weeks during the year 1838. Marshall misrepresented his position when he insinuated that he was an agent of the colonial government. He was in fact a shipowner who in the late 1830s developed a lucrative business recruiting and supplying passages for ‘bounty’ migrants to New South Wales. The colony, desperately short of labour at this time, had two schemes to attract migrants: free government-provided passages under the direct control of emigration officers, and ‘bounties’ ( £30 for each married man and his wife) paid to shippers who brought out migrants chosen

to meet specified colonial needs. The colonists themselves favoured the ‘bounty’ system and under it more than 56 000 persons travelled to New South Wales between 1837 and 1850. Migrants were required to provide certificates showing age, character and skills and to submit to examination by a board after arrival in Sydney to ensure that they were of ‘good bodily health and strength, and in all other respects likely to be useful members of their class in society’. In practice the system developed into a commercial speculation controlled by British shipowners. Migrants recruited by advertisement were not always what they and their documentation purported and in any case the distance of the colony from England made it impossible to find a practical way by which those who wished to employ migrants could choose them: for better or worse the

shippers made the selections and controlled the trade. There was no shortage | of applicants and Marshall seems by rule of thumb to have worked out a crude way of separating the sheep from the goats. As Parkes described it: It is a very difficult thing to get a free passage. They would not even let me leave my certificates till last Monday, though I tendered them time after time. eyofwould give me a must, passage at they first,get because I waswork a turner, as persons such anot trade as mine when to Sydney, on their own account. They take it for granted that persons who are taken out free of expense have notemigration the means to do otherwise. There are out crowds of applicants every day at the office for them to choose of, and they keep them back and put them off from time to time, very vexatiously, it seems to

me, to try whether they are really anxious and resolved upon going, lest persons should go out of a mere capricious love of change. Parkes had carefully studied the literature available at Marshall’s office and romantic dreams of rural life bubbled out when he first wrote from London to Sarah about New South Wales: I am in high hopes of Australia as well I may be when I compare my chance of living there with my chance of doing so here but I cannot give you much information now or [shall be up all night. The colony of New South Wales

is three times as large as England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and as beautiful a country as this. The soil produces almost everything which this

20 Henry Parkes procuces together with pomegranates, oranges, lemons, figs &c. Land can be ought in some of the towns for 7.0.0 per acre. .. Machanics can get 40/- & 50/- a week, and buy sugar for two shillings a pound; tea for two shillings;

beaf twopence a pound; wine, sixpence per bottle, rent, four shillings per week. Sydney the capital of the colony contains 25000 inhabitants. However my hopes are not extravagant though I make sure of getting rich and coming

over soon to fetch all of you. I had forgotten to say that the climate is the healthiest in the world. His father, he had heard, was about to have his garden taken from him, and that was sad news: ... but I wish he was going with me to Australia, and he could then buy a five shilling acre of land and make another. And if you can persuade my mother to live half a dozen years longer I would come and fetch her too and she should have a dairy; for cows are only four pounds each, the very best.

He was irritated when they questioned his optimism—‘I have much better opportunities of getting correct information on the subject here than you in Birmingham can have’: and there could be no doubt that ‘leaving Birmingham was the best step we ever took’. In February, after he had had to sell his lathe to buy bread, he was thinking with more particularity about the future: My plan is, if I get tools again to take out with me, to get a job at farm work or anything else that offers itself till I can save money enough to begin to work on my own account, unless something better should turn out for me. IfI cannot take tools with me I must wait till [can obtain them from England, as I do not expect they can be procured nearer, which will be a monstrous calamity. It is said that a few turners might work profitably on their own account at Sydney. Still, however, I think it not improbable that I may get hold of something better. The country is the best place for making money. A man of good common sense and active habits, if he can but save a little to begin with, may get rich there in no time. The country life still beckoned and the dream of wealth recurred, but there was too a sour vision of the dog-eat-dog aspect of emigration, since

persons going to a strange country, where everyone 1s taught only to take care of himself, and going there friendless and without money, must expect to meet with difficulties, and to suffer privations and hardships. If I do not meet with such I shall indeed be disappointed.

For weeks he was all bustle, sending detailed orders to Sarah to collect references and to arrange for the despatch to London of books, clothes and money. No washing, he had discovered, was allowed on board ship, so, as the

voyage would take about four months, they would need fifteen changes of clothes. Sarah was to buy calico in Birmingham where it was cheap and to get

his mother and Eliza to sew it into shirts and handkerchiefs. He asked her to get shoes made for him and persuade the bootmaker to wait for payment

until he could get a regular job. He still had ‘orders’ he could not ‘execute’—presumably the legacy of his brief business adventures before leaving Birmingham—and there were men to whom he owed money which he

Migrations 1815-1839 21 could not hope to pay yet: ‘If anything is said about the money that I owe Mr Porter you my dear sister know that I shall pay him and all others to whom I am in debt as soon as it is in my power which is not likely to be the case in this country’. Though technically not ‘debts’ his family’s constant financial assistance was more troubling to him. Sarah sent money to pay the wagon-freight on the first batch of goods despatched to him in London; her kindness “quite overpowered’ him when four half-crowns arrived from her in December 1838, ata moment when he and Clarinda were down to their last fourpence; even his father scraped together a sovereign, which Henry knew could have been done

only at great ‘inconvenience’. Until the day of embarkation Sarah sent a constant stream of parcels and did not complain even when Henry spent money she had earmarked for a keep-sake portrait, to pay dock charges on his baggage at Gravesend. It was the literal truth when he wrote: ‘Am extremely thankful to you for everything. I could not have gone if it had not been for you. Could not even have come from Birmingham if it had not been for you...’ The rigours of the wait for a passage, always an agonizing and sometimes a disastrous experience for penniless migrants, were eased in mid-January when Parkes at last found a regular job. Until then he had hawked samples of his work on the streets, pawned tools and lived on the charity of his sister. He and Clarinda had nothing to eat on Christmas Day 1838, until their landlady gave

them a taste of her plum pudding, with some wine. The new job, making wooden twine boxes, was tiring and Parkes was fit to work only enough hours in the day to bring in the barest living. A soreness developed in his chest and he did not sleep well. Clarinda declared that ‘if we were to stay in London it would kill Henry outright in a short time’. For his part, Henry—momentarily

disloyal to his two old landladies—declared that ‘being pent in a frowsy London garret, with no one to speak to, not even a dog, and breathing the same impure air from week’s end to week’s end, has made Clarinda very poorly...’ Neither of them could be well and happy until they had left this irksome place. Their condition in fact lent some credence to Parkes’s remarks about himself in a correspondence which he had in March 1839 with the recently established

London Charter. He sent the editor some of his verses and a suitably sentimental note subsequently published under the caption ‘A Poet’s Farewell’ (Clarinda’s joy at seeing Henry ‘called “a Poet” ’ was inexpressible!): I am one of the many who cannot now obtain the means of living in their native country. In a fortnight’s time I shall be gone to seek a better home in the wilderness of Australia; and having a few of these ‘attempts in verse’ by me, I would fain leave one or two of them for the perusal of those among whom I have spent my boyhood. The Charter, I believe, circulates among

them, for I come out of the Birmingham Political Union. I am but very young, and had to go to work for my bread at ten years of age; so, perhaps, you will judge as favourably as you can of my present faulty contribution. The poem which pleased the paper most was ‘Poverty, A Fragment’. Its six stanzas bemoaned the sufferings of the poor and the indifference of the rich, concluding on a note of ambiguous hope: And when will mortals learn to love each other, With brotherly and gentle hearts? Is this

22 Henry Parkes No pionious world which truth and love might cover With light, and build peace.o’er andmis’ry’s innocence, bliss? Oh, man might darkand abyss, A bridge of flowers, to glad the pilgrim’s eye,

ane in in beauty from thearching precipice, Based the heart, and to the sky! And paths of peace extend, where wilds now trackless lie! “What must be the condition of the country, and what the sins of her rulers’,

asked the editor, ‘when men like this are compelled to seek the means of subsistence in a foreign wilderness?’ In the next issue another artisan bard—one J. Allden—wrote sadly of Parkes’s departure from England ‘to find

in a strange land that which every man ought to find at home—Plenty’ and contributed six stanzas, composed ‘to show him that his going hence will not be entirely unmarked, but that there is one, at least, who can feel with him, and who wishes him a safe as well as a speedy voyage’. The last verse caught the

spirit of the whole: |

I do not fear but Austral Soil Will well repay the ardent toil;— I do not fear but I shall find Hearts whose greeting will be kind;— I do not doubt the sun will shine As bright as on that land of mine; But still the tears unbidden come— Farewell my home—my cherish’d home! In the end, whatever the heroics, no person of feeling could escape the sense

of impending disjunction—the inescapable feeling, in a world desperately conscious of distance, poverty and mortality, that migration involved irrevocable ends and unknown beginnings. The Charter’s sentiments hada more personal echo in one of Henry’s letters to Sarah in February 1839:

Another letter, and another, and perhaps another, and then my next letter will be dated on the blue, wide ocean, where I can have no answer—and then

more than a long weary year must pass away before I can hear from you again. Yes, my beloved sister, I shall soon leave you, even as youcome tome

in your affectionate letters. The very name of Birmingham will no longer meet my eye, except when I unconsciously write it on some part of the ship that bears me over the beaming waters, or on some gloomy tree in the wilderness of Australia. I shall hear no more of Birmingham except from my own tongue, or from my weeping wife’s, when we think of those dear friends who live there, and of those angel-infants of our own, whosleep there in their little graves. And when I do hear from you again, will it be of death? Alas! My forebodings are very painful.

Clarinda wrote in the same vein too, though with greater simplicity. Her loved father-in-law, old Thomas, was her first thought: thank father for Garden seeds. . . and tell him I know how to plant them all. Ido hope that he wiil see my Garden if I have one but do not tell him so now

Migrations 1815-1839 23 on account of his own and poor Mothers feelings would that I could hope to see her and all of you again; but if things should turn out well I hope we shall be able to send for you Maria and Thomas and then if my Dear Father is liveing and we should find the climate likely to agree with him I hope he would come and end his days in peace and happiness with us all.

At last, after a series of false alarms, the call came. On 26 March they left

London, took the steamer and at Gravesend joined a ship called the Strathfieldsaye. The men at the manufactory where Parkes worked gave him farewell presents—‘articles of their own making including a very beautiful ivory pocket tablet’—and Clarinda, who had been ‘very unwell’, rallied. All was

confusion on board for two days but by 29th they had taken the measure of their new quarters and were enjoying the ‘many pleasant views’ off Dover. On 31 March, after tacking about all night, they were at Plymouth. Though Parkes

had already had a first bout of seasickness, Clarinda was ‘rather better, perhaps, than when we left London’. They had a week in Plymouth, time to receive from the faithful Sarah a letter and more money (‘had three half-pence when I received it’) and to send her an account of their companions and the routine which they were to live for the next four months. Henry explained that the steerage of an emigrant ship was ‘a most miserable uncomfortable place’: being there they were part of a ‘stagnant crowd of human beings’, many of them of ‘the most indecent and brutish description’. It wasimpossible to escape this omnipresent mass. The ship’s hold was divided at the centre by a deal partition: male steerage passengers took the area towards the front, or forecastle; and females were given the back part of the ship—towards the poop.

There are two rows of berths, one above the other... The berths are three feet by six feet, just affording room for two persons to lie down. They are separated from each other by a slight, low deal board, about ten inches high,

so that when we are all in bed, our bodies rising higher than these boards which separate us, it seems as if we were ranged in one immense bed all round the place. They messed in groups of eight, each member taking a weekly turn as ‘captain’, the person responsible for collecting provisions from the ship’s steward, and seeing to the cooking by the ship’s black cook and the dishwashing. ‘We have livestock on board for the use of the ship’, Henry reported. ‘A cow and calf, 24 pigs, 30 sheep, geese, fowls etc. Not for us, though, mind you’. For the steerage passengers biscuit and salt meat was the staple diet. Once they left Plymouth, no more fresh food was obtained: the ship sailed direct toSydney—after the last glimpse of the Cornish coast they saw only one piece of land (the cliffs of the Verde Island of St Antonia) between England and King Island in Bass Strait. This non-stop voyage took a little over 100 days. Seasickness, congestion, poor

food and the foetid air of the cramped hold must have made it a nightmare, especially for poor Clarinda. When she went on board the Strath fieldsaye, she was almost six months pregnant. Asked later by Sarah for an account of the voyage, Parkes wrote a colourless

page or two and then ended abruptly: “This is all! A poor account truly, but such as it is you must be pleased to be satisfied with it, for I can remember nothing to make us wish to think of the subject again’. He spoke of storms,

24 Henry Parkes albatrosses following the ship, smooth weather and the sight of porpoise and flying fish in the tropics—all the normal voyager’s memories compressed by boredom and the passage of time. A few poems survive to show that he found comfort at times watching the sea and writing of what he saw, and in verse he also found an outlet for his sadness at leaving home and his fears about the ‘wilderness’ to which he was going. There were no doubt many nights spent like an early one off the Isle of Wight:

As I lay on the bare boards of my berth, with my rolled-up bed under my head, in a hole only just roomy enough to hold the number ofits inhabitants

touching each other, I sought relief from my miserable sensations by thinking of those I had left behind, or anything that could distract my attention from the scene around me.

On the morning of 23 July, a few hours’ sailing clear of Bass Strait, they sighted the Australian mainland for the first ttme and—as Parkes put it—‘the sun rose ... to take possession of an almost cloudless sky. The line of coast continued to lengthen till it stretched either way as far as the eye could reach

in the bland and beautiful sunlight’. The previous night had been cold and rough, and the ship had rolled most uncomfortably. As daylight broke, Clarinda gave birth to a daughter. They called her Clarinda Sarah—‘our little blue-eyed ocean child’. Somehow she survived as the ship tacked up the coast in search of South Head lighthouse and then, on the morning of the 25th, at 8 o’clock, sailed into Port Jackson.

New South Wales 1839-1848

IR 1836 Charles Darwin, fresh from South America, visited Sydney in the Beagle. Port Jackson he thought ‘fine and spacious’; and as the ship sailed up the harbour to Sydney Cove, he watched with pleasure as scrubby native trees lining the shores gave place to villas, gardens, windmills and warehouses. A stroll through the town that evening turned admiration into wonderment. Sydney was clearly a most magnificent testimony to the power of the British nation. Here, in a less promising country, scores of years have effected many times more, than the same number of centuries have done in South America. My first feeling was to congratulate myself that I was born an Englishman. The streets were alive with gigs, phaetons and carriages, on all sides there were fine houses and signs of remarkable expansion:

not even near London or Birmingham is there an appearance of such rapid growth. The number of large houses just finished and others building was truly surprising; nevertheless everyone complained of the high rents and difficulty in procuring a house. The bustle and expansiveness Darwin observed in the Sydney of 1836 were as evident as ever when the Strathfieldsaye berthed in July 1839. Population was still growing at a rate that might indeed compare with Birmingham’s: 19 000 people lived in Sydney when Darwin visited it; a census taken five years later, in 1841, revealed a fifty per cent rise in numbers, to bring the total to 30 000. Outside Sydney another 100 000 completed the colony’s European population. New South Wales had begun in 1788 as a British penal settlement and was still receiving felons sentenced to transportation when Parkes arrived. He was in time to see government gangs at work dressed as Cunningham described

them a decade before, ‘with their white woollen Parramatta frocks and trowsers or grey or yellow jackets with duck overalls... all daubed over with broad arrows’. But already the ‘assignment’ of convicts to private masters, who used their labour in return for supporting them, had been discontinued, and

the days of transportation were known to be numbered. It had been suc-

cessfully attacked at home by humanitarians, penal reformers and Wakefieldian ‘systematic colonisers’, their victory assured by the increase in 25

26 Henry Parkes the colony itself of freed and free-born population—British citizens to whom free institutions would in the long run have to be extended. In 1840 the imperial

authorities formally declared mainland New South Wales no longer a penal colony, though convicts were still to be sent to Van Diemen’s Land. Since more than 80000 convicts had been despatched before 1840, exconvicts and their children constituted a significant proportion of the colony’s people. Though some convicts fell victim to the degradation inherent in the system, many more became useful citizens at the end of their sentences: labourers, farmers, sailors or even traders and business men. In the early days the colony’s other settlers were a varied lot: men who had retired from garrison units to farm or trade; merchants attracted to Sydney as its commerce grew; a trickle of free immigrants with modest capital; professional men; officials. The work of feeding the gaol and trafficking in creature comforts fashioned from this motley human material a vigorous farming and trading community whose social structure was a simplified version of that of the mother country, though with two important differences: there was no aristocracy, despite pretensions in that direction from time to time by some of the larger landowners; and an ever-present tension between the free-born and the freed created distinctions at every level of the social scale.

For more than forty years this little society formed a European outpost perched precariously on the rim of an unknown continent. Its frontier lay seawards into the Pacific, where trading and whaling were commercial supplements to farming and grazing for local consumption. It did not achieve self-sufficiency in food until after 1820; by then some efficient estates and

‘ancient’ landed families were established, but market and transport difficulties set limits to economic and hence geographic expansion, and settlement was confined to the coastal plain behind Sydney and the fertile valleys of the Hawkesbury and Hunter rivers. Then, in the 1830s, the work of a few pioneer flockmasters brought results and wool began to boom as the

staple the colony needed to break out of the fetters of its own small and enclosed market. On a rising tide of investment that did not falter until 1842 growing flocks of sheep swung the frontier to the inland and in little more than a decade the colony was transformed. What Darwin saw in 1836 were the outer symptoms of these changes. “The whole population, poor and rich, are bent on acquiring wealth’, he wrote; ‘amongst the higher orders wool and sheep-grazing form the constant subject of conversation’. A lady who joined Sydney society in 1839 still found that ‘most gentlemen have their whole souls .. . felted up in wools, fleeces, flocks and stock’, and over evenings of incessant talk there was no other subject: ‘the eternity of wool, wool, wool—wearied my very soul’. The obsession was not

hard to explain. Exports of wool from New South Wales quadrupled in quantity between 1830 and 1835 and more than doubled again by 1840. In that year over 8 500 000 Ibs left the colony. Sheep grazed on a great arc of territory stretching 1500 miles around the south-east corner of the continent, from the newly established colony of South Australia on the west to the Moreton Bay District (modern Queensland) at the north. This vast area was occupied in the

most prodigious land rush in Australia’s history, as speculators of many different callings bought flocks, waggons and supplies, hired shepherds or took

New South Wales 1839-1848 27 convicts on assignment and fanned out from the bridgehead behind Sydney into the bush in search of unoccupied pastures. Other sheepman shipped stock across Bass Strait from Van Diemen’s Land to Port Phillip Bay, where in 1835

they established the village of Melbourne and began occupying adjacent territory to the north and west. When overlanders from Sydney arrived that Same year, converging streams of men and stock rapidly laid the basis for a settlement—the Port Phillip District—destined to become in 1850 an entirely new colony, Victoria. By 1840 its ‘capital’, Melbourne, had 4000 people and blocks of land there were as expensive as in Sydney. So wool opened large tracts of the interior, aitered the colony’s patterns of land occupation and provided a new base for its economy. It also accelerated Sydney’s growth as port and business centre, making it a busy and crowded little metropolis. Parkes had yet to realize it, but he was arriving at a time of dramatic change. Indeed, his very coming was one of the human outcomes of the wool boom. For in the later thirties colonial employers’ hunger for labour, together with the imminent loss of convict workers, had induced Governor

Bourke to establish the bounty system of financing immigration. A great increase in the numbers of assisted migrants to the colony resulted at once. Parkes, Clarinda and little Clarinda Sarah were three of the 8416 people who reached New South Wales in 1839 on assisted passages—a number exceeded only in the annus mirabilis of 1841, when there were 20 000. The scheme collapsed in 1842 when depression struck the colony, but during the five years from 1838 to 1842 48 000 immigrants came to the colony on free passages. Since over the same years another 9800 travelled out at their own expense, it

is evident that Parkes became part of a community in which, in addition to other peculiarities, the newly-arrived immigrant population was remarkably large—between a third and half of the whole. The arrival of the Strathfieldsaye was announced with a flourish in the Sydney Herald of 26 July 1839. The ship, it said, carried 205 bounty migrants, and a greatnumber of highly respectable cabin passengers, all of whom have arrived in a healthy state... This vessel has made a very fair passage being about three months on the voyage. . . Great credit is due to the captain and

surgeon for the cleanliness and order of everything on board; only two infants died,blood and three born during thebevoyage. vessel has prougnt out some pure hounds which will a great This acquisition to the colony.

Additional cargo consisted of 1000 hogsheads of rum, thirty anchors, twenty chains and halfa barrel of gunpowder. That, like the bloodhounds, was quickly and easily unloaded. There was greater difficulty about some of the passengers. A few days before the Strath fieldsaye’s arrival a public meeting in Sydney set

up a subscription fund to help the Benevolent Society ‘to relieve the present unprecedented large number and rapidly increasing cases of distress’ due to the ‘great influx of immigrants and high price of provisions’. Shortly after that another meeting of charitable persons, held under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Australia, formed a Sydney Relief Association to help that class of poor people who, though having employment or means of their own, could not cope with the high prices of rent and food. The rapid growth of Sydney’s

28 Henry Parkes population had created a chronic housing shortage despite a boom in the building industry; provisions were meantime desperately scarce thanks to the ruin of the 1839 harvest by drought and the non-arrival of supplies ordered from South America. Though wages were high the cost of living in Sydney was

crippling and the drought temporarily made employment even in the country—where labour was usually in demand and masters generally provided food and shelter—difficult to obtain. It was a bad time for penniless migrants to be landing in the colony.

Most of the immigrants were still on the Strathfieldsaye five days after it berthed. Announcing this the Herald published details of their occupations, pointed out that as they had come on a bounty ship the immigrants were not eligible for accommodation in government-provided shelters, and called upon potential employers to act quickly: ‘we earnestly recommend those persons who are in want of servants to engage them as early as possible, in order to prevent them from falling into that distress, which is inevitable if they long remain disengaged’. Parkes at least got nothing out of this appeal: though he was the only turner on the ship, no one came forward to offer him a job. ‘Poor Clarinda in her weak state had no one to do the least thing for her, not even dress her baby’, he remembered later, and in a few days she was obliged to go on shore, with her newborn infant in her arms, and to walk a mile across the town of Sydney to the miserable place I had been able to provide for her as a home, which was a little, low, dirty unfurnished room, without a fire place, at five shillings per week rent. When she sat down, within these wretched walls, over whelmed with fatigue on a box which I had brought with us from the ship I had but threepence in the world, and no employment. In the midwinter cold Parkes tramped the town for two weeks until, as he put it, ‘being completely starved out, I engaged as a common labourer with Sir John Jamison, Kt., M.C., to go about thirty-six miles up the country’. He was in the employ of ‘one of the first Landed Proprietors in the Colony’, a physician knighted in 1809 by the king of Sweden for curbing scurvy in the Swedish navy, now politician, and master of Regentville, a model property at Penrith with vineyards, irrigation works and a woollen mill. Parkes’s wage was to be £25 per annum, with a ration and a half of food. As he bitterly described it to Sarah, the weekly allowance which this gave them consisted of

10, lbs. beef—sometimes unfit to eat 101, lbs. rice—of the worst imaginable quality 6°/, flour—half made up of ground rice 2 lb. sugar—good—tasted brown /, lb. tea—inferior , |b. soap—not enough to wash our hands 2 figs. of tobacco—useless to me.

This was what we had to live upon, and not a leaf of a vegetable or a drop of milk beyond this.

Parkes worked in Jamison’s vineyard from July 1839 until mid-February 1840, but the experience brought him little joy. He and Clarinda lost most of their belongings on the way up from Sydney, stolen from Jamison’s dray, and

New South Wales 1839-1848 29 they were horrified by the rigours of working-class life in the bush. For four months their only bed was an old door and a sheet of bark laid on two cross pieces of wood, and the hut they were given was poor shelter for a young mother and child: ‘the morning sunshine, the noontide shower, and the white moonlight of midnight, gushed in upon us alike’. The smiling farm imagined in London’s fogs drifted off—a lost dream: You will, perhaps, think had you been with us, you would have had a few

vegetabies at any rate, for you havehave made a bit of garden, and cultivated them for yourselves; butwould you would done no such thing! The slavemasters of New South Wales require their servants to work for them from sunrise to sunset, and will not allow them to have gardens, lest they should steal a half-hour’s time to work in them.

Though he must have known how eagerly they would be awaiting news, Parkes could not bring himself to write to his family in Birmingham until May 1840—ten months after his arrival in Sydney. Apologizing later for the gloom of that letter, he offered a revealing explanation of his failure to write earlier:

In my letter of May, 1840, my conscience constrained me to state the truth, however unwillingly. I and my dear and virtuous wife were then enduring the utmost poverty, and had been in that state ever since our arrival in the colony. I had then—to associate, in my endeavours to obtain a livelihood, with the most debased and servile characters to be found in society. That confession of my misfortunes, I had reason to believe, would be highly gratifying to some at home, however they might attempt to disguise it; but there were others at home who had a right to know the truth, and I told you

my misery and disappointment, heedless of the sneer of gratified malevolence.

He probably worked with convicts and ex-convict labourers at Regeniville: he spoke also of a convict sharing rations with him and of how one night, when he had to travel through the bush, ‘a poor prisoner got up from his bed to carry my baggage, out of pure respect’. Though ‘respect’ might soften the shame of such associations they were still painful reminders of a sad decline in his own position. That could, however, be set against the whole span of his life: I entered the world with as little experience and as many difficulties as ever young man had for his portion. I did not succeed; what wonder! My native land seemed too unfriendly for me to live in—I loved it—you know how well

I loved my country; yet I tore myself away to seek for ‘leave to toil’ in a foreign land. I had to encounter a new kind of suffering, but not a worse, though sufficiently ample to punish me for my former errors. He was determined that, ‘God willing, the time shall come when all who know us at Birmingham shall acknowledge that we are honourable’. Meantime he

had clear advice for friends tempted to follow him to the colony: ‘For the encouragement of any at home who think of emigrating, I ought to add that I

have not seen one single individual who came out with me in the Strathfieldsaye but most heartily wishes himself back at home’.

On his twenty-fifth birthday, in May 1840, he mused gloomily on his position, in verse:

30 Henry Parkes I know the vanity of hope. The same False neh lure me from year year, Which ledmay me from my on childhood till to I came O’er half the world, to be an outcast here, Hurl’d, wormlike, on th’Antarctic hemisphere, Perchance, to die, cut off from man’s esteem; At the time, having worked six months for Jamison, he had escaped from the country back to the town, getting a job first in an ironmonger’s store and then with Russell Bros, engineers and brassfounders, finishing brasswork for five shillings a day. He was unwell and unsettled, losing working time, wishing he had a lathe (‘I think I could get plenty of light turning to do, and a good price for it’) but fearing that he would be ‘obliged to go into the country again’. And then the whole aspect of affairs changed. Before the end of the year, and thanks chiefly to the good offices of the employer he had once so maligned, Sir John Jamison, he landed what every needy and insecure migrant fondly dreamed of—a government billet. “You have doubtless heard of such gentlemen as Custom House officers, whose business it is to catch smugglers, seize contraband goods, etc. Your humble servant is now one of these’.

This was the turning point: by mid-1841 he could speak of having ‘a more comfortable home than it was ever my lot to possess in England’ and of his satisfaction at being at last released from the ‘wretchedness. . . of being in debt with no means of paying’. At the end of the next year he grieved at news from home of family illness and suffering in Birmingham during the exceptionally severe winter of 1841-42, feeling guilty at the thought of his own comparative

ease in ‘the luxuriant beauty of an Australian Summer... For the last two years we have enjoyed a state of almost uninterrupted health, while the emoluments of my situation have procured us many comforts, though we have hardly yet recovered from the difficulties of our first year in the colony’. He was fortunate indeed. On 15:‘September 1841—the year when assisted immigration reached its peak—Parkes told Sarah that eight immigrant ships

were at anchor in the harbour and that ‘hundreds of emigrants are at the present time starving in the streets of Sydney’. By then the pastoralists were

reaching the outer geographical limits of good sheep land, there was an oversupply of stock, capital and imported goods, and the boom had broken. The commercial atmosphere, Parkes noted, was ‘as gloomy as can well be

conceived ... Failures to enormous amounts occur continually. There is scarcely a mercantile house in Sydney which a man could say with safety was solvent a year ago, which is not now undermined by these repeated crashes of bankruptcy’. He had good reason to be thankful for his own security though

sometimes his fluctuating income was ‘not sufficient for our support, in consequence of the stagnation of the shipping interests of Sydney’. About this time, however, he realized one ambition by scraping together enough money to buy a lathe and began to supplement his earnings by working on the side at his trade. The migrant’s determination—perhaps hardness—drove him on. ‘I am now very anxious about getting money’, he writes in August 1841, ‘not being at all content to come here for no purpose’, and shortly afterwards, when

advising Sarah about helping a nephew to learn a trade and make a little

New South Wales 1839-1848 31 money, he explodes in parenthesis: “Nothing like getting money; nothing can be done without it. I know the value of money now! Money! money! money! is my watchword in future’. More comfortable circumstances helped but did not immediately remove

his loneliness at separation from the old society and pain at the trials of adjustment to the new. He thought of encouraging his father to come out, ‘for

I feel so lonely in this land of strangers. Yet there is something so heartsickening in one’s being an exile, that I am afraid to hold out encouragement to anyone to leave their native land’. At the beginning of 1842 he could still write that ‘Clarinda and I have little to ameliorate the exile’s lot; we have neither wealth nor friends, and the very means of comfort afforded us is in itself a source of discomfort, for it separates us, who have none other for the weary

heart to lean upon’. He was fond of reminding himself that he had no ‘companions’ other than his wife and child, but he also reported with naive satisfaction any sign of attention that helped to keep his self-confidence afloat:

One of the most influential men in the colony, a member of the Legislative

Council, and a descendant from one of the most illustrious families in

England, has not thought me un-deserving his kindness, and I have lately sat down to table with some of the most respectable merchants in Sydney. Butrestlessness still persisted, with the most unlikely overtones. ‘Itis probable’, he wrote in 1841,

that I shall return to London in three or four months, but I shall be sure not to stay in England, nor do I think I shall settle in Sydney. I have promised myself a voyage to Java before returning to Europe, which I shall probably

make in the latter part of next year. You will think I am speaking extravagantly, but do not be surprised to receive a letter from me, dated from Manilla or Sourabaya, or Batavia, or even Calcutta, for I am determined upon a trip to the East.

Where Clarinda fitted in such dreams he did not stop to think. But when his fancy roved in similar fashion a year later, she was implicitly in the plan, and a settled life now uppermost in his thoughts: As yet 1am quite unsettled in my purpose for the future, or whether or not I shall remain in the colony, but I hope I shall be more decided in the course ofathe yearortwo.lam Deginning to sigh fora permanent home.the It may fixed in immense wilds of this wonderful country, or amidst nativebehaunts of the New Zealand savage; or it may be in the beautiful and fertile island of Otaheite, or in Chile, or Peru, or it may be in the settlements of Malacca, or in South Africa, or the United States of America; but I am sad to think it is not likely to be in my native land, though I still must hope to lay my bones in old England. But by 1843 such flights of imagination had ceased. For good orill, the prospect of leaving the colony had receded and there, as he put it, ‘I am full of hope. I believe my circumstances will improve, and that speedily. I see my way now quite clearly which shall lead me to respectability if not a competence’.

Up to 1845 the ‘way’ to the achievement of this very proper aim was government service. In January that year, becoming impatient for advan-

32 Henry Parkes cement, he wrote—in an excess of naivete — to Lord Leigh of Stoneleigh Abbey, explaining that he was a Warwickshire migrant and an old Stoneleigh boy, and asking Leigh to use his influence with the Lords of the Treasury to obtain advancement for him in the New South Wales customs service. He had served, he said, for five years ‘without a single complaint against my conduct’,

and the senior men in Sydney, including Colonel Gibbes, the head of the department (the Collector), were prepared to recommend him strongly. While he waited for a reply he worked away at other possibilities. As he explained to Sarah: During the last year or two [ have been giving all my time, when unemployed

by the Customs, to the Ivory and Bone Turning business and have now a little connection in that way which I think might be improved so far as to find

me full employment. It was a sensible precaution. Leigh, it seems, failed to respond and late in 1845

Parkes was in trouble with his superiors. Gibbes suspended him for having written to the Weekly Register a letter criticizing the administration of the customs department. The suspension was for three months and the issue trivial—a quarrel at the lower level of the department between Parkes and his immediate superior over the arrogance of a man whom Parkes suspected of being ‘a convict under sentence’ and who made confidential reports on the tide waiters. It was, however, sufficient to convince Parkes that the civil service was

not after all to be his road to advancement. In January 1846 he sent in his resignation, thanking Gibbes for kindnesses over five and a half years in the department but asserting that he thought his suspension ‘Most unreasonable and unjust’. Gibbes nevertheless gave Parkes a testimonial to say that he had been well recommended by Jamison and that in the department they had found him to be ‘a person of great integrity and some talent’. The two seem to have parted friends. Parkes was by then already embarked on a business of his own. In October 1845 he told Sarah that he had invested almost £100 in ‘a far better fit-out of Tools including two good lathes, than I ever had in England ... My present plan is, in case I get no Government situation, to make all I can by dealing in

anything that offers a profit, till I can work myself into something like a mercantile business’. Clarinda was already involved (‘Be pleased to see that the sun spoils nothing in the yard or shop—are the bones boiled?’ he wrote once) and about the time of his suspension (November 1845) he moved the family

from lodgings in Domain Terrace, off Upper Macquarie Street, to proper business premises at 25 Hunter Street. From there he wrote to his father in April 1846 that ‘At the present moment I can say with truth that I am far better off than I ever was before in my life and my prospects are very flattering. . . Tell Sarah that I do not care a fig now whether I hear from Lord Leigh or not’. He was thirty, newly strong and optimistic, blessed with domestic security around which all his efforts could turn. On asudden impulse he had written to Clarinda in October 1844:

Being hard tasked on board the Harlequin to get my time off my hands (for day and night I am utterly alone here) I have resolved to write you a love letter. It is many days, some of them, I hope, happy ones, since my last love

New South Wales 1839-1848 33 letter, and in their wintry sweep over my head they have let fall some flakes of snow, and thee they have somewhat withered, and in their course they

have hurried us over a dreary wide distance of billowy sea, severing us, perhaps for ever, from our native home. But many, many darker days than the darkest we have known could not blight or chill that life of love in my heart which dictated that last letter and which dictates this.

When he wrote that, she could be content not only in his affection: in December 1843 she had borne a new baby, Robert Sydney, their second Australian child Gf Clarinda Sarah’s birth off the coast qualified her to be the first) and their first son to survive.

The promise of material success and the emotional ties forged by the establishment of a family of his own were the foundations for Parkes’s acceptance

of New South Wales as home. Their effect was, however, immeasurably strengthened by an early literary achievement remarkable for so poor and obscure a migrant: the publication of a book of verse. He described its genesis to Sarah in 1840—even before the feasibility of an anthology occurred to him: I spend most of my time on board ships, where I have a good deal of leisure to write poetry—I have enough already to filla book, most of which has been published in a Sydney newspaper. But I intend to apply some of this waste time friends to a better purpose—descriptive that of writing a series of letters to you and other dear in England, of this country. He never wrote these letters, but the ‘poetry’ mounted up and in 1842, greatly daring, he canvassed possible patrons and secured enough support to publish a volume of his verse. Most of the colony’s leading citizens (including Jamison)

subscribed, and even the governor, Sir George Gipps, graciously received a complimentary copy, acknowledging it as an ‘interesting volume’. Parkes called the collection Stolen Moments, a phrase taken from Coleridge and appropriated, he said, because his verses had been ‘put together in thought in “moments” literally “stolen” from the time occupied by the ordinary duties of a not over-happy life; my leisure having been generally devoted to other, perhaps better, purposes’. Considering the ‘waste time’ he told Sarah about, this little conceit was not as disingenuous as it looked: he dedicated the book to his superior officer, Gibbes, ‘as a faint token of gratitude for services rendered to his most humble and obedient servant’. This volume makes it clear that the habit of versifying, though the work it produced is usually tasteless to the outsider, was for Parkes himself a romantic and sentimental outlet that served to blunt the harshness of life. Certainly, in occasional moods he thought of poetry as a means of total escape:

Who would not be a poet—to seclude Himself in a bright, starry solitude, Away from earthly wretchedness at will;

Where ung might To dim no theunlovely light of idealty .. .? present be, But most of these poems lay firm hold on reality and represent not escapism so much as an effort to find emotional relief by giving a poetic gloss to concrete

34 Henry Parkes experience. A few belong to Parkes’s Birmingham years but the majority were written after he came to New South Wales and reflect the same ambivalences as his letters. There is doubt about the future, pain at separation from home and family, nostalgia for the past and for the English countryside. At times the vagaries of nature offensively parody the evil ofhuman transplantation: so for

example an English hawthorn, growing beside Sir John Jamison’s garden fence, is cursed for its “degenerate bloom’, appearing in November instead of May because heartless men ... brought thee o’er the waves away From England’s primrose solitudes, to make A changeling of thee, neath a fierce sun’s ray— In other poems, however, he celebrates the beauty of Sydney harbour, reflects on the bright future presaged by ‘Australasia’s morning’ and gladly hails the ‘Australian Christmas’ with its decidedly un-English ‘harvest of gold sheaves’. There is even a curious attempt—“The Song of the Australian Settler’—to capture in ballad form the imagined feel of the pioneer life:

Our home is in the wild bush far, Of peaceful spots the boonest; Where the kangaroo and emu are, Which flee the white man soonest. Much of Parkes’s poetry failed to rise above this level of painful bathos. But

it is of considerable biographical interest, in its reflection of his actual and imagined feelings, and its revelation of his anxiety to be or be thought to be a litterateur of sensibility and culture. It must have pleased him to find that his talent, which could scarcely have commanded attention at home, was received

genially enough in the colony, and the idea of being a cultural missionary—even catalyst—in this rude environment was one of the thoughts that reconciled him to his exile. Others, he modestly said, must judge the merits of his work, butif he had a motive in publishing Stolen Moments it was in the hope that any success it should have ‘might prove a stimulative to literary enterprise in New South Wales. The voice of praise would be doubly sweet to me, ifit were to encourage some Australian bard to seize in earnest the unstrung lyre of this beautiful country’. Many of these poems had already appeared in the Australasian Chronicle, all submitted by mail, Parkes being still ‘personally a stranger to the talented

and high-minded gentleman who conducts that journal’. This was W. A. Duncan, whose tolerant attitude to colonial writers opened the Chronicle’s columns to literary aspirants like Parkes, with an honest realism which those who benefited soon forgot. It was, Duncan wrote, a principle with him

that literature, if not positively bad, is relatively good, and therefore is deserving of encouragement; above all in a country which as yet can boast of no native literature, but remains at the end of half a century a complete blank in the republic of letters. A Scottish convert to Catholicism and a man of broad culture and generous political instincts, Duncan had arrived in New South Wales less than a year

New South Wales 1839-1848 35 before Parkes. Then thirty-seven, he was engaged to work as a teacher in one of the colony’s Catholic schools. He had had experience at home in journalism as well as in teaching and when in August 1839 a group of well-to-do Sydney

emancipists, in association with the hierarchy, decided to establish a first Catholic newspaper, the Australasian Chronicle, Archbishop Polding persuaded Duncan to become editor. The paper was founded to defend the Catholic name and the Catholic interest at a time of sectarian ill-feeling when other colonial newspapers—especially the Sydney Chronicle, the Sydney Herald, and the Colonist—displayed an anti-Catholic tone. In 1836 Governor Bourke had established the liberal principle that given the ‘mixed’ character of the colony’s population—drawn by transportation and immigration from all parts of the British Isles—it was both morally just and socially expedient that the state should support each of the ‘grand divisions’ of Christianity. Anglicans anxious to see their church ‘established’ in the colony as at home were offended by this principle and resentful at the use of public money to propagate error. Dr John Dunmore Lang, the colony’s chief Presbyterian clergyman, campaigned bitterly against assisted Irish migration, depicting it as a device by which the anti-Christ sought to seize control of colonial society. Many Irish-

men cherished traditional resentments against the English and as many Protestants viewed such sentiments with exaggerated alarm. Points of ‘theology’ were debated heatedly in editorial and correspondence columns.

And at a more vulgar level, a rich and salacious lore flourished on the

‘immoralities’ of convent and confessional. Duncan’s composure did not often falter before the heat which these varied expressions of sectarianism generated. He conceded nothing to his religion’s critics but in his hands the Chronicle became much more than a mere defender of Catholicism. He made no universalistic claims for his church: what he stood

for was a liberal faith which recognized religious diversity and asked that mutual respect be observed in all dealings between the colony’s various groups. This was an ideal which Parkes, though sturdily trained in the Birmingham style of no-popery, could readily endorse, especially when Duncan extended it beyond the religious sphere to embrace both culture and politics.

Parkes’s contributions to the Chronicle were not the only literary achievements of his first years in the colony. Once, during an interview with a journalist in the 1890s he said that he had had a piece published in the Sydney Gazette a day or so after his arrival in New South Wales, but he refused to identify it and nothing that appeared on the relevant dates looks obviously like

his. His claim to have written for a time as Sydney correspondent of the Launceston Examiner is more likely to be correct. This paper was established in 1842, and as the author of Stolen Moments, Parkes was identifiable as a Sydney writer and presumably a desirable adjunct to a new provincial paper.

He was certainly not lacking in ambition and self-confidence where his journalistic hopes were concerned. He wrote to Duncan in May 1840—less than

a year after arriving in Sydney—to ask about full-time employment on the Chronicle but no position was available, though Duncan would have been ‘very glad to have you attached to [the paper] from your poetical talent’. If the preface to Stolen Moments is correct Parkes did not meet Duncan in person

36 Henry Parkes before 1842. But friendship between the two ripened soon after that and came to be particularly associated with another budding poet—Charles Harpur.

Unlike Parkes and Duncan, Harpur was to his lifelong satisfaction a native-born Australian, the son of a respectable ex-convict who ran a school, a store and a farm at Windsor. All his instincts were democratic; his love for the Australian bush and countryside was fierce and he had a streak of that hostility the native-born often felt towards immigrants. When Parkes arrived in the colony Harpur was a clerk and letter-sorter in the Sydney post office and

had had a play and some poems published, but was disconsolate at the boredom of his job and pessimistic about his literary prospects. Drink was a threatening temptation and at the end of 1839 he left Sydney for the country, settling at Singleton on the Hunter River with his brother Joseph. There he wrote, became a pillar of the teetotal movement and fought attacks of black melancholy. Parkes first noted his work publicly in May 1843, in a precisely-titled poem published in the New South Wales Magazine: ‘On reading certain beautiful lines addressed to an “Echo on the Banks of the Hunter’, written by Charles Harpur, and published in the Australasian Chronicle of the 14th March, 1843’. A few months later he addressed a sonnet “To Charles Harpur, Author of a series of beautiful poems in the Australasian Chronicle’, and a friendship by correspondence began. ‘In nothing do I feel more honored and assured of my merit as a poet, than in the respect and attention with which you have from time to time gladdened

my solitude’, wrote Harpur. As a mark of his admiration, Parkes sent a handsome present—a six-volume edition of Shelley’s poems—and Harpur responded with what he was best able to offer: ‘the grateful friendship of a heart... true in its affections, and unspotted by the selfishness of the world’, and a ‘Sonnet to Henry Parkes’. Dear Henry, though thy face I ne’er have seen, Nor heard thy voice—albeit that beams, I know, With goodness, and that this at times can flow Melodious as a mountain stream—between The waters of Port Jackson, and the scene Where now I muse, of rich, poor, high or low, There dwells not one that I so far would go

To talk with through the evening hours serene. And when we yet shall meet, say, shall not we Be as old friends at once? and sit and pour Our souls together? which, so mixt, shall be A brimming draught of thought-thick poesie— Even such as young Keats reel’d with, gazing o’er The wondrous realms of Homer’s minstrelsy. Heady stuff, though not merely gratitude and flattery: it was also the effusion

of a lonely man sick at heart and anxious for intellectual companionship. Harpur came to Sydney on business in 1844 and at some time late in that year met Parkes and was introduced to the family circle. He warmed to Clarinda

New South Wales 1839-1848 37 and found the Parkes children a delight. He saw little Robert at a bubbling moment of his babyhood and a delightful sonnet, “To Robert Sydney Parkes, aged 10 Months’, was the result— Ay, crow, rogue, crow! Thy little Being thrilling is Like an embodied carol of a bird! —a joyous escape from nature poetry at a time when, as he told Parkes, the land

so depressed him that he could not bring himself to write of its beauty. Conversations on politics and more correspondence about poetry only increased Parkes’s admiration for his new friend, ‘this young fine spirited and highly gifted Australian’, as he described him to Duncan, ‘a man who, with the

same accidents of wealth and station would throw the Wentworths and Macarthurs of this country into the shade, and stand foremost of her sons in her cause, and in the glorious work of humanity’. Parkes wrote these words in August 1844 to accompany a poem in which

Harpur eulogized Duncan and which he begged Parkes to try to get into the Chronicle. ‘We have frequently spoken of you as being the only political writer in this country whose single aim has been the public good uninfluenced by any

underground expectations’, Parkes wrote when sending the piece on to Duncan. He confessed that Harpur had composed it in sonnet form (made by Wordsworth ‘the trumpet tongue of liberty’) at his request, and he now pleaded for its publication. “The fine last words are worth five reams of average made poetry’, he added, but considering their tone it was scarcely surprising that Duncan did not print the poem for ten months and then modestly omitted the dedication to himself: “Be just and fear not,” said the Bard of old; And Truth, the precept hath engraven fair On thy true heart—a lump of her own gold. However extravagant all this may sound it certainly reflected the two poets’ genuine admiration and in Parkes’s case exhilaration at a new three-way friendship—the first of its kind he had ever known. What could make him happier and more self-confident than to find, just as his material circumstances were looking up, that he had won the respect of the colony’s best poet and its

most highly principled newspaper editor? Harpur and Duncan, as he later recalled it, became at this time ‘my chief advisers in matters of intellectual resource and enquiry, when the prospect before me was opening and widening ...even then we talked of the grand future and the wonderful changes which a few years would bring’.

No one could be more naturally attuned than Parkes to a mind like Duncan’s—‘practical and activist rather than introspective and affective; moralising and systematising rather than independently creative’, as his biographer has concisely described it. Under such tutelage Parkes soon learnt how the cherished principles of Birmingham radicalism might be reshaped

into a new colonial mode. Duncan stood squarely against convictism and cheap foreign labour, scorned the neo-aristocratic attitudes of the colony’s landowning and pastoral elite and placed his hopes for a free and prosperous future society in ‘the people’, by whom he meant the colony’s working men and

38 Henry Parkes middle classes. He believed that the dramatic surge of immigration in the late 1830s had decisively shifted the real balance of power in the colony towards the lower and middle orders, many of whom were ‘superior in intelligence and every other respect save wealth to the bulk of their employers’. In 1840 he became the hero of Sydney’s operatives, who presented him with a gold medal

for his part in a campaign against legislation which would have allowed employees to be gaoled under the masters and servants act if convicted of crimes such as slackness, rudeness, imperfect work or ‘ill behaviour’. He fought toimprove the conditions of assisted migrants both on the outward voyage and

when they arrived in the colony and at the end of 1841 he organized public agitations to petition the Queen against excessive migration which, given the onset of economic depression, he thought could only bring ‘depreciation of labour’ and create a ‘rich aristocracy and a poor people’. Above all, Duncan saw the colony’s crown lands as her most precious heritage and was clear how they should be used: “The promotion ofagriculture

| where it is practicable, and of centralisation, by means of the small farm system, is the measure above all others that would most conduce to the prosperity and moral advancement of the colony’. This early version of what was to become the standard radical ideal in New South Wales made him unsympathetic to the colony’s pastoral system, which he saw as the cause of dispersed settlement, lawlessness and the growth of a rapacious squatter class. To him the squatters, a class of sheepmen created by the boom of the 1830s and occupying vast acres of crown land on cheap grazing

licences, were a threatening oligarchy. To his disgust they succeeded in thwarting attempts by Governor Gipps in 1844 to bring in regulations imposing fairer rents and regulating tenure; and the silence of the colonists at the

spectacle of Gipps’s defeat left Duncan in despair. Here, it seemed, was confirmation of an unhappy suspicion that the ‘people’, at least in their present

State, were not to be looked to as a natural source of social wisdom and progress. They were too gullible, too apathetic on important matters of principle and too obtuse—even about their own material interests. Their great want was education, to refine their sentiments and liberate their intelligences; and as Duncan’s gloom about democracy increased he came more and more

to pin his faith on education. He deplored the absence of a decent and comprehensive school system, put it down to the philistinism of the colony’s elite and advocated a scheme which for its ttme—coming, especially, from a Catholic—was remarkably advanced: common schools for all children in every district, properly trained teachers on good salaries, compulsory school attendance. ‘As the consequences of the want of education are highly detrimental to the state’, he wrote, ‘the state possesses the right to enforce education’. But, as he anticipated, it was to be a long and hard road to persuade the colonists of that. Duncan’s journalistic career was brief. His employers on the Chronicle dismissed him in 1843 for his ‘adherence to a self-willed line of writing’ and he established his own paper, the Weekly Register, which at once declared its independence of any sect or party. It was, in fact, too independent, for lacking backers of substance it was always in financial trouble and it lasted only two and a half years—which proved for Duncan personally, in his own words, ‘a

New South Wales 1839-1848 39 period of poverty and privation’. He decided eventually to throw up journalism altogether and Gipps, grateful no doubt for his staunch support on the squatting issue, appointed him as sub-collector of customs at Moreton Bay. In his last Register editorial Duncan took as his motto the sad Shakespearean couplet

Herevery is mysea-mark Journey'sofend, here is my And my utmost sail.butt, and in June 1846 disappeared from the Sydney scene to take up his billet on the colony’s northern outpost—in his political hopes a disillusioned man. Harpur meantime had spent much of 1845 and 1846 in Sydney, living with his sister in Pyrmont and possibly working part-time on the Register. The paper published a constant stream of his poetry and in October 1845 Duncan printed a first collection, Thoughts, A Series of Sonnets. Harpur inscribed a copy to Clarinda Parkes ‘with the author’s best wishes for the welfare of herself and family; and in token also of much kindness at her hands’. He was by now a frequent visitor at Parkes’s house, where he wrote some of his poems. At Duncan’s request Parkes reviewed Thoughts for the Register: though Duncan

thought it ‘a piece of extravagance’, Parkes wrote that Harpur’s sonnets compared favourably with Wordsworth’s and that ‘Australia ought to be proud of him’. Early in 1846 Parkes and Harpur were associated in lively skirmishes with critics of their verse but the collapse of the Register removed

their most important literary tie and before the year was out Harpur, presumably lacking a job in Sydney, moved to Jerry’s Plains to live again with brother Joseph. In September 1847 he wrote to tell Parkes that he and Joseph, who ran the local pound and post office, were taking up a ‘Station’, and to give

him an order for a turned stock-whip handle to be made from ebony or rosewood. In a mood of loneliness and nostalgia he wrote of their friendship: Recollect — you are not Parkes the ivory turner to me, but Parkes the Poet. I have written a letter to Halloran in rhyme. Perhaps you will see it. On what terms are you and he at this present? Enliven my solitude with some earnest chit-chat—that which you can tip so well when in the mood. Spin me a long

yarn about yourself... it will be odd if you cannot find something to chat about. From Brisbane Duncan had written in the previous October to get Parkes to buy and send some books he had seen advertised—Schlegel’s Philosophy of History, Berington’s Literary History of the Middle Ages and Roscoe’s Leo X—asking him to ‘excuse this much trouble, for “Auld Lang Syne” as we say in Scotland’. Like Harpur, he felt a little remote and wistful:

I hope you have by this time established a regular business. If there is any way that I could forward your interest in this district I should feel much preasure in doing so. I am not sure but some of the fancy woods that grow ere and perhaps the teeth of the Kangaroo[?] would be of use, but I am little conversant in such matters, and I keep myself very little in the way of local information, except what is indispensable for the discharge of my duties. The duties of my office would be indeed very simple, if I had civilised men to deal with.

40 Henry Parkes The days of the trio’s intense friendship were over. Harpur and Duncan still corresponded with Parkes, but their letters became more infrequent. Duncan

was soon absorbed in his new duties and though Harpur still wrote affectionately (‘Believe me, Hal, yours with all my heart’, he signed himself in mid- 1849) isolation in the country fostered in him a neurotic strain which did not make for steady preservation of the friendship. He felt neglected, childishly jealous of Parkes’s newer friends and, though admiring of Parkes’s writings and first forays into politics, he was too pettish and critical to be comfortable as a close associate. Parkes already had misgivings about Harpur, even in the most intimate days of their friendship: ‘It is part of my sorrow’, he wrote to a mutual friend in 1845, ‘that I, like you, cannot “respect his personal character” ... [could wish I had never known him other than by his poetry,—I have often had occasion to blame his conduct, and I have done so more severely to himself, than I need do, to others’. But the association survived such disagreements and

Parkes’s debt to Harpur and Duncan can scarcely be exaggerated. Both had encouraged his natural literary talent and introduced him to journalism, and

both stood for a robust and unpretentious radicalism which he eagerly embraced. Duncan in particular mediated the translation of Birmingham radicalism into colonial terms. Though Parkes did not share Duncan’s later disillusion with democracy he accepted his other political principles and to the most important of them (those relating in particular to education, immigration and land reform) remained faithful throughout his political career. Duncan and Harpur were also important for Parkes’s development at this time because of friends to whom they appear to have introduced him. Harpur and Parkes were, for example, members of a literary group which included Henry Halloran, then a young civil servant with whom they exchanged their own verse and reflections on writing. Harpur mentioned others with nostalgic jocularity when he wrote from Jerry’s Plains in 1847: ‘What has become of Strong? and is long Hart as long as ever? and what of my friend Prout Hill? and of that scape grace, Disborough?—do I spell his name right.’ W. E. Strong was

by then acting as Parkes’s agent in Hong Kong, purchasing oriental fancy goods for sale in the Hunter Street shop. ‘Hart’ is evidently A. B. Hart, a minor poet whose verse is to be found in the Sydney Times, a short-lived Journal later

edited by Harpur’s brother Joseph Jehosephat. In active politics, the other interest that was now beginning to attract Parkes, Harpur and Duncan—especially the latter—were also without doubt important sources of contacts. But itis evident as well that after he moved to Hunter Street Parkes soon made new friends through his involvement in the small business

world around him. Indeed, it seems that the back room of his shop became before long a well-known spot where those with a mind to talk politics could usually find congenial company, and that, through such informal meetings and discussion, an interesting group of men began to gather around Parkes. He himself best describes how this came about: my mind found nurture in observing the public occurrences around me, analysing the characters of conspicuous men, and trying to forecast the developments of the future. Slowly I became acquainted with men in my sphere of life who thought much as I thought. While the hybrid Parliament , was Struggling against the repressive powers of Downing Street, and through

New South Wales 1839-1848 4] clouds of error, to solve the problems of colonial freedom, I was growing into a keen critic of the legislative work going on. I and my little group of friends

privately discussed every question that arose; of course each of my friends communicated his opinion of me to a wider circle, and by degrees men in higher walks of life made my acquaintance. By ‘hybrid parliament’ Parkes meant the colony’s legislative council, originally formed in 1823 as a nominated body to advise the governor and then changed by an Act of 1842 into a partly elected legislature. A third of its thirty-six

members were elected, by a constituency with a property franchise high enough to exclude two-thirds of the adult male population. Six of the nominated members were Officials and the chief of them, the colonial secre- , tary, introduced and managed government business on behalf of the governor, : who no longer sat in the chamber. Though ordinary legislation needed council assent, government was not ‘responsible’: the imperial authorities appointed the governor and his senior officials and guaranteed their ultimate supremacy, as an executive council, through a civil list and financial schedules which the legislative council could not touch. Downing Street also retained exclusive power to decide how crown lands in the colony should be alienated and how

the revenue from such lands would be spent. So the infant parliament was certainly ‘hybrid’: a step towards representative, but a far distance from responsible government. Nor was it close to being notably ‘democratic’, though not all colonists regretted that. The new legislative council began its life in 1843, in the days of commercial

depression after the break of the boom in the previous year. Its elected members were from the upper ranks of colonial society: landowners, squatters,

merchants and professional men. They were at one with the governor, his officials and his nominated members, who were men of similar social standing,

in showing little sympathy for such unorthodox requests as those made by unemployed or distressed migrants and operatives for relief works and other forms of government assistance. But they bitterly resented the failure of the revised constitution of 1842 to give the legislative council effective control over

the executive and the crown lands, and on these and other issues formed a determined opposition to the governor and his ‘cabinet’ of officials. Lacking effective power they could only harass the executive but this they did at every

possible turn, while Gipps remained inflexible in insisting on his and the crown’s rights. It was this campaign which, years later in the remarks quoted

above, Parkes idealized as ‘struggling against the repressive powers of Downing Street... to solve the problems of colonial freedom’. The ‘conspicuous men’ in this fight were Parkes’s first colonial heroes, a few of whom became in due course directly involved in his own career. Chief was William Charles Wentworth, now in his mid-fifties, a man of wealth (he was barrister, landowner and squatter on a large scale), sturdily conservative in an eighteenth century Whiggish style but with a traditional popular following. His earlier championing of colonists’ constitutional rights, especially if they were emancipists or—like himself—native-born, had won him a reputation that was still not altogether dimmed. He was a clever though often vulgar speaker, depending for his effects on emotion and a relentless, bludgeoning style. He affected slovenly manners and dress, his ill-fitting suits of colonial cloth and his

42 Henry Parkes corduroy trousers the self-conscious symbols of a bluff contempt for outward refinement that went over well with Sydney’s lower orders. In 1840 he anda few others had almost succeeded in buying from seven Maori chieftains a third of

New Zealand: as the man who blocked this enterprise, Gipps earned Wentworth’s undying hatred. In the new legislative council he venomously attacked the governor’s measures on all possible occasions, carrying the elected members decisively with him. His closest associates were the Sydney emancipist Dr William Bland and the lawyer Richard Windeyer. Bland was Wentworth’s fellow-representative for Sydney and long-time political partner. At thirty-seven Windeyer was a leader of the Sydney bar and ran a model estate, Tomago, in the Hunter valley. Ambitious, aggressive and uncompromising, he was at the beginning of a sparkling political career, soon to be

cut off by an early death. , :

_ For the moment, Wentworth had the support even of Rev. John Dunmore Lang, who in this session was making his legislative debut. Lang’s hatred of ‘Downing-street edicts’ overcame his admiration for the governor’s ‘superior ability as a statesman [and] his honesty of purpose and straightforwardness as a man’. He had arrived from Scotland in 1823, Sydney’s first Presbyterian minister. In the years since then he had established Scots church, visited the United States once and returned to Britain five times, chiefly to promote the emigration of good Protestant stock—to foil what he saw as Rome’s plan to use the Irish to take possession of the colony. He was short in stature, fiery in temperament, restless and erratic. He feared no man and spoke with directness and a command of invective which guaranteed that he never lacked enemies. He was the odd man out among the substantial councillors of 1843: inferior in wealth if superior in intellect, contemptuous of ‘principles’ resting on material considerations and prone to draw from his mora! precepts alarmingly radical political conclusions. He was the most ‘junior’ of Port Phillip’s six representatives, having scraped in at the bottom of the poll. In Melbourne, six hundred land miles from Sydney, he was hardly known. Unkind critics thought that explained his election. Late in 1843, Gipps tried to stiffen his support in the council by appointing as a new nominee Robert Lowe, a clever young lawyer recently arrived in the

colony. Lowe, late of Lincoln’s Inn and before that Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, had come to Sydney in search of health and fortune. He was an albino, bent and white-haired, and told by doctors that his failing eyesight forewarned of early blindness. His appointment to the legislative council was an immediate triumph. In his first speeches he attacked doubtful measures which Wentworth and Windeyer put forward to alleviate the depression, and electrified the chamber. His touch was light and his wit acid: ‘never before’, writes his biographer, ‘had a member of council presented his audience with

epigrams so quotable, turns of speech so graceful, nor generalisations so thought provoking’. Here were the elements of a new standard of debate in the

legislature. Gipps had found a champion to match his most eloquent and

masterful opponents. ;

But it was to be so only briefly. In April 1844 the governor offended Lowe’s

sense of constitutional propriety with his new squatting regulations—the proposals which, as we saw, so pleased Duncan. Gazetted under the Local

New South Wales 1839-1848 43 Squatting Act of 1839 these regulations required runholders to take out separate licences for each twenty square miles of land grazed (hitherto one licence had covered an unspecified area) and offered squatters the security they had always wanted, but only in return for the purchase of homestead blocks on

each run. However reasonable in principle, the regulations meant increased costs for most squatters and large, possibly crippling, expenses for the big men. At a time of depression, a violent reaction was only to be expected. Lowe saw the regulations as a device by which a financially pressed governor, facing a hostile legislative council which begrudged him money, was seeking to raise new revenue by administrative fiat—‘taxation without representation’. He said so, attacked Gipps publicly, and resigned from the council.

Outside the chamber he joined a Pastoral Association formed to fight Gipps’s regulations, established a newspaper, the A t/as, to support it, coined for the squatters a slogan—‘ruin or rebellion’—and began agitation for selfgovernment, including colonial control of land. Local domination by governors like Gipps, he declared, must go, and to achieve that, colonial apathy and British indifference must both be struck at: ‘we are obliged in order to make an impression on the British Government to stimulate the passions and inflame the minds of the masses in the colonies... to turn agitators, and stir up all the elements of the community, which, if we had a free government, every one would wish should lie dormant’. We do not know what view Parkes and his friends took of all this—whether they followed Duncan in admiring Gipps’s stand or were swept off their feet by Lowe’s demagoguery: all we can be sure of is that they would have discussed

the issues with great earnestness. But there is no doubt as to where their sympathies lay when events over the next phase of the struggle brought a fundamental change in.Lowe’s position, to make him no longer the squatters’ champion, but their enemy.

Lowe, Wentworth and the squatters fought together through to 1846, virtually nullifying Gipps’s attempts to govern and in the end farewelling him with cruel derision when he left the colony at the end of his governorship that year. The new governor, FitzRoy, was an urbane and pliant man who quickly established an understanding with the ruffled legislative council and won the

favour of the generality of the colonists: The squatting question—Gipps’s downfall—cost him no pain: his was the good fortune to take over after the whole matter had been removed from colonial jurisdiction when the British parliament legislated, in the Waste Lands Act of 1846, on the alienation of crown lands in the empire generally. This measure set the purchase price of

crown land at £l an acre, and a consequent order-in-council of 1847 reregulated squatting in New South Wales, giving licence-holders leases as long

in some cases as fourteen years and a pre-emptive right of purchase when leases expired. Squatters’ representatives in London had lobbied incessantly while these matters were under discussion and the new arrangements were interpreted in the colony asa squatters’ victory. The high land price, it was said, would make it difficult for settlers, especially small men, to buy farms; long leases and pre-emptive rights would strengthen the squatters’ grip on the land, while at the same time they enjoyed its profits fora mere song. Lowe, who had

seen the fight against Gipps as a fight for principle, for local freedom from :

44 Henry Parkes British dictation, was furious. It was now clear, he said, that the squatters had fought not for liberty but ‘to defend their breeches pocket’ and having gained what they wanted had ‘turned their perfidious swords upon their allies and... sought to confiscate the whole of the lands of the colony to their own use and benefit’. Debates in the council were dominated by flurries of oratory as Lowe (back in the chamber as an elected member) confronted in Wentworth the squatters’ champion and the man who increasingly became spokesman for colonists who saw the style of debate and agitation Lowe exemplified as a dangerous threat

to political stability. The excitement kept the issues of squatting and land occupation generally before the public eye, and that in turn raised divisive questions which signalled a shift in emphasis in the colony’s politics. The political unanimity forged by opposition to what Parkes called ‘the repressive powers of Downing Street’ was subtly giving place to internal political dis-

agreement, reflecting newly competing interests and principles, about the disposition of power in the colony itself. One special issue, transportation, forced on the colony’s attention from the

outside in 1846, gave early presage of this tendency. Gladstone, briefly secretary of state for the colonies, asked the governor how the colonists would respond to an imperial request that they might again accept convicts, to reduce

the pressure in prisons at home. Wentworth chaired a committee of the legislative council to look at the question and reported that, under stringent conditions, convicts would be welcome. The committee harked back to the old assignment system, ‘the most reformatory, the most inexpensive and the most

humane that was ever devised’, and it was clear that the mouths of labourhungry squatters—some of them even prepared in their extremity to import coolies—were watering. The council’s attitude alarmed alert Sydney business men and artisans, many of them immigrants and most of them convinced that both economically and morally an influx of convicts would be disaster. The council accepted their protests in 1847 but that was far from the end of the

matter and by 1848 the fear of transportation had become influential in broadening the circle of those interested in politics, particularly in Sydney. Constituted originally for five years, the first legislative council was duly dissolved by Governor FitzRoy in June 1848. News of the Paris revolution had just reached the colony and FitzRoy and his colonial secretary, Edward Deas Thomson, uneasy lest there should be popular unrest in Sydney, wanted the elected members for a new council chosen as quickly and with as little fuss as possible. They issued writs for an election to be over before the end of July. Their fears of disturbance proved groundless but there was one completely unprecedented event. A committee of unknown men, none of them ‘gentle-

men’ and all therefore lacking the traditional right to intrude in politics, decided to put forward a popular candidate for Sydney in the hope of defeating one of the sitting members, preferably Wentworth. Their move was a challenge

to the system of privilege symbolized by the restrictive franchise and the hegemony of conservatives in the old council. It was also an assertion that matters on which the council passed judgement—especially transportation, immigration and land settlement—were issues that vitally affected all colonists, who should in consequence have the right of direct representation. They chose

New South Wales 1839-1848 45 Lowe as their candidate, inviting him to stand and promising to attend to his campaign. Lowe’s opinions on a few matters of importance (transportation and the franchise are examples) were doubtful but he was the inevitable choice

as ‘the People’s’ champion: the colony’s most effective mob orator and Wentworth’s and the squatters’ arch-enemy. So Parkes and his friends—for indeed it was they who made this daring move—emerge from the shadows for their political debut. It was time for observation, analysis and talk to give place to action: anew political movement

was coming to birth. Nothing reflects more decisively Parkes’s final conquest } of the trauma of migration and his identification with the social realities of his new country. And in the persons of those who now appeared in the open to work with him, we catch a glimpse of the kind of political friendships that

completed the work of Duncan and Harpur in softening his first alienation from the difficulties of colonial life.

Radical activist 1848-1850

L ATEIN 1847 Parkes moved business and family from 25 Hunter Street to more commodious premises at no. 20, the ‘middle house’ of a group of three shops with dwellings above, owned by the merchant Robert Campbell. The rent was £140 a year and the lease for three years with the option of another five—which suggests improving means and a feeling of optimism. Parkes billed his new establishment as an ‘Ivory Manufactory and Toy Warehouse’. He also imported a wide variety of fancy goods. There were wares from China: crepe

shawls, sandalwood fans, crockery, chessmen, puzzles, pictures and cigar boxes—all selected, so his grandiose advertisements said, by his ‘own agent in Canton’. There were ‘island curiosities’, goods from France and a great variety of British wares: netting and knitting apparatus, needles, pins, enamelled and rosewood boxes, baskets, cases, brushes and combs. It was the kind of shop for a Brummagem man to revel in. It was also a shop in whose management Clarinda could share, serving while he worked at his lathe or was out talking to friends, looking to the accounts or doing some of the physical work. She would unpack cases, make up orders, boil and dry bones for turning. Shop and home were her universe. In 1846 Parkes

had told Sarah that nowadays she would find Clarinda changed a good deal in the eight years since you saw her last. She is very much confined at home, and is almost cut off from woman’s society as we have no female friends; her health, however in general remains good, and the rest of her life as far as worldly comforts can make it [hope will be happy.

‘Changed’ in appearance or habits? Probably both, but especially the second. Loneliness and the loss of friends made her children intensely precious: they and her husband were her only source of human companionship. She bore a new baby, Mary, in February 1846, to nurture all that year as she worked beside her husband until, to her unspeakable sorrow, the child died in December. In March 1848 another girl was born and they called her Mary Edith: she grew strong and healthy, the third child to survive of six born since the marriage in 1836. Robert and Menie meanwhile continued to bring delight, he with his ‘large blue eyes and a broad high brow like an old Greek’s’ and she still the precocious little girl, at seven ‘a very good child though somewhat too moody & fretful... with a perfect passion for flowers and building castles in the air’. 46

Radical activist 1848-1850 47 Parkes had settled in a pleasantly situated and expanding part of Sydney, much favoured by newly arrived tradesmen and businessmen. None of the buildings on his side of Hunter Street was older than six years and most were occupied by men like him. Joseph Fowles, whose Sydney in 1848 is a lively contemporary street-by-street description, depicts a rectangular area bounded by George Street, Hunter Street and the Post Office as being ‘chiefly occupied by wealthy tradesmen, whose stores and shops are fully equal to those of a principal street in an English city’. It was the economic hub of the local world:

The handsome equipages that dash past, the elegantly clad females, and the stylish groups of gentlemen, point out the seat of amusement and gaiety. The heavily laden wains—the crowds that sweep past, in every direction—the hasty step of some, the thoughtful brow of others, betokening the purpose of intense occupation—all speak of extensive trade and untiring commercial activity. It was also, despite the bustle and hubbub, beautiful. Fowles’s lithograph of Hunter Street’s facades shows Parkes’s shop as one of those tasteful workaday buildings which contributed to the overall impression of Sydney—in Morton Herman’s words—as ‘a lovely colonial town of clean, chaste Georgian architecture. Whole streets were pleasant compositions of harmonious buildings, few of them over three storeys high, all clearly designed, well mannered, and an orderly delight to the eye’. The decline into Victorian pretension had yet to come. Meantime, with a population of just over 40 000 in the city’s six wards and about 7500 in the suburbs, Sydney was still a compassable town, easy to

travel across, even on foot, and a place where energetic businessmen and politicians quickly and easily became well known. The men who promoted Lowe for Sydney at the colony’s second election had their first public meeting at the Royal Hotel on 3 July 1848. There they formed

a committee to requisition their man and to organize his campaign. James Wilshire was elected chairman. He was thirty-nine and native-born, a successful manufacturer of leather, soap and candles. Prominent in municipal politics, he had become Sydney’s second mayor in 1844. The meeting chose

Parkes and Jabez King Heydon as joint secretaries. They were men of remarkably similar experience. Both were English, they were the same age and they had arrived in the colony in the same year. Both were skilled artisans who had become small businessmen. Heydon had served articles as a compositor in Plymouth and later worked with Duncan on the Chronicle between 1838 and

1844. Journalism still interested him (in due time he was to be editor of Freeman’s Journal), but in 1848 he was an auctioneer in King Street. He was exclusive local agent for Holloway’s Pills (the great contemporary cure for everything from pleurisy to piles), and was shortly to become the colony’s first licensed pawnbroker. In 1845 (and this was the major difference between him and Parkes) he had been converted to Catholicism, probably under Duncan’s influence. With minor variations the group as a whole displayed many of Parkes’s and Heydon’s characteristics. Most were youngish, small businessmen or skilled artisans and migrants of the last decade or so. Two of them, George Lloyd

48 Henry Parkes (auctioneer, tallow merchant, earnest Christian and education reformer) and William Piddington (bookseller, nurtured in the radicalism of Hume), were exactly the same age as Parkes and Heydon. Another, slightly older, was Birmingham-born, had worked in the Political Union and had sailed for Australia, like Parkes, in 1838. This was Isaac Aaron, a short, irascible doctor who kept an apothecary shop in Pitt Street and in 1846 had become editor of the Australian Medical Journal. Angus Mackay (migrant from Scotland, aged three, in 1827; pupil of John Dunmore Lang; now editor of the Atlas) was there, together with three other radical journalists, Francis Cunningham (editor of the Sydney Citizen in 1846-47), E. J. Hawksley (at the time editor of

the Sydney Chronicle, the Catholic successor to Duncan’s Register), and Benjamin Sutherland (editor in 1844 of the Sydney Guardian, organ of the radical Mutual Protection Society). Sutherland was a cabinet maker by trade and Hawksley, who had worked on English Chartist papers before migrating to New South Wales, was already one of the best-loved of the colony’s radicals,

second only to the venerable Richard Hipkiss. An older person, and a nurseryman from Birmingham, Hipkiss had also worked in the Political Union, migrating to New South Wales in the 1830s and playing a leading role in working class politics in the early forties, particularly during the depression. He was not on Lowe’s committee, but he actively supported Lowe’s campaign and was a leader in the political work which followed it.

There were others of whom we know less: Elias Weekes, a merchant; Edward McEncroe, tobacconist, Catholic and brother of Archdeacon John McEncroe, leading Irish priest soon to figure prominently in Parkes’s affairs; Richard Peek, a grocer in George Street; and William McCurtayne, described in a confidential police report of 1849 as ‘an ex-policeman and ex-publican, a wrong-headed litigious Irishman and a repealer’. It is evident, however, that the group consisted chiefly of earnest artisans, journalists and small businessmen, mostly migrants out to make their way in the new society, with a leavening of men who had first hand experience of various types of English radicalism, particularly as it manifested itself in the late twenties and the early thirties. The meeting was called by advertisement, but most of those who came already knew what was afoot for they were linked together in several networks. In Sydney’s small radical, literary world the immigrant journalists—most of whom had at some time been associated with Duncan—all knew each other. Most of the radical businessmen and tradesmen were neighbours in the central commercial area described by Fowles. Unlike their betters, the large merchants, squatters and landowners, these men had no clubs. When they met to talk of politics, business and affairs, it was casually, in the street, or in places like the back parlour of Parkes’s shop. In that parlour, indeed, through Parkes’s journalistic, literary and business contacts, we may think of networks intersecting to generate a new political movement, whose leaders were a few men who saw ways of formulating the small man’s—and primarily the immigrant’s—aspirations under the rubric of ‘the People’s’ rights. They were transferring to a new but remarkably similar

situation political ideas and methods they had learnt in their youth, par-

Radical activist 1848—1850 49 ticularly in the work of the Birmingham Political Union and organizations like it. Parkes was one of them; for him, political apprenticeship was almost over.

Lowe prevaricated when the committee first approached him. He had already

agreed to stand for his old electorate of Auckland and St Vincent, and in Sydney he had declared his support for John Lamb, who was standing against the sitting members, Wentworth and Bland. Lamb, merchant and ex-naval officer, was well respected. “The mercantile and professional classes’, said the

Herald, ‘recognise him as one to whose care their interests may be safely entrusted’. To unseat Wentworth would be impossible, but an anti- Wentworth man might very well beat Bland. Should Lowe stand and risk splitting the vote that might otherwise put Lamb in? He hesitated, then compromised, refusing to campaign or have anything to do with Wilshire’s committee, but agreeing to take the seat if elected. The Herald, correctly enough, sneered at him as ‘An

active candidate for one constituency, and a passive candidate for another’, who could ‘do justice to neither’. For Parkes and his friends Lowe’s passivity

had its advantages. Within limits, they could paint his candidature in the colours that suited them best.

The committee believed that Lowe deserved the support of lovers of freedom and equity for his hostility to squatter pretensions, his wish for ‘an equitable alienation of the public lands’, his resistance to cheap coloured labour and his advocacy of better public education. He was, however, ambiguous on other matters. On the suffrage, for example, the committee could do no more than say ‘we believe he will strenuously endeavour to enlarge the elective franchise’, and on transportation it had to remain altogether silent. In the legislative council during 1846 and 1847 Lowe had voted for renewed transportation and had not yet recanted. But it was soon clear that Lowe’s promoters were in fact not as interested in programmatic details as in larger

matters: in their candidate’s demagogic qualities and his potential as a ‘popular’ candidate; in his sheer intellectual power as a counterpoise to Wentworth; and—above all—in his role as their candidate, freely chosen by them, to be elected, they hoped, free from the influence of money, class or faction. “FREE ELECTION’ was the key slogan in their campaign. On nomination day,* 27 July, Wilshire brought Lowe forward as the ‘friend of liberty’ and Elias Weekes, as seconder, told the voters that, as Wentworth’s election was inevitable, they must ‘sendin Mr. Lowe to take care of him’, Lowe being ‘the only man in the colony able to grapple with that intellectual giant’.

Meantime, there should be no mistake about the significance of Lowe’s appearance before them: ‘this was the first time that the electors of Sydney had * The electoral conventions of this period, which were to continue unchanged long after the establishment ofa bicameral parliament in 1856, differed from those of today. When a vacantseat had to be filled, whether at a by-election or a general election, the first step was the ‘nomination’. This was a public meeting, with the returning officer presiding, at which nominators and seconders presented the candidates, each of whom then spoke on his own behalf. The returning officer called for a show of hands and declared the winner. Candidates had the right, which the losers almost

invariably took, to challenge this vote and request a poll. After the poll, the returning officer announced the result at a second meeting, the ‘declaration of the poll’, at which candidates— defeated as well as tiumphant—had the right to speak.

50 Henry Parkes ever dared to nominate a candidate of their own, and it had created a good deal of surprise and indignation that they should have the impudence to nominate

one not introduced to them by their betters’. It was a decisive break in the system of deference that had determined the character of the colony’s first

election in 1843. Since Lowe refused to appear, the committee could organize few effective

political meetings. Its activists staged one coup by turning up in force and taking over a meeting arranged to launch Wentworth and Bland’s campaign; while the principals retreated in confusion through a rear exit, Lowe’s men had the meeting pass triumphant resolutions in favour of him and Lamb. But the staple part of the campaign consisted of spreading propaganda and canvassing

through ward committees. Parkes was particularly active as organizer and writer. He contributed to the Atlas, the main pro-Lowe paper, and on the eve of polling day produced a propaganda sheet called the Elector, which appealed to ‘the working class’ against the privileged groups who, it said, had dominated the late council to the detriment of popular legislation.

In the upshot, Lowe narrowly defeated Lamb and Bland, won a seat and, with 1012 votes, was not far behind Wentworth himself. His committee, if a little surprised, was ecstatic. Its advertisement of celebration bears the unmistakable imprint of Parkes’s composition: Gentlemen,— The glory of a new era in the political history of New South

Wales is ours. The victory we have gained to-day—of principle over prejudice—of justice and the people’s right over class-interests and the intrigues of faction—is a triumph which will be hailed by freemen with exultation, throughout the Australian colonies, and on the shores of our father-land. Who shall say now that the citizens of Sydney are behind in the

work of political progression? ... To you, virtuous working men, who steadily pursued your daily labour till one o’clock, and then came with least loss to your families, to give your hearty help in your country’s cause, our congratulations on the achievement of victory, are especially due. Your strength was indeed ‘The might that slumbered in the peasant’s arm’, and which we knew would awake at the hour of duty, though our opponents knew it not. Even Lowe momentarily lost his head. “The Election that is now over ought to

satisfy all minds that that power which the people know how to exercise so rightly, they ought rationally to have’, he told a cheering crowd. *. . .lam proud of being indebted to the Mechanics and working men of Sydney... Andat the declaration of the poll he again asserted his faith in the people though, in words not highlighted at that moment, he also asserted his independence: ‘I go into Council your representative, not your delegate’. For the men who had worked

for his election his main assertion—‘a new era has commenced in the

colony’—was what mattered. As Parkes joyfully put it a few weeks later: “That was a day when public virtue sprung up, as from the four winds of Heaven, and grew a mighty thing, before the great hands suspected even its existence. That was the birth-day of Australian Democracy.’ The coup of Lowe’s election whetted the appetites of Parkes and his friends

and almost at once they planned to use their committee as the nucleus for a

ate ME atten : ey ae NNN van n/a as Beit dy et AUR an _ aw? a — £4

ip pia pol r pai aan | aoe J itive: eet y (Pogo _ y 4 oY bg 0 fh _ Ge ,

LLIB te AS LE TTYa ONAN ge 2PSSA pn: Ne |eli

po I 7 1 wf (al PONS iid { L. apy! hh eo ‘ ko Ufa Hl - all A pido tead NG! nit an is NE Bee 4 ‘Ser: WES Fe yo ier, 2 < Ss eal ' | Sin

Hoip og] i i eeeercteetiiee if fi det DSiN eee AG o> os iW” J5 ~ MEE aW] | An Seeeeeeasl See ae Lp TS iW a re yhoo da dayyheg eb a, i Ae REN EEG yo. =o ONT 277)» .* af : i dog ; F tg fiyhd ; i 8a : bpigeage ch ify x Ah Fy es ga! ; go AR. . a «Fy ex, sof x. ¥

adda da fan qed gay. SL Ppt iM ae Udall =, el Seony et an, ceeeeenneeenl I pli! Lapel ‘NWLg Re\ ag a oS lop bedHt PrPrn DTH ALL UT A ENA Be oe{ae a VR | nie HALarte ASS yy,- pe eoTg Ne ARNG i|7Edd: -_ | nusreeee at netree OOS y . itty ui] ” oe meiiths * OR!

AD re: by EE ag be Pe FS Se Sas WH . itl Pe

oe, ee? ee San ~/ SAA ceed TED

BY | oa bbe % din te _ Se one if iif |. ow FF y _ Sm . eet Pig te. ais! aS al

by NAN ‘a ri wi ii 4 He yey ay = eee ~ > ~ pag -«fgie 2 .

ale iif Ly oe = LAG NS &® ce re, ei iid | i Sa ee, A i ; aA, ol aOT oA MT FoeAS? & et FTVA . 1 ‘) mea Ax led,. ae Siwhey, oi li ayg.

. A f ; AV 3 i wit ; - e XA , : ~ ‘¢ : a ro / . aa & s iA 3 (Pe ; pe - “A ae F i ; :

QUT ye in itp ‘CF Of +. Lo ay: As LATS * 9} aft yt ii ;

| me N ,i faa | C2 S «Sey, ijidi sewed aeHoy rt | | CA \ged eT th bs iffy : oi; ttas Es oi OU AOE SBE oo IS IL ae |i sr cee *: + ML Sg Ae a oe a fe a f'. o iW & Pei

Me Ni He SZ bel it

| Wa eee AN ts

Settee: SAt i oeiite \ eas 7 coal 7 &po : ©aco AME“al PE éiaj vp ek i.oeeiti f Aiugs 24a) i 7. ja J”1 ie

oxy Se pe RAN | ZI | r Ginn _ OeCL LY or y. ‘ wf ald. , fe fF y : a

po oe rr rr f oe : & ~ al a. wane ee ‘ ae os ee giv e < £3 § . 4 ;

, ° wef (a?ee. ce ttitiies we Wali “< y ifAt- 4da. te sient CRG t*AR CEES, SintWw oO

,* ~ . a)

" §oe: oa? “ae es4 a lgsuse aghabl 3ttCat ae itWG? BEET Foe/ &4eeFi , < 2828 remek rie 4afte |— mei” /, HOT coe” a) me [ 50 o Cais (| he i * if { be, : oo Zé y j ¥ ong’ -: mi i J ;

: RETO, fA 2 , 7 .D) _ =< S\ See : 3 a a 2 ° # . , x * . . 4 \ Y] | . g % ™ ~— * 7 7 : y P; i. 2 wat. uy 5 : q 2 . . na

Pre see Or EY Sas Re Pcie ESNehgoswo “ED, SSR

eae aNoo ers no ~ =geoR re Stage eae,Ss Pave, as 2 WOO Se < SG EeIS SePOLE SEE Qik a OSEES A SS Fs "oSoe: , CESERRS = a.ERE: ee S aeP3 2S pb Spore “OS RS taser aesSak 3 Be eg Se oSsoeSehr RUE” Etec: - ceeMERE es OR ie SERS. SERSi. Mi, BRE EESs. .Pre) te. SA REASE Poearthen Bate. tat SO RSa ARR a eaeOOBS Eh BecSER aieeeeepc o e oe Shak [we Re3| oo. 5 Bee 7 - we oo SEE Soe RRR SES ce ee ERS SANS Rt cone a os Se SSSR geet Ee ala 3a % “aes SEER. ae EROS ROSEN A

ee ee ee a rk Se re ae ES eee cue as EER S a

Ras -oe e SEE eS OSS SOREae eS aRonee Besua, Bi. Sc meee Bic eee CEES SRARU SS SRE ac SON eRSee SS ES Be ee a Boe Pek. eeNe a Ke CRESS NER ES ce “cee: a Basee. naSee aeeBR See RRS ESS = 7 3ERE Poca : ESS RRSSSS ES ReSE ee UR SR Brana MIR RS PRES: Sapa maa=. 4Se SS ee See pcs SR = 0” SEES 2REE REESE BE SaERIN SR: SRR SeSORE eSacd eg ee al Rc ae ~ ae See ee. Se iaSE SRE $a BREE Sear SRR

Boeke ES eae aeGan ees Bs Se SRR a=| 2: Eo EE Se See ee BES EE QE a RRS eeee 8 eek, :aeS BR es: Re : SOR eS ak, eeRE “oo *Sse es a RRR nc SRS ee ShihJE ase eee ae Se eR 3Se SERRE RRSS Se ocBe SRRRNN C RC SS SERRE Bee: aee CSR at % SURE SEES Sogo) gt aRRgee Re aRES, sae: ae Pea ONG es :Ske

Reeho SES. | eRRR ee ee SeESEES eee a| ;OR Se . 2EE EES % Ss RENE asAERC SSeSSN NGSe. Se ae ee aNE: Sa pe eee . eee RR: [ee Son SOREN en SRN SENSE aSESS BREST Bee og ssatance “ONS Banta Sng eeRR ~an Oaeen OE Soo aac OE RRS RECS SRR Bae ‘ae “Seeerpose :SR SR ae Bris =24 Roce Te am See RR eeesRRR SR SSS seas. Ta BS siantes ReaRSEN NS “-GEL : ENO 3ESS = SRS suecetneg ree SSE Bonos SER [Sk SR SCSoe eeress SeSRR Seca Vs a snes aS Se .OS SE See F“Re : 32hbsrSes 3REE eRlL 3"RRS RRS keRR SESE: ES. SRR RS RRR Sar: See Seay iis .renee

Bec: ; Beak: SaatP:RE rGEE LS ESSE Ss 4 ee aes REoe 2 Se aSSe OS RS ee RE ae 3 “SEE eeepc See SS - SSeS PoSeee ORR RRS EE es Fe. SeaeES.aaaOE : Bice 4Fs aihoRSree eee So ee eoeeNER Ae ES Sia a ERE eee. &. ss Sie Saag eee ekee SRR, RS CRN NGE

>aSHE te Hag eRe EEE eS. Ee Be. 52 GEER ER OR Ee BOS RR aRO RRR SESS tas SN Bo »ES TARGET B —e SOR aET SEER SRE SR ae SeSee 22? SRE Sa gejttBell ae :Sate *°SRE P > tesERR 3 ORES SRS TRE RRR Bas SES oeaSRS Re SOR RS Be ve eS “3. See AREY ESS 3BRC RR BO CORCORAN ee eos. SE a¥OT 2gga Ta SES 3 Re. See os aoSNCO OES OO SRR AS ee: Ba OPER la¢ :Baise anos 5Ee ane od SE sete eae Soe ae pee eeES Se See ee aa SEN =Bis :Bs ee Ee ae .re ar See Boa RISER. SOCORRO RR CS Ric a ES SERRE RS at aed = . .ge. See FSCO RE Se es Bisreonemnenaconaee 5, TERR ee ee :te ’333 ?BO :=Be =fs Lg aSEE # Fe ;ERT ~Ros: =RE 2a SS RE Sees Be ee Sees SSIS SCN” Bee 3 3 Bs Se ’ Se Sho TE SRR. a SE EEE SR Ss ea PUREE. heme RR s wn eae 3 : Sage, SE 2 | RR 3 SS Se AROSE SERRE ae os eee CO Sg Se . g Eee cee ane ae & RO SES, TERE Beco yg Bt. ee a ee a SRR oo Se Se SRE = ee Ne a co oe .3a og SRR cS Aome RR REEBS Ese ae RRR RRR SR A ee. EO RNRee SRR EO. =SS : ER no EES ES RR SRR SERS RRR SBR EeARS [EER a— -oe 7 os sEs * SRN RS ae SR“SE ioe aie. Basecsicnh cic RRR OE TRE RRSEEE SERS SOON RENIN SER OS Po . Snes 3, RR, | 3 Se ae Se ae wes Se ae EE ER oe Oe me 2. aeSe Co Zee | eee OSes ieee Se RE SERS SSS caneSees aaaSSS RRS ERS ey a ee eh RO Pao SR aPk: Ee aeSSSR ae TESS. RR RS Src nc BES "yey CURR aFsiRS ASE S23 See : RES es See Se See een "RSS RS =CSE .BR Me RNeee RS RR SSReS SEER! CRN SS2Suckuienccineeeane aa ERS ae SS SOE .Sg eee Beant OSS. eee aSEE SR | SERRE Be pane meer ESS OSES ee ¥-xco 6,Re ihenF anaes aca FR. |aSee Re aS, SERRE. USERRA Senge care Rn SY PB ee Gee PR: iSeccue o55 3RSwe 3ceoSSS Ree ee ee SS CES RS RE SS ee RNS SSF OUI RR Se : ” Se OE EE ee ee Sy RSNA A RR + Sa : See Se ee RRR SRRRRSRS OAC Sa SE es So see eS

= ee E Bee NS ES x ae Sa So See Se ae SSS

ZS. BE 53 . See . SE Rog Eee Se ae Se Se Se Se ae ee ESS See 8¥eo ,TRS. ; ae we . Soe 2CsE> See eeEe SS a ee ee ia : a < RR ee SR fo oe . Seeks | ge ation aa | RRS Se SS eae SSR CR Saas oS SSRS Racor an ca x oa “Sse BES Se ee ORES SERRE. RES SENS cS SS SNe ne

came “ aasro go See SSSeo ReSee eo Bo RNRS RS et ay SEREE aR Reames: See enCR see RSE RRS Boe : Bo F St ESS See RSE RRS eeSee Seo eeSRN or ome Sas EE ° . : RE Ress 2 “Se RS ES ees Soe gar aR SERN SSO CREO Reaaeoeae im 7SERS . SS 3 a%pase Ro oe LR eR ESteeS eeacter OSeR SSS ner Resse. : : be % RS SORE esER od SRR Rae NSSR BRO ee Sos - iin SE: SS: ga SOURS SAREE aScSSeS a Re SRE

SS ekg % Ss, aR RSC Seas Bsa CAN Saag eee ESR aS Reece SSoSeemmmS. °SE 2ResRe eeSNS Ee ae ARR SSE SES cS _ees EES RES ky ad Bee BSSaRRR SS Se CSRS, BRCIES SN NRSauackioaes Boees SNRaS RSRE ARC SER+ TES hts RRS SAAN -“: .es Rogaetie Seber eR ee RES Ses $ i Re. ee Be Son oe See SSS SERS = SCS : Red SE age ae eee pe ee ee eS Gee Soe Se pape SSRN TRE: Bas fees oe RRR RR RR gree ese En SRR RRS pee Sea ee ee Reese ES Re oo : 2S ey * oo ae eee eee ae ee Sree SS PUES RS REae a2.Pi JSR CEES Bos SIR ae SRR iSSS SERRE SEE. Re aaa CORSE US RR oo roe aaee Si, SES SORE See See eeoO eeeeee aeSS Fee gnc aS SES ae NEESER Rae Ses, Sa Sie ee ce taeEE) aeeer ie SEES See " x" "0. ERE Pe Ee ee ee eee ee ee ee SORE eee Se SS EE oe ee SRRBSS oR SRR RS. SRR fonureneeatne ern «ae SS eee ae Sie . sone: Rete creme oe, RRR Se ea! Pete RS RR Si eee SR ESS eee Scag : SSeS Bes RS OSS RE Ss SRR ei cece sR xSoRENE aRRBec o.RISgo a gOS ee xSEED WESS Pog Soe: RSE Oe ee ee Ss Ee Rewer aieiee pee ee se eS Beta hae EE RN aCe aS eae te2 RN ee ee EEE Bi eee me Po ee TERS RR NSS ER Ss Ea a + ER & Sve. “ Bago: AES SES hs ae SS 2, AEB RN es SET Sa FRR SENSE 3 Sees cas f.:. IRSESOTRREeORRRRRRRED = WORE CAB CRED Ica RRR SESS RS SESS ee EES Rete Ree. SES RR CORRES NS, Bor. aSeem. San Aes ARR oeoee ERS SERRE ER OSE SHES Re Se Peeee oa thcd Bagh Sea eeae Rear 1Rein OE Ss Seeecaite SAR os SERS SIah RR SO SSE SS gepees CEES Pa OF TS So, eeee i.Scena *ge seh eoRRERE pn ERE SeREE a ce ee eee sea SEAES on er aye Se *Sar Be ROR BS eeSRN NR SESE Pee EN SE Bon sews * ee REE, ™ Po Sa RES SS SR ee ee Pek | Se AR : Sees 3 SERIE Bs~Te Gees Vie eee: as ae:OR ene eee ieeeeees Sao ES SRS Reese : eee a cea one “ = « ¥ Re ESSE ARERR Se isos ms Reon ae SERS ESSE oh Ba Bd 3 * Be bE oe RR ees Uae Rice PERN eons eee Ss vo ona SN : See TS RE.. sake =BBE Some RS (TEESE CoSa Reeee. SERS i. ee ERROs 1 Ee tema . a ee Re oes ig sors = Be i eeFae Boe RES pS Ramccstennens te Sk Spee RRRSSN aces Se aea IESE GEES 2S ES Se Seook i sas; oa ae Pe eeoeSS eeaeOe SR ee

ee = oe = * ie fs yt 8 ee es as are ee Ak EEE aePecet coeB oS= aR FeeOOS ee 2x aSee EER eaSee Se RES os eg See =BPE SS a7caBS ‘the. Se SS LS it SEES ae ee ; cae os 2 es See Re See ee ee ees ie 27 z . ERRSES Se, Ses Se ee eee a ae ee 2S SRB Sa oeoy ar -a ao-oe se Bs OS UN gp ce ReSr aggon: SRESSE . SS 2Bee SE: Sas ae Bae SO aJOE. aRee ee aES Se ee EE RS 7 Seas OR tg ws og Bee See Rane aRee aRR See cae SSIES ey RBS SrRe Se Be gree Soa Creme ae Rad SS ST aSS og ae ee ee yee Se. -_— + SSeS eee rn 2 ES :. SERRA + a oe. SR SRO SESE ieee SS 3 GEE oF : oa SIRE BS Rae RS : Ee i eee SR ee ee Si a ee 2 BEE : fan SF . . . 3 See a Se ee ee LSE HE WERE WOR OSS 5 BREESE oe SO ASSES + SF a. mR ae See ae RR ee RN ae CCE EREER OSS SUA SE thy SSS EES

3. NSeea cas B meet SEER Sp IS ese eeSS eerSs Seee. 5, SRO OR ae RC SEN ne eam co eeeerens Boe og aSSOEE, TOSS Se teSSeS PEELE Soe eeeis hat So ee=eo ARISE Tee TS SEE Se : rage She geNEE Se AUIS “RUE haere er innen neue seen a etes SESS3Se :Ss . WARES ee eine eet mene [EEE Ee SE fag Eo ee oun, SR REN ERTS ea ane inn seasons sana eum ei sin ewe So

SEE Se eaRSE - CESS Eons Se Neh TREES ESEES Ueas? Eeog DoiPEN, we SBECEREREL SESE ERE aty SEESee casemate a, tSEES RR EeTTS eet ISR SS Seco a"IEE SESE EE ete ee ee Se SEE SP EEE FES Sis NEEDLE SE Aonal UE SSEEIE RSE Se OOS. SEXIER TESS TEESERe ESSE SESE, SeBee ae SEEN Shen Hu eaRSSHS SUMED cer SEES CER eS cg eo jhe RES ER, REL CORTESE ag

Beciaine ciate Sania Re Fg ee. Sg)ESS ETSnes Oea SESE SU ace ecgS ced eer Sy FE Oe aeRa HEE sa [EEE SS CEES aeee ie cen Be. REP OR Se Te SSS Senot Se RE Se-een ES SECTS TSE DMS ai eae eee ane 3 Be ee Bee pS Coe ER eefy ee ee Fy as: my BY DAE Ne oS SS ree * Bo ws , RE. OR ION BRE Fi : SS » § . ; an Ss PTs SS FS SER ae — EAT SS ee =Reon See $SESS. eee ae e+3=mS oe ne aad =~. 23 SS & See +s SRS. ¥.2eae rere ae ES. 3se ek ER mA Be GS sa ee IB Behe. %. * ee : Se Se SSS. i . ° ESSEC SA . oS See SSeS = ' s SEER ty ie .a.-E See Se. SESEESESS . # Bee SAKES eh oi a Pees Poco Sea ee TESS on 3ae3See *Fay-Seo Gee See ¥ . -" SEUSS TT NSS aes * SESS ‘ SEES —_—— 3 Se : FeOR fee: ES -

i er Se es a i oe EEO

eS BS US: c= Jae . Be . caer : cS ee 2 ee & ee SS 4 2 ae rears PS a . “ |= RRR SS ys RR feet hte ett OU Soe! Se a GRR RRR ERE a 2ES Se Rs OE eae . ae: Fe. 53. Bee etek eS 2Pipers RSfae oS Sees PeSAE BS OEE Be odete a-aee BFE Ry RE Re % © ee a SE SRR. y 0, : 3 SS ma 4 es ‘ “a i A RES aS oR Get ght tnOt eg, Bey Ou SP NN; ae: IRS. AE 9ORS Neen SEE: Sh =%

RRS RS . ::Sy z:ac ee Ea me Se Sea. el aid Be Ra wy 7 ee © 3 EOS og ES SAS een < ~ a: peceee . ° es 35. * . 7 ELUNE ao Slr oe

aBe oe SR RES a Ree :nite ¥ ets TRS TRL omer re oe Jeen! Sig :e"8 tte petit-oo ae. Safatoe Pog SORE aS “eh aeaS Se: hy, is aamneens es. a: ; Tn * eee pase * Sees _ : wt ete er RE RS PS * : as Re

oe. AnD wate gr ee ee ee i,CSREES Sh, SRR saET - Wt, ee . 8SE Se iano Sons afe . achat a EES en, thy 9 (SSRIS "se mnie, See aaa’ :wee E Fe: EE iesTeh. eS SP A gues fn ie SF erg eS oo adit ages on SER SA oo itt RO nt SE -

Re a MESES ee aBee ae MSR CORR RUNS SR aeA Fann aR SEE IRS. RRS SR SR Fm RR SR © Re ES Ee oe & Rae

.: Same SPOR Ribot 2 oF ck NR Rp ca rs ena ct att ate cet euteiches ES Se SE aime nes cecum eran iawn amnnae techn wines eons aeounnreane seperate sirens gureerse Ss

See CESSES SR ab. BBR ee oe ee tie ones tena ie cata ek eee read

ee Se So ea See ee ae ere eee re FeSea 2—EY Sos Se rn 2 eS ee ee ees

See Be ERE ce ES Ug SRIRAM gna menaeee mrnn cans megane Same ORR ESI ISS Uae SRT RRB Sn Sciatic neh amare enegemnntenogaienic suena due here cniamnneeruemeeeneaed. wun,

Seeae ReeeRee peaeSSferme ee Snare erent crteR RRR RRS SeRe aE,ORR SERS ie RR BS rote CE sseansnnreamesecenees LE SSnian ce Ce NR ee Soa RR Seamer SRE. gs a SS Se ee ee Catena oa commen euenae aneeere ene nenae

BRR BaaeRR ERanu RSciSRR Sain RncaeaeaSree NR Oo RS EO : BRE EES aRe Beis ulti ciaaon ame ae ae se AIO nas eae eg OSS ema en $e Se Ss Sg poaaacomo a ees ee eemate ane eo ae ee ELSES PES e 3 BS unereas SERS rosioenaue eee Meee Rae ee See an Na ec ene ete

Bee ee a RSE Eee SS 0

See Se SE EeBEBeg Sa ERROR ORE AN ZRRAS CSUREA eS SS BRR RESET ERR SRS SRE onStaats RC PERRIN eA SRC NG eSRee & Some Rae a et Bg SesUuaes Sen RS Baa ee OReee RR SESaeRR SER eeeeCERES ers SeAam

Bee Sesce RRR ReRR Bog ReeRF SSNBe CaRE _ apg: RES RRR So aR RRS Begs Re Roe eeeasl aeeiton eeSis ee i Se eeahs Bares Se eR Bd REESE RRaaM eSee “SEs. ESRB y NS Soe ROOESES SRS SS ae Se Na >RES aa “Ns eeee ee See 2s Ree Se Beg See : See * SRE SRG SRG oC Bie Se ae Se See Sa Sen Ce ra Beira eR Ree aSORA Bg RETRO ORS BEES Ee eee aE RO ORO oR OC SR aee aS See a pas See ee eRe BS S., SRR SS:ER: SSNS: aReeSa7eeTREES a EES ESSN Re SE

3: Se ES ee ORE g SERA a BEERS tae ea ee oe aa

Sp SS0S Qe ee Re EEE SEY Hn ane niece Rage Rae Be a SEES = Be) See eee CRNt See RES SOS SR SR Sea Sa SaBe BREE CO A 2 SE ees Renee csiOE eeeennai RRcane ARR - RR Ee Soe a Ro Se: ose SERS CRENOS Savas Rapa See TR Se ES aceSe GeSeane EE Se BROCE SORE REECE RONEN RR icc casa RGR AE’ Se Base RC RR SE PAR Ss SEES SEN — SS ME SR | ASN anata PPR Reed ROR RRR CHS ROR RSMO Sete are CS. Sa ORNS eC Hes SS eee es Na enna ream b- °°, SRR R ROMS Seis TEEEESEE ESSE ERICSSON Bee sereSES neinyare tas nae 2 eeSS eR: Sa Se ES CES pS SS ARES eS: So Sereages es ARR nC RRR eR RSaRRR TI. TARY. SR ee SOON SURO Boron SC RSSt SNEEE ESDISSES: SRSSASS SCE ERAN STEN ea aR Se RN RT TE PRBS SE SRS Pt. ER Bg ES CE 1Sl2eee EREREE: eeREESE MME eee BRSeep. ESS 7Se este TEESE SESS REREESE REREAD MS Seo oRBoe een wena. SEES Se s Eee aS ay a ne

feeLRR E SO ae ee See ee Bee a ee SER es ERE Se UES RSE ORR ::, a eee Sans: a cae Se ae ee Ser ee Bee Se: Bgea[See SR SeeNe = 3 PL eee BeeBd Beg ae 2Pee aa Re See 3 Be BA eet eeLe SEES thes SEES RN Sed See 8 Bo Re Pe % er a RE eS NY CR

Se Bee Re Bg Q SE SEES SEER RsRsSEC ROR QO NR Saag Be aR eeeeBg EEae ESET SSSae: ESE SR SESE eee SSES SPR RRN NEC esBroo Be: RR BE Bg Se Sea NOE aes RR Be Bg CAEEESES SE SORES Sopa 2Se RySRE” Fees: Spec, Ri 3SE Fee NER Bbtrraso od REESE SS SSR BREAN RR ee SeOER: eg CRESS SSSR SEES Soe SSSSC REE ENE NSS NR oe Bo} Bee Boe Ee oe Bag ieee PS fe SA oe Boog BREE, 7 URS ECE oe ECE BELLE SEES eit ee EN ce MBS RS OSES RR Bes Ree nr ae SEE SRE Bas ooo Seen are 8 BBR BR BBS oeSRR See oR Fs Beg Sa .CEE LEESEER CE SESE BE SEES ESNem RSSeSSSR 3 MS RR. Se Bed SECIS Ree Be TREE EERE ES Soe mm eee

i:x SBS Seae aeeeeee EEE esa eGR UTES SOE SSESE RE RES SESE eeeRS Re a Se NERC a See & ho PeSRee SO ROCCO OTS SEO, SR RS Re SRE SNS Soe” SSR eeeee oe Pe Se Bg Spier NS& ° ;By SESSRREN SEE eee

= RRRSa.RRR IonSaas: SE Se Boot SRO OND BREEN ER : 2 ,RRS OS a Se SS Se SUSIE dh 2Brecon 8. cr SOREN resect niesmae eeeeee MRS 33. ¥ Sean Sonar a ON a Se Rpatcecsncoe” an oe +can CRESS RScoumnnnas ca SSeS penis cenaa

2 ee eeea go ee FS Seeee; 3S a SS “AER =Soe | BESS Se

eg Ce ESS See SS SS See ° SSE: es RCO Ns Cs ee ee SS BES SRS FdeIxSkin $$: SEE geSgMS MP Sg Bee eee og aa 4 SSR me aaaz“En bo =:USES es SER ore ed Be CO ae So =RARE SR GR oo SESS eae Ses BE eSsear Bea cd TEE &.. =*Sh, TS SO EEE ee Seo Syet RR: Ea Re On SE ER#EME @ GEES ESN sor eeeRR aracede: eee oe aeee SS peek BoGeF pa SES NSS Stages Sh esiieeeSETS Se SS RsPraar RE Po ofeo. SR UE: REESE SEES ES. Se. ae oe « : gn Seg EL SEYSe SESS TE Bo. SNS ee & , ee 2 2 $f RAS KOT RES ae ER a ns EES SREB SES eens: ae s 7 4 SS 2.0.7 8 SE Fo. CESSES eee ee 7 See Ba 2 gS ERE EO ae “EE SES SS Ea Boob. ae Ree ® Be R BS GR4 UE SS ees, ow eeeagen SESaed a oy S és 2 ogeesReBoy. SoS| HERS) SRE SESS Se

eee ¥ Be RS BRE Ry OEE ee Se

eee ES : = BoMESES. Be &Ep 8aes5FR Rees, JUSS ee poumeetieenannrs YF RR Sat. zBo Re SD FL, Re. OR) CESSES eee — eee 2 Bo 0ees ARS | TES ach, Ee

eee ln ne wt iS to Ess Seo. ome Boo Fue RE Ss. ES ES CES ESS ie 3 neetl RS ce LE GEESE SB :ae Bei 8goer ee £5oe ee=oei: 78ro. a.eeSEce ee ee ee ge a ORISSR OS ESE an Se SSE CRERETE “gees gin CE. SEES ae Sy

Pig ae Eo ES aS 3 OEE 2S 8 oS Ge CRELSSEe CROSh OS SEES

[aeRaAreoSee : Bese, PoME ESpCR SSS EES aRO EUR GEES ISSRUME NG nici TEE SRSA. cies . Ped et hoO¥ SEEES. BOL. Res GRD TEiSRST haiRe eg

SESE tice, 7 ek = : ¢. ES. TES = SE DRe5, RECT SARE L. CUEN: 0 REESE 8 PASCO Seca: Ua, ee es = “ERR. Re SURE coe ASSERTS) GRESS Raia nene Se

See an WBE 2RR “ARS BOR ORE ERS Brocton XS oo Eo Se.Be eeBee REE fie Bhe ae Tho SeOAEE SE RY co SORE ee a nsaetSms SUR RE cybe S RRS SS as SESE ESS

: aes ER OCR= < BS eee ae SOE AES MANS So a .

. .; .TERRES ‘ BeeSERS CRC Re ERR RRNC cn Se :ae.‘ .5 . . .SERRE SRE Seaa NS, SRR RRR ca“s.: : . . SBOE BREEN SSRN. ASTCe RSE a TN ERRORS CC: ISIS Sita seas aCESee oR ~OR 5lnBomar SRS acne ROSES xgS*SRE ‘ Beene ss Gane EEN , RN .ea. ’ cee cetacean! Sak USA SCRE : Funes SS OeMiran SRR ARES, SORE gsTEES 0y+ eo Bos aces eee CREE 2c Sl ST la ASE.

SE 2 RNS ae *yo.s . BBE ERR See st “+, B59 RS a aera SR So ae 7CES RRS.SEE ORG SERES RE SNR ae RS ESS NaSaese So

SERRE RRS SERRE SRN ~ : :

Peee eeee a FE ee a ee: nn ; hc : ao Se NGaaiere REE Us ,’@ Ree Pe See sapere. SERS Oa: RR SR voles a) RT SR nS: *° :: .SERA: ERC ao ee * . :Soa 3: SERRE. ce oe : BE SERRE Se ea : 2 CRESS RR:Pk x ** ot aRS.eee ek ny ESSe Sox Pera: PAROS a *eS < . : ¥ Fy eS aeres Ta Sees SSSRO a. SOE By BESS STEN OY. ON OEE oy

ERR ae Ee SSS .

oe BESSON So or ee Yeo ‘ Be OR ROSES Se Se Been." ASR - * 7s , > et, eee OES SR ;eees

: See. Soper oS RRR OE os Ee. sa™ oe .. Sie: Nee ES Seno GEESE os . Be Sseae RRR SSS. SESE 5 ac SORE ag AeBESS geen Sk RRRs a ae beac: SOR ues - Sees SERRE.Se Sc RRR Nae es aaa SRS Eee gS, eke 5 - 6 a- ,ae eS SRR Se a ok ee SSE . CORR SES Nah Se PRES. ONES o.. "ISRBRRRSS. Saeeeeepeapene. ar tonne ae niga meee age ae

aEs Bites RE RSeee ESO ORRE le SRE: — : Le% "eae rear NCS eS Se” RRS 3 TEER eae een coli RRR

lt. SEES SRRRS Se eco Soe ERS: 4s . “Se SARS ERE Bg REN RS SERRE cs >~ ’ ROM SES SUES SORES SSE A RRR SRE of PPP oRes Se Ones, RE ORES Re oC om =SUR “SER EP RR

.;

rgSosAES ES ry rn a :7 ee BS RRR A OESSR SS i " SEARO 7 +“Pp SES 2S SeaRBBB POSSE SAR aSSO EE + ~

ERS . pore: aUReecs : . Pees otSs a. - , : . ._RES eee a5 .: : ‘os ;*. “ES. / FS 82ae

oa Sr . .BR;. -;.SSPE" Bl a gs Se gee 3.c= Psa“gc xe SEES PE aaeaii iN is Soh a . ee eae a aor SESS SES, ‘ pecan TEESE ae * Ear See

OSE Be =

3 -— : Be

ot ran “Se

ee La

ee ea a £2 a ee a eee SURED SRE bs Roles hs EER Fe

EESSean SESS, gett ., Fees: EeEe a 2Boo Ne SEE

oie hee gsi SER ad :Te : SEES: CRESS RARooEshtshoeERE AOR oe eee eee Soo ee 9ons SSai: |~:: Pattee eeeee onan ° RR SC Sit ERO Nee aes gerne eae aa eee oat hitb egg gi : :

SRS SS SsPRR teeeaRR Ph ee ee .: .“OE Pace SS SON RR SR oa DSRana or ROR 2 SESS See oO sees SS SSE SSRS RSET ERR SR rac PRR eee pO RON Go nc SRR we Epa ERR See See EU aesROMEO ee a SEE eeSe FEok Oe RI Sana : Whos Pe BS Sree Se EP SES os a Fie SES SRE UE — cia ee . Pe 2 EY ERR SER Be et gs Re s as ee ei . Feo 2 SESE ERE Pest 22 ENE ee . Pe Sikes : Rack ES RE ee : Be: et

Po J ER ee es Oeahsee-

ee

RawANSE SSNPeSUE ote egeniARR ih Eeeb ee Fee eee Ba RRR oSoo Sa _ RnR ES PCiee: 2caaa saa - oh Pie OSES SE RE Bs esSane ee aetaaesaseee Se nesta + JESSE ay Fas Sinaee stern Sheets ME EEA A SP SSSI acstes wetne SSIS AE AAS EEE OS RT.SSS Mae ES RS" got ae = 2 HE: Pose 02 US SESS AB Saas : se RES . a ToDpy PUIBESURS oy coe Ce ke Pd ” wo. ils aee BeoR aeOR ne TERE Le oe :-: : “loa (SS sgt 23S, wo Be BBP Be : aes LES : :1:RES TEES ye ~age 5 a 2 Se ee ML x oa Ber ces SRSE on RRR SS See 0 - Seaaos WS Ae Fe ON RRM ~oS Bo SEMEN ccs Clea ~ oe septbecaccatecerrceesbenes siete te, < .wee re Ph ‘ a oe hd . Bee ¥leSee is BS. RIScei aictttgectenre,,"* agee cer UID acatistees ee TER,

ere ae se dg - a ae BS pe a

i a ee ee

os ey tc.ic,See = PRESS SeRE : he 7 sOso cS*RR eae Be EERE a oeIES -. SOS a gh : = ep. “SRRS Sameera cae Be enhancing linia tye wadeye Tatas Ae g(t ie URES SAS

~MEE gt bog TRESS. RR Se Sea mit naye sett IATRe URSSE LE gh A, IIS ae Ug TAS og. Bea sn.eae aaeae eanmaeaaimentnee ceee NS th eee Set os * Rae EES Ba Sune >. BRB ee ae: SRR Bos SLE OI, TS SS He*>ee a3 Lo ee eesai, : SEM Bes SgDo eins at,ANSE Se Se aod Ss eR RRS Saar arcs seer einen RMB ne eto an ; % “ Be Ree Beis oe SERCO RES oR eae RE COR TRS OOS

a S a 3 SER ooo ace teaee cain aan elena te estas See tne atti SURES Uf shih 2 cuits. =

. i . Bee ee Ma Be Ee ea ee2c eat SAS Se OS: Se. Bi ER a «‘ oo ..2 # Yx: aS Se me. PRR SS SPEER 2Lay BeBess Re Ri UP SSERTIEL Seee CeeNe oo - 3A “SEE aERASERS eee . te i. SES TEESE Se ’ SOME: owe “HEP Sg Bee « re , ere Ee ae . ea ee = 2” SER .EEE SeetSeer SARS ee“. : OR a Se ‘ie Pa Ba : “TES

4 See ASS SERA Es €Nae RS: 6aeSwa be *eed CO‘Me . 2 BSS Fiero FR: eeOy Bie2SS 38 tS RK Oe.aeeSoh emaSP e:4oe “e nt Bs RS Syoe eo Ne OS ee a ee $9 cS ern ay, we & Re ealES weeSeo OS Se tie 3ee i jee ES EO

4be,“ok 5~~eeeor r eemee “Seta (aoe wee NC. |7sSIRS Se, “aeuarer ae aorésOkime fo — 3Ey =ieSs —|Root a— : Ses , é aeSe. Be gncGe 3pe* ERR ie TSE Baa R,ar Pageite. BREE 20S See oerGe -~ RE OP Es nga wee Se a earns “Ss eS ge 2a.=2 _— be ayo L4 OMe es! fee MO PU ges Sy? “ees aA ae” Ss alec” AeSeeemo os oe og Se »Sa s >RR alese ©eS: 3 %& AAO Re a 3) REL TS ae OSA DMs. Bo EEE OOD Sg ER ae AS Fi is 2. ee : f = Se Pa Ser ba a $, “KONO” y RS Be on REA 2 | RS YER OC se ee . Bee fee ef “as ee. Pi ies PS eg eee ai Re as -ge . 5:See +‘Te es penne Og i MO eeesi oe PER e Le SSORE EE cBeS NR a ‘eae. . ai EE ae %,1S _gegen Fees ES.Mina eae oe peoe Bee: ME on * _ -+SS "sees 2an figtee. EE, 3 ELS eee SC pn. 3, : WoT: bts ee a Pe egy cy Oe RS SO} TERS >i” 2 2? aoN Bio BOS >RRL WEP. of; ETB Gn Ree eee, cet a uO Re eee se ee ae Se eebe.ea ea Foy) eS Pe ia Ana Rie EHS ee aa EO Ny eee ™ ae * Rais AB gos : Set ps eo eee ee i fed & CRETE s rae, i iE EGE ee 8 ane | . « SOBs z 8 ee, 2& goa? RRFY 5 BERg wieBR . NeyO iw. IE iCSe ee fer Be Oe cefeheer DSaaa Re ees Os Poeo . eee oe7 | ’¥=: Sipe "»iaFees ,SEO i£. Sea ner ae yee ee ee soe ‘s O°” Fh wo Fe& pce ni’. oy? as samen BSR Sa oO : SESSNS SE 6:apeageeeres San essbA,EE % Re fe gs Serer Y. aw “a, EY Fs eras _woe Ritcc. are :NS Pry HS 4* we ANE . are Be AS.eel NFER EES ogwt Hii ONS er ict 7 a a“Tg i Re aeee, 2 eo gee fe; 5 oe . a 2S 4 ences Pie Se a2. +R th . eae ie * aopeoceebeeee sre ae We Sth) Seren , .i . ae iii} iy. wee 38 a . we Sa Bee BS EBS, Se 2?

% . Ao. Se peceSien, «MERA wets, Bn .

a — SORE an) eee . WER RR A ae 2 we oe S “ye co * aS ‘ Sg. ws SSO Camere, Ve Le me [a =: a : & “ibn 28. tee _

an . oY ye ee VAD Ge pA ae. fey eek ce i ee “e gee7PF_Ps- ee costes aN& ONS Sec See 2 ed . pee ‘ q .oe sessSON Ne . a Sea 7 SRE Os t ° +: Se ESS Be 2. ow SERS SE TRERE SRPS ea . » [Ser csayeoc rev a"yee ee me ee So ee ee Ft> : Pye eeSe eS— SEs EEE eR ea eS . . ayy tr » Pre we re es = Be ee eres x. 8 pmeee Sr S RRR Re — aes a ee a ee e | ie fF lk i eee ee ke or Ke ee oe oe” le dae wh Oire hae ® Fe mee F ee See eee ee haa 2OeSe ae Malo Fe RAs RE RR coe se a x ae _ Fg i 3 eS eee ee es ac eee = So le ar. Ae S ie SJ og GE eee ee re oe & raf ee el — ” Se ag ‘ 4 4 Be «8 RES Se. a eq we ———— ) y a ae: ao oiBEpeel ee >aeceeSee o gree @ : SaOE OP &a a2; aa SS aera 4m RRM: 8 GR SER BgPa eeea ee a a 8ge”aBe-a=ee * Bk Be» .2o° tee. ee a a aoe SRS aa©* "- RR Raa 5. a ee SHEE URgal RSS2cai : enecar Se. RE SSOg wee aeBO & CBR Ba eee: re Oe ee a eee RR Re ee Bas ~ a . Se 4 Sy be 3 age Gs ee he ge sae > 2a io ae

ee — et ao a ee

ee ee ee ee gas , * aa ae */: ) 300Ge 4 Pe one — oreSoe ee ;eae” ee as es eS CUO an eh gy RR 2a eee ee ee -... ee yy -—esa re _. sOre: /. Se a Bae Be eos CO

Ce aS ae es = ae geeks oe ee ee a eS a RE oe Pas 5 & % 5 oe Signa oe ORS ee eg ee ee Se = =a: | SS (eg ae” BELer ac2SSeeSeSe! oe oe ieeeES Si ga OE5pik cea °: aie : cetly ekSee ee See ea RES myeeEE eeee"Sha %.aee ae Sk ~~... a —ieOS Se ee ee: oe . . RE RS saé’ RC £& RWS eS a Fee Re. EE Se eeKBER. . SS :aeoes “Es

q ERE, “ ee ee Bese cae) Sy Re caillitite: Be Sieg os Bee

SEE eaeGR oo Seeeaenaeel BGS gee Ro: Bsc atcaeee Baers Bea Be cea a ae SORES EIS. ae ae pe RS SESS oe . pesp.eS ge oe ea oes Meaty MS othe Pa Bern Sohne SN Eames-

Begs J ’ RRR Se

Ss

.

B RS ER RES pee 3 ERR OSS co. cea SSE ca ‘ .mRonseeee 3 Boasaoa eeeroer

oe ‘SELESee Or RN SRO, . : ec aa08 skSERRE oe ee TR eeeat re ee : Cee ae SE aes : OO aetitmete Pi thke EL 4 BON Re Rao iat ge ae gue ee a SASS Se APRRENS Poh ® : ~ . p Pe th ee ee SRR Sy EES. ae JE BR : Ty . a eee RESEReRRR ts, pone ° TE

SRE RARER CSE aS Eg te ON ohne Bee Td :

SiHlRb

: ee eee eR Ne Bee es

7 EES SESE SSS Be : es aeOR SERRRC RO Bes CORES : CUSTER eS 3Bee Seo Ee Coa HnORR SESE EES SR RC Boe pape OPER 8 ; Bee SS 3Seg er oa ee ro ne RC a pea 2Spear SSE SEES REN Be (ASE : SEDER re reRS LS aRe. Be Be

Bo Se : Sige ey STARR th cheat Ree Beoevene i ace + Cate 1 SERIE SEER TSR Sa Be -| perenne Sure Beier meena snSORE RRAa Re Boece SRE

fe oe a a Pe SS ae Bs: a oe SORES: SSE SSNEERae BSES. Ses SRST SEEINIE CITES RESseeeee ae ct SENe eae ae

ESSISSIISS STIee SOS Guevara eee pepe Fe Se DeTSE CESSES esRRR eee ReSo Weterete ee Bo USSSA SS Sion SE, BS Boe SOR. EL IP SSR SSIES SSR RES [le : Si OSS Ee cUSI REESE se as Do SESere Be ee Bee:

araoss ERT STE RRR ORO SOR Be ce aed Sag2SEE MSE Secote ee Bee oo ELSES CES 4 aces Bes eeRand TS 3S aa ‘ pes siti RES aa RRS RR is 33ea ag

hE [osc Pea LISS SEI a eO er Bers: bhfg coho EES SSS SSS SSSR a .pate Boe wet oe USERS SEES See asus eei S eae Be Mi SALESERS SEE Per Reone NCaaa eRe eeERR 9Res :SEES oeaes SECEDE RSS RRR ES Be : Tee zoeanBoe: Be

: Ma Oe TE ee PeNe : aBS Beaeoe ereSun eM RRR aES|: SES Srey dof SSE ERS : Eq Be Se EEE SERS” SESE SES Be ee Bee SEES SS SAAS “ Bs Re oS (OAS ge SRSSS SUS RS SOaa °c, TOES aaa SE. < Ske gt a 4 B :y eo & % :BO BESS ae .Bee aaoe aese x4 a eng aPeres Ee | Sa Raa EE BS: 4fqEOS Bren. See SS ROR Rea ee . RES... ee REET eee 3 % Bere | SSS. Bee Se 2 EEE ceo * eeSe ee. eS RE i,re REE: ial Bee Be. eeFg esIR aS |nC Bs RS Sa Oe RRR SNES 3F‘hoBec. SR ae Bie RRR Xe ae ee Cl Re ee ee “Ee: ee. oS TR ce wegen See Sees Ea ee Te MRE. saeets Se NS C‘Seek ae aRS: Pee TER. i Bo ee ao: a ee ae 3K & ie. SREES. a “eS a Sees SEE BS ERE feREE Sear Peeoo “Seeae Be See ‘:: iJ BS RE sa a 3 oO ‘See PERE oe Sas eee wee 3 SE WR: Sore i ae “aie . , oe ERR eee “Re Me RRR 2 A BOO Bo ee eS TR Ree a a I [1]aS Ta :teFeros * ge SORBED TER oe RaOee eee esiioee Bie oe,ay eats Se ae sf 5: da u aie SO eS ae a 2c 0 aSEES

— eats Men eee Seoc aR Shauna eR RN . sence Bio a a SOIR Et SESS SRE OR RRS

.eeat. afheasEES - SeUAL Ea Bess me (oS RES Seats sana reaOe receepate ce ikea aaere BBae SesOTe URS SSIRReES aeenmeeice ee Soe aNSe oS EES ES 3 Ug IRS ES : JOSS OSS a a etree. TEE SES Re SR eee eee ncaa nS gS IERES Ei hes oe Toh Ro SBieeaeeeeonas. earner ert Oe eR EERE Se eee SES Le [Ug WEES i SBE 3 : x Se Re eam ce SS SES ae aes Po mee EE JUS 21) Se See cig Ei GEESE RSS SES RSssSS ea BRS chen -DEE UTEP Gane nS oeSe Bape ipEERE Son whSESRE “OEE CE2: Ree ie OR aR oR mane Se ae SR ~SaRee eSESE S OES SSN IES? : MERE Siesccccoaanr ERS oss SEE SER epost SHER CESSES SS aES . hay - Sn LEE, : SSIS :SESe SNR *SoS. ERS: EASE ESSER SESS ee aeons tec SNR Scee eReng a SCR OR oars SEE PSs : USS :ee_:Sock ceo ee SE "ELSSE Sa Se Seaue aSRS Neaes eee LT Seis RRS 2) EE ReBe “;Ke 2SSEE REESE ORoR. RR NTO BRR Nee eee oe : TEATERTA TSE AES EE ee a Ee eee Pats Sua SAS Sea 5 “WEEE es : SESS a Ee 2S RRS ea ee Sees At See Se a ees aon . fen ge a SES eo : Ee AE RRS | VLE Se See see em Gey Sw Siete nama nN aonsiecevemctngo ey An SE A ES 3 We 2 SR Sec : SR Urs TEESE. 7, RS RoR SER eee eae Sc 1 SEL ROR Se . Eg Re Mee sa a crease Se SRR each reineine see-eeSSSR fy EERE Th WIANSUE Eee! oan CNEEII EER RE (EEE SENe RR COCR OS sagem PERG cen Sone eee STF SEE, cee Schade . fie) : 2)JT SSS seins Se ee eeSehuy ees Bees Baoan erent een — SEECSRS MAES SEL wae LSE SRE RE [REESE SCREess Ca CC RSE Eee Seca Ye SERED HERS] SEI. |phautint etASSO pono fas VS RUS 3SU ieee a See SC BREESG acme ac oisrceih oo* :noe a INULLRESSESs gn) skisJgre cent Ao SeberSS HY. CGnISegn ea SsSREE-. Bie ta 2S aaa Sees Sasseree tonsa SS ricaEee te SES Sctate ne SEE ES BR TE URE TSESS CS tN LSS a Se . Seer cere ee er Ee PRO aCe eeeee ae a Pe . .CESSES BL SSSREECE etees SRS ee Beier Rnxy°Seen ne oan Me aE BR eee ee oP ie ieoe : SMart OSS SES Seanes en Bayo cease ESee akeAIA peter eete LENE SERE : IES: EMSSSE EES ae 7 :Sees RNR SRR L Sg Fa EEE SES8 Seco eames ana RN ncnes SERRE RP IaOM: SALES SEES oe .Basin 20> LESSER eeae ee ee

Beare esccenaanest “oe Secaigpearmetion cos ce Ue Ss ot ML EERE Pa SeeemCmoaney SS: . {OEE Eanes SeaNNT ee Be crA~ ORINOCO RIN”... a ce a ; hee adccgnieh 2. HY TEmcite Raa Se REI : 2 Reg rolehtsDERE Sona SERRE OE RU

BS tener eeeenn | EE finesTENSES oe vt 0 : CSRS. USSR TSE In a SET nn sete:SEIS a. . i CEE a — aes RR UO EIS SERSee ROene NSESee SER Ree: SOON 3SoeooeeeSean SC aR Seo UMTS JURE. ORR : CEERI 2hEE SERASS ne eee

PERE NERO eau tirigWi deen TeSoSTE ah) RS RS2M 17OMS Un RRR ae Sa oo pecan ES Te Fe SSueeae seeScenes ee ane Sa RR OR CEE RRR Ra SSE inaeEE ARSE Ree esis nae BERGER ears manic wie SAY ERE GR EO SEY LL a ee Been aeSUA SEE geSe PRS NG SER CRN ceeCSREES ie oes wane nae oe:Sennen “SE SoLeU AEE LS Ses See Saeco: Boe aSe SR EoBors AER: “SEES eee Rome oaan josie caasan SoSS SEES SORES SIS Be Ra a . Soegasesernees EEE ga) Sx ee Ron isnepein nasser mons : TEE IEICE EI SESo “hes CSRS ‘SRSA. ORES SE2EEE EESEER SESE SR aS ORRO eRee ROR Se SUSE Se EES fp SE TTLLLR. A LU ee ou, SSS ES. SR Sec” Seman TERESA ARS See eS ee SERRE UES SSE ec CREUSET Ss Tht CATES ARE SEL SRR Tapers. aaa VEY UES RR RS RR EE ROARS oe Roe oD a ge fe oI SSnonce SSSRE eh aiS UE A Bes eae Sopreeshaeessemecee eSeaoaeeeaaeeaS TEERRESTSEE LAS TSS RS SS RASS ieoeo SEAS TESS EES (ESC UR ee es ae BSS coer 2 Dae : CET Sethe SSReet SSNS gue aa=SES urs sea ae oe EE: Seaham ISDS EELIU. ESEEES SE S TSD be ete See SBaeiiaaaeteess *-.. SS Fg SPE 2 DESC SSSR Ree ae :TEL - CEES eeSAed ee Be oad GS . -See cs SESS EESSRPn ea ea eeSeaSSarea SEE wenn Jt RE See. SEERee ESSER ee =ces SERIO ah SSae ORene ie eeane eee eete en

SE ieeeDy :ged JOSS U0 AUS Bene SR SE ESS SISTER THERESE oR GREP AEE pe in USE SEAS aeRB SS aaaOREN aaoe ma ar ESSN RRRES NRE PRERe Li2Soe Se at Be ih Ge SOO APES Eu SS SP aSSS: SE So7SROs... oe oa:Se. 7 fe Je TERIOR § es BRE ; EE SOS SEA) Se eS mc PPE SE EE ES FEE peeoo.eo fiSE eeSc UREE (ES iBH SESS ee RR eeaeee. aeSait ae Se SESS SEES SN SSS SS BEES SE : CREE the So CSREES nos SCR So RRR SSS. oh EES SRR RR EASES oe Tog, UT ea a Be Rg SS a wb Remenon SSS BS SEE es ae eee Boe a SUBS US oi See ae Sotieeempec ae : 2S RRESSS SESS SRSESSRSSEE SS RO TIRE ES PS a mS GOES GRIN SELLS nh CREE SSSR ES roe TERETE, Ree: ROXIE S One euikteasesueas ann See ener siehtecassases DESERESEEESES REL ecOOUEED Tit aoa : . hoeETL ESS SE RSOSE, SESE SESERSS. SSR SCC SERCO ss ane CRORE ners Soci cea SSoe EEA RR oo Seee rr ee SESE SE Se: fens RES NE hs SRR aa ES Sea : SEES A eee SE es ec st SRR Se SESE Ete RSE, SCRE SSeS aaa icone sneer Be Raman oS ae ea SAE. SEES SSN Rina eaeeeeee ee ane RS EES con z foils SERRE TSE RS ec ar BRR ooo kbeEREIES RES ES EE SR RR R RE UN Su So : : Ug RSS Si coc ~ SRR So Se EES Se oem eee ee SEE Re a ° : 2 eh: SESESAE RSS SSS ics See RRR SEES SS ER REN ee ee ee sea eouientnaense Sine so: z i SST TANF SES acne Soe Se a RRR coe [AES ERS RR ORO RRO Sieh eee eee Ree ee ee Ses “Eg ; ogg SP ESE ES eee a Be RRR ER a CEE, PS Se GN EO CMs ae Eee SNC ea CS SS : 2oA SERSRSSS BESS vent cc aise UN “ER a eosere Sec RS RR USE SSS OR Sc ORARU RAO peeece -TSS Oe SSSR RSEee SSSate eases oceans es SRE REE SASSER CS SEG ORNS RS ere SESE: aR eo ge : Sicha MISTRESS REE SS ear at aes Soar oe CERES SEE TRS ee cate SEbc. 7 SERRE spent So aieagnnenaaen Se SNe Se Ss

he Nanna cious Saree 3aSSS 2, SS PES ERR en ac |Se SRRSESSS RRR Saas - WO. EEE SESS SE Ce RRR eee Sheen SESE aa SESS ce2Looc Res LST oeeaten Bo iseREEE Ree Sees SeMine Sinan teatime . . wos 28SBEI BSE ER SRR cae EER SoS, SRESRREESSEEIISNT RRScnc {UE Ra SaSe Se cause eeeS ee ene ns eeeee Sn gece ItechSee UT i : aE. IS 2 REE SSRIS ee 3RSeS eeENS SenneREEES aeeJUD I Bae SESSA Sean REaes coins ca ee

SEES ES SEES 3ai oe SSSR RS ARERR Ree a 2 UE SESES EEE RR OR RnR ANSE EESESE Tidy SEES. Ingham SERRE SRR ieeeSERRE | SEE OESSSE, SeeRe ee SN 3 Ssone OM SR RRL ER RESUS aMMS Bonet 0 7HET ARES ee... peOca eeSEN ee ence ny ete Senos gays UES ose : URE ES Seti SRC DOS ER RMR EN ON OO SRN SC RAR EERE “SRE ca aoa bas 32S RR SRS SS NR Paice See Sa a

Beacnsneicnec SEEN SASS CCSEESTo AAS Ss SSS Sahel “Ug Be US 28SE gee SeeHate RR coe ES ue TARE ee :Se JOS See : Baa Saasmea oR aaceon SO ROO ERO RE eo SEES ee :Be ao ae CPREARS RS" nsRS EIS SR io oo SeRea 3educa Bee SORE Se see etc ornee ae SES 2 esShea ae aris ER GeeUES ees Rook. . SeeRSESS Rm Se SasSO * SRS. epee ee : eR ~_ SERRE RR saunas memmneiersee neers ma Se

ee : ee Or Res ae So ee

EAS coe See ei RUS : CEES Saree area mae e Ra REELS aaaSRS Bs. : SEE oe aeRSSS ee:RE ene Fa aoe iaSEREIEES RC a 9SieS 7 See SERS SsSe TERRES -_ |SS OSS Y . er een ag Bann Rea Rae nea a LORE Re SS POOR OMRRERS oes2a Sa BONUS ERE SR RRR RR AR Se Uo Ie TEESE De aSee ae aeeieeseseeesesssare : SERSES «RRR ea ees =eeSaat ES SErer Ss SERS ESS he ce Jn Se oma eet 3 sae SELES RS Shannan nn peaR a ena pesnnnuannn te nr SEE cena ecmee. 1 vaD ISRER SES SRR ect coc esnatensias au meen tease nue nai cecnnunisamneeemeetaemm eae

SEE aSion ee : (EP EALOSS ESE Re eeoe .ERRERES. °c:ste 2CRESS: iSOIR Sie ee gig crscennttot anata eines cient osGEIS . Ss See : 2See tench SERSGRECNS TSRSe SS eee :eS Bee.RRR Baa ee PR Se SESEEESS SN: OUST ER eecsHo anata ene numage ee Se ea BRS OS oS::ena . 2D0 SUEE EERE See EEE Ros Sar Site SENG SE Se SEES fs JSS CEES ee CREE RRR eases. |S SE rece Ronen See Se SLRS ee SEER. SRR era oS RRS SS Se i SS REA neat ae.nc: Sno ES RSS RRS Bess Sooo SoS TEES OSES Seeman Settee, fe Paen SEE icas oeose iia a SS ,PROPER. BOS SSE Sie ECE SS SENS SCR SS 3 DOSES ee ee ea es aeI ee co_. EEE Sa eee a RO SES SS DGS SLE Se eee aRRSORORUSR anes LSse :“REUSE RESP EES Us SERS oe “ne:Sees ..: NOSES Sol, (ESET RS CREE ELE so Eppes osoeeae “handgun! SESE ee cS eee Sees Se ae Seine : ie 2 RE es ee SS eae eect eee a eee SARE SS Se accra ean Sli) . nA 2 Se Pe Re Beenie oR aap RS. SRR RES: ” °C a RE ROTC SERS SESE SORES Osan ee een BRN ae Scene JOSHI OR RR Rene SERBREERE "SESS ec zi 2 SS 3 Eas BESGRECORES. | ERR eects ees fa RR SRR crea ee a Se Pesce sieicinnrinnsuseoanec Race SEE ee Reon Pp ae SOND DESL SS oy etna SES SRR SEES ae RS EE So ERR SE oe cea 7 DEERE Seen SRE eerie COSTS SSE Ea RR SS ee SES ee Bene —ocree osRRR Saree RES COSTE Eg ee SOE EES SE - RRS Sa cere RRR cng eC AE2S SERRE ee iereamaeens tS a ees : JARRE ER eReSE docs SS Se Soeee Se - Boece SO eee ace TREES 9S cessco 7Oe SE aa oe URS OE RESS Se oR SaSe eSRRR caine SS SRREEESGEEE ici RERRMEERERS ota eeaenntn enn canna oanee“ -ASL SREgo SRR meme. Praia SSSS Sg Bae oS ce Bs OSE eechao SacaeoR Sheen: ae Se Bee UNSURE eS Se SRR Saar aen ; ae Se Beinn ce aSR JESSE. cee 0) UES Ses ES SSD EES eS ee ed ce SUSE eR als SRS REE es EES SRE SaEES: Sore ene Neate eeSete RR EEE Sin Soa me : ae ae SOR cates | RECESS 2Set[oo SESE Beoeae oe RBS noe SO ages omer SEES ecera SR RSSESS SESSo eeees uote SURRERESSEEE SRLo ea aha eee on EE CE SMM einstein 2 Seni EEE ech arnt tanaenatadigrenens enueRE SoS eSSe acibeeeee es Be ae 2oe ESS a Seep nan nero RR A oN” ea RRS Bein nietAcient yoann eae ian uate enon SEES Re A :ESE Se eee RRR SS CERES RRR ESSE So tigen eerste pacar . Shag eaene Se2 Lente Se SRE ceeec : Sie =eetSRSA Ron inane sees . Sonoran SEE :Se Ses zy persian ici gaunt heniaeneentens Se,ds SEci

SESS Seences ae oe 2. se Beened Sa "SRR SeniRe Se eeteee cee wtpee RGSSSR RES oe eeLS : oe asics deere netsnen catenins BSE Shree aewhe eR es RE gO SERS ER SEES eee oa : Sl Bes enneem seagate natn Sa eee SORRY ORE ee Se eeESOS ec “fBi aoct he an“TORS teesana nee ets Se SOROS Reeatitengenec ne aes oS me PSR SO oh. Ee enSS RE Se SEES SSS eRe iyae ag Be , LL Boo tren tnge niaueeemanenonseanuneecieiie aanRR ee PRC serene nee . tsBee Se Gene NR reaera RR SER aes ae | Be: t Be aRae RRO OS eeERS CG “Paes Bec aS Sect... Been bprnnoe enSRR eaE7a SRR Na A RNCSREES SRR: RRR re eS gona inineeh sumuueenits cocianrenune ate SSE nn aR ne nineirrcieee SeS Bao Se ee SRS SR ee a Og Beato ounce niacin aur Ee SAR Oe : 2 JES SEER JERSE RRR eS Bes Se cohiiunciameaanians seen aeia ee NE Sa Se Se ce eae SERS: SESS Rage TS SE Se ee STRESSES: | aaa eee Be fog gon iuhueneniu mun fenienege nan tunica ae SESS ae es CSC ONT RC [SRE ers SUNS ao Se A AO . TERRES | oR aaa ee ees: Bion DRS eee cee! SEE ERA ee omits LM ea Brose Sa an ee SE Erne | SRR) ERR a ee BS . pee: peut tannins saat unease RS anSe Seaee 7B(EERE ee ScES SEES OURS Be i oo seeeauma Bea noestenrgariccmntesageaeniate ease Res. ONS ec Do GRR SURES RASS Rh Reema SEES SSSR seen BESS oot : "TS Se Sceaasemee Rec ene Se ee ee osNN Senate SLE all Sy EEE SSS eoa TEESE. SSE 7CORRES eee Berrie een Beano Bes ts inch SeESE bese ans Sea SIRS ORCAS GEN x Srercenn UISSRN CCRRREEESSS oenee 2 SE Seine taienrsnnisoetnnnnnnnss Se SEES SRS Sosoetact aeRO” qOe TEES NN 2SRR IRIS SeeBesse eae. TERROR RRS aiedaetauuennenhoomnnunneemtentee 2 ies “SOS SOR easens ORCS SSS eS Se Santee Se 3EER SSE SAU SEES RRR ean eee SEE SREES eae Beeee arinineunninuchegitnewaceeee nent SURSESS Ian meme agNe SSEaes ageaoeaate Ne aaSEER “IESEEEREREST c__: RRS = eee sora as sas Be eens Jo Re all [CESS «pees Se BROT generat sescenuattnteeenesen cheese 1) RES Seep Se ee’TEE "SOSee SEE es 3 CSEESS SEES | ohicihniens 7RE Re a Nai nN DNS eae SERS an

a.

2Eee USS peace SRE i ee rePee SREeS SS Se ae .Soe eee aR soe CE oesee :nt3ORE TSS nt e7 :HEURES SUNRISE =Bc pci SERRE EY bes Nees sn RR encore SE ceNN ES aRRR RRR 5 oe : Sa EEE Sn ek hed Seams kc, Se RR ns SD SESE es ss pocmmeranenn Sa TREO SRS SS SS coc Be RRR EE Pa z 2 SENS UES SYR we Se ee ee LS Popcorn er rsn roe e i Soon, Safer ILS, El, aa. SRR 2h ESS eee SS aa Fas hh eM CSE SUSES CoE ee: ee Syoe: :So EE RRS Sees 2H EESSE SSR NG sepe aSe: Bs EE SeGES OSE ' See fio: ne STINET a1s{So 7 aR DEE eo aoeRR onStanaam oNBS. Poaac Rec:

~a a—he SS ee ae a ae Be ee a 3 6 (Sag ’ Se oe EERO ES es : :

Es SEES JE:oe:=,Bee eE :: 7D Be 2SORE BROS See MR eae1 nee eae’:- EERE an S SE veo MIRE Eh SSN rec co2eee | ie aa SASL So es OEE E : EES coo, REE BeAIR gg 8SS. EEE Bo

: ae at . Se Be NS ee Pee aE 3 SEE ri

ON Sha SNS teens gt?fo(CSS we SeeSEES . > oPDIeneicivar Be. Re SEE SARE SS.DS SR SS . Roe pe : SSSI SSRIS ESL aeHELIS oa ‘ SSS MAERESSN BitaSee Se PSM RRO[Se SSNS NERO RRR Ss Bo ORES wet Siaie SIPS SESS See BESRRR SSE NRE eee oem Bs Be HR ae

e SEEMS SUS: SMR EES Bee oS BOE ESE Sa . 2: a I

PME RA 2cee USE: Ba sen Pe ee Ree aSCiSESE aMeeae OEE oy, UE RgSe nbs oa SN Res Soe cE .ee RRR “See. DRESS SS ES USSSOSRRE SE 8Sie :GE Se :SEEESSSE ae :ee 5s : :. wage 8SoS TORTIE EEEDOEESSEU SEESee Led Seve RESET cat eat By eres teamnera San SSe Soe oh RRR cas hee TE DSU EIS paeansness 7 Os SEM oo SURED WHEE .De ohct SS seas ae LEST SIE CRIS RS oa 7 Bt EET ESSER 2 TEE. ULES. SIN Lb SSeS Ts es 7 og es Boast oo RR ee of > DR eee SEESe SE See RE 2 Swe. Jag 7 WUE AA a aes. . ae ee oe Bo RAS TS SARE Ree AS TESTER igs ote eeea by SEES SSESES es SEesase camino.To osEEE BoSRR RRR TSE: SERRE ScSSUES aeOIE eeSSeS: eecesoe BAS SE oS aRES SSEE osem Ba (SESS LOIRE, mo: Be itis z SAREE SESS SITS TESS NC RR *ae: 3m3 >RSSL SEES eR HERES EL ae cseo, oo TESS

SetheCEE SE |ho TOS SEE SRE coeSe EeLeae Go SSeSRR Se Recordi So RRR SSS SERRE URNS 2EER OUEST fOMEERGIIIATN SEAT eed Ae no3UO CROMIALAT SIAR SUEESY . ETRE Beefia, cee: RRR Sh: SN SEES EARS SS Roarnce eee eens eeCSUETSERESS Se, 3“ie SCncREELai: -ceInIMRSiees T! an: SS SRE. Sm a ". . SEES SREEER) CASE Co; See UES. EEE 2pie Soe RRR eo Sch EERE {eRe 0cess» IESE neRRS sane oe Soe = F3 ::So) RY PES wens Pe Bo eae SEO?SEU. Eee HESS Se Soemmn...eemommnuaneras eg “Le: * RS SS PeCEO ER Se Ca aa SESSo0 . SSR cee Shue RE Bee Seee ee ag AES. ee PUSS Fn RRR Sess oe S a2 SSSR TOES ERAGE: as oe cae RES SEES: Se. 4 SI EERE oe a.” SSE eso SRE RSS oR : s SE CA fy ch, DRESSERS vss cote eo SORE se S Pos SESE 7 EE SSS eae a ~ GES Eg TE EES ge. . Bee EERE Re : SERS: Se: eee eaeBese hy aa he Se:EEO ae . HSE SNES OU oth - Bie SEU ESSE. GEE : SERS 7Bacon FEES ees Se Ee SAREE COS, Sis ot Re TERE SRR RRR+ SE ERS Se Bren See SSE ee _ spies SER SSeS USERS SRE” SRE SoRe Seeee RS oe ONS : RE ae Es ae Sage sO _puercnnnns TUSSUARESS SURES OSSSER SSE dis

ANE oe ; cee me oe : _ gees ee PES, ee ee ee See ee eS2eeARERR =o, : oe. FS aR aoO=SESS RE oe oa Bocas, hol Re SRR SESE “reaeeeemerere re ae SER ees SEE SEES ‘Se eSSR REE Smee om Been aRee JesSR BS cs SRS eas SERIE SSSR RRR asSS CERES Sere emer SeeSoe ;ub Game Sea aescen Se Gre rung OE SRR RSE Recomnen et: Se aBe z RRR RS SkaRe BRE eso eden seen: SEES SIRE OSS soOE aR 2 nee a nT So a: & eee RE ue BO SES cy 5 SEU) pa RRS SoS Se oo eS. aa 8 ESE |. SS oy aoe Bs Seperate TERR SS SE eee SE. SE RRRRSIIE oes, oS Re ee De SS oh ae. Be ea Seed 2 Be RR RE RE CESSES RRR SSS EE = Se ESBek: ES SOS eeSee Oeor a 2- ae ae o as RRR 2: ee eeree eeocdean RR Be RESSee oS, IB.eee es AD Ra Gee SR aeeewhe B.S oa pee ee (SEES EES So oooe SeRES Re eee ae. Tiegh ere eR CORRE ses se CORR Roe oc ee SES SESE MERMES Ne Se ERE ‘SERRE mn nceR eR en SRO ERR. Se SSS ES eS

ee ReRR I ee 2aPs oe re3 |3, "EERE ae we hl EER a : . * Bo ee ee eeee7eeae" = Ne. ae pee ee ee & . ee. % oe See ee Pie aaaPSS So OS SOO . SERBS SRS SS SeeRE aaaSree fon Bo ERR ee corcieSo ee Bers RESON PERS. SkeSSRR eeSESE SS RR ESciBP Oe Se aR

Beene Re SES RRR SocaeeSR eo eee TS Se EOE os ke RE Sg - =ae Bae ae 3 Bo SUS, TURES eee BREESE Tee gO ,ORE Bae - Be ec oe peSS eS BRAGS EER Soe ae :See B ee Soo 0ORR SER SRR oS Ee eaeSESS EES BG aUSE CEESS es Rg ae =SE ad ey : SaaS rejie eg ves ga Stemi soa SO SRE OS ee Se RSS Se, 2 : eto oe SRE EE Se SR are *3 Gre apsPreece SRS ; q3 2a. TESS SUR ee Ne Sag Pha SEES SRR coeeeSG CEE. Byeee __ eae BE awtSse: SS TEES RSE RES oO cigetee & esLSS BR SS“Sy RR ieee” ee Rem teoo So esfhe) ee §SE Ree Crean =eSee BSS BoE Seah css rarer SERee ae Cae ae Sea eeoe a&spinon 3?Ce. eS _RRS a RS ee eeSSSSS ee

EN AONE COSN: CCURRSEN CO ARe --n eceeeaa,RN SSSR aoeae. %2en aOES RO a atte SNR RR a Saee TERR Ro CSE eee SUSE Io olSena. BRR a Mace Beceem cts SS Re TRESS SOSA EPIRA er ese nas Tm ogTEae Se me Sea SR SeEOE GN SORES SAE ie SCS Boe UN Th aigee Biescesteie tt CIC OTR:eae SERN ae eapn So ee ON SF SR oe . =:ey SESS ERIE “oS RRR SSRMRREI tense Se E: SOS eS cee co oy ae asSOS aSailers re SS Oa aBEE aa Se Ben aha ge SRR ar=oe TET ne oh a USER SES RSS SeSe SRR ce UTE LARRY Say nat RB Ree RRR REE ott ae See = : Pe co. ec cae Boas a 5: _ RRR. MESON SER SS MERON SSR ROR Ae ee eS Sn : eee an ae Sg Be : Mimpatetein. Seaee CEEESa eaa SS ea = .Sees eal 5 See = fe 4 SS MRRRRR ER ss Sr aREAE Ceeaeeee oes=== SOS ee“EE a oy TE BaRRR EESRS re ere

RESES “ORR So BR % asca ABUSERS SE Re Bee —: oeSox ae Sets oo RR So Ba |eee wR i» SR Oe og :|ce Ri aria. ER -SS eea SESE SS ng Se. Sa ee ae ae Seen aa ey 3eiPe Ee ae ee SR 8aRRR es aStoo aae oe 2Sy OS REF Beet Sk Aol SMBS eg RR SEES aes So = BSS. OS oS ae CEE gt ad RR geo co ees OS esc SSE Bede gio St SE Se fo Be REORDER Pe Me SE SS _ ae ae ee oo ae Gieemere O ae SRR cee a rr Pe a gr a ee SSeS aero eee eS RESUS SeteBLS RENEE SRR RSaaa.” Ss Se SS < ESERSRRES aieeecs. Serge mee 4SE ee etSES SS aoe rPon al, Se eee eee a Se Beare Sn peer . Sera ee eeEE el aa &Re SSEERREUCIN SEMAQUS TSESA Be & : Fcee 2S) -ee 22 22: A ae °3PS ees oe US Be ao SE 2 OR 2 See BB. 2a as SEEN gh “E fn UES Thc peed. Jee _ s F SS eas So ‘er a ty SP TE Bees es Bese eer TR ct ee SE ge 0) USES up DP SOS Roses RSaFeo 005iSEA -ee SeeCUR = SRO Sees EES SSONCE Sa vei ae ¢ Ee ae: Seseees “as “Boe ooSe JARRECSEGR SERS OS RREROCC RaCOTE ES ER Se Seen ae co ee 7 ee ee Sees CR Sa RENESAS 3 REE a e Be [RE ae Be ee Bed RTOS ET % ONE : See Ts SS. nate SEE SESE OE = Baako ae cea eae a Paeeen Boon onSE. SOI SEY SRS Seed *2 =EN 4s J ees Be ee SREMIAE pe WE . SOIT GD SIN Sete eb on gags SUIS BRIE EEE RC RAS REE MM SE Bs ema. Be Ba Saf USI OS ES ne fe kg as Sec ae are es ee OS ee ee ee i = e Se. = A Se ee iBites SBR nn ns ne aESE aRRR Se co EE “Sanam. ee ssa Sere ae ao" 3Bee Lee oad aBee .Saeao SRR REST So) Re ROMS OSES CO ie cc as,2 eS *eos Lae RS GROSSES Rr oeTE Sa . eee . SS) ESa Tite SSM SSS ae al Sean BE ow ee Roe eS Sees LSE Bo 2 ERR eee a SEES aa = ee 2: SUE Br a ee SEES ee SS SoS SS ciccaeoeaee ¥ Soe eee ae i RES ee ere MBE Ssecc. Sti aa — ssi : aTEESE. SRE SRR ROS: Seems aneanang LS Bos ee is 0a aengages nS RES oe “SE ESSER cgcnath, JE. GLUEES ECSU PSO SERENE RE Rc a aR SORMRSSORechn ee sae, BR Re Seg: ay WERRRD ieee So Sore SRA pen sec

™~ = Yr ror, & cc i oe a

Ricmeeres. 0Sa eee Ee SOE REET co2heeieeee Soe aa 3 “EF See asSORE SES — lO ee Bone ae es eee: =AR Coa ee ees Ba : 3: ee a ae ae we CRE Ba CSR ra nr SESS wee Fea cocnnen TAU ES SSO .ac.oe ei: saa SBS, eR oh Seoe es*h Re Ee = ein od OR RRR St Bee ‘ “EES LSP eas RR SR. ee Pe ee, RR ee” a-eae. BSC RN a aea. dosing po ee en os EERE A Ci ie.RE raeaps ee.&, aDE . ae SLRA aS ESRI paRee LORE) SER onOe eeSe = |eSe ee:ae ae ee ee Pte and SS ER PSG) REE See bea BS ese. scents —* Baer okor eee ee CR RS=SS a2 oe oa Bo iS Fe aaa ge Ee. ca EEE ESSER SSS Roa pees ag: het 3 y ae i _ . are er Re Re RETIRES SS oa Re Siig an eS A Ce SS Se aesad ae Se. aSe aaeg oe OEE SSS RIO EE eri See #Su SRE -iPSS. ee

ae eee ae§— EEE OSE NR eR RE NCSG SS nec RS eo ee, 6Pd Re ee See aEo eo aa Se Se TESTE ERR ee eee a s. KC e Mee RS Se Rene as {gaa Seek ae” : See BR. a. ania een: pea: = oe ee Ee ge ee i Pe ged geBSasike a| aBas So eeSRE Oe aa oun sd Soares aaaEE SPARS “A ee 2oeee oo "i Sere: eeFg oeoy ca es : a:a 2 a SEs Se Ss 2 = ee gd er 3a SCR aa se aes RRS Sai SRR Ses ss, Raa RRR SOROS

= Ae ae os. capensis! ssa i ee RE Sseee Seen AEM eo a SET, Spengghg SSS SESE SS SEE Binet: AR ee 7SM 3 aSsNE Bi ere Re ROR 8cn Ake OERR See Pee Sereeaateaes REESE Seoo WE 2REEL RESUS ESR Cee REN seat ee 3git.eS: SRS Sa aahe ee Spf seeEA (SESS: Ls oe RE ae eeaSi =als meRRS: BEBe i Be eo ell Soy OEE ‘Oe Sonam ees ETEate S.0 3g. SESE,RRR SRS SSai CES ea CORR CES aad i = ee ; ee aa we : Be. | See LTENEES ° Tie % . SREY COSAI STIRRED ISIS Re genres coats tis tnnti sestcsgteammette

SRRSM Soe. :ee°See 33 (SE RSEaON EERE RR°ERR RRR eRIR REESET SSE LEER | OSSSSGL pe SEBe°=esasd3Bitaeaegee BsRRcae St eR rEESeen, Bn 1 ESSE RRR SRE Se See ied eS oPSe 3 ce oO RRS ORTON US Oe RRC SORSoe RMFa noBc a a ae SS-Bes Re:ESTO a EE aTRENT a Be OSRI ° SORE SESE a Eccameee aeRRR CSREES

SonsCe SO .REESE: ce” fe 2 ae. +ese a % oes . ar 2.7, »5 te

aes RS eeSRE 2SeaS _meospe Se CC Scoseaneiaa men BS SRSFERRERS SERRE SRS eaeag SO RR SR wick THESEUS RE: aog ISS “EE oy See Sth Soneeeere ea & aS x2 Ao: EEE PHBE pyc TR “ nels. a (SRE a Sa ; SOR eS MOE USE Sen eee Bee oe a ee ® ‘a get ce sc OR 23 Ses ESSE Be os ERR SRE seSAO eens Res ae SEER SES SBS Soke ASR teSS .a2See ESE ee Baa RO ERR eg % Se: Re. % ee By toe RS - Be: Se. CIR etUSS xaf3Pos SESE RRS Ss es Ee RRR eee acai ahve once 3 ee Se ae BERS Seas & Bese Ca SEUSS Sac er ee BR ; ba ae SR GSS oo “SRE RRR SERS She cr x See. EBBRSS 3 eh ESE 2 eee Se 2 Beng APE Ros HEA 3 ES RR ee Rc nea Si See Rea Rs GT Base See so . 8 cepa Ba ee ERS Ra “Sa: Pace Se HERES ee aay SSE te : Be SE RRS ac a Seater ER RR RR 5 SRE ee es ge Rae Se Be aes: 3 ONE aie SEE 2 foe t “RR Sa ee ee ee ee EE EEE SE . eae gs ERE. : _ : TERS SRR rl JSS SER eer a Re Ree es eeBRR ee ee aeeeeee 3.ee BgSSRs Se eee ee=4Sie ages REESE oeSis hae esSan ae SERN. SE See :erRe Ri See a Pe ee Se eee RSS RSE SER hata ce SE ea RR Pe Ee SE aSe aan Pa eaSR Penenaes eae ee Se-S Se aR SS aaR eS aSea aa SEE See PES 0RRS ORBEA SRS SCea BRR ee ame aaBocas "eee Be SR a aSR aBe SSR Re SeSe. pete BRE 7zCSREES BREESE SUS RRR RSoe SNR a ce Bo Peo Se ee ea RAE eS a Sea HSCEI Sh RSS ae so SSeS SES — ISN Saat aaa gee TREE aR IR Re: a ea Se . BS eR ee ME Re sa F: SSasceee SRa Roe es Bo ce =, See “ae ng See. ae tae ° Bch. Leet Bs ? Sees Re . ho CESS a) CTE eee Ss eet poate mie” =eS SRRSe ORR aoeSe, i OE eScones ee Ree ae aeSSS se SRE Bc RR ENR oh SRS “ASSERTS eeSe ks ae a 2 ae er ge ae A ESSE. Bee SRE EES “RE RR ee RES iSoSE ~~ OS * = aS Bee | ee See A gg re Bee 2oeSe:Besos ek 23EuSEER 22 Se Se iePacers ee aEea aR OR Se ae $3 *:aes (ae: SES aes. PSE cies SSSeta Pee: Sete 32 eeRESNeitns TEES SaSeed “EUS ES SR eR Reena ae _REE Eee RRR a*aOe aSec “SBR ae “S pees Pence SS eee SBS Be °Bo AAs TEES Ragen aaG ae Re Re pa en SRR “2 RS. SES ES J See 2ee RS |aRR eee no capers 2 SRE 3:RE ee . SEER (eeSES CERES cD Thee SRE a. SR aess eR otSRS eeRR =EE123 BR aEE >SBes SS ot 1ae ESSER 0GE SERENE BE “oa SS Sg eRanata LSege Be .Bo xoe get Ee,”SRE RR _aeBaoo SESE SESS

ES: —— "ies sei a PRES See “SS ee Lee &: |. oe SER YSSESS “AEEz : Pi seebee LF Boo DEES See BEE “Sacoal So eeeer Se eee PUP RE aS. TSPES *eS Be) EEE ae2ace anaShee SSN pS ae oN ee eee i.SERS : eeSEE eeSEeee fe Bes aFR oe RNR Bey SRA. hE 2EL .a.eee SS BR OeRe oe SS. Do. Be SR RE SERRE: ES epee) SSRST TURRIO SSne : . oa Be RRS SR RE :M 2ec RR. ssogee .lll .SEE 2 BRS Sor Se . aes cS ae Pohl ee ae TOS ke oe ca ; ee Ean x ree Se Beso SEER. oa th Ss oom ea SBR GE OE: So Eas Bec RR ws, Bron Sees S 2 ES oo : co Bee So .aoy oo aed BS : SS ieee eee.Sool :Sh. Sa RO. eS 2SSBF eS a Be SET « “Fs wou Pa .ones =RR Bie Synge 1Ss OS Pei Soe STs Ba ae oe =OSS SESE Sees oa *aSt Ieee tie ORES ren .Re Seo es SSS hes reea SR eee en#°stBe

Ree ae BER RE RR 2OEOSSSEESS 2Go. ™ae SOLES TNS SEE oR : 2S : Os. oot NOM *Ae SRR Se eee EES SEES SS SERS Yoo EES a eS en Re a ee a ¥a2Se Bee erSRS SS. ok4“. SS EES SEES BESS : .SEES SERRE whe eects RReR aBe esaRE Pes oe Jaded, sao: Tus Ps EEE da EERE eect =. SEES eee oo EAE aPe~~ SRN SAREE oe| BRE RRCE Fas. - aes SEES SSD TE. ORR . ES 1EN RES aEERE SR ksSE A es SEES FEAR. SOREL SEEre +E Bee ec SSSR casein BSSR Sees “ wish cd ue OP PS: we gETIER Shee,TRE GOSS StSe oy 4.

Bas trae ERR RRO CORRE RRO Cae ga an TUM e htt ch SER RS o BORE CSS eee wR ee By Ne SASS 200 RR SORES Pens Nene SUE AA A Se REE MAGEE SLs 7 arene

Power 1879-1882 307 In education the implication was that, since conscience prevented Catholics from sending their children to public schools, it would be unjust to force them to support these schools unless the state helped them maintain their own. By the middle seventies public opinion was sharply polarized around the

public schools question: Greenwood’s league advanced from strength to strength and a Church of England defence association became the main centre

of organized resistance on the other side. One of its founders, the Scots merchant Alexander Stuart, became in parliament the chief of a small group of denominationalists who increasingly found themselves fighting attempt after attempt by secularists to secure resolutions against the 1866 Act. For a time the opposing forces seemed in equipoise, the faction chiefs made no move to upset the status quo and a sardonic Herald editorial noted how this failure to attend to the education ‘problem’ confirmed the views of observers (like itself) who ‘look upon the manoeuvres of party leaders as a game in politics’:

They attribute both to Mr. Robertson and to Mr. Parkes the same fundamental convictions and principles. Both men are believed really to prefer a National to a Sectarian system of education. Neither of them 1s credited with any passion for martyrdom. Either will forward the work of National education if it can be done consistently with retention of office, but neither will fly in the face of the powerful Denominational vote. . . and each tries to excite hopes and allay fears so as to balance the conflicting forces as well as may be. The premises here are too facile, for Parkes still gave qualified approval to state aid on principle; nor was the issue yet (or ever) a choice between absolutes—a national or a ‘sectarian’ system of education. But it was true that at this stage each leader set as neutral a course as he could while watching for a clear swing of the tide. When that came, both were to head firmly in the most favourable

direction. In Parkes’s case this meant abandoning the 1866 Act and its implications and to that extent going back on declared principles: but whether

to advance his own political fortunes or whether to achieve a necessary— indeed, inevitable—reform for the colony remains, as so often with him, a nice question.

As in the sixties, what finally forced action was the need to face up toaset of practical difficulties. By 1876 it was clear that the school system was under great strain. It had responded well to the colony’s population growth, which in the decade since 1866 had been remarkable (from 430 000 to over 700 000): the number of public schools increased dramatically during these years (from 259 to 892) and the proportion of children receiving instruction also went up. A decline in denominational schools (from 310 to 181) reflected the imposition

of stricter standards and controls by the Council of Education though the masses of school-age children still not being taught (Parkes estimated the number at 20 000 by 1879) showed that it was faltering before a runaway problem. Finances were still inadequate and the Council’s work out of hand: to supervise the building of new schools and the staffing and management of all the rest became, in a period of expansion, too onerous and complex a task for an unpaid, part-time body. In 1876 Council members, some of them ill and all of them overworked, warned Robertson, then the premier, that they could

308 Henry Parkes not go on and pleaded with him to legislate to establish a properly funded and organized government department to take over their work. So Robertson had

to act and in that year he brought down a Bill to amend the 1866 law by dissolving the Council of Education and transferring its powers to a responsible minister. On the explosive question of state aid he proposed a compromise which nevertheless pointed in the direction everyone now recognized the wind was blowing: aid would continue to denominational schools cur-

rently receiving it, but only as long as their enrolment remained at forty students or more; aid would not be available for building or running any new denominational schools.

The Bill was laid aside on a technicality at the committee stage and not revived before the government fell. Though it came to nothing, however, the measure was of great importance, for it crystallized and revealed the strength of opinion on each side of the state aid debate and thus prepared the way for Parkes and Robertson to legislate in combination in 1879. And in Parkes’s case the second reading debate marked a noteworthy moment of change. In that

debate, secularists hailed the Bill as a decisive step towards their goal of complete secularization; on the other side, the assembly’s denominationalists

also supported it, gloomily believing that guaranteed finance for their few remaining schools was the best they could hope for in the shifting climate of opinion. In a tense house the measure scraped through and then, after the division had been taken, Parkes sprang to his feet to announce emotionally a great change of heart: For ten years I have incurred a large amount of contempt and met with any amount of opposition in maintaining the present settlement of the question of education, but I have now seen gentlemen who came into this House as the avowed friends of Denominational Schools—(great cheering)—turn traitor—(continued cheering)—and strike the first fatal blow at the existing schools. (Cheers.) I now am relieved from any obligation to maintain the

cause they have betrayed—(laughter and cheers)—and, so far as I am concerned, I shall hold to myself the right of taking that course which the extraordinary circumstance of tonight’s division may seem to direct. These words, clearly specious to many of his listeners, are difficult to interpret.

Parkes’s wrath may have reflected frustration: the Bill, it seemed, had been saved by the denominationalists, when its loss would almost certainly have necessitated Robertson’s resignation and opened the way for a Parkes ministry. Alternatively, he may have genuinely felt betrayed after his long defence

of the 1866 settlement, though even that was small excuse for his gross misrepresentation of the declared position of the denominationalists on the Bill. Or was he simply seizing the opportunity, with a sharp eye on the future, to turn a somersault himself? The political confusion of 1877~—78 choked out immediate parliamentary action on education, and then the alliance with Robertson gave Parkes a perfect base from which to press forward for reforms which they both now

favoured. Ironically his course was made more certain by the anger of those—particularly the Catholic hierarchy—whose defence he had just abandoned. The Catholic archbishop was Roger Bede Vaughan, a commanding

Power 1879-1882 309 personality who had come from England in 1873 and had succeeded the ageing Polding in 1877. Polding, Vaughan thought, had ‘let things run terribly to seed

and disorder’; the laity was ‘torpid’ and indifferent, the Sydney diocese a ‘Sleepy Hollow’. In particular, Catholic parents were too given to patronizing public schools—a failing explained by the inferiority of secular teaching in their own schools and the difficulty of seeing in what essentials Catholic and public schools differed. The situation was not simple. The church yearned for

exclusive power to provide what Vaughan thought of as real Christian education, to achieve ‘development of the human personality and the vanquishing of bastard paganism’, but to secure assistance from the state it was necessary to submit to the Council of Education’s control and accept, in effect,

other priorities. By the late seventies this dilemma, combined with the moderate success of new unaided and therefore untrammelled Catholic schools in Victoria, South Australia and in one or two dioceses in New South Wales itself, had come to suggest that Catholics might in the end be best to go it alone. That, almost paradoxically, was a thought to stiffen indignation at the circumstances under which state aid was granted and at the threat that it would be cut off. Vaughan, for one, revelled in what he called ‘real stand up public fighting’ and was not prepared to give in without a struggle. ‘All we want’, he explained in one conciliatory letter to Parkes, ‘is fair play: to be able to bring up our youth thorough Catholics, and on that account not to be deprived of equal assistance with Protestants for secu/ar education. If you would do this for us, you would, indeed, leave a name to be ever remembered by all who love justice’. Civilized words, indeed the very belief which Parkes himself had long advanced: but they came too late.

In the middle of 1879 Vaughan and his suffragan bishops issued a joint pastoral on Catholic Education, addressed to their flocks but inevitably a

public document. Vaughan was bent, as even Parkes understood, on ‘awakening the sleepy thousands of discontented parents all around him’ to their duty to patronize the schools the church provided, a point which the

hierarchy chose to emphasize by denouncing the alternatives—schools founded on ‘the principle of secularist education’—as ‘seedplots of future immorality, infidelity, and lawlessness’. Whatever Vaughan’s real purpose, his words and their elaboration in this and subsequent pastorals were bound from their manifest assault on public schools to provoke a furore. The spirit, at least, of what followed is captured in Parkes’s dramatized memories of more than a decade later: ‘What does it all mean?’ was on men’s lips; ‘what does the Archbishop want more than his Denominational Schools under the present system?’ Public gathenin gs, crammed to the door long before the hour of meeting, with many undreds outside, orators with their strokes of eloquence at white heat, the

indignation of journalism contagious throughout the land. What the Secularists had failed to do by their many motions, the Archbishop and his associate bishops contrived to do by one blind move.

In retrospect Parkes was given to insinuating that in November 1879 he framed his Public Instruction Bill simply in response to the bishops’ attack on

public schools. Contemporaries often took the same view. John Dillon, a

310 Henry Parkes liberal Catholic who openly criticized the pastorals and voted for Parkes’s Bill, even thought that the government acted correctly, because it had no option: During the last four months a storm of feeling, such as is unparalleled in the history of this colony, has been raging throughout the length and breadth of

this land, and if the Government had not introduced this measure, or

erappied with the question at once, it is impossible to say when this storm would have abated.

Dalley, now in the upper house and an opponent of the Bill, considered the politicians had been ‘stung’ into constructing ‘a system of education not merely for the education of. . .children, but for the repression of the arrogance of four

bishops’. Fitzpatrick, though a defender of public schools and a critic of Vaughan’s extremism (the system, he thought, could hardly have been very Godless if such devout Catholics as Plunkett, Butler and Duncan had been associated with it), had no time for Parkes’s course, which he thought ‘outraged those principles and that conviction upon this question which he has been justifying to the House for eight or nine years past. He has condemned over and over again every single feature of this Bill, which has been introduced as a reprisal upon the pastorals’. Parkes’s second reading speech courted such an interpretation: he argued that ‘the very men for whom this compromise was made’ were trying to overturn it—and this justified a new set of arrangements.

But he also asserted that the ministry had distinct plans to legislate on education before the bishops acted. As he later reminded Fitzpatrick: I stated when I addressed the House upon the second reading of the Bill that

the Government had been influenced by the attack made upon the public schools of this country. I stated that we had determined to bring in a Bill, but [ indicated clearly enough that it would not have been quite the Bill this is

... [ see nothing inconsistent, nothing to be ashamed of, in such an

explanation as that. I will add further that I think we should have been unworthy [of] our positions if we had not noticed what I again call the audacious attack of Archbishop Vaughan upon the laws and Government of this country.

Parkes never went on to explain the particulars in which the final Bill differed from the one originally conceived. Almost certainly, that was because differences scarcely existed. For the principal changes the Bill promised had been prefigured long before the bishops acted, chiefly in Robertson’s proposals of 1876 and the reactions of Parkes and others to them, while the administrative crisis which had prompted that Bill had, if anything, worsened. It was in this

sense inevitable that the Parkes—Robinson coalition should legislate on education and that it should legislate to abolish state aid. The bishops affected the timing, heated the atmosphere and—ironically enough—smoothed the passage of the government’s legislation, but they did not in any fundamental]

sense cause it. Parkes was proud that his Bill, though ‘sufficiently secular in its practical operation to meet the demands of the strongest advocate for secular education, ... mMvites and offers facilities for the clergy and other religious teachers to assist in the full education of our youth’. For an hour each day the clergy were

Power 1879-1882 311 to have access, in separate classrooms for separate denominations, to all public school children whose parents did not object. This was not a concession; Parkes

genuinely believed in the moral and social efficacy of Christian training. It reflected, however, a return to his old conviction that religious and secular teaching were separable; his empathy for the Catholic position had broken down before the intractability of the practical problems posed by the aim of providing schools everywhere. In a wistful passage in his second reading speech he returned to an impossible notion of compromise—as a despairing

protest against the inevitable consequences he knew a dual system of education would entail:

We think this Bill may be received, and ought to be received, by our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. Surely the Catholic religion, with all its sacraments,

does not depend upon some particular form being taught; and surely it cannot be a thing, the teaching of which renders it necessary to separate the Catholic children from the other children of the country. They must mix in after years, and be associated with each other in all the duties of everyday life. Let them be workers, traders, men of competent means; let them go wherever they may, into whatever groove of society circumstances may direct them—they must mix with persons entertaining other opinions. And

I venture to say that they ought so to mix; that they ought to unite in promoting the general interests of their own country in preference to any other consideration whatever. Let us be of whatever faith we may, born on whatever soil we may, reared under whatever conditions we may, let us still

remember that we are above everything else free citizens of a free

commonwealth.

But few Catholics could agree. One who did, W. A. Duncan, capped a long personal friendship by writing to Parkes in February 1880 after the latter had ‘dismissed the Council of Education with a “good character” ’: [am really thankful for my share of it. I have now fought the same battle of Education for 40 years in the Colony, and have never had the least misgiving that I was right. I could not, however, persuade my co-religionists (except a few of the better educated) to adopt my views, and they will see their mistake when it is too late to correct it. If they had taken my advice they would be in a better position today. In fact, most of those liberal Catholics who were defenders of state education (Dalley and Fitzpatrick are examples) deplored the discontinuance of aid to

denominational schools. The Bill, meantime, generated ill-feeling which reasserted among the colony’s Catholics generally the legend, which was now to live on, of Parkes as the devil incarnate—their most malevolent enemy. The

break that had begun with the Butler affair was completed. Butler’s own bitterness had no cure: ‘I hate the Bill’, he had said in 1876 when questioned about his ambiguous attitude to Robertson’s measure, “but I hate Sir Henry Parkes more’. In June 1879, just before Vaughan and his bishops issued the

education pastoral, Butler collapsed in court and died of a heart attack. Vaughan preached at the funeral, delivering a moving tribute to Butler’s contributions as a public man. Parkes was the only notable politician not at the SETVICE.

312 Henry Parkes Parliament went into recess in July 1880 to await a general election which,

under the new Electoral Act, would reconstitute the assembly as a much enlarged house. So during the spring and early summer months, though still tied down by administrative chores, Parkes was able to relax a little after his first two stressful sessions in office. He took time to rest and entertain friends

at Faulconbridge, but as usual what he most enjoyed was the travel and entertainment which his position as first minister gave him. His constituents marked the end of the session by honouring him and Robertson at a grand banquet at Ashfield and there, in an ebullient speech, Parkes explained and justified the coalition and outlined the grand things that still lay before it. In September he had the special pleasure of leading a rapturous public reception for his friend Sir Hercules Robinson who, having the year before finished his term in New South Wales and left the colony for New Zealand, called again at Sydney on his way to take up an appointment as governor of the Cape Colony. At a banquet to honour the visitor Parkes spoke with warmth and grace in response to a toast to the ministry:

He happened to be in office when Sir Hercules Robinson arrived in the country; he happened to be in office when Sir Hercules Robinson left these shores; and it was his good fortune to be in office when he returned to the colony; and perhaps he might be pardoned for saying that no advantage of

his public life had been greater than his acquaintance with that distinguished man. Next day a special train set off to take the Robinsons on the first stage of a trip to Melbourne, presumably to view Victoria’s just-assembled international

exhibition. The premier travelled with them as a gesture of courtesy and possibly also to see his colony’s exhibit, with its ‘huge slab of Illawarra coal and

a portrait of Sir Henry Parkes photographically enlarged to heroic dimensions’. He set off for home again almost at once, stopping on the way at Albury

to open the local agricultural show and be feted at another banquet. Local notables met him at the Victorian rail terminus, Wodonga, to drive him with a flourish into Albury in a four-horse dray. The southern line from Sydney, though now close to the town, would not be linked to the Victorian system for another three years. Parkes nevertheless spoke at the banquet of the exciting progress it represented: he and Sir Hercules and Lady Robinson had just made the trip from Sydney to Melbourne in twenty hours, whereas, on that celebrated occasion when he had first visited Albury sixteen years ago, the same journey had taken him twenty-five days. But he did admit having ‘loitered’ on the way in 1866: he might also have admitted that a safe train journey could never have the same thrill as a buggy ride armed to the teeth against bushrangers. A few more days and he was at Wallerawang, to watch Robertson turn the first sod of a railway extension to Mudgee, and at a subsequent luncheon, held in the local railway goods shed, to deliver a witty speech in response to a toast to the ministry. Thence to Orange, to receive deputations on local needs, to drive after that by buggy the twenty-five miles to Cudal, where he laid the foundation stone of a new school of arts. Meanwhile he was planning another trip to Melbourne. Annie, holidaying with Gertie at St Kilda, was astonished

Power 1879-1882 313 to hear he was coming over again so soon: ‘I thought you were tired of the Exhibition”. Pleasure gave place to work in November 1880: the election got under way early in the month and a strenuous intercolonial conference began at the end. Changed constituency boundaries for the lower house and the increase in membership, from seventy-five to 108 (making it, as Parkes said, ‘by far the largest deliberative assembly in all Australia’), made for some uncertainty but in the end the coalition was returned with a sweeping majority. The contest was lively in many places, with sectarian feeling, particularly against Parkes, once more running high. Parkes’s treasurer, for one, James Watson, who had long represented the Lachlan and who now stood for the new electorate of Young was horrified by some of his experiences. In Temora, for example, he faced a rowdy meeting of 3000 people, though only about three hundred electors with votes for Young lived in the district: but the Scum of Society is gathered there from all parts of the Colony. When

I touched on the Education question, & spoke of the benefits you had conferred on the youth of the Colony, now and to come, the meeting (or rather a lot of the Irish) became a perfect hell, if the latter could be applied. From this moment I could do nothing .. . and one of them in seconding an

Amendment, stated he knew the day was not far distant when... the Act would be repealed, and when he would take the opportunity of throwing it in your face... Save me from ever appearing before such a lot of madmen, as a Candidate. Parkes himself decided to recapture his old East Sydney seat, which he had lost in an unexpected reversal at the election of 1877, being then obliged to accept the representation of Canterbury. At the nomination he was imperious and aggressive. Some other candidates, he said, had ‘all the advantages of a negative character. No one knew them’. But everyone knew him, and knew that he ‘never failed to tread on their toes if his path of duty led him on that disagreeable road’. He minced no words as to whose toes he was talking about:

He should oppose priests in every possible way. He should oppose every possible attempt to impose ecclesiastical authority. (Cheers and uproar.) He should do this for the sake of no one class, but for the sake of all. His motto

was, ‘A measure of equality to all classes; no special privilege to any’. (Cheers.)

That night, at the Masonic Hall and before an excited audience, he worked himself up into perhaps the most emotional anti-Irish peroration he had ever delivered—and feverishly returned, full circle, to the frank anti-Catholicism of his pre-1872 days. The climactic moment of his speech began with a lash at an old bogey: the propensity of the Irish to misuse assisted immigration schemes:

He was as friendly to Irishmen as to any other class—(applause, and ‘No, No’)—and his whole life proved it. (Cheers.) But he did not want to see them in the ascendancy. (Great cheering.) .. . They knew well enough that if they were in the majority of this country the Public Instruction Act would soon

314 Henry Parkes be at the bottom of the Pacific. (Great cheering.) And he was not quite sure

that he would not be at the bottom of the Pacific himself. (Renewed

cheering.) Although a very pacific man himself, he did not wish to be at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. (Laughter and cheers.) Therefore he wanted to

see this community thoroughly British. (Cheers.) He wanted to see the Anglo-Saxon stock predominant in it—(cheers)—and he wanted to see the Protestant religion dominant. (Cheers lasting for some time.) He wanted to see all these things because they were the only guarantee we had for the preservation of the freedom of all for us. (Cheers.) He was unwilling to trust his liberty to people who did not understand what liberty was. (Cheers.) He was unwilling to trust the education of the young to people who did not know what enlightenment was. (Cheers.) These were his views; these were the principles upon which he should assuredly act if returned as one of their members tomorrow. (Cheers.) Ten thousand times sooner would he lose his election than suppress his opinions. (Much cheering.)

Next day the voters did indeed return him, but to the fourth, and last, of

their seats. G. H. Reid, making his political debut, topped the poll. At the nomination he had chided Parkes with words that were to be long

remembered:

he supposed he was one of those unfortunate individuals—(laughter)—to whom Sir Henry Parkes had just referred as some one that nobody knew. Twenty-six years ago, when Sir Henry Parkes was not a Knight of the order of St. Michael and St. George—(Give it to him)—he stood before the

electors of that constituency as he did himself, a humble and untried man—(cheers)—and if he had not received their generous support in that capacity he would never have risen to the distinguished position which he occupied that day. (Cheers.)

But now, at the declaration of the poll, Reid said amid uproar that he ‘felt almost ashamed to have been placed above one who was so old and so distinguished a public man in the political life of this country’. The other two elected were Arthur Renwick and H. C. Dangar, both experienced politicians. Parkes correctly pointed out that all three would be supporting him in the new house—a fact more gratifying than ‘the paltry consideration of where they had placed him’. But he was nevertheless very angry, resentful at the ‘organised packed body of opponents’ he had had to fight and determined that he would ‘turn aside for consideration of nobody, but pursue the same straightforward

broad course—doing his duty according to his conscience’. He explained privately to one correspondent how ‘Roman Catholics. . . opposed to me with

a sort of deadly hostility’ had ‘met and organized a move to give all their support to the four candidates other than myself who had the best prospect of election regardless of any other consideration with the calculation of raising these four above me and so defeating me’. Others thought the same: even the Herald deplored the way the voters had treated Parkes, expressed unwonted appreciation for his past work, especially for education reform, and observed: ‘Itis no secret that the Catholic voters were very generally, if not unanimously, opposed to him, and that a skilfully organised effort was made to keep his name as far down as possible, or to get him rejected’.

Power 1879-1882 315 The election over, Parkes went off to Melbourne, taking Watson as fellow

representative from New South Wales, to a meeting with delegates from Victoria and South Australia. This was the first stage of a full intercolonial conference: after discussions lasting a week sittings were adjourned, to be resumed in Sydney in January 1881, when Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia also sent representatives. The initiative which led to the conference had originally been Parkes’s and the occasion a flaring up of the old

question of Chinese immigration. An attempt by the Australasian Steam Navigation Co. in 1878-79 to employ Chinese firemen at low wages had provoked a widely supported strike of seamen and much agitation, particularly in Sydney, for the revival of former restrictions, repealed in 1867, against the entry of Chinese into the colony. As a result, one of Parkes’s first moves after coming to office had been to bring down a Bill to regulate and restrict Chinese immigration. He piloted this measure successfully through the assembly in 1879, but the council set it aside and the matter rested until May 1880. Then rising numbers of Chinese entering the colony brought renewed.

protests. A large public meeting sent a delegation to Parkes to denounce Chinese immigrants—as biologically inferior, carriers of vice and competitors for ‘the means by which Europeans derived a livelihood’—and to demand action against them, preferably by the Australian colonies in combination. Again Parkes acted at once. In a circular letter he invited all the Australian

colonies to consider adopting some uniform measure to restrict Chinese immigration, and Graham Berry, premier of Victoria, responded by suggesting an intercolonial conference at the end of the year, where the Chinese

and other matters of common concern could be fully discussed. It was appropriate for him to invite delegates to a first session in Melbourne, for just at that time the Exhibition would be on too. The conference had useful, if mostly inconclusive, discussions on customs duties, defence, mutuality of particular legal procedures. On Parkes’s initiative delegates agreed in principle to the setting up of a federal council (as mooted, it will be remembered, at the first intercolonial meeting Parkes ever attended, in 1866): the council was thought of as ‘a mixed body, partly legislative and partly administrative, .. . the forerunner of a more matured system of Federal Government’. Parkes framed and presented for discussion a Bill to establish the new body and the Victorians, more keen than other delegates to press the

federal cause ahead, observed that without finance the council would be powerless. They therefore moved that it should be given control of ‘all revenues from the sale and occupation of public lands situated in each and all of the colonies’. The blanched faces of the New South Wales delegates at such a suggestion can easily be imagined. In the upshot only Victoria voted for this resolution and it seemed that the federal council, in the unlikely event of its coming into being, would have to languish without a secure income. On the main issue before them the delegates agreed that ‘the introduction of Chinese in large numbers into the colonies of Australia is highly undesirable’

and that uniform legislation to control the influx should be based ona £10 entry tax plus restriction, according to its tonnage, of the number of Chinese a ship could bring in. Differences in emphasis became evident, however, as soon as matters of detail came under discussion. South Australia, then in-

316 Henry Parkes corporating what is now the Northern Territory, and Queensland were concerned about the development of their tropical areas, and were inclined to be more lenient than New South Wales or Victoria; labour-hungry Western Australia, whose legislative council (the colony had still to receive responsible government and a full parliament) had actually voted funds in 1878 and 1879 to subsidize the immigration of Chinese and Malay workers, resented criticism from the eastern colonies and any attempt to insist on stringent legislation. In

the end, Western Australia did nothing; Queensland contented herself with her existing legislation, which imposed an entry tax but was not severe in other

respects; the Tasmanian parliament threw out an attempt to set up Queens-

land-type regulations; South Australia imposed restrictions, also on the Queensland model, but exempted the Northern Territory, so that Chinese could still freely enter there. Only New South Wales and Victoria passed Acts with real bite.

Throughout the conference Parkes was treated as the colonies’ senior politician, pre-eminent in age, experience and prestige. In the Melbourne sessions he moved the most important general resolutions; in Sydney he was host and chairman, the leader in framing resolutions and producing sample Bills for discussion. The courtesy, even deference, he received from the other colonial leaders was welcome, and the face he presented to the world confident, sometimes to the point of arrogance, but the strain of the election and the hard work of the conference left him weary and over-stretched. It is likely that he was also suffering the first symptoms of the illness that in 1881 progressively interfered with his parliamentary work. A few days before Christmas, in the

break between the Melbourne and Sydney sessions of the conference, he complained in anguish to Clarinda. He was in Sydney and she at Faulconbridge, more remote than ever from the world of his work and day-to-day living:

The anniversary of my accession to office fills me with uneasiness and not knowing whom to unburden myself to, I bother you. Two years of power in a country like this would seem to most people an opportunity for doing a world of good. Yet what have I done for all this toil and all this wear & tear of life. Persecuted for favours continually, fawned on by some & cursed by others, what is there to satisfy one’s love of peace in this constant turmoil & heart-hardening excitement. This is my train of thought—this is my state of feeling on my second anniversary as Prime Minister.

I who arrived here without a friend or a shilling—people now call me the most powerful man in Australia. Probably I feel more than any other man like a slave. I never feel at ease & cannot enjoy even my good fortune.

But why do I trouble you? (Since writing this a dozen people have been worrying me) You have your own load of trouble & pain. You could not bear mine & I fear I could ill endure yours.

The new parliament—the tenth—sat for two sessions in 1881 and the government deployed its great majority to continue a programme of positive legislation. In July, as a follow-up from the intercolonial conference, Parkes put to the assembly a Bill to restrict Chinese immigration. It proposed a £10 entry tax per head and a restriction on ships to bring no more than one Chinese

Power 1879-1882 317 for every 100 tons of their total tonnage. Stringent quarantine conditions—for

a period of twenty-one days—were proposed for all vessels arriving with Chinese on board, and Chinese were to be denied the right to own real estate in the colony unless they were British subjects. In the council Dalley appeared

at the bar of the house as counsel in support of a petition from Chinese residents against the Bill and in committee it was amended to reduce the immigrants’ disabilities. A constitutional crisis loomed, but good sense prevailed and after negotiation the assembly accepted the excision of the clauses imposing quarantine and refusing to Chinese the right to possess property, while the upper house agreed that the rest of the Bill should remain intact. Parkes’s other major measure of 1881 was a Bill to remodel the licensing system for the liquor trade. This measure, though extensively debated, passed

easily through both houses and, with minor amendments, became law in December. It established licensing districts and courts, provided for the appointment of inspectors to police the regulations governing the conduct of hotels and provided stiff new penalties for Sunday-selling and other infringements of the law. Most important of all, it established the principle of ‘local option’: the ratepayers of a district were now to be the arbiters of any proposal for a new local public house. By so legislating, Parkes clinched his position as darling of the temperance movement, which for years had agitated for local option. Per contra, he won the hostility of publicans and the liquor interest

though that was not altogether new, for at least since 1854 he had been vigorously and openly critical of the Sydney public house system. In that year, as a member of the legislative council select committee on intemperance, he

had distinguished himself by harrying witnesses with loaded questions designed to place the home and the public house in juxtaposition, of course to the damnation of the latter. Though himself neither a teetotaller nor a wowser, he

sincerely believed drink to be the source of profound social ills: “The commodity sold by the publican has the effect of converting rational men into lunatic men, of letting loose the wildest passions, which generate all crime, which uproot the very foundations of society, and make neighbourhoods unfit for peaceable men and women to live in’. In 1854 he had advocated ‘free trade’ in the sale of liquor, provided that no alcoholic beverage could be consumed

on the premises where it was purchased. He thought of public houses as ‘colleges for the education of drunkards’: without the temptations they offered, many would never acquire a taste for alcohol; while if those who did choose to imbibe were obliged to drink in their homes the civilizing influence of women and children would always be a potent inducement to moderation. He was still prepared to put this argument forward in 1881, but admitted it to be utopian in areal world in which public houses and all the associated vested interests

actually existed. So he settled for regulation, and thus served a temperance movement which by this time had developed a distinct political flavour. At its core were Protestant clergy, some of them Orangemen, often made the more vehement in their crusade against the demon drink because it was well known that the publican’s calling was particularly attractive to Catholics, especially Irishmen. Temperance organizations, of which after 1881 the Local Option League was the most powerful, wielded electoral influence by their mar-

318 Henry Parkes shalling of votes and in due course Parkes benefited considerably from their assistance. It was natural, even proper, that he should do so, for his support of temperance was sincere and, like his wish to promote education, an expression

both of his commitment to social amelioration and his Protestant liberal

world-view. Parkes was always proud of another reformist measure he introduced in this period: an Act to establish a boarding-out system for state children. Though he never publicly admitted the fact, he was induced to undertake this work by a

peremptory voice which came to him, as it were, from the past. Mary Windeyer, now a mature and influential woman and long-since renowned for her work for charitable organizations and for women’s rights and welfare, brought the cause of destitute children to his attention in April 1879. The Windeyers had grown away from Parkes after the unhappy events of the late sixties and

their former intimacy could never be recaptured. But Parkes’s alliance with Robertson did much to heal old wounds and relations were cordial enough. In August 1879 Parkes was to have the pleasure of offering Windeyer a temporary

judgeship in the Supreme Court, thus inaugurating what was to be a most distinguished—if controversial—career. Mary wrote from Tomago to Parkes, with all the old directness and wit:

When are we to have anything done about Boarding Out I am anxious to adopt the System in our Institutions The ‘Infant’s Home’ might be made a sort of Receiving house for children whose unauthorized entrance into this vale of tears is a bore to their Parents & their continuing to live here a puzzle to their paternal(?) Governments. I am single handed in a Committee which

does not know anything of the subject ... I should however like the proposition of initiating Boarding Out in connection with the ‘Infants Home’ to come from some one in Authority. Could you make the suggestion either publicly or privately which is contained in the article I enclose. Now read it please. You have no excuse of want of time. You can easily do so when Mr O’Connor is speaking.

Daniel O’Connor, fiery and voluble Catholic, member for West Sydney, defender of Archbishop Vaughan and a man determined, as he put it when opposing the second reading of the Public Instruction Bill, ‘to confront the great tide that is sweeping past us like an avalanche’, was as great a thorn in Parkes’s side as Michael Fitzpatrick. Mary loved to see him in action: ‘I think I shall come to the House next time I come to Town’, she wrote in conclusion, ‘& see if there is any fun going on’.

Parkes’s Act must have pleased her. It set up a board of nine persons, answerable to the colonial secretary, to administer a system whereby orphans and destitute children could be taken into private homes for upbringing and

care, and even eventual adoption if the foster-parents desired it. For many children the colony’s three refuges—the Randwick asylum and the Protestant and Roman Catholic orphanages at Parramatta—now became staging houses rather than incarcerating institutions. Writing ten years later Parkes was able to claim great success for the scheme: the children had by common consent benefited from boarding out in innumerable ways, both psychologically and socially, and the cost of their support had proved to be at least a third less than in institutions.

Power 1879-1882 319 IIIness—for him something hitherto almost unknown—began seriously to

interrupt Parkes’s political work in the later part of 1881. From August onwards it seemed as if he were paying a price for what one friend called ‘the continuous strain which has for years overburdened your mental and physical faculties’. At the beginning of December he told Sir Daniel Cooper that he had been intermittently so ill over the previous few months that he would gladly have retired from office had that been possible. Now he had decided to yield to advice from his two doctors and seek ‘temporary change and rest’. He was coming to London, travelling via America. Cooper, in England since 1861, acting often as the colony’s agent, was delighted. Oddly enough he had written, only a few weeks before Parkes’s letter arrived, ‘urging you to do this and saying that if want of funds detained you that I would guarantee you free of all cost from the day you left Sydney to the day you returned’. Though his finances

were, as usual, precarious, Parkes appears not to have accepted Cooper’s largesse, just as he declined the efforts of friends, headed by Henry Gorman, auctioneer, and Charles Moore—both large creditors of his—to organize a testimonial on the eve of his departure. In the previous August he had, however, been glad to accept a loan (at 8 per cent interest) of £3500 from Gorman, the money being provided ‘as an act of friendship’. ‘I make no doubt’, he had then written to Gorman, ‘that your generous feeling is shared by many others unknown to me for after all, whatever injustice may be inflicted at times, Englishmen in the long run set a true value upon the services of their public men’.

The testimonial, if it had gone ahead, would no doubt have raised a respectable sum, for Parkes, despite the enemies he had made in some quarters, was at this moment at the height of popularity—in many ways, indeed, at the apex of his political career. The citizens of Sydney gave him a farewell banquet. The two houses of parliament entertained him at a splendid feast presided over by John Hay, veteran politician. Introducing Parkes as the guest of honour on this occasion, Hay praised above all the premier’s honesty of purpose as a politician: ‘On no occasion has anyone been able to connect his

name with anything that showed a tendency to make a market of politics—(prolonged cheering)—to benefit his private interests by the political power he had obtained. (Cheers.)’ Parkes’s speech in reply stressed his patriotic

attachment to New South Wales and, though not always tasteful in its self-satisfaction, was received in a spirit which could leave no doubt of the warmth and generality of the wish that in England he should be honoured and, above all, recruit his strength. As companion Parkes decided to take with him his daughter Annie. Now twenty-six, she was a capable intelligent woman, who occupied a key place in the changed family circumstances of this time. With Clarinda in retirement, a chronic invalid, Mary married, away at Liverpool, and Menie fighting poverty

and rearing her family, Annie, unmarried and for the moment without prospects, was the senior daughter at Parkes’s beck and call. She spent much of her time with Lily, nursing their mother at Faulconbridge, but she also worked as amanuensis for her father and appeared with him in public when

female companionship was required, sometimes performing the kind of chore—presenting prizes or receiving guests—that would normally be expected

320 Henry Parkes of a premier’s wife. She had to undertake much of the management of Faulconbridge and to act as hostess when Parkes was entertaining there. She was no Menie, neither as sensitive nor as close to her father’s heart, and though he did sometimes talk and write to her about political matters, she had none of Menie’s shrewd understanding or capacity for pungent comment. But Parkes treated her with a kind of whimsical affection; he had sought to develop in her a rather different literary talent from Menie’s—almost as if grooming her fora future role:

It is a good exercise of the mind—and one that affords play to the moral instincts—to try to think & to create in writing. The smallest advantage of such a practice is that it insensibly extends one’s knowledge & command of one’s mother tongue. I would therefore say to you—‘Do not fear the use of the pen but use it for the mind’s own innocent gratification’. Attempts at literary composition bring their own reward, if nothing further comes of them. So he wrote when she was twenty. On her twenty-second birthday he reminded her that the secret of happiness ‘really consists in accepting whatever the day brings & finding for ourselves employment which combines innocence with usefulness’, and during the next year he once gave her an exercise to exemplify that purpose:

I want you to write me a long letter describing with perfect accuracy and in pure style & eloquent language all that the men have done in the gully and among the rocks leading down to it. And your letter should in addition contain an account of all the new flowers, the number of hawthorn plants that have broken into leaf, the number of blossoms on the fruit trees, and the different kinds of birds that come about the house during your mother’s absence. And so your writing’s clear and terse, It may be either prose or verse. But if in verse, let no one know it Or else they’ll call you Name the Poet. ... As to yourself, let me beg of you not to go out to many parties; the night air might not agree with you. Tell Miss Golightly not to fret,

Her Teddy dear adores her yet... And now, Good-bye, and don’t be sad While I am stilling [still] your loving Dad. Needless to say, she adored him. Menie, whose new life had many ups and downs, still wrote in her best moments prose of a kind Annie could never aspire to—of Carlyle in mid- 1879, forexample: ‘I enjoy everything and the winter here has been delightful—clear, incisive, cold with a sweetness in it that you seem to drink, bright sunshine, and snow enough to be just an exciting pleasure’. She could complain but usually seemed to regain equilibrium: “When I look around my happy little home and

Power 1879-1882 321 my healthy intelligent children I realise with a gush of gratitude what my father has done for me’. After he left for England the thought of months without him brought to her pen only words of anguish—‘both my brain and heart were almost petrified’.

No record survives to tell us of the feelings of another woman, new to Parkes’s story, whose sense of loss at his departure must also have been intolerable. This was Eleanor Dixon, destined to become the second Lady Parkes, whose attachment to him must have meant a profound change in Parkes’s life at this time. She too was English, born in Northumberland, having come to Victoria with her parents, Thomas and Margaret Dixon, at the age of twelve. She moved from Melbourne to Sydney in April 1881, an unmarried mother of twenty-three with a month-old son. This infant died six weeks after

her arrival; then, on 9 August 1882 she bore a daughter, who also died in infancy before that year was out. It can strongly be presumed that Parkes was the father of both children. The second child was called ‘Nellie’, which became Parkes’s pet-name for Eleanor. He certainly knew Eleanor before he left for

America, and her next child, Sydney, born in March 1884, was beyond question Parkes’s. How the association began can only be a matter of speculation, but that Parkes’s affection for Eleanor was deep and permanent is put beyond question by subsequent events. Parkes sailed in the S.S. Australia on 29 December 1881. He had said his farewells to Clarinda at Faulconbridge four days before. She next heard of him by the mail from Honolulu, a letter written on New Year’s Eve, 600 miles out from Sydney. He was seasick and sentimental: ‘A happy new year to you my love. Do not doubt but that you and our dear mountain home will be present to me & poor Annie tomorrow. Give my love to Mary & Lilly and to all not forgetting old Hero [his dog]’. Clarinda responded with typical affection and simple good sense: We have received your letter from Honolulu the description of your health

was not what I could have wished I fear that you are suffering from depression of spirits but the time you have been away is short and I hope when you get to land and have more change of scene you will be better.

She was of course right. By 26 January 1882, just into San Francisco and installed in the Palace Hotel (in a suite of rooms lately occupied by none other than General Grant!) he was writing ecstatically of his reception in America. Already the trip was a triumphal progress: I am either taken out or my rooms are occupied by visitors all day. Dinners and theatres and sight-seeing leave me no time to think. A lady has arranged to drive me out to see the Sea Lions at Cliff House (6 miles from here) with

a four-in-hand tomorrow and on Tuesday I shall be the guest of the Governor of the State of Sacramento the capital. On Tuesday night I shall proceed on my long, long railway journey not stopping for 2000 miles. . . the Company has done all they can to make us comfortable, giving us a special

carriage with dining car attached. I am offered special carriages on other lines and indeed I am overwhelmed with attention. Annie seems to enjoy all this immensely.

322 Henry Parkes Parkes’s reception was in some ways an expression of the seniority he had earned among Australian politicians—‘My name’, he wrote “appeared to be

well known as that of one holding a high place in the public life of Australia’—though it is doubtful whether Americans of the late nineteenth century knew or cared any more than those of the late twentieth century about the Australian political scene. It was probably more important that friends and well-wishers, especially from the merchant community, cabled or wrote to American contacts ahead of Parkes’s coming. He was also on a semidiplomatic mission of his own devising, to tout for American aid with the trans-Pacific mail service and to negotiate for a reduction in the crippling American duty on imports of wool. He had persuaded Queensland and South Australia to commission him to represent their interests in these matters though the governor of New South Wales, Lord Augustus Loftus, thought he ought not to be allowed to ‘treat with a Foreign Government’ except through the British ambassador in Washington and the Victorians, thinking his advocacy would do them more harm than good, refused to give Parkes any official countenance. The issue caused a mild flutter in the foreign office after Parkes,

introduced to the American under secretary of state, Bancroft Davis, by the British ambassador, Sackville West, innocently asked to which American authority he should address a written statement of his case. As Sackville West reported it to his superiors in London: Mr. Davis replied that if H.M.’s Minister would state his views to the State

Dept. on the subject, they would be carefully considered in the proper quarter, whereupon I told Mr. Davis that I had received no instructions from Y.Ls. to discuss these questions on behalf of the Govt. of New South Wales and that as they involved matters connected with commercial treaties and

post office conventions, I conceived that reference should be had to the Imperial Govt. before I could [take] any step in the sense indicated by him and in this view Sir H. Parkes coincided. The snub, however insulting, neither dampened Parkes’s spirits nor reduced the attention he received as an Australian plenipotentiary. On the way across the continent he was feted at Chicago, visited Niagara and dined at Albany with the governor of New York state. Once in New York city “Our card tray was

filled the first six hours’. His old employer Hall travelled 800 miles to meet Parkes (and missed him!) and Hall’s wife Bessie provided a refuge, when things became too hectic, in their comfortable home on a small estate on the Hudson River, sixty-odd miles from New York. It was needed. Parkes dined with the mayor of New York, addressed the chambers of commerce of that city and of

Boston, visited Harvard, ate with the Lotos Club—journalists, artists and musicians—and spoke for an hour in response to a toast in his honour. He met president Arthur, ‘a tall, portly gentleman in plain evening dress’, at a dinner given early in his visit to Washington by Justice Field and subsequently visited

the White House, to be delighted by the informality there and, when the president squeezed in a brief appointment, to explain his mission to America. It hardly mattered that, in the end, neither were the duties lowered nor did the Pacific service win an American subsidy. As the visit drew to a close Bessie Hall caught its real import when she wrote to Annie:

Power 1879-1882 323 [long to know how you enjoyed Washington & whether you have had nearly

enough of such lionizing! If Sir Henry’s digestive organs are not for ever destroyed it will be a miracle after eating so many ‘big’ dinners! Please tell him that Mrs Satterlee always asks after him, & thinks him the cleverest & handsomest man she has met in an age.

The travellers made a brief and unproductive trip to Canada (‘we were denied, by our limited time, the advantage of learning much of the country. To add to our disadvantage the ground was covered with a thawing snow’), then embarked for England on the R.M.S. Germanic. A day out of Liverpool, off

Ireland, Parkes wrote to tell Clarinda of their Atlantic crossing. It had gone well. By resting and not trying to read and write, he had managed to avoid seasickness and Annie, honoured by being placed at table on the captain’s right, had a wonderful trip. But he had disturbing news of his health. In words no doubt too familiar for comfort, Clarinda read: I doubt much if I shall ever be able to attend to home matters again. I cannot think with much confidence about my own health but I will try to know the truth as to my state when I get to London. In any case [am certain that I shall

never again be capable of much bodily exertion & must be much more careful than hitherto. If | had not brought a servant from San Francisco, I should never have got through. I am quite unfit to look after our own baggage ... It is useless for me to trouble myself about Faulconbridge. I must let things take their course till Ireturn. [ hope all will be well and I know that in all things you will do the best & wisest for our home interests.

He had, however, at once to brace himself. Saul Samuel, now agent general, and a wealthy Australian merchant friend, William Ogg, met him, escorted him and Annie to London and installed them in Ogg’s palatial home. The ‘honizing’ of New York was quickly eclipsed; Ihave been obliged to open an Engagement Book and Ihave 14 Dinners now on my hands & invitations from all quarters. The Banquet to be given to me on the 28th will Iam told be attended by 300 persons & be the greatest thing of the kind ever held. He wrote that on 2 April. The night before, at an Institution of Civil Engineers’

dinner (‘the dinner of the year next in importance to that of the Royal Academy’), he had responded to the toast of ‘the Colonies’ with—he told Clarinda—what all considered the speech of the evening. He had already met Gladstone, dined with Robert Lowe, planned a trip to Stoneleigh and accepted

an invitation to stay with the Tennysons on the Isle of Wight. The Royal Colonial Institute organized the banquet of the 28th in his honour: held in

Willis’s rooms, it was attended, according to the Times, by 200 gentlemen—colonial notables and leading British politicians and administrators. The Duke of Edinburgh was in the chair. Parkes spoke immodestly of his public services to New South Wales over twenty-eight years of parliamentary life, a period in which he had watched the population grow from

20 000 to 3 000 000. The colony, he said, was a young Hercules which had left its cradle: with others like it, it must now form a new kind of Empire, one in which it would be united with England ‘on terms of a just and enlightened equality’:

324 Henry Parkes We cannot go on with the mother-country looking upon us as mere outlying plantations; we must be parts really and substantially of the Empire. We are

entitled to be so by the soundness of our loyalty and the soundness and wisdom displayed in helping ourselves. No mistake can be greater than for Englishmen who stay at home to think that they can instruct us. Those of the

British population who emigrate, as a rule show by their very act of emigration that they have more determination, more enterprise, more self-dependence, than those who remain often to lament their narroweddown existence in the country of their birth. Those who are born of them in the new countries as a rule are free from all the conditions that young men

are subject to at home—they are freer from poverty, more independent, more accustomed to maintain their own, and, above all, they are attached to the soil of their birth; and the two classes make up a population as steady, as intelligent, and as helpful as any in the world, and while we claim no merit above our fellow-countrymen at home, we shall not long be content with a position inferior to theirs. In a suave reply the secretary of state for the colonies, Lord Kimberley, spoke

wryly as ‘the representative of a used-up old country’—(laughter and cheers)—and expressed pleasure at hearing from ‘one of the youngest and one of the greatest of the Australian colonies’ what they used to hear from the oldest colony, the United States: ‘that it had something to teach us’.

Recognition had been rather more unalloyed a week before, at Parkes’s birthplace, Stoneleigh. He went back there at the invitation of Lord Leigh, current master of Stoneleigh Abbey and head of the family which sixty years before had turned Parkes’s father off his farm. Leigh’s carriage met Parkes at the station and was escorted to the Abbey by a procession of schoolchildren, led by the Stoneleigh drum and fife band playing “Warwickshire Lads and Lasses’, with ‘a large body of Stoneleigh labourers marching in the rear’. At the Abbey Leigh spoke of his pleasure at welcoming an ‘old Stoneleigh boy who, after receiving his first lessons of education in their village school, had raised

himself to the distinguished position of Prime Minister in one of our most important colonies’. Parkes, in reply, impressed upon the children the fact that theirs was a golden period of life, that it was rapidly passing away, that once gone it would never return, and that it would most certainly be succeeded by a time in which trouble, and labour, and anxiety would be their common lot. They could not all rise to a position of power, honour, influence, and responsibility, such as that he now filled, but in resolving to discharge the duties of life, and in being of use and service in their day and generation, they would do far better than he had done.

A few more days and he was at Farringford, with Thomas Woolner and Annie, as the guest of the Tennysons. Tennyson sent his carriage to meet the party at Yarmouth and a long weekend of talk, rural walks and beach rambles began. In the evenings the poet read to them: “The Northern Farmer’, “The Ode on the Death of Wellington’, ‘Guinevere’. Annie thought Tennyson ‘a strange gruff man’ but her father was beside himself as each ‘golden day faded into soft slumber and rest’. In 1876 he had approached Tennyson from afar, sending

Power 1879-1882 325 him through Woolner copies of his poems and speeches to ‘tell you in some sort who I am’ and explaining with cloying fulsomeness:

From the days of boyhood your name has been written in gold in my imagination and the times I have escaped from the pressure of anxiety and the weariness of toil to seek consolation and elevation of feeling in your poems might be counted by hundreds. I have sometimes wished I could say thus much to you, but have been restrained by a sense of the value of your time and the worthlessness of anything I could say. Now, face to face with the great man, Parkes found him easy enough to chat with—anxious, indeed, for first-hand news of Australia... or at least such was the story the Sydney Mail’s London correspondent was soon to learn:

There was much talk between the host and his guest of the colonies. Tennyson is an ‘imperialist’ of the better sort. He has the poet’s pride in the greatness and glory of the Empire, as his recent verses ‘Hands allround’ bear witness. He accordingly takes an unbounded interest in the colonies, and narrowly watches all their movements, political and social. He has formed a strong opinion as to be thesaid desirableness of confederation forhe thehas colonies of Australia, and it must in justification of the poet that not taken this view without long and earnest study of the problem. The experience quite turned Parkes’s head. A few days after it was over we find

him sending Hallam Tennyson a copy of the European Mail wherein ‘the report of my speech [at Willis’s rooms] is so much better than any in the London morning papers’ and asking him to persuade his father to read it: ‘He has been so good in taking an interest in my Australian life that I should like him to see what I did say on the occasion of the Dinner’. In the same note a cheeky comment on the historian Froude, whom Parkes

had just met at breakfast with the Carnarvons, reflects similar self-preening: ‘Lord Carnarvon spoke of him as “brilliant” but that idea did not come home to me. I should be more inclined as a first impression, to think of him as one of

comparative intellectual strength with little of brighter qualities’. In the circumstances it must have been gratifying for Tennyson to receive from Parkes in June 1882 a farewell letter describing the stay at Farringford as ‘one of the brightest links in our lives’ and assuring him that ‘Your large views of the future of Australia have for me added an interest to your standing in the world

of letters which the greater number of your admirers cannot feel’. Over the next few weeks Parkes and Annie visited Lambeth Palace and met the Archbishop of Canterbury, dined with Lord and Lady Kimberley, were entertained by the mayor of Birmingham and saw Shakespeare’s tomb at Stratford-on-Avon. The climax of the trip came at Buckingham Palace. ‘It is significant of the importance which her Majesty attaches to the visit of Sir Henry Parkes’, wrote the Sydney Mail correspondent (having of course garnered the news from Parkes himself), ‘to know that the entree to the drawing room as well as invitations for the State Ball, which have been given this week at Buckingham Palace, were sent to him by her own orders’. In appearance, at least, Parkes would not have disappointed his admiring sovereign: “You will wear your levée coat’, he had been ordered, ‘white cloth knee breeches, white

326 Henry Parkes silk stockings, pumps with gold buckles, and court sword’. A few days earlie1

he had written home to Clarinda:

Itis notin my power to give you any adequate idea of the amount of attention { am receiving here. It could hardly be greater. All this is very gratifying but I think I know the value of it. It does not intoxicate me, I can assure you. I don’t know what to make of my prospects of health. They are not very good ...and I feel that the truth ought to be known to my family. As far as I can learn, it amounts to this—I shall never be strong again & must uniformly take care of myself. I must be careful in diet, in exercise, in work, overtaxing my

strength might lead to serious consequences at any moment. Walking up these four stairs to my bedroom here tries me very much. Walking about Stoneleigh Park with Lord Leigh nearly knocked me over. Fortunately for me I can enjoy the Dinners because I have little exertion and new men of mark whom I constantly meet are of unfailing interest to me. Parkes was under treatment from one Dr Kidd. His ailment is not anywhere

specified, though one account of the treatment, and symptoms like his difficulty with luggage, suggest that a hernia might have been part of the trouble. Maybe his hardworking and healthy past made him too prone to take a lugubrious view of his present sufferings: certainly, whatever the nature of his

complaint, he was able to manage indulgences much more energetic than dinners. Four weeks after telling Clarinda he would never be strong again he was well enough to travel with Annie to the Continent, looking at factories in Belgium, lunching with the King and Queen at the Laeken Palace, walking sentimentally over the battle-field at Waterloo. They went on to Berlin, and at Potsdam ate with the Crown Prince and his wife, England’s Princess Royal, who talked knowledgeably about Australia and the experiences there of her brother, the Duke of Edinburgh. Over two more days in Berlin they visited a

porcelain factory, inspected a torpedo factory and saw the art galleries. Returning via Paris they had dinner at the British Embassy, an evening at the opera, and an interview with the head of the French ministry, de Freycinet. They were in London late in June for more dinners and concerts, Parkes had another long conversation with Gladstone and then, as he sadly put it himself, ‘it was all over’. On | July 1882, just over three crowded months since Ogg and Samuel’s welcome at Southampton, they sailed from Plymouth in the John Elder.

At Capetown the pilot met the ship with a message for Parkes and the governor’s carriage was at the wharf when they berthed. “There is a light which is SO pure and spiritual that it seems derived from a new sense of life in meeting a familiar and dear face in a strange country. Such was my feeling in meeting Sir Hercules Robinson at the Cape’. For once Parkes’s extravagant words ring

true: the mutual affection of these two men was indeed strong and deep. Now—Parkes’s ailments notwithstanding—they had ‘long talks and long walks’. Then home to a banquet from the people of Melbourne, a special Victorian train to Wodonga, a triumphal arch over the Murray, addresses of welcome in Albury and another ‘special’ to Sydney. Homecoming proved more exhilarating than any part of the trip itself. At

Redfern station, then the Sydney rail terminus, a crowd estimated at 8000

Power 1879-1882 327 waited to cheer the travellers. The train, festooned with greenery, steamed into

a bunting-bedecked platform, where the mayor, the ministry and Sydney’s Other notables waited. Dozens of hands, according to the Herald’s reporter, were held out and a.‘very cordial meeting’ took place between Parkes and Robertson—their “grasping of hands was longer and heartier than it was in the case of other persons’. Outside the station the mayor, dressed in his robes of office, read an address of congratulations on Parkes’s safe return to New South Wales: the ‘brilliant receptions’ accorded him in America, England and on the Continent had given the greatest satisfaction at home, ‘for we felt that the distinguished attentions which were so lavishly bestowed upon you were intended not only as personal compliments to yourself, but also as recognitions of the growing importance of the colony, which you, as Premier, represented’. His “patriotic and eloquent speeches’ delivered in response to the honours he received simply ‘added to the debt of gratitude this colony owes you for many

years of zealous political service’. Parkes modestly replied that he was ‘perfectly content for my conduct to speak foritself’, received another welcome address, this time from the United Temperance Associations, raised a laugh by

asserting his right, not being what Sir John Robertson called ‘a bigoted teetotaler’, to drink a glass of champagne, and was swept off to the colonial secretary's office in a dray drawn by a handsome team of four greys. That night 365 gentlemen sat down to a banquet in the old exhibition building to honour

him. Electric light (four burners ... erected under the supervision of Mr. Cracknell, Superintendent of Telegraphs’) added to the brilliance of the scene; a great crowd, including many ladies, watched from the galleries; and the band of the New South Wales Permanent Artillery provided the airs. To the tune of ‘For he is an Englishman’ Alexander Campbell proposed Parkes’s health and despite a heavy cold the hero of the evening gave a long speech asserting the honesty of purpose and fearless independence with which he would face his coming political tasks. As to the trip just ended,

The attentions I received I trust I accepted in a becoming spirit, and I hope

I never lost sight of the country I represented in attaching value to any attentions of that kind. I still laboured as far as I could to promote the true interests of the Australian colonies as a whole, and I can safely say that in no company and on no occasion did [ shrink from giving utterance to my real opinions in any speech which I delivered. On the eve of Parkes’s departure, much to the relief of the governor (probably, indeed, at his behest), Robertson had agreed, as Loftus put it, ‘to render any services either to his Country or to yourse/f that may be fairly required of him’. Robertson had resigned, it will be recalled, in November 1881, to signalize his

confidence in his lands minister, Garrett, when the latter was alleged to be implicated in a malpractice over compensation payments to a copper-mining company. He was now prepared, however, to come out of retirement, accept the lands ministry and serve as acting premier. So the government’s stability was assured during Parkes’s absence. After his first three months in charge Robertson assured Parkes that ‘times have gone as merrily as a “Marriage Bell” ’, and intimates in the cabinet cheerfully reiterated the theme: ‘As a government we are still a happy united family’, wrote the treasurer, Watson,

328 Henry Parkes ‘,. everything going on most smoothly’. Not that Watson thought his present chief quite a Parkes—Robertson, he said, ‘wants dignity, and altogether lacks many little points’. Parkes had announced when leaving that parliament would stay in recess until his return. It proved to be a long time—eight months—and G. A. Lloyd (who was not in the ministry), noting at the end of April some restiveness, wrote to Parkes: ‘I am told that old Jack [Robertson] said that he will not keep parliament out of Session so long but I do not think he will be

game to call the House together until you return’. Game or not, Robertson certainly made no move to summon parliament: Parkes himself fixed the date for that—22 August—and issued directions for the resumption before he left London. Robertson called a cabinet meeting as soon as Parkes arrived, ‘for talking over the position generally’ and to hand back the reins. “You will find the col sec office without arrears’, he wrote, ‘so that you will not have any bother for a little time with ordinary work’. That was as well, for Parkes still felt ill and

parliament opened with a liveliness that would consume all energy and attention. The opposition, though still small, had a new leader and new fire. The opposition leadership had been suddenly vacated on 10 December 1881, just before Parkes left for America, when Michael Fitzpatrick collapsed and died from apoplexy. Sad enough in itself, this event aroused great public sympathy when for a time Fitzpatrick was denied Catholic burial rites, to register the church’s displeasure with some of his views, especially his defence of public schools. The matter was raised in parliament, where Parkes earned plaudits from Protestant friends for a blistering anti-Catholic speech. Even the governor, the man who most of all should have been neutral, wrote ‘One line to express my admiration of your speech last night—I consider the act of the Catholic Hierarchy... to be a “monstrosity” of bigotry and intolerance’. After the recess an opposition caucus invited Alexander Stuart to fill Fitzpatrick’s

place. Stuart, late of the Church of England defence association, was an experienced and respected politician who in November 1879 had resigned his seat to accept the position of agent general in London at Parkes’s hand. The appointment (he was to replace Forster, peremptorily recalled by Parkes for

his unorthodox views and offhandedness with government business) was widely thought of as a ‘job’ to remove, as the Public Instruction Bill was introduced, the government’s most formidable opponent. For personal reasons, however, Stuart resigned the position without even leaving Sydney and was back in parliament by mid-1880. He now accepted the leadership of the opposition, at some personal inconvenience, through a sense of duty and amid plaudits from both sides of the house: at last, as one member said, parliament would again experience ‘that opposition which is required in every deliberative assembly on every ground of public interest’. Stuart struck at once by moving a hostile amendment to the governor’s

speech, deploring the long delay in calling parliament together and the inevitable neglect of urgent problems. The most serious, he added, was the land question, on which public indignation was mounting fast. Robertson’s Acts had patently failed, yet instead of rethinking the whole issue, all the government foreshadowed was the refurbishing of worn-out measures. It was an able and dignified speech, at once sparklingly supported by the opposition’s

Power 1879-1882 329 rising young star, George Reid—the ‘unknown man’ who had topped the East Sydney poll in 1880. Now thirty-seven, Reid had spent sixteen years as a civil

servant, chiefly in the treasury, and three at the bar. A portly man, he was

already adept at exploiting on platform and in parliament his physical peculiarities and had developed a genial and racy style of oratory most audiences found irresistible. Though at his election a conditional supporter of Parkes, he crossed the floor in mid-1881 to join Fitzpatrick, disgusted at the ministry’s failure to act on the land problem and convinced that ‘the overwhelming strength of the Government, combined with the feebleness of the Opposition, has created a state of things which no lover of parliamentary government can regard with satisfaction. One of the evils of coalitions between

political opponents is ... that what the Administration gains in strength parliamentary government loses in vitality and public life in virtue’. Now, following Stuart, he assailed the land laws, attacked Parkes’s arrogant (as he saw it) refusal to explain the delay in calling parliament together and condemned the government for carrying out by administrative fiat actions which should have received prior parliamentary approval—especially the purchase ofa country residence for the governor at Moss Vale and of the ship Wolverene for a nautical school. “There never was a time’, he said, ‘when plain speaking

and independent action were more required in the Parliament’: From what I have seen of the conduct of the Government, and the action of

the two distinguished gentlemen at the head of it, I have come to the conclusion that noble and patriotic as has been their advocacy of popular rights and measures in the past and far more dangerous and troublesome times, they have fallen away from that zeal for the public interests which once used to characterise them. They are not the fearless advocates of public

rights they once were. They have not the same keen sympathy with the masses of the people they once had. They do not speak of Parliament and parliamentary institutions as they once spoke. Reid’s attack stung Robertson into a hurt reply and though Parkes remained silent he was not to forget or forgive. He heard out with equal stoniness a far less respectful assault from the third opposition star, Forster, though in this case it was no more than he had come to expect. Forster (back in the house after

returning from London) enumerated with a cunning series of half-truths Parkes’s ‘reversals’ of opinion on a dozen different subjects, all to support a major half-truth that was too true for comfort: that the premier had learned to act with magnanimity, impartiality, and generosity towards principles of all kinds. He has shown a sublime disregard of them and has treated them as being of

small moment compared with the far more important public duty of presenting the public with good administration. I need hardly say that the rule of the honorable member’s political life has been that no Administration of which he was not a member could be safe or could be trusted. When the honorable gentleman has been out of office he has been disposed to regard the colony as lost. We find him over and over again proposing to retire from public life. He has taken upon himself the role of a Solomon Eagle, and has gone round the country calling “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.’ But

when he has entered office all the public danger has disappeared, the

330 Henry Parkes honorable gentleman’s paramount duty being to keep in its place the Administration of which he happens to be a member. Fine oratory notwithstanding, the opposition could not yet match spirit with numbers and when the vote was taken Stuart lost, seventeen to sixty-seven. Government complacency was nevertheless disturbed, especially as it became clear that Parkes’s health was far from restored. In the first few weeks of September days of debilitating illness brought him to the point of offering his resignation. He wrote to Robertson in a letter which he asked to be read to his cabinet colleagues:

It is now a full year since the course of public business first began to be disturbed by my state of health. I have taken a great and expensive change with the hope of complete or partial recovery ofstrength; but I fear with little

permanent good result. Throughout this period the conduct of my colleagues has been kindness itself; and the Parliament and the Public have been more than considerate and forbearing. He felt he should not go on; but Robertson came in person to see him, to say that all his colleagues wished him to stay and would firmly stand by him. So he continued on, occasionally—and for him most uncharacteristically—not in his place, but generally in command nevertheless. Early in October he lost in the

house resolutions to designate sites for a national gallery and a free public library, but no one seriously thought of this defeat as imperilling the ministry, even though the debate had been bitter and Parkes had clearly set his heart on being the founder of two new centres of colonial culture. But a few weeks later,

the government suffered a sudden rebuff of quite a different order. The assembly rejected by a large majority the second reading ofa Bill to consolidate

and amend the land laws—the ministry’s major measure of the session. Resignation stared Parkes in the face. His only consolation was that Robertson, and not he, was the real architect of the disaster. That the offending Bill was Robertson’s has never been open to doubt. He framed it and introduced it, with proud, almost proprietorial insistence that ‘there are none in the House who have had more experience in connection with this question than I have had. I think I may also say that there is no one here who is more fearless, or more regardless, of consequences, in maintaining that which he believes to be right in this matter than am’. What education was to Parkes, land was to Robertson: the great question on which, above all others,

he staked his claim to the title of statesman. Parkes for his part accepted Robertson’s authority on land matters, it seems with few reservations. Land legislation had always been a matter on which Parkes tended to speak in the language ofa non-expert, in high-sounding but woolly platitudes that reflected unwillingness to master the detail of a complex but boring subject. He sat through the assembly debate on Robertson’s Bill without speaking and his quotation in his autobiography of almost the whole of Robertson’s second reading speech as reflecting the position of the ministry emphasizes that he and his colleagues accepted Robertson’s views as theirs. If he had any personal reservations about the Bill he never expressed them publicly, nor does any evidence of private disapproval appear to survive.

Power 1879-1882 33] Reduced to its essentials, the land problem by 1882, after twenty years’ operation of Robertson’s original Acts, was that of deciding how best to handle the results of ‘free selection before survey’, that ‘apple of discord’ (Stuart’s description) which the legislators of 1861 had thrown down among occupiers and would-be occupiers of the colony’s rural lands. Purchasers wishing and entitled to select farms anywhere they chose came inevitably into conflict with

squatters who already rented crown lands and needed guaranteed periods of tenure to make their grazing runs workable propositions. This conflict ac-

celerated over the years, with selectors struggling to ease their terms of purchase and to find ways of foiling squatters, while squatters sometimes bent

the law and often used their superior credit to buy up the land as the only defence left to them in the absence of fixed tenure. Transport difficulties, market shortages and the harshness of the land meantime reduced in all buta limited number of favoured places the possibility of realizing happy midcentury dreams of a countryside dotted with smiling agricultural farms. As the most successful squatters purchased land in self-protection, and as the most

successful selectors bought out their neighbours to put together viable properties on which they often turned to grazing, large landholding became widespread and the traditional distinction between the two classes of land occupiers blurred. Buta few notorious court cases, some actual lawlessness and

the propaganda of radical bodies like selectors’ associations kept the land conflict before the public eye in the old terms. At the same time mounting sales of crown land, pushed ahead artificially by the struggle for possession, worried thoughtful men. To treat land sales, which by the late seventies provided half

the receipts of a buoyant treasury, as current revenue seemed to many a squandering of the colony’s capital resources. It also protected the community

from facing up to the problem of devising a sound system of taxation that would meet current expenditure by tapping current income. Thanks to the land revenue the colony was still able to avoid direct taxation altogether and, unlike its neighbour Victoria, to draw only to a limited degree on the customs house.

Stuart’s and the opposition’s attack on the government at the time of Parkes’s return from England was the political expression of widespread perturbation at this unhappy situation: land matters were in a state of chaos and something had to be done. Robertson agreed-with that, though tardily, and

still stubbornly maintained that the principles of 1861 had not been found wanting. When in the end he produced a Bill, its purpose was to consolidate the

Acts of 1861 and subsequent amendments (made most notably in 1875 and 1880 to strengthen the selectors’ position) and to add new safeguards (like extending the time that selectors must live on their land before selling it) to prevent speculators and squatters manipulating the law. Robertson explained

his aims in familiar terms at the outset of his second reading speech: ‘Throughout the bill the taking up of land has been made easier for the fair-dealing conditional purchaser, and more difficult and more dangerous for the conditional purchaser who attempts to fraudulently make use of the law’. But his opponents were convinced that changes had to be made at the very foundation of the system: tinkering with the superstructure could never solve

the problem. So, in a respectful but tightly-reasoned speech, Stuart

332 Henry Parkes demolished Robertson’s arguments, showing how the existing land system had pitted class against class, had bred dishonesty and government extravagance

and had handed large areas of land over to great financial corporations. Selection before survey, he said, must, in its indiscriminate form, be ended.

Squatters and selectors must be separated, and the law must be radically

changed to prevent either having privileged access to the land. As a counter-programme to Robertson’s he set out a series of precise propositions

for legislation to designate the areas for free selection, to give squatters predictable tenure elsewhere, to abolish the system of selling land by auction

(through which squatters, banks and land companies had in recent years purchased large areas) and to establish local land boards to adjudicate in open court on all disputes concerning the administration of the law. The debate, which lasted three evenings, quickly revealed that opinion was

running strongly against the government and on the last day a meeting of sixteen squatters’ representatives decided to vote against the Bill unless the government amended it to give pastoral tenants ‘fixity of tenure’. Robertson refused, forced a division prematurely in a depleted house where he thought ‘we had present an abundant majority’, and was defeated, forty-three votes to thirty-three. Seventeen of the government’s usual supporters crossed the floor and all but two of the twelve independent members in the house voted with the

opposition. A more decisive declaration that Robertson’s system was outmoded can hardly be imagined. Parkes at once adjourned the house and on the next day, 17 November 1882, persuaded Governor Loftus to grant a dissolution. The election was scheduled

for the first three weeks of December. Loftus reported to London that the ministry did not doubt the poll would vindicate them. Parkes, certainly, looked

beyond the current crisis to an extended term of office in which new achievements would crown his career. He explained his plans privately to his friend, Henry Gorman, who was just then trying to decide whether to stand in the coming election: Now, if you do not enter this House, it is by no means improbable that you will never sit there with me. I am neither young nor strong and in all human probability am now in office for the last time. But there is a far weightier reason than this. If I am now returned with a sufficient support to remain in office with credit, I have mapped out before me the task of establishing a great system of Local Government for New South Wales and of making a vigorous attempt (which no one else could make so effectively) to confederate the colonies. To take part in the business of Parliament under ordinary circumstances is a high privilege, but to take ashare in such noble labours as I foreshadow will be the highest privilege a member of an Australian Parliament can look for in our day. At his East Sydney meetings Parkes argued rather lamely against Stuart’s land proposals and obviously underestimated their centrality in the election and the strength of popular support for them. He was more concerned with his own wider plans and his statesmanlike destiny. As he put it in a testy reply when one heckler twitted him on having come fourth at the last poll:

Power 1879-1882 333 Here is a gentleman who imagines I am thinking about my place on the poll. [have too much of other matters to think about, and I say that I would rather be at the bottom of the poll than at the top of it with the assistance of certain men. (Cheers.) I know there will be a mass of votes recorded against me to

a man. But I defy them. (Loud cheers.) Supposing the electors of East syeney rejected you think Parliament? (Cheers.) There me, is nodopower in theI should colonynot canfind keepmy meway outinto of Parliament. (Cheers.) In the first poll of the election East Sydney did indeed reject him, and Arthur Renwick, the minister for mines, as well. Reid, next to Stuart the most effective critic of Robertson’s land system, again topped the poll. But almost at once, in

distant Tenterfield, a Mr Edward Reeves Whereat, J.P., who had been requisitioned to stand for the local electorate, retired and personally proposed Parkes in his place. At the official nomination Whereat spoke warmly of ‘the good likely to accrue to the district from being represented by a man of such ability, power and influence as Sir Henry Parkes’. Tenterfield’s mayor, David Corney, seconded the nomination and to enthusiastic cheers and the air ‘For

he’s a jolly good fellow’ from the local band, Parkes was declared elected unopposed. Whereat, who described himself to Parkes as ‘an admirer of your character as a statesman ever since I have been in the colony (1860)’, appears to have acted on his own initiative and without Parkes’s knowledge. This was early in December 1882; in the following February he had the joy of presiding at a banquet to honour his hero in the Tenterfield school of arts, when Parkes made his first trip to the electorate. The election was a disaster for the ministry. Foster, the minister for justice, lost his seat at Newtown. Watson, the treasurer, was rejected at Young and then, in a grand and futile gesture, unsuccessfully contested Illawarra against Alexander Stuart. Renwick, defeated with Parkes at East Sydney, failed again at Tumut. ‘I was afraid we were all going to be defeated’, wrote F. B. Suttor, minister for public instruction, when Parkes, having heard of his election, sent him acongratulatory telegram: “The East Sydney election of course had a bad

effect upon the country—it would be better for Heads of a Government to represent country constituencies where their seats are safer’. Even so Suttor’s own seat, Bathurst, had not been easy to hold: ‘I had a hard fight indeed and won it with only a few to spare the Romans and the Publicans were nearly too many for me, and these are the men who are deciding the elections or trying to against us’. Parkes heard the same story from a number of the country electorates. James Torpy, defeated at Orange by a Catholic, Thomas Dalton, wrote angrily:

I met with the most ferocious opposition from the Romans, who were canvassed to a man by the Priests of this and adjoining districts. For the week

previous to the Polling, these the black-coated gentry were prowing the district secretly interviewing faithful, and commanding each about and every one of them, to plump for Dalton: even some of my own tenants were ordered to support their Coreligionist . . . The Land Bill was not even thought of, the cry was ‘Down with Parkes, the bitter foe of our religion and our race’... The

game was to get you down and trample on you.

334 Henry Parkes And Joseph Eckford, who also lost his seat, after having sat for Wollombi with only one break ever since 1860, wrote ruefully:

Now about my election the Archbishops circular mind you in favour of an Drangeman prevented least 60 Catholics at Cooranbong voting more for methan but would not vote againstatme andat. .. Davis Town and Kincumber 60 votes against me that was to have voted for me and up to last Thursday week was advised to do so by their priests but on Sunday week last they got their instructions from the pulpit. Well I expected this in every Electorate

through the country but mine owing to Paddy Jennings connection by marriage with the Archbishop. Jennings and me being always most friendly.

These explanations of his supporters’ difficulties were very much to Parkes’s taste. It was always his instinct to explain defeats as the fruit of conspiracy. When all the results were in and it was obvious he would have to resign he wrote to Lord Loftus to bemoan ‘the confused nature of the verdict which the Electors have given’. There was, he claimed, a majority against the

government’s Land Bill, but a greater majority was opposed to Stuart’s proposals. The truth was that ‘the Land question had little to do with the decisions of the Ballot-box’. Two of the government’s major measures, the Public Instruction Act and the Liquor Traffic Act (the import of each of which

he carefully set out for the governor), had raised up powerful enemies for whom, everywhere, ‘the principal object of attack was myself’: It is now known that the Roman Catholics with other Zealous Denominationalists had been systematically preparing for this General Election for some time past and that the Wine and Spirit Merchants and the Publicans had entered almost to a man into a well-organized Association with large funds for the same work. These two bodies asserted a combined strength

which I certainly for one had under estimated and which was directed against the Ministry regardless of all other considerations. But Loftus needed no instruction on what was rumoured to have happened: his ear had been firmly to the ground. Already—exactly a week before Parkes

wrote to him—he had sent home a confidential despatch reporting the government’s defeat, ostensibly because Robertson’s land proposals lacked ‘those remedial measures calculated to satisfy public opinion’. ‘But’, he added,

the chief opponents of the Government in the late Elections were undoubtedly the Roman Catholic Body (including the Denominational Party in regard to Education) and the Publicans—who joined under the secret influences of the Roman Catholic Clergy—and of Archbishop Vaughan—in one common action against the Ministerial Candidates. The result has been that 21 Roman Catholic members had been returned out of 113—a number unprecedented in the colony.

Unlike Parkes, however, Loftus was not prepared to leave the explanation there. His was a different perspective and he had other points to add. Maybe it was a pity that Parkes would never read the most important of them: Although the defeat of the Ministry may in great measure be attributed to the foregoing causes, there are other motives which have brought about this

Power 1879-1882 335 sudden change in public opinion. Sir Henry Parkes since his visit to England has greatly lost the popularity and confidence he had previously enjoyed. He had become dictatorial in his mode of action and overbearing in his manner, and whether intentionally or not, had assumed a despotic tone which latterly became not only offensive to the Parliament but to the country.

It is, however, doubtful whether even an observation such as this could modify that pervasive sense of victimization which Parkes, taking a wider sweep, once put into obviously autobiographical verse. The poem is undated, but could well have been written at this time. Parkes called it “The Patriot’: Fair women cast sweet flowers before his feet; From all the housetops ’kerchiefs gaily waved; Ten thousand voices hail’d him in the street; In blear-eyed joy the monster Rabble raved.

The town was mad with triumph where he passed, The very flags flew out as wild with glee; The few who dared dissent fell back aghast, Like weeds washed past by that tumultuous sea. A year!—and jibe and jeer, and savage yell Salute his ears; and missiles rank and foul Fall thick about him where the garlands fell; No cheer broke through the monster Rabble’s howl. And yet it is the same unswerving soul! He only kept his faith when others changed, And heeded not in scorn the ominous roll Of jarring threats, from foes and friends estranged.

He only kept his onward path, when they, Who could not see the grandeur of his aim, Turned to the new-fledged creatures of the day, And drank their slanders, feeling not the shame. So ever rise the Feeble ‘gainst the Fit; So ever first the noblest blood is shed; So surged the hungry waters round De Witte; So tortured France was robbed of Danton’s head.

In the wilderness 1883-1887

‘Tir NEW Parliament—the eleventh—met on 3 January 1883. Parkes, accepting the inevitable, resigned at once. Alexander Stuart soon announced

a new cabinet, built from and supported by men whom his land reform campaign had drawn to his side. The key ministers were an impressive group:

Stuart himself (colonial secretary), universally respected for honesty and commitment to hard work; Sir Patrick Jennings (vice-president of the executive council), urbane and wealthy Catholic squatter and papal knight; W.

B. Dalley (attorney-general), G. R. Dibbs (treasurer) and G. H. Reid (education). Dalley, Dibbs and Reid were the team’s most lively members, Dibbs at forty-nine and Reid at thirty-eight the youngest, coming stars, serving as ministers for the first time. All three had once looked up to Parkes but each for his own reasons now saw the ageing ex-premier as the tarnished, played-out genius of a former political generation. A new era was dawning in which the

point-counterpoint of Dalley, Parkes, Dibbs and Reid was to give to New South Wales politics much of its formal shape. A hostile amendment to the address-in-reply was negatived without division and the government settled down comfortably, over a four-month session, to getting the estimates through and preparing for reform of the land system. In fulfilment of election promises it at once discontinued auction sales of country land (the squatters’ weapon of self-defence), and appointed a: commission of two experts, Augustus Morris and George Ranken, to prepare as the springboard for new legislation what had never been attempted before: an inquiry to discover how the Robertson Acts had worked in practice. For the time being Parkes was thoroughly subdued. ‘I fear that i/f7 am called upon I could not form

a satisfactory administration from the present Parliament’, he confided to Samuel, in England. If a change should happen to come ‘Robertson will probably be the new man’: that would necessitate an appeal to the country and

then “The noisiest of the present men—Stuart, Reid and Dibbs—will be nowhere. But the land difficulty will [ fear ruin Robertson’. For himself, something completely different was in store: In this state of things I am thinking of a visit to Europe and I am not unlikely to turn up in London any day after you receive this. I am trying to arrange with persons here for the transaction of important business in Europe and I believe I shall succeed. 336

In the wilderness 1883-1887 337 Parkes wrote this on 12 May 1883. Parliament had ended its first session a week before and was still in recess in July, when his plan came to fruition and he sailed for England. This time he was not in search of health. Dismissal from office had brought rest and recuperation, and it may be that he was now reaping

the long-term benefit of Dr Kidd’s treatment. Before he left Australia he assured Samuel he was feeling well again, and his letters from England were soon to bring home a happy refrain: ‘I continue in good health and can work as well as I could 20 years ago’. ‘Business’, as he had grandiosely hinted to Samuel, was the main excuse for the trip. Over four years of office he had enjoyed a substantial salary, but the legacy of debt from the seventies was

heavy, Jamberoo continued to bleed him, and his family responsibilities, which must now have included Nellie and her children, as wellas Menie, Annie

and Lily, Robert’s widow and her children, Maria and Clarinda, were crippling. In the circumstances, the loss of his only regular income was a disaster. In April 1883 he put ten blocks of Springwood land on the market and after sailing in July he sent Varney detailed instructions to sell property at Ashfield, Wentworth Falls, Faulconbridge and Springwood. Though now heavily in debt, he said, he might have £20 000 clear if the sales were carefully handled.

Nothing of the kind seems to have happened and once more he pinned all hopes on bringing off a coup in England—that mad dream which no amount of bitter experience ever seemed to extinguish. As on the previous trip, Parkes decided to take a young lady with him as travelling companion and assistant. But this time Annie was not the chosen

one: she must stay and help care for her mother. Instead he took Isabella Murray, daughter of George Murray of Liverpool—the man who had married

Mary Parkes. Isabella was a handsome girl of twenty (skittish old Lord Tennyson was soon to compliment her on her pretty figure), though an asthmatic for whom it was thought the trip to England would be beneficial.

Annie smothered her resentment but the ennui of life at Faulconbridge enawed at her resolve: if only there were ‘a bit of brightness. I would like to have someone every Sunday if Mamma would let me but she feels better when she is quiet’. When it became too much, agonized words could briefly spatter into her letters: ‘I wish I was with you! Ah! It was foo bad to go and leave me

behind’.

George Murray, a widower from Edinburgh, had three daughters at the time of his marriage to Mary. Isabella (sometimes Bella’) and a younger sister Mary kept house for him, and Georgina (‘Tottie’) was still at school in Scotland. For young ladies of their age it was not easy to adjust to their father’s marriage with a woman of thirty-three. From Edinburgh Tottie wrote unkindly that her new Mamma had done ‘real well’ to have ‘got my faither’, and the girls’ Aunt Kate, thanking them for a photograph of Miss Parkes (‘she looks good, gentle and

amiable’), urged that Isabella and Mary in neither word nor action should make the bride feel uncomfortable: ‘you know my dear Isabella how much we have it in our power to add to one another’s happiness and it will not be an easy position to fill, nor for you either, but certainly it should take a great deal of[f] you both in regard to housekeeping and attending to Papa’. The wedding took

place at Faulconbridge and Mary Parkes greatly helped relations with her stepdaughters-to-be by asking them to act as bridesmaids, along with Annie

338 Henry Parkes and Lily. Then early in 1882 Mary delighted everyone by presenting her husband with a baby daughter, Inna. The Murray girls, still at home and therefore able to share their father’s bliss at close quarters, enjoyed the Parkes girls’ friendly envy: ‘Kiss baby for me’, wrote Lily to Bella in one typical note,

‘and accept a cartload of the same for yourself’. Another link between the | families was forged in January 1882, when Varney—now twenty-two and partner in a firm of architects—became engaged to Mary Murray. She was eighteen: “Oh, too bad, Isabella’, Aunt Kate wrote from Scotland, ‘for the wee

brat to think of going off before you never mind your day is coming’. The

engagement gave a new excuse for visits between Faulconbridge and Forbesville, the Murray ménage at Liverpool, and for jolly occasions like the one when Varney inadvertently landed Mary and her Papa at Faulconbridge in the middle of a January heatwave. As Mary wrote of it to Bella: we are really melting Lily and [ are trying to get cool in the big room, I have nothing on but my shoes and stockings and princess petticoat Lily has on a loose white dress and unmentionables so she is not quite so comfortable as me...[ Yesterday] Lily and I went down the garden to get some blackberries and we heard a cooie and there was poor Lady Parkes calling for Lily, the monkey had got loose Lily ran off at once and soon came back in fits of laughter, the little black pug had Lady Parkes chasing him all over the place and he had gone in next door frightening the people out of their wits, the children were all screaming and they had got inside and shut the doors and windows and Mr. Shaw was outside armed with a big stick against the wall while the monkey was chasing a little terrier OOF all round the garden, when he saw Lily was going to catch it he called out ‘dont attempt to touch it Miss Parkes get one of the men’ but when Lily called the monkey he jumped into her arms so glad to be in safety again.

Varney’s marriage took place in March 1883, producing a remarkable situation in which Mary Murray became Mary Parkes, offsetting her stepmother’s change of name from Mary Parkes to Mary Murray. At the same time Varney’s sister became his mother-in-law and the new Mary Murray was the new Mary Parkes’s stepmother and sister-in-law. Mary carried her sense of fun into the marriage—after visiting the newlyweds early in August 1883 Annie wrote to assure Isabella that her beloved sister was ‘well and jolly... very happy in her dear little nest of a home and she and Varney are quite a model couple’. When Annie wrote that, Bella and Parkes had just arrived in San Francisco, after a good Pacific crossing in the steamship Australia. Bella was ill on some days but Parkes proved ‘extremely attentive’, bringing her meals, giving her presents and sitting quietly with her on deck—‘he does not make friends’, she confided to her diary, ‘nor dol’. They saw the sights in San Francisco, had their photographs taken, went to the theatre and met friends Parkes had made on the previous trip, then set off on a four-week crossing of the continent by train. The Halls met them at New York and during several days at the Hudson estate Bessie Hall captivated Bella just as she had Annie. On the Atlantic crossing seasickness and asthma demolished Bella for four days but she was able to amuse Parkes with long games of chess on the last three. They were over the Mersey bar on 29 September and filled the next week with a feast of sightseeing

re me aan: al gis . We ee an oe ie a Ee oe a Po ea he is ee I TE a i ee oe sum cogomenne aNayy i ee ree aN| :1a ee a ls :i a / aaeone i 2i =: See eo vd ee BT |ae “Re : a ae oS Ske Lf es | ay / i ea | { Ue Hae + / a ( A ae i eae ue a Oe wh yi : SO

me ee ‘ ey hie SO Ee RE i | Beil sua Ul UNAS eae ane a a GES SEER yl My Ve Se ee ee

Pee eeHE eeokFU UEDea cisSegSai ae aeat SSetipene: eT So Se uronic ae efOR PSE,oa ee eeSAE RTH Pare Ha Ae ae ee A a PONG OS Ieee SP ean ee ie

: ea gE git ey Bees & ett: PeeTeRsatES THES Bsn TP ic Re oie SE ¥: SR ME tt 8 MeO an Muni Rs ea R BRAN ESPEN ERE “ah 1. S See BERR «0 renga re PERE oe Sy hgh at

al bs. He | a Re ie | | hip | 4 eae a a an [| a ag A ee

ff Puhbge © oo PARR IRS eee 1 ote Gaby: US EAP AP RE ESN gL SP ies Nt AMR ST ae RRR anh GaN p pa at DEERE BOE ae Ot es: . Bore Teh FSS EMSS Io

meg he; ElUae aiete |EW ACER I fees (SEeRMEnL Se: re ney ta eeeene Ih a aba — pear easy) "gst i os WA } WS uy Nwvees zs i tM ee Se " Cee ae + ik wel ON. SS \ LANG pss | eat ; Ed EEE AMa

aa & c”".ct WA . re2. Bek = vey. | it. , al ees Wy “=" oe pn 4SS7Brie — ; ,: a\ wa brae aUW igi x re, a bo 8: g et MY me = ili 4hs |a‘si eeea“ SySa. ye TtisGeena by2.eee Save. Hay ll‘\ oy SSSObe" ot eSaon VeoeseBe Shore ‘2.ee=e=eS og Sa et P2 xhesoe SAF

. SYe- Zh: a NS : eSoy‘ ae , ae. e. yo. * ’ _saan Lime ‘ j2 it i: “ag-Sota ceaWy Ae asy t‘. oes “y as=f yx,a: j} fe Sibi; RA ~ fae“4 my.| NY Ss a: bas ~y . MH % 7‘ sees * posSoHE. esha A :1 yt jgerts 'por oe He \- ew, , SessAiltg . oS - gesas!oi Ratiiy _0)Rep Jz Gg Poe Rex me @ TNS aidsrewal piaR.“4ii neneee of SeNear te * ae’ Rh, , peox. as + yr pend aeaf) iS Senay? Sa oo ‘ Pr, aa a~aee Ph By gs Tif

| at oewe Ngee \Y Sy 77,~SEE a fefiSy 3 4 *. Ndsnscs*: aaa ie SKrah yy BS Pe IY if oo 4 = oO ap ae ¥ “ Koy ‘ “ason r xa aa es .es‘s wy 34") Rey ras as i) ag #35 fe ei“et Tytall Hei.gq

: BB . = ay) Ly; nGe @rae fi Fh ES Rw ‘ " KeeS a Po? i fce - eeRy \ areiaeee Hy aM ; a iHAe: si beie aw4 :"|es ees 9 i eae, SNS fee Oe. or age Vie aid Bi aan T RRA EN { TON ie ty TeV aEG a ete : was ““” KON een KS SMT & ‘ \ he) faa we'

/ q i He) BY “ns Oe Sa ea a News eee : ¥ 4 V4 ap Lf Wes yy ik i a i a Wet con |

aa iWee. Vea ,Sik OS,eae ve ee Te Ae| Pa fhe*ifS37; ae me} ge ifWe eae: AgtaPre ce ~~Be ee”rae ROSA | the Berm ny\ IM

NCE, NRO Weee> NSE Me) ee | 4

Se5 gh Syyew SAY wer' as AY “oafray 4 pe ath o} pera TT Tap 1 as SS A, * Be) Ba , agSas be f .Bats if ii ACE iBei A aloe LN i vo.“a. eee 3Vy2 7yf/ (f4a-nme Te Le id ¢.$Y| Same er- |u. 4a jf oa BEEtllOR Sage

petite i HELE, Vues eh. ‘ ‘Now SSN rere oF 3: \ VA 7 ° LAGAN Po AANA ae, ‘ aia A A a eae td 3) Ap igabe ds Ty ; ae

A (i. a lee ‘ih < y 4 ip: Se SB md ae ti Ma Oy ol ws AY ee ee TR |) ORE 8 SET 10 SS: Seven WV ACA ES mg i EO NAR Se ag Jb] || AR ee) ACCT SHAR, 23 See kh | ioe US ae ae vy We bh Sh OES OF Lif tee ee, Sie bale Pt as ae en AA,se' Veer a ad > .*% 8&io., NE 7 en / Waly, \ teveal i“ Fj Ab ei \: :4 pSEau 4 i f -_ es Vea 8 «Ng ‘ By ae heOY OTeme, wo oe 2 . Oe ry, Ri Fy ianf we * eee RA oe AN See Se ee a ; 7 an . 5 JOUR sce: 490 a Caney 2 3 de JSS * in RD oe: : ees. en rs aReetenaes A Nee Sige) BAYS#4Saat, © Meg Viios|gee | | RIGA- i are | | ‘at SHARC ae Se UNAM aha!=. BA a4 3 ad: eeeee : ; ~ Fg +t*Eth «tCoF»~ See, fkTO| ‘oo /. BSnews ae NL Saj SSS wi :4‘ Wo ab ioS

pe RRL seaid awe}. ) |i; Va eeca AB we Me,FAeaSieolgatTNR TyNg,Pies eee ee SSee BRO UP 2° do ge Ubet i? 3 i iar roe bo Vk, VIRAL AR s2 GAO ee: Se wiifdjfelony we PE ty a:7§ \j oa Sian ET TE

eres : \ JR: NGS ROS pha # i Repeawensschetbeial.. aor ZS eH ON someeBeOE mes a Sees| ae Baea i‘fi y PEt JH :: fj3 t.we aitme “f iSi PS% i VE Ne fo ay Ss A ae Ss ~~ Nees ae “semper

ieee eee Marat RG VY f 1 ie Jygee Was a 7ae 29) ua wee ae snes ee a ee 3 oS ESSE VSS SSE CE ¥aRie OU REE eae we HE ieCESS a,ee RoE LER eh piace LESS |2SESS Boe ISS aeESE Geek 7Sa [2 .Cay SRR Sates “RE ccs |SEER ac Sai REE OSES SSOr Sea SEELEY EES RRR SEs Be ea NEE Rein eS ; ae 2) gg Se “ SN CES a Bo SNe ee ER Bose Sere. BE OES SS A S88 SRS SAEED LISS UR EERRRR eS ESR OS Pc REE ae Se ba +) OY CEES Ree SOASteag SEER SSL SEER Soa Se Se Es ey SEAS OE Bae . EE Se a SE DOES VEE ag Be Se Ses SRR Socoh hn Se : ao a SSSR RC ESE se EINES SOE oS SRE NNO iee ne anBoe eae ae ware. OgDeeeee CEES RRR OREREE ES ESE SEES RS eeBee [SRR Seicine at Reoeereee nc eae Be3 SEER :co esRES Seto ES eeerSNR Se eee sg ES eens OS. aE ee Soo a RR SS 3 SES SRR SBR SSE ASRS “ ats Bo RE Bee. SE “CR eS eae : JERE. eS — aioe RecN aes eras BeeSE thy SE Re . Jian Jae GS ° SERS SS SR. RN Cet ea . eee RRR CEES og See OR NCR ae sce a Bs SSS atin ce ee as Boos Eg Lease LSE UUEEESSERRT SUNS ad as ERRNO ES eae eon ne B Seg RES ERR OO SLS, JSS SRS a a SE SEE Bees Re SERRE cd ee es ee 2 SESE SE ee Bec Sy . . RES ARES A Ree ouch SRR Se ae SER ph tag : ee Se SEC EEESSS Se SERS SESS Se Bee ERR SE ES OARS aeSe aBee .pos : BE. SR Bo Bos aeoS Reon SES ARERR apes SEE otn ones Pannen abate nd Se SERRE on hath EERE RO Se. ae .Re SERS ES Sica) =UISEES CRASS “RIES SERRE RRR ECR See TL ppg Soe SaRRReR aS:a tenes EROS SeSs SEN, “RES [ee LoS BSN ciate ee ens TRESS = ‘7fg . :=SESS

Se ee ee ed eee AE .. BS & ES 2 See eS eS SOE Ee “RRS REAL BERR cance sen RE RES 7 * npiegats, i oa BY EER ee 2S Red a RES oS = . Bos

% ca“ "Ai aN 3 ee oes = By + Fog xk = rl ss ep tee ae eee Pee oe. % i . ee Eee ie Seas See ; ges Se eee : Ege S ; og gs ae og... eee ee ee fiRe~~ aSe— a lye Bae ee Bee — ‘= oe ekBae 5i ejBg 34 ae. ae aROY ESS ea, _fia Q 2s4 A ann ed Fe Re Rees: Se :aRB _ ee“ee ofcsRP ee ee TR

megs : oe EEE ae So See OY = 5 see F Roe aeeS | **Sh nee. :SPE SR Sere;aeee ee:eee Sn . Sn. amet PR ene genera oe oeSO{0 eeSS ens eSSeree Byeeoe3ee: RE Se BsSN. Sie eeeeee

cc. Souk :Sciaaefo. eB Se ong eatele USTOR agerh EE Ee Fsx) a eo. Ee 2 Ses RS oSi... Ma an eer BER rs 2) 3g — eeerr TRE ESOS Cee or co SR eee ee oe EE Be gs Ee > =. sRRR NS to ie oe ee eR ee [el ™ &a geoe & See ed *> EE [See :A 7,.Es See eefee 2Fae RMR aR Re Sa er Se a ae a :. Cre EN ae ee nn i ee * ce ES te es ee. ae tee “eae i ee ae i a Po ees A aR eee a ee CR Neg pe See an Sa : : F ; ee eres gOS oy iLPet: rea o Bs aSES ES 4Pia 3 etREESE ee eeSAE esG1=Ree 5og aSeeee OU SSEEEE RSS ee ee.Sialic Sea3°CaS 4ks; Bos _FBS 25Se PSs Re SSR 33)RSE ¥ aes Fieee os aoes .see OE RS2 ree BsOOPSER ee RS eSCAT & Pee bapKEDES pean [BR RRS eSeeeee ss SS “eee ae oo SOS - wr1TS DOE ST vat “SeS:tee Teseb Re eee

ONT. R ANRC tte R88 EROS ORRLIlSbesEhtteminns:ses | -SESEE eee he lo a et eee Pe eo: eo “Or Soar Rae, | Se

oe cheetens enscra SERRE ESE BoSRR daceRCE.” ; BetaSc eee. is [SEE + Be BLeS a ee SEE Ra Su cane RR q od eeece oe ee SRS ane. a Be ee SE en RNR corse aie SNS SON Ci Ce BESS cae ee j a SP Fee eet . SBE SS } ¥

ar ae “eet ag ; gM aes Rose ,Sh. jE, a [i3BS: ES. Pies i.igs 2 :cee MaRS Stay SO RaSE g *s83 es . : a Rs ES oe gore F Be, . cee SO ae 22%oes Soy RS : :‘ain Bee eei. “SOn lO!a Ba.. pee a : 7ae da ee 3 &2ol&: oe a eS = =Sie“= es3 -a%ne 5,. =a3a i%.; a 23 Ree AES : z Fi “StSesieetnisonoseemenenen be et ee oe ee 3 Boe oe Ss

HPALES Se i. ISESET \ Spee BO Ree. BHRERSER Rs Ro es ehaa0525 aes euAP a : eo . whe 2 A se, a - : a ry & LF ITT ORTCS SISY SRR SERESS .

a“ sities, :* aRRR Be eS PO pee ag “sg NRO EM ROT TRE ARB cdae =SRM, 4 ee Se Sos. 4 x SD ee. OR Ce oo BRE oT = ee ~ “es : a ay AE . ae # es Boa Do oa oo Se ee eo ee fd cece ae .OO we: °ee Ss Seeeo OS 6, sane 3*.ip Fx °e -© a4ae 2;ce BEES ee: Oy te ge EE. ; % —: .* og — ii am 2) “epee gill ae er a oe q ge eae a re See fale on Webi mee, OSESoe MEERERE5taeees ce efoo . : 2g ee Bee aes S ae ¢aS hth TEE cc eo oe eee Smee s ~ Rev tees oe ak a — ot ar: "4asCa->Ce § com ee Se §MelUE Re Brine i Nia ae oe ee os i / ay 3 PER ee ee ee “oe iv: SRE go. EOE SS RR 7a Mts ieaa ee Ree oe ee ae S06 lL ee “ ~ fe ass ee. ors ae oe ee ee & 26 ae = ea See ee |35 va waite ee reece : a VS 3 See ao a— eeoe— eee :>etSO as ee BO eS ae if ~t ee mee Y Ee . oe > > og F € Fes e e teeoseeBAR as =O} cael . 1 mcsassanieteeenmmecoese. SRB sswe « .¥ ed :Pa 43 ie ah Eeee a5 — enatinnteieRTE . : 2 Peg a oN . Reg. SE FS ees . ‘ipk 4ReSad eu fe f ee oO saad ig ;—ssrmaig nF a oe i. ot s . wees th 5 i Re reYe at .* 3*oe ®S :PS ;ce . Ss oewk ee Bo i lt SM Bin Era fF CS pean emnancansemtesssit se 5 ae. : . poe a a es . . + DY SRR CEE MRE SENT TOT RRTRCR! $e e oe Tee ee ee : “ Ne HeLE en ENO ee mreTT ee wine eenoe sm5é % ow¥‘ :* :epSeEeSe, ee a] tmx cn ER LE TI IIS Bee 3 : * : ; :< . “oe ek ee we F enn “ bs es es Me oe ERO — a @.

ae | - ve ai Hyrere _—— aS ie "as Ff oF ° REESE . . "eeee secant: MEE. aeeARIE ‘BEzs cace\ ioPowe. . -°fc?Saw vo Smee ’ OSE reveea-FCM in 2s = > “ cccety mR east tneesoe & ; 3 es Bi: va SO Fe ae z 3 e

& oe = 5S Be ee ae eee ae EES eae SEAS GE fg Re Se:

wie NY es peeeecstecee eS Se g OATS ho ee See, ee F Fi makes

a RE : Be * ae 4 RR aR ce Bi Rg eae ee 3 3 PR paBeo gee ES

oma En : Peers oe ee ee . . i acasacmeaittadiiad onCe Re Re aSo. RSS -ERIsarey Pe ee >, See i) .etna aaciccabemeaaenataesa ° 2 et ee ees gece RR Pe wee 68hSUULULULUCOO

bill a ; mri CR Ee ee ‘

ae RMON gS 2 aeATS oe iI ep wee RN A AF aR aE NR IERIE PRROREREOOOD EREDAR A SERIE ac

cna ww «OOS Elie shaeinammnindeie eH ree 8 , a2PB Oe Sn vee anal S=— eauinan cane omacamieed Uett: eR.iCD © wae ee 2 Se BONG Noe RA AERO “se \ ce f ees See veo me peanennnnenntal : ¢ ae , a SERRE ne es Bee SR oR Rs RR ge Om - saateonorsemnestnetione nsee: eeae Bes, 2‘a U8= wsrtoom” peat niniaovategeaneetee oo: Saree nieeumuninettiod ae’ = oa - + 24 “Ee [. * oh OfMet ee ae eeRote . Bee = me we ame aaaae eke Bag “= oo RAR OS ug Ss | Bi Be BS.3pat ° 4-sorged aedaoe %. 7. TRS SSS “SerES , Sine, nh cee oo ghee Rs > me ee~ gO ey * eS *RS Cam Rak sible i, Rg + he ieee *. 3Sh ic©ES a.He re :es izSS & S&S Se eee, Ne cen se Ras.*Rcd 58k oe *% # Bend a- Be Re,-eSSeas ®eee . ae srePA eeaSee oe an * * cee: “ P ees ee ae Sees 3 a ea

halinaiay .oe Seeee Seeve a ee ooo ~ es | = oO oeSeree fo ee eesee ed eo * Seefe ge >itae7. kk sMee oo tana

. . - - ~ BBE a oS eee aes . sg6 , cee ee 7) + Se Come ao) a te te oe Sere Sc see

eS SS nee “ene « x : PR EE ee: Se —

ae es aei”| es Gaels F3 . oa , mae UTR 8 cme . “Sas & ey Bony a: BgCUS ss ee RS age pen

The Grand Old Man 1887-1890 37] here—(cheers)—and my toast is ‘The Health of their Excellencies the Governors of the other Australasian Colonies’.

A revealing vignette appears, however, in Carrington’s diary for 30 January.

Before a ‘very large crowd’ he laid the foundation stone of the proposed parliament house and on that occasion Sir Henry Parkes was very badly received: and when the crowd hooted he said ‘Brutes I should like to spit on you’. The real reason was that they could hear nothing—I got on a table and had it pushed to the end of the platform and spoke to the crowd of about 3,000 people and got a tremendous ovation.

The incident was typical—Parkes expecting deference and Carrington pleasantly commanding it with his thoughtful and winning ways. The governor was anxious throughout that the celebrations should not be simply for the privileged few. A week before the Centennial Park opening he visited the site with officials to check that the ceremony would be ‘carried out in such a way that the people generally would be able to see all that took place’. On the day of the Trades Hall ceremony he and his wife stationed themselves within

touching distance of the great working men’s procession. Both received ‘specimen hats’ from the seamen’s union contingent as they marched by, ‘and his Excellency amid great enthusiasm, removed the ribbon from the hat and fastened it on the breast of his coat’. The Herald, it is clear, expressed a general feeling when it said: His Excellency... has won the approval ofall by the manner in which he has discharged his onerous duties. By his tact and behaviour he has deprived formal events of much of their formality and his hearty co-operation has done a great deal to promote the success of the celebrations.

No one said anything quite like that about Parkes. Despite all the brilliance of the centenary, in fact, it brought Parkes less satisfaction than a more intimate celebration he had organized a few months earlier—a dinner to the surviving members of the first New South Wales legislative assembly. “The occasion being historical’, noted a Herald reporter, ‘special care was taken by the host to make the dinner and the proceedings subsequent to it more than ordinarily attractive’. Parkes told his guests that

they were there, as a special band, to celebrate the introduction of parliamentary government into Australia. They were twelve hale men out of the sixty-two who had served in that first house. Nine more were still alive, but three were abroad and the other six were too infirm or lived too far away for a night out in Sydney. The only toast was to be the health of the Queen: the

speakers would address themselves to ‘a list, not of toasts, but of sentiments’—“The Memory of the Dead’, ‘Parliamentary Government in Australia’, “The Union of the Empire’. It was a nostalgic occasion for a company whose members ranged in age from sixty to eighty. Robertson, asked to speak about departed colleagues, felt ‘the greatest pain’, ‘almost being choked with the feeling of having lost all these men, and of having to speak now, as it were, over their bones’. For Dalley ‘the sweetness, the stillness of closed lives could not fail to soften and influence the

372 Henry Parkes living to kindlier thought and tenderer words’. His own words exemplified what he meant: with his usual grace, he directed their thoughts to those still with them:

And we are surrounded by some who have won and hold their places through all these years; by some who are still serving the public as they did 31 years ago, still unbent by heavy labours and heavier honours laid upon them; still, like mailed knights, carrying their honourable harness with the ease and grace of youth. Both in courtesy and in duty I am bound to turn, Sir

Henry, first of all to you, as one in age, and service, and in station alike entitled to respect, and honour, and gratitude. Who now would wish to remember the speaker’s disgust at Parkes’s treatment

of Catholics, or Parkes’s angry denunciation, only yesterday it seemed, of Dalley’s Soudan adventure? On all sides bitterness fell away. Robertson, so recently ‘divorced’ for ever from Parkes, sat benignly at his right hand, the most honoured guest. William Macleay, the man who had tried to use the O’Farrell case to destroy Parkes, spoke on Imperial Union, having previously chosen the subject in a letter addressed to ‘My dear Sir Henry’ and applauding the idea of

the dinner as ‘a most happy one’. Of his own career, Parkes could say

he was fully aware that he had made many mistakes, committed many errors, used language that he ought not to have used, taken courses which were hardly justified; but all those things were inseparable from an active career in the stormy times of political warfare and human struggle. (Hear, hear.) To be at peace with these old men no doubt helped to nerve Parkes to face their less affable successors. By July 1887 the implacable Dibbs once again led

the parliamentary opposition, having qualified himself for that honour through a Pauline conversion from stout free tradism to protection. Some of the younger men behind him, protectionists with very radical views on other political subjects, cherished the utmost scorn for Parkes. Three of them—the

“Trinity of Talkers’, E. W. O’Sullivan, Ninian Melville and Thomas Walker—who specialized in the kind of harassment by filibuster which Parkes himself had used to destroy Jennings, exemplified a new breed of politicians

who found the premier’s posturing and defence of the established order insufferable. O’Sullivan, described by the Bulletin as one ‘who has helped to run more newspapers, has led more political reform agitations, and delivered more democratic exhortations than any other man who ever looked upon the Southern Cross’, seemed in an uncanny way to reincarnate, two generations on, the dead Parkes of Empire days. He decried Parkes’s betrayal of Robertson and he and Parkes had clashed spectacularly at the previous election when

Parkes visited Queanbeyan to support O’Sullivan’s free trade opponent. Melville, an undertaker by trade and since 1880 the representative of the mining electorate of Northumberland, had featured on his home ground in a number of scenes in which crowds abused Parkes and refused to give him a hearing. For his part Parkes thought of Melville’s constituents in the colliery towns as ‘a meanspirited ignorant scheming set of people’. As he wrote sourly to Annie when visiting Newcastle in December 1887:

The Grand Old Man 1887-1890 373 At the request of their aldermen I visited these places to see what they wanted. As I went on this errand their young men hooted me from the road-side & groups of poor little children hooted me in front of the public schools. Such is the reward of public service in the cause of education.

There are some wretched prints published here which seem to wage war against everything which good men honour & respect. This is the world which ts represented in Parliament by Messrs. Melville, Walker, & Creer. That world’s love for Parkes was scarcely enhanced when during a miners’ strike in September 1888 he despatched troops to Newcastle to put down reported disorder. Thomas Walker, Northumberland’s second member (he

was elected in 1887), also had cause for personal animus over Parkes’s invocation of the Public Exhibitions Act to close Sydney’s theatres on Sundays. The theatres had long been the venues for secularist and other ‘blasphemous’

lectures and Walker himself, democrat, spiritualist and free thinker, was Sydney’s leading lecturer at Sunday evening gatherings of this kind. Parkes

acted in June 1887, after radicals and secularists scandalized the city’s respectable classes by storming and taking over two public meetings held in the Town Hall to plan Sydney’s celebration of Queen Victoria’s golden jubilee.

Parkes denied he was preventing free speech and argued that the dissemination of irreligious views on Sundays was offensive to the majority of the people and therefore could not be allowed. Walker was chief speaker and organizer at two large open-air demonstrations which denounced the attempt to gag free thinkers as an ‘infringement of the liberty of the people’ and vainly

petitioned Carrington to cable a protest to the Queen. The animosity of men like this made for long and disorderly sittings which, as Parkes himself put it, kept the ministry ‘from the first in a state of weariness,

over-tension of mind, with sleepless nights and harassed days’. On 14 December he reported to Carrington that after an all-night sitting they had been defeated just before six a.m. on a question of minor administrative policy:

it was not serious enough to require resignation, but still it was his wish to resign—a feeling ‘intensified by a sense of weariness almost beyond my strength to bear’. The cabinet was divided but after debate the majority decided to go on ‘in view of the public interest and I agreed to merge my opinion in theirs’. Assailed by ‘the [hot] weather and one thing and another’, which in combination ‘nearly knocked me off my feet’, Parkes took advantage

of the New Year break to go to Melbourne with Annie and Lily on a recuperative sea trip. But when parliament resumed the opposition returned to the attack, in particular to press accusations, which Parkes had already said

he would personally investigate, against the integrity of one of the government’s first appointees to the new railway commission. With more than a touch of arrogance Parkes refused to reply again and in a snap division eight followers crossed the floor to vote with the opposition in protest against his high-handedness. ‘Very likely’, Parkes told the governor, if I had spoken in a certain way, the Govmt would not have been defeated; but I felt that I had done already all that could be reasonably expected ofme

& that Mr. Fehon’s character had been fully vindicated. Mr. Want’s repeated charges were of such a nature as he himself admitted he could not

374 Henry Parkes prove and. and such as might be preferred against the most upright man in the In the house, however, he admitted to having ‘courted defeat’, which he accepted with a ‘feeling of welcome’—and resigned. In a parting homily he told

his followers that party government could only work if members placed unquestioning faith in their leaders: ‘you must trust them in the intricacies of Administration, or the affairs of the country will soon come to error’. But for once Parkes’s supporters were in revolt: it was too much to see the cause they stood for imperilled by his pique, or weariness, or both. As leader

of the late opposition, Dibbs formed a new government and the retiring treasurer, as was customary, moved supply to cover the period of the ministerial re-elections. At that point, McMillan gave the signal for a dramatic display of free trade solidarity. In an unprecedented move he proposed an amendment to the Supply Bill: that the house send the governor an address listing the inconveniences and dangers the colony would suffer unless a new ministry had the confidence of parliament, and assuring him that he would not ‘experience any difficulty in obtaining such a ministry from among the free

trade members of the House’. The vote which had overturned the Parkes

administration, he said, had been a vote against the person of the premier, not the policy of his party. The free traders still stood together as ‘a compact and integral party’ and ‘the question is this: is the cause of Free Trade. . . which we believe sacred to the majority of the people of this country, to be demolished

or put in jeopardy, by an accident?’ Parkes denounced the manoeuvre and when the vote was taken he and those of his ministers who were present opposed it. All but two of his old supporters, however, stood behind McMillan and triumphantly carried the amendment—a snub both to their old leader and to the premier designate. Carrington accepted Dibbs’s view that, as de facto

censure of his new government, the vote justified a dissolution and Parkes, momentarily disenchanted even with his hero, wrote the governor a letter of rebuke, ending loftily: ‘Pardon me if I add that if I were your responsible ~ adviser I would rather lose my right arm than offer you the dangerous advice to dissolve Parliament without legal provision for the public service’. Car-

rington, unperturbed, noted in his diary that Parkes was, after all, an ‘interested party’ and in addition at loggerheads with his own followers. McMillan had told him that ‘Parkes was unapproachable’ and that the party ‘wanted Brunker as leader’. They had, it seemed, blocked supply as a protest only after consulting a Queensland judge on the legality of the move. The free traders won the election, but with their majority reduced to four.

Though on both sides party organization in the constituencies was more effective than ever before, the protectionist apparatus was superior in the country districts and here, it seemed, the coming threat to free trade lay. For the moment, however, it was clear that when the house met Dibbs would not be able to survive. Who would now lead the victorious free traders back into office? For all the discontents of the last parliament that was not a serious question: everyone thought with McMillan, who told Parkes he took it for

granted ‘that, as our old Leader, you would still continue to conduct our affairs’.

Topping the St Leonards poll without difficulty himself, Parkes had cam-

The Grand Old Man 1887-1890 375 paigned in other electorates with his usual vigour and authority, and now that it came to the point it was unthinkable that anyone could replace him. He was not yet ready, however, to forget or forgive. “There are times when men are called upon to sacrifice everything for their country’, he wrote to McMillan, ‘but this will hardly be called such a time. Besides I have sacrificed all the best part of my life already’. He asked McMillan to tell their political friends he

would not serve: ‘the Ministerial majority in the late Parliament disclosed aspects of political conduct which I do not care to meet again in ministerial office’, and he had decided then that ‘if I could once honourably free myself from that worst of all slavery, I would never risk a second infliction of it’. If McMillan gave this message to the party he could not have done so with much

conviction. For at a meeting that Parkes did not attend they went ahead and elected him leader. Characteristically, his will to stand aside quickly crumbled. ‘It was difficult’, he remembered later, ‘to decline this handsome testimony of the confidence of a great party, which I had not sought and which came upon me without a single expression of dissent’. His position had nevertheless subtly changed. If still the free traders’ natural

leader, he had now been formally elected to head the party, and there were signs that its members would not always be prepared to give him the free hand he had enjoyed as a magisterial faction chief. That became clear as soon as the

new parliament (the fourteenth) met and Dibbs had been dispatched. Parkes | received the commission and began discussions with McMillan and other senior party members; it atonce became an open secret that this ttme he would have to choose ministers whose free trade bona fides was beyond question. As the Herald put it, ‘should Sir Henry take his old colleagues into office again, it

is regarded as almost certain that the Government would not receive the support of the majority of the free trade party’. The prediction was correct. In the new cabinet only one of the former ministers survived—J. N. Brunker, an unequivocal free trader and the favoured candidate for the leadership when in

the last parliament Parkes appeared to have deserted the party. Parkes explained that A number of comparatively young men of much promise had taken their places on the Free-trade side of the House. They had shown zeal, ability, and

political firmness in the elections, and, some of them, in the previous Parliament. They could not be, and they ought not to be, overlooked in allotting men to portfolios. In a masterly pair of cartoons—‘The Old Parkes Ministry’ and “The New Parkes

Ministry’ —‘Hop’ expressed one inevitable contemporary judgement. In the first, Parkes, reins and whip in hand, sits in acart driving a team of donkeys who are his ministers; in the second, the seven new ministers travel in the cart, each carrying a stick to goad a single donkey who pulls them—Parkes. As Carrington

noted after the first meeting of the executive council, all but three of its members had no previous experience of office. “They will have their work cut

out”, he wrote, but he need not have worried. The inner core of the

cabinet—McMillan (treasury), Bruce Smith (public works) and J. H. Carruthers (public instruction)—were soon to prove tough and capable ministers, sometimes to Parkes’s discomfort.

376 Henry Parkes

. ah iihal ; WAY ~ )- 7 one fooyy| \\4 -ae . : i ; ae : ' : de | I ih ca , » \\ \ as ‘ oy / VY ,

wofe AE[|“il| || |OR | i iil NS. We Phi /‘\| we vev\Neue oe iN | \\ eee i os te %, Sl yA i NN \i \ Wl iat ho im SS a AA WW) Pe Ho Ee | ' i i ‘Tl | AR i | 4 hi | i f: 7 Hj joi: / ar 1, i 2 SS: | ‘ i \Y\j i SSNS - Ls . |PGE “i | mos -ve a) (oo \ \' \‘\\ \\\Y \\'| -| ‘£2 | ;i .Pi ‘: ‘4 \\ 4 in — Nj | aee AN \\\\\|NY Sit\ ||. :|!|eNE —ae Nia 2g EN aN 7AAA )WW WEA \ ee; —— = un_,Sp et .AN ' © Zig at \ ' \\ AVA y \ NS ‘

| rennin AX ACS pp MC a ENS AN Ry) A ae)! ll eS q ot smn my tll marie i mR. 7 \ = N ; S

ie (boos wpe >ey tL Hyg CL me Ne a “\ >eeCAA ‘oa |iE 6].Sa: Ml i ‘y {Nee NEZ

a = oe ie aN NBR) 6 SS, iy Gy u

Ws ee 0" ee =|a| p: «I “ Wa = 6s OhSl>Corn ‘ a YleeffAy i WZ

Nee) || Hwfy 19 7 i (~~. -\ ie) L ief8:aIS Ln: i aa » ! \ {i | rt ,| fil: f° S22 a en ne 0 ffi eS). Vy ~ ° | Hi sete OY z= Stor | aa f 7 My) —N. KE ongeses ie I) : ‘ ' | Wi |

_ oe) ‘maw’ Z we ! | yon

i SO,

Ke[ —SP OegopMI ae % a aa ae oa a> er if ° | qd P 9=:TF oN a Sa weil (ee a . (A ae east NX Ke” tke Ni = a lr SNe ON! Te SSae ae : } % a p

\s N Ree SY Bas a rug : ., ¢4,~ >~&| -~~ = yy 7sef\E] rt w/ 233%. ..

qe GENERAL) oe ag we J \ ~ | BES. oder win i ‘, = 7 aa —

et [oad Pn ae \\ Pamo f SS Adit g mane ap f) p) és 4 As cS e (

MWA SSS A®\ ;’ "i\\mi ia “Vs . | SS ”ak~ ie f' ~ > « . \. \ \\\ia) Gy \ | ‘\Yy ~ \ , 'N ben , y ~. ‘ | wa \ a: ‘ f/_Ly\EN \ NSO \\\A -cSiq Yi.Jd Ea = | Vi x OS, Hee | 1WNAY }

\ | af Jie iy 1 DA Le = | Lv y WY \

, . XS , ne SES = “ i - Bi AN ~\ = / yy

a QE DB NR 2 \\ SAN yy)

Ne \ NY \) Lee. ‘¢ yk?

“NS a ) &, 4

| ‘NEUTRALITY!’ “Will he “get there just the same”’?’ ,

“The Government have to consider this strike difficulty free from any passion or any

feeling of self-interest. We have to govern for those on strike as well as for their employers.’—Interview with Premier Parkes.

400 Henry Parkes travagantly: “The colony breathes once more. McMillanism is ... crushed. You have put forth a staying hand. A thousand blessings on your head, Sir Henry’.

In another mood ‘Hop’ more cynically sketched Parkes on the way to the general election, perilously astride two galloping horses, Labour and Capital

— “NEUTRALITY!” WILL HE “GET THERE JUST THE SAME?”’

It was an obvious thought, but for once a little wide of the mark. For Parkes’s belief in the duty of government to secure civil peace and safety was deeply ingrained and with genuine sagacity he saw evenhandedness not as a matter of ‘policy’ but as necessarily integral to the administrative process itself. Equally, he did not for a moment doubt the correctness of using force if necessary: he had no quarrel with police conduct of the Circular Quay affair and he was a strong defender of the much-maligned ‘specials’. Over the whole period of the strike 3300 volunteered for this work; those accepted were issued with badges and batons and, as the Government Gazette gratefully noted, ‘for upwards of two months, regularly responded to calls to duty, doubtless at considerable personal sacrifice’. The force was officially disbanded on 24 November 1890 at a ceremony in the Inner Domain when 1200 men paraded under Fosbery and

were drawn up in a hollow square around a carriage from which Parkes addressed them. He spoke, he said, from ‘a very grave sense of duty’, to thank

them for ‘the prompt, honourable and efficient services which you have rendered to the State’. The keynote of his speech emerged almost by accident

when, half-way through, an interruption drew from him an imperious response: You have shown bravery—(a laugh)—you have shown bravery! Who dares laugh? Let the man show his coward face who laughs. (Cheers.) You have shown bravery of a two-fold order. You have been brave to perform your duty where required, and you have exercised that higher bravery that in

performing your duties you did not quail before most dishonourable ridicule. The man who can stand to his guns is a brave man, but the man who maintains a firm purpose in the face of senseless and unjustifiable ndicule is a braver man. (Cheers.)

The sentiment earned him an unexpected accolade from old Sir Alfred Stephen: ‘Our fellow citizens have done good service .. . and it is little to the purpose, that there was no bloodshed in the matter. It was quite enough to encounter threats and blue metal. But your speeches are always good’. By this time, to Parkes’s inexpressible sadness, Carrington was not in the colony to share such day-to-day triumphs. News had come as long ago as July that his successor, Lord Jersey, had been chosen: ‘So far as I can judge I should think well of the appointment’, wrote Parkes, “‘but—but I wish you were staying

on a second term’. The Carringtons’ time was up in October 1890; and their farewell made it clear that few colonists would have disagreed with Parkes’s

wish. P. J. Brennan, president of the Trades and Labour Council, told Carrington that he left with the good wishes of every labourer in Australia, and

‘one of the practical managers of the “Sydney Bulletin” ’ called to say that though personally sorry to see the Carringtons go he was politically pleased, ‘As you have done our [the republican] party immense damage: damage that

‘How much longer?’ 1890-1596 401 may take us years to get over’. In a parting speech Carrington declared that he and his wife had been ‘guests who found their welcome at once an adoption, and whose farewell leaves half their hearts behind’, and he noted for his diary on the day of his departure one of the most remarkable scenes in the whole of Sydney’s history:

The most wonderful day of my life. To my great wonder the streets were packed with people. There must have been nearly three hundred thousand and the kindness with which we were received was marvellous. The sky seemed to rain flowers and we were nearly smothered with them in the

carriage. The feeling of affection towards Lily was not to be described —women in tears all the way.

Parkes had proposed the governor’s health at a farewell banquet on 28 October; he lunched at Government House two days later (‘poor old man’, noted Lady Carrington, ‘he was carried in’); then, on 1 November, he said his last farewells at a levee just before the Carringtons went away. Two days more, and he wrote:

Now Your Excellency has left us, all your great kindness to me personally comes back in very vivid forms. Your generous sympathy in my private

afflictions, even before the heavy accident of May 18 and your daily solicitude conveyed to me with so much feeling throughout my painful confinement from that accident: these and many interchanges of thought and feeling in our official intercourse revive under the cold sense that you are gone from amongst us. ... Goodbye—in my case it is likely for ever, and may you ever fair well.

It seemed particularly melancholy that, after his earnest diplomacy in the

cause, Carrington should not be in Sydney as vice-regal host when the federation convention at last met there in March 1891. The new governor did well enough on the obligatory public occasions, but he was no Carrington, especially in Parkes’s eyes. When Jersey arrived in January he seemed on first acquaintance an ‘amiable and well-intentioned man’ but Parkes soon learned he would not again have the privileged intimacy he had enjoyed with Carrington. On 22 March, when the convention had been sitting for just on three weeks, he wrote a trifle plaintively to Carmngton:

If I had occasion to say, I could hardly tell you how our new governor is getting on. I see little of him, and he seems to be very much occupied with his own family. In our slender intercourse he is very friendly and polite but then he is equally friendly and polite to everybody. I have only conversed with Lady Jersey once: Mr. O’Connor 50 times!

The last was no doubt something of a sore point, for there were arguably grounds for much conversation, since Lady Jersey had been born at Stoneleigh. She was the daughter of Lord Leigh who had arranged Parkes’s triumphant return to the village in 1882. Lady Jersey made her first official appearance at the state banquet held at the beginning of the convention to honour the forty-odd delegates from the other colonies. Escorted by her cousin Henry Cholmondeley, ‘georgeous in his

402 Henry Parkes ADC’s uniform’, she must have been a stunning sight, her natural beauty enhanced by ‘a shimmering Lamia-like costume of green-and-gold and flashing diamonds’: at her appearance the band stopped and the whole

company rose and gave her three cheers. It was a large company: 900 gentlemen diners at tables in the body of the Town Hall, watched from the galleries by the ladies, whose fair faces up above, Parkes declared in one of his

clumsy bursts of gallantry, proved ‘that we have marvellous taste in the decoration of our assemblage’. As the Herald said, ‘the venerable politician was in a happy mood’. As chairman of proceedings, he sat at a raised table, with

Jersey at his right hand and Munro, premier of Victoria, on his left. His to propose, the main toast of the evening, ‘One People—one Destiny’, suited the sonorous platitudes he rolled so well and in the euphoria of the moment it did not seem too outrageous when Gillies declared that

the universal sentiment throughout the colonies of Australia was that there was no man, so far as they knew, at present living, who could do the work which that gentleman had begun, and which he would be able to carry out

to a satisfactory conclusion ... On every occasion where there was a

necessity, that brought the man. And on this occasion, in their great need unquestionably they had got the man. When the convention’s real work began Parkes was elected ‘president’. He

brought forward as the opening business a set of resolutions laying down principles for the federation of the colonies and the broad structure of a desirable form of federal government. He framed these after private discussion

with the other premiers: debated and amended in plenary session they subsequently became the guidelines for special committees whose work issued in the drafting of a Bill to establish a federal constitution. Parkes presided with

, dignity over this initial debate and earned plaudits for his own contributions to it. The Herald called his summing up at the end a ‘statesmanlike speech’, which made it ‘vain now for even envy or malice to affect doubts as to the sincerity with which either Sir Henry Parkes or the colony he represents has gone into the work of federation’. But in subsequent proceedings he was not often prominent. Deakin noted how ‘Parkes interferes very little but rarely unless he means to carry his point & does this in by no means the most gracious manner and the journalist Henry Gullett, writing to Carrington at the close of the convention, observed: The G.O.M. did not take a very active part. He spoke once or twice on critical points with much force but merely left the discussion of details to other men. The great, brilliant success of the Convention has been Sir S. Griffith. In it we have had him on his best side that of lawmaker.

Griffith’s achievement as chief draftsman was universally recognized. Parkes had neither the temperament nor the legal expertise for such work; writing to Griffith, he generously acknowledged the ‘care and skill, comprehensive grasp of principles and cautious treatment of details throughout your work on the Constitution Bill’. Discussion and approval of this Bill was the convention’s final exercise before it dissolved—over five weeks after the inaugural banquet. Parkes presided again but Griffith, now piloting his Bill through committee of

cE oes Se ase ee ne : : 2 Sa ee eee eee ee See ee are Bows co Es RSS Ah RS Sag RE SS oy esesoe oes Seeeeeeie se . 7 weg Beng es es a Se ee ee ee Pee ee ree | ee Bee eee cn eee OSE SEER SSeS ane Soy CTS SRE a UY og AS Sg SS pOSTS. TRGEAS SERRA ee ia oie ec eceintiats eye < SSI SENSEI eS o7i SESS SR aa aS Sioa se oY Se ER SENG Sen

. TSE SEE CE ES SESE RSAC ce Raia enerac ecumiicacne . SD tee ids:SORE . Con CISL US ARLE DREISER SSS SR aac nO CN Si foreae ULECEES STE RS ge SRA. 2 theRES Se (ES SEES SSseaman Cee anne es Ne ee cha -CME : STREET eT ISi BT SN ae SR RS EaSeaNS Bey: Bao

1POLE Son,a SPSL ERS SSS oR RRR SOR Coa Scene aSes eeEEN Dh SRS RS8aae Bl OD eR te ER eR ee ee Ee: So REESE Sats Rs OSS85, epee eeSO “3 a. 1BO OSs RES PeAREO eeMMR SEQ AS oe LCS eRe2 mnoe een aeRO aeaeaee Nake oss SEE cc th . fog a es ae:Eggs SEARS EERE Ra RSS ERE ee ITS Og ECE Seg| -. hom aceiec EEeaeSe gS REE ES SNE .UREEE Y.INERT . 2EE ee ee Sg ES Ree OT ieSL Og SE Ee CRS TET * 11 RE Peston : es Jy RES ASL SS ea Ra aan ’ th te th J] Seago SSARO SS Sata SS eee Soha a BES Se STS a Pt *_ASESE STO SE Ppa TR TT aS EEE Bement re SS ER RS : oo : * os TO ESERIES ASSESS RE RS = oo WERE OS Sa ERE AIS 9 OE io Ge RAS SESS Ren Re a Beiter B Shy".teogeeSENES. oR. SEcgaRES SSS SERS Pee aes SoeDia Cae en ASRS asses too oon i SRS Ses eR SS “aR CERES oofgs ae SS BRP ESS BORO SeOe Reorenciwenrmnn nS t. "PO aera ee = panes Ree EO Sn eo eA Re Ag ne ROR a ee Cg EP oo ee, ES hacEeagement . fone UE cece Lect IDiy ASHRESSEES cSSL PER REse Es 17 roa $ 0oeERE Ue a Sagi Ee Sith,aIEEE aN RE Beso Sige USS UIE we SORDS pees ES wage PESEE CUISShh 2” Un SEESSS RSSNe Se SR SU *oo aa ares EES aaetopSOR SEER ¥gp DSSSNRSS Lo Spang TEEiPDE

Pee, Ce . pe cageuFSet :Fa, °TS Sg Tioga SRR gsnon EeSig SgSS gees OE nog OS 9eeEeeeRE ;7S 8Papin ee cS Soe Bec dugge geos “alse. te PgR UD 1eee RRS ee acre-eee Seka eo eeSPS ee ee eeSe eae dasauces Es ARR EE ES a got URL SETS SRSSER ea . SOTingens Le. Be Sg Die : Bee foBORE OP Ug: SESS Sie ce SSRN SS RNS RSD SOR ESS ss BRMe 2CER Te SUS SS at PRES i‘ Se asCRO “See. Beech ame ao ee UEee itsEa tuaee hn,eeoh SEES ie FERS SeesSagD afof *BR FoRO SEES TN, SE Seo Ge EE ee LeOS aa Bey oa Boe Se aES Ea,Po Bee ee EE BOB 8gladc eSoS SS ee ie Me eee en ao SY ae a Bigs eS SE Sh es RDS SRR BS NS OE ee =oe. BE eM BRS RRS SR QOS SUR BSE ED aeGPE SgeeeS oe

SESS eS Se « tea Se ee ee ge OE ge ee SRS RS

ELS RES SS ae tee Sage esga oeen CO RC RRSRNR A ae oeSeachem onyGee ete Sea

ees SES Sees Cok os og ae ; SS Bie ed Seas eI tS aE EEE nh oe wt Ce gas of ti rE 209 SWRI o> Sg ce ees SER Ea Saas es RRR RCS RO gS eee wo ae ~ SERS BS eRe RES WSR US es See es : 20S Teo SES SSS SoS So ESR UR ERR Cy SRB RCC Bec :53Re ee. EEE Se, SE SRane DS tiee 2Ren. She aER SeEA, ee ne eee eo SoGSR es ee ee wis 7eee SE: eae SSUES USSSA Ge TR Wn US .EES! 2 OE YE eeGh AES SSS SR SC OORT Rae Sena eS ate We PERS SPR Ue DE RE EEE ab le Uy SLES ee ee ZSSR Ee ES ceeOS BeRS a os hae oeSERS ’ SARS GEL Ro BSEUS ne cee RS gg BT pee) CR RAE ROU Sep eS SSR SE ao “EE: ee ee Se UR SDA PR Su) SEE AEE OE SR Saks at Sa ane ee RR BS ee ae Baers RE : Perens oe. > BERR ee A 4Ua Po SP Bi UN DeSR CARS ee BERR NR ERR RNS RRS ONE ERR ee CLEoc ALO. TERS Ee:MP RS The net : See . Oe see EEE AS veDEES * Pa BPS SEE pe Ree SS SR SSS RON See chaune derma ye merriment onan eer Bes es BRE Reser” aSSA eee eS SES RE PUT Sete .a EES We SE SES As RS ACESS eS CSC SRE SSS OSS $.... ARSE FtPORT oe : |-¥en UBER. SUSUR ee SRN DR ae eae nea care se eNO RN RE ReOS aEES [ae 2 ~.te SIRES GSE OSS : SNE SaRSES aA GEASS RSS SS SERIA SRE CDR UCONN RD ESRD NCS eS RRS NO eee a Bea cee é= :ee &Pan ee eG eee SE SEN Gets Tea ERR DES SE INN eC SSSR : SEIU i.3 SEES kVe x Oh. SEEMS URES St .t ge oan ae5 :a en eeRee .eee 2S)TR SPENSER SE hae BEC EON SERS aes Beene an BOS Bo aeTgHESs ne aOo awe SOE SRR et Tn :SS we Pet eee te eC CROMER SOEUR GS cee eaSNe RAE nase See Noe :“See REE : ._ & A CREE : . 5 ca Zu) URS “Gp he S ee Oe Se ot pola F . xe. “ a ag eS ISS Sa. . a r . : te S00 LE TR, Un SSE RETR see Ryans stein cane nans nemeensaai ome eRe SB a enero ein BEER Uh . BS Ean Sa REET pe : . : wth. yh gta SEUSS SRS SSSR SR SU Se CR RR ca GEES ase ; . BS: es : Sees ee ee AES ry . " Doe as f aon Eg CEO CEE See RR Cea SR aoe RR NN COR NCES + segs | ES TS oa “8 Bak ees 2 PERSE a ghee oc ge : Dogs Po RY was Soe SE cet Rg SEER SRS SER ego SUE OR SN SN SE RR Aras a enna ae Seen ERED aa Lskg a Se . Sed BS eesOEE :osBE 5wa a ly Beare rnee Ree NR SeNRG OREN SERS SRE MR aees SR “PRRBE ee SeeeeSee eR RS tee TROY SY fee SeBR SS So See GeBRON SSE OE Se SREB SSeS 4Gnas SESE: SS SVE SU Te See aES ayBg a eperen MEME aR Se aE SERRE SS re IED ieUE SURE OS eR RENCE. BE GRA UR — Bes Te oy Ss gE SeRen SE ce SSO Sun OSs EN SeNR eS SR = a Bs: Shei a hie oO UP ge AO, eee RE ON re pS ON Co SE Res Ea ee CR ee Ee EE Ft . ARISES PA) . Los Soe ee BE ae a a ae Se ES oe ee ee ae ¥ : Far CO San Bs " ¢ . CERES OL. Se att Ooh wb. e ma SE od oR CSL ESTES OSL SSRIS RRR SESE Cec mete So eee SRSA Riese cera eae ements Mae SES Se eS ek ‘4 axe a OUEaae Bagi ae ae OO BREE 2 JSS SES SSO Recetas eae ae eee eee ee RMR Sao .a3x: 1TEES ORE ge geenO “4 : Bev Ee MSS SCE Ss %SRRice OER Se SSE: Se aS. 5 oh Soe ¥ SRO SS egiTe SD. i *.sae Plane Seog SySEs 1 UEP SRS. SUES FUSES PeaeS SSS aa sae eSCR Sheehan ee eeeRES eR Es JE . Soe See oe , 688 OSS Tot SESS ESE i SRR Sh ESS RN RS BEES NR Bas * OpEd i get 2c md Doig 0 SSS, hat pS NOR Se eS SPAS ROS. Cem RN :ae SE See Ps SUSE EL TSE . ck BNE, go AP EE ah UIE RS SR oe SES, SE Roe Ee ee SERS. SF Ra eee RO aa a 7:., Beem a. eS aslARISES fy LL &LSPe eee ee eeence eRe re | ee RE an eeane ar ee :Lee ve USS BesEEE TEs ie RAs URE SST ee EA CLS SL UETub ee oeee NSee Seater EtheeNCR RRR |2oeae :~:es EEE : 1 SEE PEESURIS SIE, SEES g ae Se 1 EES a aie vs Aa ASSe RRS

eee ae Peo ee. See ee A ee ee Pe ee Se ee 2. coo

& —SaHee DSARE Be nn BABY : ; Wan x . 6SEx ks Mgr AE! Oy oS ee aee ae

a, . Bae a Boyt ; F AS ee SEAR UES ESE SSE Tp oh TE NJ : = SER ine sae REO

oneee . Loe Soune . :Se Poh oy Se SSE oe HE teSaaremaa 7g SS erea ceee ORCS ra Woo Sua t-;z:7*Be oe .AO aLO BOER A See gl See ee aNee CS SE ae! aiOES 8: -Sec RD) Bed ge SESE ge To geal eee sone EAMETS — CR eas SER Seee Re«ER .a.28 .J«Paes RE -St -oO Seps ae SRR SSR .Sy LA .:Bo ...Bee PP. ISJA QR eu 8See Bos. 2To Shee EER SRE ER ageSEED SERS >: “oehe asWE . Ri ByESE ER Ahg ErSRE Bs. ee reSSS eee NCE REE aCS

SS SES ee :oat ey Se DE at a”SR :SES :Pes "Se oe EEE (TEER .7oe 8Ee ; ee Vie 2eg t ost ie a;BRS. Saget Ser eC CoN SO EO RES SEs ? ; ete ay : -*e Ag ee Se URE BS > * me : : RO ee eee Bi ES RS eC ee FeeSTUS TE LO : . 2 2 : ro ee SSSA EEN 5 bo a . : ‘ . a § pe ER SS | SS Se a . < a2 : se een oc Sees SoC! Sea See : an en BERG ENR rine co rann tn a e N So La Le E ie ° ; en * . ae : SOE RR Sen ease aR RES Ss ; a 7 7 A RS Ronee RSS ee ce Sea iL ’ > : = 2 Se eee SESS [Sa .EERE . :Mek :en SEB see ERE are -ifa °ete7 :ar.ace 4Ne a:SSR BCE RG Ce AE aS :SRE Sy ..~. Boe oe shee gtr Seite eee 2eyaa: Soo es RS So BS ethos eet: S;> ao: oT :oe aeuaa EES Sore a Se E= rarer :ae :¥ EF :aot SRE: aaeR BR Ree EERN? aS Se ...:o3 mes SS See 2— SURE eR OF NEN 2wot -es >39.Sea. Bi. eh ag RRR RS FERS aS ee See 2 ?, ae aes . - we ORGS ROR Rea, ORENCRER

1SSSR REE enn 3ae oS Bae Be eo See ee i. SIRES RR ce Dis nce se :a3.. < Riemer 3 RES [RSE Roe etesah soe SES RER RR SRE eee ton .*::Ree Bos oo ee ..a SASSER SO ae ak cee ERS Ss MCR Saeee e:wg .ogsteg .J#4 :. — Sy ao eee SRR se are rae Reet eos omen “ : : ec 3 a Be “S ERS. EE Se SSR Bros SS a 3 : : < iio. ol cee on SE URES RR Seats CO IRC Pee Se SO ee . * . F: Pe P : gl ead a a ee eee Bens = ccc SEE cE ® : . eo P Y an a. x SR MEER ocean ete Pee ee ea . : x 3 — a SSS. MES SIE OSE Petes: SSS ee : : “4 Be 1 Bs Be Re CR Prete Se FES pers . : : shee vo 4° = ° . Bs. Oe oS Pe 3 Bess SIMMS oe Stepan SNS RE NSS oh Rae: SLE Basen 2, : oo, ~ 3 xz * ee, ee Sees RR ERE SEE Sie : Sonia . « fs 2 . . Tey For ameene aS TREE ESS Soc Seaeeees oo) ad 2 4 « weds iP oy : Bais: a 4 ae Pa a Bani conte See RES eee: PERO ee a hos . i . Bees on CRBS SER REEESE a . ‘ . wR be ~ + ae. 7 PELE EE 7 CRESS See oe See ee BS roFi °a >. :4 he . oy BSBaeS Sot CER RR SR ea Rees . mnee asa, og : _,ES SS Se SeSEh

* Se 2 _ ° Se

Eee OS 7eee gp -:Ls .‘ :cos -.aYS 4FS ~:.:" :aq eee oer aOE BT NEES ESS eS Te : ~~. : wre oe ° 3 ail . ee ee a ea ee rn A BS oe 4 . a = a ISS EES eS SS al En& 3 ‘ oF, . cs Los 23 PS eh og CREE Bet Uae eee Sea AUER i can yeh ne COE on, ROUSRE S = 3 UE . ; we 8 > ee % ¢ . pane ae ; aoe 6p USSREES ace SEE Se eS Rear a SERRE : : . _ a . ? 3 Be TEESE Ue SyRRS Sa pas A RSS. ' : e « . el F. BS ae RS Tg EDLUSSE Lai TSS ea Ro BR ee a . . . . Bi eg “[ BESS e SLE a ‘ . 8 oo ee . F Loh ss a _ ne Poss SSeS es SEommEERR cS co , 7 : >: foe ars. Pe ea Pee DAN TES CSE ESE RRS oS RRR . . Q a eo ns aes “Sa ~ BORN 2 UES Ser ae Reimers: Se Ss Sa : . . . a ed te i Ease. BS: eee TUES a UEP EL: CORRES Bee ee Se rs : -* ee oe SAR EL eS Roeeed Ee SESUSSSE SSS -Se aan : eSSoe RasTA Se NEES ESS Co crwee :EES eG :”:=:Bs2.BS Be Soe See : JMS .¢ ae *aa:“y rn 23 a,°S00 “i Soy SEER

: ae Soe = ’ ; E . Se . ° Say Tb “ rod : ; 7 ; Bax 3 j :« ee " nd . Ps “ : _ . . aa itis s cy _.@*y.°,.**«>z*¥.

Ss ae We ree :os :; Che et :SER :.eee +g BS ee ce Po toe . LP age BS 4 HE ae N aei 2 . : SF ; a SE Re > * .* : : fer 3 4 eS ER m . ; “4 Sees, ; SSS SRE SS Se o . oy Pa : Cie rd . : . : . ee en oe 2g ESS OS aee .ws aeeh . ot Hee es . PONS: ee ‘. :“:Se eR ee oS are * ® Se es Sa on as +. SESS " a es a — ee ee . °F oe . ee “SS ¥ 38 2. Se Ls Ree el eS Se Uneee chet 24, a,ee egSe EX: "eee BO * 334 gt we .i? aS Re 9. Mpa pS Sigs of. a°:_% REE Ss. BRS .. k& mL ES Mg LS > ee

Bes 3 v E 7 = ee E . . . Fj ‘ ae \ : Pa Be es . 4 Oe gi ee i hail F wad % a — . % . ° : ge — ge 2 = ‘ i” vies ; “4 _ an Re a i 3 # : . an } Se en a oa rr ote Le ae 2 ¥ : ‘ ey SOUR Se ne TER SO Seer eS egies. Ses setce gene J ER ‘ s “3 aBs oo aeeeaNS 2eeae :cnc AReee a SEES Re on ee 222 OES Bn! =AhSN aeR a,°Be ia as aBai ag |3aNNN aaemeeO'S See iCTT :ee5 — 3¥-.°x?°#.: ESE SRR, SOS ee 43 SSR ES OMORERSS ‘ee eeADS Se eee AEES SSSR Sea se, Sikecn.. wee : RRR re SS CAPES SRE aed :a3a ¥a7

>

>

%

.

arkes an ady Julia

a:

h’,in dale, where é| ‘Kenil eniiwortn , in A Annandale, w ereParkes Farkesdied dle

33.

«aooead 2.

eg

8y

el

Be.

.: :: weRE .: gee, —er :: a a ae & at ij iT oa oe ae ar 3ieLoot Ly Ee: = Rites : Oe SetsA ESERIES aSO SS ar | ee :XOea:we yl Se ES—alg RES

me ees . wy ore % et oy . is i eS eo Shee: ee a : EP SSRSe Re aNU Be, EneOMS ae : Bon RS eS lLwosEee SO

oe Pear, Rees OE SAR ES OST” On RE Bie : LTE ar. oo- Se: RE i Mie ks Ce ESR BA t K l th . ees re : - SS eae ‘ z Wee SS saeeea Be oe RRR SY SO OE RRR RS = a cette te : osaeTie se, @ igs BB Rp Be= 3me eeSEES ls835% ” ag teeOo,| on ee aes Sm oe . . OyaokiFiY 2%EPoe+ .EE eee gees a*gehs Sa aeeea .en:aee “BSS ae Ones 3. 9ieee ,Be oe eee ees =eeRDNe oes

ee ee ee ee me i SEL oe a oe Seer. ~ % EEO SESS lh. SRE es. ee Se ° : ag os ee Seaoe.) :ed : OES eo6 Be,oe. . Pe * aes ee oe *esee.

eee _ . a. .ee Seaem o : Psee’ PY e i8s — : eS. oe a : >eeEa _ “Se at See ; 0 SSDI Re Seema = 2 ‘4 _ RRR cy

ESS caer, eS oo BBE eeAs ie 255 FF eee : a5 ee eyge eyosrsSe. ie go | go Me! ee" a aa : . a” = See wg is Be al,SERRE eee a vee . hy Z POS id ae ®wt .Sed Be. ee . Ba SEs ao x F ae: ekeset: MMI ae ae Wi PO : E. “ % s Soe ee i. ES a 4 . Pe ge oo em Sa oan ae = AES eS a P % ° % ee ee. i ee oe : , Ee BS S x so geen 8 ee ae b Se Se . ee et es S & FOS *. _e* i S.Bk Boees | ag Bee Bag ee . Se ae eS ieee Be $22 Mies apeation ee Pete eed Sew >a ,*Se eae. ee wigs , .pee — eeSa ie coo —— e R 2, -

ee ee ” ee ;pers a aae. ©aee co2h 3*ea. Po. ee iEo 2 oe ea :Sa e.” al &-g@ mee Sk Bec = : ,ABS ge. ae .Se “ ese es a-=ae a Bien : ee ee “eg . ae ee j eeCU : : " ae :

ie c— ae La a .oe - ast SS oO_ ee 4 “es

* EF a +e €aeem: RS on &ae aeek aw "MRS a nee *a: Aye ’-tae ~ > Ree _—@ Ee .SS uae. bi \ ES* eee 2 SSa,>Be 4

po ° : Sm ORE £E °Sees eS ee “is, oa ~ BA sig > 3 . fy°"oad cogs

. 3S ae Og . mea5 See -7 -ara? » ~rm.” a ie FS S. : * ie wg” , * eeee a% er ee ee

"ae te “ee ” . a,jee Pa zitoe ae8 : “er 4per 7cad a Beene ieSo: sre ae we N 3aoa” -— > 7 Seat a. & . i: Bre os PRR ite. _, — ce. Sw te OY 4 g _- re . Boe. aia: eee. asSees peo, int: bg Se .es

“3 .er_xaar: See | ; ——-. : . = 7 _ ; eS Ray, F : as Fa ke oe a

. *" Bs a Se Se: Ese OE . —ae = ye er eS 3 BS Oeeee go ences pa e1 3 | : eo) >=S)CS =. 32=an SS S © 33 z—] E §2 :a: E : 3 = 5 Do Hey fs) & =, Oy = 8 5 : : f= Oo "D Gwe o£ -. : S z io) a 2 —™ 66 S = 5 " 5 = SD =cr,2ot 382 &:Bs me ‘aaootomy ‘ =e :5:. 5 es w eo) CO ho Ww \O ON "-. — .wand oO2c = xorwy zW = S. :— : Z . = ns el oO — — S a 3 & —_™ N AN Se) 3 ) g 5On7i) :On—wy&WyOn = Nn tm Dy “ cS a = 2 5

z 3oO CO i uD) roe) Ob !E YcS5 ws=eON n e2 xEN 33 00 aad — a)Pa=St S rn Py OO « ce 5 q = € : = Bs} o a, &

ea E : B 2 fae ea) Y bes = ~ ] 5 E 5 so) an af = a > S 3 q fgiD) co ra ; : 2 £3 O &zoos

5 as ~oz ; — = A co -4 LW) Cae ; :ao a N a. ; S wa ;- Z < QW. : >:

5 an ay ao , oS ir | a3 a5 aatS ein ZG 0 245 ef: — fL] ~

o

CL)

a2

Notes

Publication details for works referred to here may be found by consulting the Bibliography. In these notes I give the full title of each work in the initial reference only, but subsequently use short titles in citations where confusion might arise. I note these short titles in brackets at the first reference in the notes, and in the Bibliography. Where not otherwise specifically acknowledged, all biographical information is from the relevant! entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. 1 use the following abbreviations:

ADB Australian Dictionary of Biography AJPH Australian Journal of Politics and History

ANU Australian National University

BM British Museum CO Colonial Office CP Carrington Papers EAL An Emigrant’s Home Letters HS Historical Studies MA Master of Arts ML Mitchell Library MP Papers NDMurray No Date NL National Library

NSWLA V&P New South Wales Legislative Assembly: Votes & Proceedings NSWLC V&P New South Wales Legislative Council: Votes & Proceedings

NSWPD New South Wales Parliamentary Debates

PA The People’s Advocate PC Parkes Correspondence PhD Doctor of Philosophy PPA The Protestant Political Association PRO Public Records Office

RAHS J&P Royal Australian Historical Society: Journal & Proceedings

SMH Sydney Morning Herald

Page 1. Henry Parkes’s birth is recorded in the register of Stoneleigh parish church, St Mary’s; entry in the volume beginning at 1813, 9. He is shown here as the son of “Thomas and Martha Parks’, farmers, of the Motthouse. The church is described in the Victoria History of the Counties of England, Warwickshire, V1, 236.

For the origin and history of Stoneleigh Abbey I draw chiefly on I. N. Brewer, Topographical and Historical Description of the County of Warwick, 43-6. The description of Stoneleigh Abbey is from Brewer, op. cit., 42. 2. The information on family births and marriages is in the Stoneleigh church registers and on tenancy—both here and in subsequent pages—is from Stoneleigh Abbey Rent 426

Notes (pages 3-9) 427 books, which I consulted at Stratford-upon-Avon in 1957 (Generall Rentall from Lady Day 1766 to Lady Day 1777; in the Matter of Lord Leigh, alunatic, Receiver’s Account 1778-9; Rent Book, 1798-1805; Rent Book, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1818-19, 1819-20, 1820-1, 1821-2, 1822-3, 1824). Parkes described his mother’s family, as quoted, in an autobiographical memoir, PC A941. The entry in the school log book is dated 3 April 1882. The story of Hon. Ann Leigh’s charity is in Victoria History... Warwickshire, II, 371.

For agricultural conditions after the Napoleonic Wars I have used ibid., 274, and W. Rostow, British Economy in the Nineteenth Century, 110-11. 3. My narrative of events up to the family’s settlement in Birmingham is based chiefly on a letter Parkes wrote from Sydney on 30 December 1844 to Lord Leigh of Stoneleigh Abbey, soliciting Leigh’s influence to get him a government billet in the colony. A copy, in Parkes’s handwriting, is in the Dixson Library, Sydney, MS. Q382. There is also an autobiographical memoir in PC A941. The verse is from Parkes’s poem ‘Retrospective Lines; written on the passage from England to Australia in the year 1839’, which he later published in Stolen Moments, 25-42. 4. The quoted passage is from Conrad Gill and Charles Grant Robertson, A Short History of Birmingham, 24, which is also (22-32) one of my sources for the general remarks made here about Birmingham. The other is Asa Briggs, ‘Thomas Attwood and the Economic Background of the Birmingham Political Union’, Cambridge Historical Journal, ix, 2, 1948, 190-216 but especially 192.

John Alfred Langford, A Century of Birmingham Life, Ul, 309, speaks of Birmingham’s position and appearance. Briggs, loc. cit., quotes the observer on the spread of the suburbs and Langford, op. cit., 387, talks of gardens and fireworks displays. 5. J ames Drake, Picture of Birmingham (1825), 45-6, is quoted by Langford, op. cit., 438. Parkes’s reflections on his parents’ sufferings are from a letter of 17 February 1839 to Sarah from London, printed in An Emigrant’s Home Letters, 56-9. This volume, edited by Parkes’s daughter Annie, contains a series of letters written by Parkes and Clarinda just before and after their emigration to Australia. Sarah kept them and Maria brought them to Sydney, passing them on to Annie (Annie Parkes to Parkes, ND. [26 October 2] PC A933). The originals are now in the Parkes Correspondence. In editing for publication Annie corrected spelling and punctuation, and occasionally omitted passages that did not reflect well upon her father. The volume includes a useful memoir on Parkes’s life in Birmingham by a close friend, John Hornblower, who also emigrated and became a successful newspaper and printery proprietor in Victoria. For convenience in what follows I identify letters in this collection by reference to the volume (EHL), though I have corrected the text in all cases by reference to the original letters. Parkes published the poem on his Birmingham home in Murmurs of the Stream

(1857).

6. The information on Parkes’s apprenticeship is from his-letter to Leigh, loc. cit. On the Birmingham ethos and economy I rely especially on Trygve R. Tholfsen, “The Artisan and the Culture of Early Victorian Birmingham’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal, 14, 1953-4, 146-66, and Asa Briggs, op. cit., passim. Thompson’s words are from The Making of the English Working Class, Penguin edition, 19. 7. Langford, op. cit., 445, has a splendid engraving of the Lichfield Street Workhouse. Briggs, op. cit., 195, is my source for troubles in the iron trade and Langford, op. cit., 445-7, reports the Guardians on the problems of the Workhouse. Briggs, op. cit., 200, quotes Cobden. The object, as quoted, of the Political Union is from Langford, op. cit., 532-3.

8-9. Briggs, op. cit., 191, is my source for Attwood on masters and men and Langford, op. cit., 533, 541, for the Beardsworth Repository meeting and the first successes of the Union. Parkes speaks of his membership in Fifty Years in the Making of Australian History (Fifty Years),9. Hornblower, EHL, 147, recalls Parkes’s ivory badge. Langford, op. cit., 533, 537-8, 546-7, has details of the badge and of the demonstrations. I depend also on C. Gill, History of Birmingham, I, Manor and Borough to 1865, 201-3, which is the source (209-10) of the description of the Newhall Hill meeting. Parkes recalls his own participation in Fifty Years, 8-9.

428 Notes (pages 9-21) My account of the Polish Association is from C. M. Wakefield, Life of Thomas Attwood, 251-3. 10. de Bosco Attwood acknowledged Parkes’s poem on 22 January 1833, PC A987, 108.

Parkes’s reference to his imperfect education is from autobiographical notes, PC

A941.

Bygones Worth Remembering, especially chapter xlu (‘Christian Days’), is the source

for Holyoake’s Birmingham period. The quote is from p. 231. The Mechanics’ Institute’s original circular is in Birmingham Scrap Book (held in Birmingham Public Library), ti, 9. Robertson’s evidence on lack of system in institutes’ activities is in Mechanics’ Magazine, 28 November 1835, 24, 191. Parkes remembered Toulmin Smith’s class in his autobiographical notes, ibid. 11. The Analyst, 11, 1836, 308, lists the lectures mentioned here. W. Hawkes Smith recounts the early difficulties of the institute in a letter to the Birmingham Journal, 29 December 1838. The need for ‘strong determination’ to attend classes is noted in the Analyst, ibid., 149. Edmond’s words are from Birmingham Journal, 13 January 1838 and Hawkes Smith’s from Birmingham Herald and Midland Counties Advertiser, 11 January 1838. Professor J. F. C. Harrison has drawn my attention to the fact that Hawkes Smith was

an Owenite and the tone of the Birmingham Institute probably unusually radical. Hornblower’s memoir is from EHL, 145-6. 12. Parkes speaks of the orators as his ‘teachers’ in Fifty Years, 9. Hawkes Smith’s lecture is from the Analyst, 11, 1835, 334. 13. rely on Langford, op. cit., 351-2, for historical details about the New Meeting House. The account of the church and of James’s views and activities is based on Arthur H. Driver, Carr’s Lane, 1748-1948, 44-6. Holyoake, op. cit., 218, recalls James’s impact on his mother. My comments on Parkes and Carr’s Lane are from the Hornblower memoir

and Fifty Years. oo

14. Driver, ibid., 39, remarks as quoted on James’s obliviousness to social problems. Parkes asked Sarah to approach Cheatle on 6 December 1838, EHL, 23. Holyoake recalls his awe of James in op. cit., 216. Hornblower’s remark is from EHL, 148. The register at Edgbaston church has details of the marriage. The personal details are from FHL, 9, 10, 25.

15. For ‘Varney the vampire’ I am indebted to Professor J. F. C. Harrison. My remarks on Cheatle and the Lombard congregation are based on the Chapel Minute Book, 1829-56 (in Birmingham Public Library); Arthur S. Langley, Birmingham Baptists, Past and Present, 139; EHL, 9, 23.

In constructing the account of Birmingham Chartism that follows I draw on Langford, op. cit., 622-40; Gill, op. cit., 223-4, 240-8; Briggs op. cit. and Chartist Studies, 1-28 (“The Local Background of Chartism’); J. T. Ward, Chartism, 79-82.

17. Hornblower’s comment is from FHL, 148. Aris’s Birmingham Gazette has references on 5 February 1838 to the imminent opening of the Birmingham to London railway. Parkes wrote to Sarah about the trip on 25 November 1838, EHL, 17-18. 18. Details of experience in London are from EAL, 14-20, 72. The letters quoted are Parkes to Sarah, 7 December 1838, and Clarinda to Sarah, 24 March [1839], EAL, 27-8, 73, though Annie’s printed version is almost unrecognizable beside the original (which I use here), PC A1044. Parkes announced his decision to emigrate in a letter to Sarah, 6 December 1838, EAL, 22. 19. The advertisement is from Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, 1 January 1838. My remarks on the bounty system depend on R. B. Madgwick, /mmigration into Eastern Australia 1788-1851, especially 156-7, and O. O. MacDonagh, A Pattern of Government Growth, 123. Parkes described the difficulties of emigration to Sarah on 10 February 1839, EAL, 45-6.

His letter describing Australia is dated 7 December 1838, EAL, 28-9. 20. The quotations are from the letter of 10 February 1839, EAL, 42-9. 21. Inediting FHL, Annie excised the passage about money owed to Porter. It isin the letter misdated | January 1836 [1839], EHL, 37-9, original in PC A1044, Porter had been Parkes’s doctor.

Notes (pages 21-32) 429 Saralt’s kindness overpowered Parkes on 7 December 1838, FHL, 27. The other points are from EHL, 69-70, 78. Clarinda expressed fears about Henry’s health on 10 March 1839, EHL, 67. Parkes complained of the ‘garret’ on | March 1839, FHL, 52. His letter appeared in the Charter on 14 March and Allden’s response on 31 March. 22. Parkes’s letter, 17 February, and Clarinda’s, 24 March 1839, are in FHL, 58, 71-2. 23. The last letters about embarkation and sailing are dated 25-31 March, FHL, 74-82, and there is a final letter from Plymouth Sound, EAL, 83-5. The latter has the description of the berths, messing, and other passengers. Parkes wrote unenthusiastically of the voyage to Sarah on 21 May 1841, FHL, 103-10. 24. The letter was written off the Isle of Wight on 31 March 1839, EHL, 81; and the last details of the voyage, as quoted, are from letters of 1 May 1840 and 21 May 1841, EAL, 87, 106.

25. Darwin is quoted in A. Birch and David S. Macmillan, The Sydney Scene, 1788-1960, 72. The population figures are from the N.S.W. Colonial Secretary’s Returns of the Colony, and the 1841 Census. 26. The convict figures quoted are in L. L. Robson, The Convict Settlers of Australia, 4. The description of convict dress is by P. Cunningham, Two Years in New South Wales, 44. Darwin’s observations are in Birch and Macmillan, op. cit., 73. The wearied lady was Mrs Charles Meredith, Notes and Sketches of New South Wales during a Residence in that Colony from 1839 to 1844, 162. Wool export figures are from S. J. Butlin, Foundations of the Australian Monetary System, 225, 316. 27. Itake details of migration to New South Wales from R. B. Madgwick, op. cit., especially the table on 223. The Strath fieldsaye’s cargo was listed in the Sydney Herald, 29 July 1839. The paper on the same day called upon employers to engage the immigrants. 28. Parkes told of his first days in the colony, as quoted, on 1 May 1840, EHL, 87-91. 29. Parkes explained his delay in writing on 24 May 1841, EHL, 97-8, and reflected on his tribulations on 23 January 1842, EAL, 119. Other Strathfieldsaye emigrants wishing to return are mentioned in EHL, 91. The twenty-fifth birthday verse is from Fragmentary Thoughts. 30. Parkes reported his change of jobs, his wish for a lathe and his fear of returning to the country on 1 May 1840, EAL, 90. A testimonial of 3 January 1845 by Gibbes, the collector of customs, says Sir John Jamison recommended Parkes ‘in consequence of which I appointed him’, PC A922, 534. Parkes reported his new position to Sarah on 22 September 1840, FHL, 93. He told of new comfort on 24 May 1841, FHL, 98, and spoke of the Australian summer on 3 September 1842, FHL, 129. The cited letter of 15 September 1841 is in EAL, 115-16. Parkes noted the depression in Sydney on 24 January 1842, and reflected on money on 8 August 1841, FHL, 117, 111. 31. Remarks about the ‘heart-sickening’ character of the emigrant’s lot were on 21 May 1841 and about his and Clarinda’s continuing loneliness on 23 January 1842, EHL, 108, 119-20.

Parkes told of his impressive Sydney acquaintances on 24 May 1841 but expressed restlessness, as quoted, in the same letter, EHL, 98-100. The fantasies about a permanent home are from the letter of 3 September 1842, FHL, 130-1. Hope for a competence is expressed in an undated letter, written about mid-1843, EAL, 137. 32. The letter to Lord Leigh, 30 December 1844, is in the Dixson Library, MS. Q382. Parkes told Sarah of his ‘little connection’, his tools and his plans on 14 October 1845, PC A1044. The letters on the contretemps over Parkes’s suspension from the customs service are Parkes to Gibbes, 28 October 1845, Parkes to Thomas Jeffrey, 11 November 1845, and Parkes to Gibbes, 29 January 1846, PC A931, 450, 551, 454. Gibbes’s testimonial is in PC A922, 534. Parkes told Clarinda to boil the bones on 23 August 1845. Parkes gives the Domain Terrace address in his letter of 6 November to Jeffrey. He wrote as quoted to his father on 10 April 1846, PC A1044. The love letter to Clarinda, 6 October 1844, is in FHL, 140-1.

430 Notes (pages 33-48) 33. Robert’s birth, on 21 December 1843, is recorded in the family bible, which I cite by courtesy of Mr Frederick Thom, Menie’s grandson, who now has possession of it. Parkes spoke to Sarah of writing poetry when at work on 22 September 1840, FHL, 93-4. James Tegg published Stolen Moments, Sydney, 1842. My quotations about the origins and purpose of the poems are from the volume itself. Sir H. W. Parker passed Gipps’s comment on to Parkes, 18 July 1842, PC A926, 540. The hope that the poems will stimulate an ‘unstrung lyre’ and the comment about Duncan are from Parkes’s preface to Stolen Moments. 34. I owe the reference to Duncan on colonial literature (Australasian Chronicle, 14 April 1842) to Margaret Payten, William Augustine Duncan 1811-85, a Biography of a Colonial Reformer, MA, University of New South Wales, 1965, 138. This excellent thesis has shaped the view of Duncan I present in the next few pages and I wish to acknowledge my debt to it. 35. The Bulletin recalled the interview with Parkes on 16 May 1896. Duncan informed Parkes that no job was available on 19 May 1840, PC A882, 314. 36. My general remarks on Harpur are based on C. M. H. Clark, A History of Australia, Ill, 154-5, and J. Normington-Rawling, Charles Harpur, An Australian, 74-96. Harpur acknowledged Parkes’s sonnet on |] August 1843, ML, Ah 131/1 and responded to the gift of Shelley’s poems on 21 March 1844, ML MSS. 947 (Harpur Correspondence), 1-9. Normington-Rawling, op. cit., 101-4, 107, records Harpur’s movements. 37. The poem to Robert Parkes is in a letter of | October 1844, ML MSS. 947, 19-21. Harpur sent the poem in praise of Duncan to Parkes on 16 August 1844, ibid., 11-13, and Parkes wrote to Duncan on 20 August, ibid., 15-16, marked ‘copy’ in Parkes’s handwriting. Parkes’s recollection of his relationship with Harpur and Duncan is from Fifty Years, 8.

38. The account of Duncan and his views is from Payten, op. cit.: his cast of mind, 142; his view of ‘the people’, 36; the gold medal from Sydney operatives, 77-9; his campaign on the bounty system, 85-8; his concern at the ‘depreciation of labour’, 95; his approach to the land question, 98; his disillusion with ‘the people’ and faith in education, 131-4; his fortunes, passim, but especially chapter 6, 191 ff. 39. Normington-Rawling, op. cit., 103-4, 107, 111-12, is my source for Harpur and Parkes’s relationship. Harpur wrote for the whip handle on 26 September 1847, ML MSS. 947, 29-31, and Duncan wrote from Brisbane on 20 October 1846, PC A881, 229. 40. Normington-Rawling, op. cit., 146, quotes Harpur’s greeting to ‘Hal’. For Harpur’s jealousy see e.g. his apology to Parkes on 4 December 1848, ML MSS. 947, 33-6. Parkes’s letter of misgiving about Harpur is to H. Halloran, 6 September 1845, PC A931, 483-5.

Harpur asked about these old friends on 26 September 1847, ibid. NormingtonRawling, op. cit., speaks of Hart. Parkes’s account of his drift into politics is from Fifty Years, 9-10. 42. Ruth Knight, I/liberal Liberal, Robert Lowe in New South Wales, 1842-1850, is the essential source on Lowe. The description of his council speeches is from p. 58, and his other important declarations are on p. 120. 44. Lowe’s vigorous new attack on the squatters is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald

(SMH), 28 July 1848. Knight, op. cit., 164, quotes the remarks of Wentworth’s committee on transportation. 46. Parkes told Sarah on 11 October 1846, PC A 1044, that he had been at 25 Hunter Street for almost twelve months. Atlas, 4 September 1847, announced his removal to no. 20. Campbell to Parkes, 1 October 1847, PC A69, 480, records the agreement about the ‘middle house’. I draw the catalogue of Parkes’s imports, which could be greatly extended, at random from advertisements which appeared regularly in Atlas, SMH and PA.

Parkes’s description of Clarinda, and of Robert and Menie, is from his letter, already cited, to Sarah on 11 October. Mary’s birth and death, and Mary Edith’s birth, are recorded in the family bible. Parkes to Sarah, 6 December 1846, PC A1044, also reports Mary’s death. 47-8. Joseph Fowles, Sydney in 1848, deals with the matters mentioned, on pp. 21-2. Morton Herman’s words are from his introduction to the Ure Smith facsimile of 1962 and the population figures from op. cit., 6.

Notes (pages 48-56) 431 Ruth Knight, op. cit., 186 ff., has important details about the committee; other points

come from ADB and a personnel file, in my possession, drawing on miscellaneous SOUrCES.

49. Lowe’s position is from SMH reports, 8, 14 and 21 July 1848. The committee’s views appear in its advertisements: e.g. At/as, 8 July; SMH, 11 July. Knight, op. cit., 197 ff, also deals with these matters. SMH, 28 July, reported the nomination. 50. Knight, op, cit., 196, and Atlas, 22 July 1848, are sources for the seizure of the Bland meeting. T. H. Irving, The Development of Liberal Politics in New South Wales, 1843-55, PhD, University of Sydney, 1967, 319, mentions Parkes’s contributions to the Atlas. SMH, | August 1848, published the count of the poll and the committee’s advertisement. Lowe’s speeches, as quoted, are in Knight, op. cit., 203, 205. Parkes’s appreciation of the election is from PA, 10 February 1849. 51. SMH published the Constitutional Association’s manifesto on 30 December 1848. SMH gave its opinion of PA on | January 1849 and Irving, op. cit., 440, quotes the first PA editorial (2 December 1848). On Parkes’s contributions, generally, to PA, see M. Roe, Quest for Authority in Eastern Australia, 1835-1851, 96. PA, 23 December 1848, published Parkes’s poem on the blacksmith (‘Labour, Wisdom, Unity’). Harpur’s comment on the association is from a letter to Parkes, 4 December 1848, Harpur Correspondence, ML MSS. 947, 33-6. Knight, op, cit., 207, quotes Lowe’s objection to the association. The Provisional Council is listed in SMH, 30 December 1848.

52. Irving, op. cit., 439, argues that there were two factions in the association, doctrinaires

and pragmatists, defined by attitudes to the franchise question. This seems to me doubtful. For the most important association meetings on the issue (Parkes moved for a committee of nine which examined the question) see PA, 9, 16, 23 and 30 December 1848. Knight, op. cit., 211-13, has an account of the public meeting and the reaction of some of the invitees. A. W. Powell speaks of Cowper’s attitude in The Political Career of Charles Cowper, 1843-1870, PhD, La Trobe University, 1974, 143. Though Dr Powell has published the substance of this thesis in his Patrician Democrat, Melbourne, 1977, [refer throughout these notes to the original thesis, which is the more detailed work. For Martin’s letter see report of the meeting, SMH, 24 January 1849, and Martin to Mackay, 22 January 1849, PC A63, 210-13. SMH denounced the ‘clique’ on 26 January 1849 and had reported the Grey protest, including Hipkiss’s speech, on 21 January 1848. Parkes’s speech is from SMA# report of

the meeting, 24 January 1849. His praise for the meeting and his poem about the Australian Lamartine are from PA, 27 and 13 January 1849 (hand-markedcopyin ML). 53. For association affairs referred to here see meetings reported in PA, 10, 17and31 March and 7 and 14 April 1849. Mackay wrote to Parkes about the election on 15 March, PC A69, 130. The PA contributions noted here were published on 24 and 31 March, 7 and 14 April.

The verse is from ‘Australian Youth’s Song’ (PA, 21 April) and “The Australian Maiden to her Brother’ (PA, 31 March 1849). 54. Knight, op. cit., 209-11 has an account of the operatives’ meeting. See also SMH, 22 and 23 December 1848. Mackay’s remarks are in his letter to Parkes of 15 March 1849, referred to above. I construct my account of the background story to the convict question from various secondary sources, but most notably J. M. Ward, Earl Grey and the Australian Colonies, 1846-57, A. G. L. Shaw, Convicts and the Colonies, T. A. Coghlan, Labour and Industry in Australia.

55. PA, 3 March 1849, reported the association meeting at which Parkes read Grey’s despatch. SMH reported the preliminaries to the public meeting of protest on 2 and 7 March and the meeting itself on 10 March 1849. 56. Knight, op. cit., 218, speaks of the negotiations between the Constitutional Association and the Anti-Transportation Committee. PA reported the association’s preparations for the Hashemy’s arrival: see especially 28 April, 5 May and 2 June 1849. Parkes wrote of ‘Australia’s First National Movement’ in PA, 28 April. SMH, 12

432 Notes (pages 56-67) June, and PA, 16 June 1849, reported the Hashemy meeting. FitzRoy gave his view of the meeting, enclosed a clipping from Bell’s Life in Sydney and sent to the colonial office the quoted police report, in a despatch of 30 June, no. 140, CO 201/414. 57. Besides the press reports cited above, Knight, op. cit., 218-23, and C. M. H. Clark, op. cit., 417-19, have accounts of the meeting. I take Lowe’s words from the latter, 418. Parkes claims authorship of the text of the resolutions in Fifty Years, 13, where he refers to this ‘Great Protest Meeting’; Irving, op. cit., 331, explains the committee’s role. His source is David Blair’s introduction to Parkes’s Speeches on Various Occasions, 3. 58. PA, 16 June and SMH, 14 June 1849, have accounts of the delegation to government house. FitzRoy’s reactions, as quoted, are from his despatch of 30 June, mentioned above. PA, 23 June, and SMH, 13, 15, 16and 19 June 1849, reported the public meeting and its preliminaries. 59. Beil’s Life protested as quoted on 23 June 1849. Shaw, op. cit., 325, is my authority for the numbers and dispersal of the convicts. Parkes’s PA protests (marked in ML copy) were on | and 8 September 1849. 60. Knight, op. cit., 230, quotes Parkes on Lowe’s ‘turning round upon the People who had elected him’. The proposal for a dinner is in PA, 17 November 1849, marked ‘H.P.’, ML copy. Knight, op. cit., 250, asserts that the dinner was not held. Other details about Lowe’s departure, including Parkes on asking candidates ‘where their home was’, are from the same source. SMH reported the nomination on 19, remarked on indifference on 20, and detailed the declaration of the poll on 22 December 1849. 61. The details about Blair are from ADB and A. Gilchrist, John Dunmore Lang, 457 ff., is the main source for Lang’s activities (‘greatly dilapidated’, 464; Lang’s lectures, 471). 62. Parkes’s reaction to the lectures is from a letter to Lang on 17 April 1850, Lang Papers, ML, A2242, I. FitzRoy’s observation is from his despatch of 30 June 1849, CO 201/414/330. The inaugural League meeting was reported in an advertisement, SMH, 30 April 1850. Gilchrist, op. cit., 474, reprints Denison’s letter (21 May 1850) and, 479, Blair’s account of meeting Parkes and planning Lang’s candidature. Mr D. W. A. Baker, the biographer of Lang, generously read and discussed my account of Parkes and Lang in

this and the next chapter, and corrected me on some points. I naturally accept responsibility, however, for the final version which appears here, and which Mr Baker did not see before publication. 63-4. PA is my main source for the campaign: 29 June (advertisement) for public meeting which approved Lang; 6 July for Campbell’s and Cowper’s decisions not to stand, for important Lang meeting chaired by Wilshire, for Parkes’s notices of ward meetings; 13 July for accusations against McEncroe and elaborate advertisement, ‘Crisis and the Man’, in which Parkes refers to Lang’s committee and its sentiments; 27 July for the nomination; ‘brethren of the Green Isle’ was a phrase Lang used at the declaration of the poll, PA, 3 August 1850. The rude remarks about Holden, quoted by Gilchrist, 480, 483, are from Blair. Bell’s Life, 20 July 1850, published the ‘Electioneering Chaunt’ about ‘Poet Parkes’. Gilchrist, op. cit., 482, quotes SMH, 24 July 1850, on the ‘national calamity’ of Lang’s election. 65. Rodd wrote to Lang on 25 July 1850, PC A63, 113, and Lang to Parkes on “Thursday morning’, ibid., 111. PA, 27 July 1850, reported the celebration of Lang’s victory. The new anti-transportation meeting, and preparations for it, are from ibid., 10 and 17 August 1850. Campbell expressed his indignation to Parkes on 8 August, PC A920,

201-3, and Harpur wrote on 22 August, Harpur Correspondence, ML MSS. 947, 57-60.

66. The PA declaration of freedom as Australia’s destiny was on 1 September. B. Dyster quotes Macarthur’s alarm in “The Fate of Colonial Conservatism on the Eve of the Gold Rush’, RAHS J&P, 54, 341, December 1968. Hawksley’s remark is from his speech at Circular Wharf, PA, 17 August 1850. The three historians I quote are Dyster, op. cit., 345; Irving, op. cit., 334; Clark, op. cit., 445.

67. PA, 24 August 1850, reported the dinner to celebrate Lang’s victory. The watch presented to Parkes is now in the possession of Mr F. Thom, who has kindly shown it to me. Parkes admonished Sarah about Thomas’s education on 8 August 1841, FHL, 112-13

Notes (pages 67-76) 433 and on 22 January 1842, ibid., 118. Clarinda to Sarah, 24 March 1839, ibid., 72, implies that Thomas was living with Sarah and Maria then. Parkes wrote directly to Thomas on 19 March [1850], PC A934, 360-1. 68-9. Parkes’s will of 10 April 1850, PC A1045, refers to the Geelong business. Mackay to Parkes, 24 April 1850, PC A925, 324-6, squabbles about the name of the business. For other difficulties see especially Mackay to Parkes, 15 May 1850, PC A897, 154. Parkes wrote to Clarinda on the matters discussed here on 9, 17 and 21 October, PC A1044, and 14 October, PC A934. See advertisements in PA, 23 and 30 November and 7 December 1850; also special advertisement for Christmas presents, 21 December 1850. PA had articles or editorials on the municipal elections, possibly by Parkes, on 23 November, 7 and 14 December. The activities of others with whom Parkes normally

associated imply a likely interest on his part in the election (see PA, 19 October, Campbell, W. B. Allen, Hawksley et al. propose Wilshire for vacancy in the city council.

20 October, Weekes, Piddington. 2 November, Hawksley). PA reported on 30 November a petition to George Allen to become a candidate for mayoral office. Parkes was among the signatories—though, certainly, it has to be noted that a PA editorial, 7 December 1850, claimed that many names on this petition were spurious. 71. Parkes’s remembrance of the Empire’s beginnings is from Fifty Years, 83-4. I deduce that Smart and Flood were Empire backers from a number of items in the bankruptcy papers noted below in reference to p. 165-6. Mort’s role is clear from letters like that quoted here, 26 September 1851, PC A895, 288-9. See also A DB, 5, 300. 72. The points about Cooper are from my ADB article, 3, 452. Gideon S. Lang wrote as quoted to Parkes on 20 May 1856, PC A63, 231. 73. My account of the earliest Empire arrangements is based on Fairfax to Parkes, 8 March 1854, PC A922 103-6; Parkes to Fairfax, 8 March 1854, PC A931, 362-5; Empire, 11 February 1854 (McKelly’s evidence at compositors’ conspiracy trial). McKelly was recommended to Parkes by Barr, by Welch (probably of the A ¢t/as) and by J. K. Heydon, ‘with whom I [Parkes] was on intimate terms at the time’. The affidavit of Parkes and Barr was filed on 4 February 1851 and the types were registered on 15 March 1851, PC A899, 283. The Empire announced on 30 June 1851 plans for improvements in August. Watson and Tyrrell to Parkes, 13 March 1852, PC A930, 634, concerns purchase of machinery and Parkes recalled details of establishing the job printery to Cooper on 15 November 1856, PC A1045. The Empire informed readers of a doubling of its size, 30 June 1851; of the arrival of new machinery, 30 December 1853; of new premises, 28 January 1854; of new type and other improvements, 19 June 1855. Weekes wrote as quoted on 12 September 1854, PC A68, 674. Blair’s association with the paper was revealed in Empire, 7 May 1852, and Harpur recalled his in a letter to Parkes, 4 March 1875, PC A888, 84. ADB, 2, 356, refers to Quaife’s contributions. 74. Deniehy appears in Empire Newspaper Account Book, ML B1173, receiving £15 on | May 1852 ‘for literary service’ and £16 for ‘2 months salary from Feb. 26’. Ibid. also refers to Mackay. Parkes’s statement of his editorial principles is from Fifty Years, 85. Parkes’s recollection of excitement at being a propagandist is from Fifty Years, 84. He complained of being jaded and worn to Sarah, 22 November 1852, PC A1044, and referred frequently to working after midnight: e.g. toSarah, 14 December 1853, written

at la.m., ibid; Fifty Years, 94, recalls “days and nights together without sleep’. Journalists’ recollections of Empire days are in Bulletin, 28 April 1896. The 1852 stocktaking is from Empire, 27 December 1852. 75. Empire editorial, 19 June 1851, speaks as quoted of the grind of writing against the clock.

Parkes made the offer to Belbridge on 26 May 1854, PC A931, 133, and Belbridge accepted on | June, PC A919, 804-6. Correspondence with Mackinnon and Fairfax on these matters took place, e.g., in August and November 1854. For Parkes’s friendship with Hall and Wilson see Fifty Years, 93; J. A. Ferguson, ‘Edward Smith Hall and the Monitor, RAHS J&P, 17, 1931; ADB, |, 501; Wilson to Parkes, 12 July 1855 and 5 February 1856, PC A930, 718, 735.

Parkes made the quoted claim about the association between the Empire and the ‘Liberal Party’ in Fifty Years, 94. 76. The Empire’s first issue, in which the quoted passages were printed, appeared on 28 December 1850.

434 Notes (pages 77-86) 77. Rumour of a South Head Road gold strike is in Empire, 22 May, and the descriptions of the rush are from ibid., 20 and 27 May 1851. 78. The dark prognostications are from an editorial of 21 May. An editorial of 20 June, ‘Mr Wentworth and the gold diggers’, celebrated the diggers’ law-abiding character. The report for England on gold was published on 31 May 1851. For the generaldevelopment of the fields I rely on G. Blainey, The Rush that Never Ended, 24-7. The points about Sofala are from Empire reports. 79. The description of Lang at the Turon is from extracts in Gilchrist, op. cit., 520. Empire, 13 October 1851, reported Polding’s warnings on drink. Digging the post-hole, ibid., 10

November 1851. Ibid., 28 November 1851, published the reflections on diggers’ independence. Blainey, op. cit., 21-2, is my source for the working of the licensing system.

80. Empire, 7 November 1851, announced the new regulations. Ibid., 14 November, reported the Sofala meeting and on various occasions declared its support for the miners, e.g. 27 November, 4 December 1851. The paper announced a new goldfields edition on 17 November. The description of the idealized digger was on 8 September 1851. The reflections on gold’s beneficial effects are from editorials of 30 May and 25 December 1851. The Empire described the opening of the Crystal Palace on 20 August and next morning offered the triumphant editorial quoted here. 81. Workmen as ‘sinews ... of a country’ is from ibid., 24 March 1851, and gold as a ‘spirit-canker’ from ibid., 13 October 1851. An editorial of 31 August 1852 depicted gold as a ‘mighty magnet’ and another of 24 August 1852, “The Evil of Gold’, spoke, as quoted, of vice usurping the place of work. 82. The contrast with Victoria and the hope for orderly progress were expressed on 18 September 1852 (supplement for the Cape per R.M. steamer Australia). The reflections on Rofe’s case are from an editorial of 18 June 1852. The ‘middle people’ received this sympathy in editorial of 23 April 1852 and the Empire reported the clerks’ petition on 7 September. The paper elaborated on its labour troubles on 4 September 1852. 83. Editorial, “Want of Labour’, 23 April 1852, bemoaned the servant shortage, and the ‘two monstrosities’, as quoted. For general information on Chinese labour I depend on C. A. Price, The Great White Walls are Built, 46. The Macleay cases mentioned here were reported on 2 March and 12 April. For a typical attack on Wentworth, see the case of Lye Chow Ing, 23 and 24 April 1852. 84. The editorial on Eurasians appeared on 19 June 1852. Parkes ordered McKelly to Melbourne in search of compositors on 3 October 1853, PC A931, 556. The editorial ‘Ourselves’, 3 January 1854, celebrated the paper’s third birthday. I base my account of the compositors’ strike and their trial on the Empire’s reports of court proceedings, 16 January, 11 February 1854. Parkes deals with the matter in Fifty Years, 86-91. 85. The plea for industry to have free scope is from an editorial of 4 March 1854. The editorials quoted here are “The Economy of Strikes’, 21 February 1854, and “The Condition of Operatives, English and Colonial’, 4 March 1854. 86. W. I. Lark [?] to Parkes, from London, 11 April 1854, PC A924, 526-7, records the departure of the English compositors, and deals with prior negotiations. A. M. Ritchie (hon. sec., East India Emigration Society, Madras) to Parkes’s attorney, | August 1854, PC A981, deals with the selection of the Eurasian compositors for Parkes, and ibid. includes a list of names and sums paid prior to embarkation for Australia, in accordance with agreements signed on 17 July 1854. On 20 November 1854, PC A915, 5-8, Parkes sent Burton, the president of the Madras society, £50 to pay £4 each to friends of some of the compositors. This was clearly meant to be a regular procedure. ‘Intelligent and responsible’ is in the report from the 1854 legislative council select committee on Asiatic labour, 27 November 1854, reprinted in Empire, 5 December. Parkes’s declaration on Eurasians is in Fifty Years, 91. The quoted editorial, defending himself, appeared in the Empire on 7 November 1854. Ibid. reported on 19 December similar remarks to his constituents. My source for the labour market is T. A. Coghlan, op. cit., IT, 694. The Empire’s registration of its relief is from the news summary for England, 3 November 1854.

Notes (pages 87-94) 435 87. The report referred tois Commissioner Green’s, on the western district fields, dealt with in Empire, 5 July 1854. This was followed by an excellent survey of the New South Wales fields generally, including an account of changes in the scope and methods of mining. The comment on settlement and civilization on the goldfields appeared on 20 March 1854. The Empire reported Chusan’s exploits on 4 August and 18 September 1852. The remarks on the Great Britain are from an editorial of 30 November 1852. Foracomment on the speed of sailing ships see ibid., 28 May 1853; the denunciation of the chamber of commerce’s ‘doubtful enterprise’ appeared on 3 November 1854. Australian En-

cyclopaedia, VIII, 114, notes the James Baines record and Empire, 19 May 1855, reported the Blue Jacket’s feat, as quoted. 88. Typical examples of a mass of complaints about transport may be seen in the Empire of 26 November 1852 (thoroughfares of the colony), 11 January (the stagecoach racket),

21 March (necessity for roads and railways), 22 March (steamers and other conveyances) 1853. The paper’s account of the opening of Parramatta railway is in issues of 27 September and 20 November 1855. The editorials on education’s ‘hard tasks’ appeared on 27 January and 8 April 1853. 89. My account of the education inquiries is based largely on A. G. Austin, Australian Education 1788-1900, chapter 2, passim. The Empire had an important editorial on ‘Intellectual and Moral Training—the Duty of the Nation’, on 30 May 1853. 90. For typical Empire editorials on education in 1853 see 17 March (elevating minds rather than providing religious training), 2 and 13 May (the necessity for national education), 7 June (the waste caused by the existing system). “Caught at Last’ appeared on 3 March 1852. The Empire declared for ‘All that promotes the growth of mind’ (editorial, ‘Colonial Want of Science’, 8 April 1853). Typical of a number of editorials on libraries is one appearing on 10 June 1852. M. Roe, op. cit., 157, notes the establishment of the

Society for Encouragement of Arts, Science, Commerce and Agriculture. Joseph Fowles, op. cit., 6-7, lists the Australian Subscription Library, the Mechanics’ School of Arts, the Australian Museum, the Society for the Promotion of the Fine Arts, the Floral and Horticultural Society. ADB, 6, 438-9, has a convenient summary of Woolner’s period in Australia. The Empire’s note on its exhibition of Woolner’s work and its implications appeared on 2 June 1854. Parkes speaks of his friendship with Woolner (to which a number of letters in PC attest) in Fifty Years, 143-4. 91. The Empire commented on the university on 16 June (first senate report laid on council table), 28 June (triviality of university honours, London should have been the model, preference for People’s Colleges), 28 September (university too aristocratic), 12 October (on impending opening), 6 October (evening classes to be established). 92. The Empire reported the inauguration ceremony on 12 October 1852. There is also an excellent description in H. E. Barff, A Short Historical Account of the University of Sydney, 20-41, from which I take Woolley’s remarks, as quoted. The Empire’s comment on the professors is from an editorial of 8 November 1852. J. M. Ward, ‘The Foundation of the University of Sydney’, RAHS J&P, 37, 1951, 304-6, discusses the professors’ achievement in securing control of academic teaching. 93. The controversy over religious teaching was triggered off by proposals for founding an Anglican college. On 10 November 1852 the Empire reprinted an acrimonious correspondence on the subject from SMH and presented the first of the two strong editorials. The second (‘Religious Teaching’) appeared the next day. Smith wrote to Parkes as quoted on 12 November 1852, PC A928, 781. 94. Windeyer reported Nicholson’s fears in a letter to his mother, 9 August 1854. There is

a long memorandum of agreement in Windeyer’s hand, dated 22 January 1853, between Waugh and Cox, printers, and Windeyer, Oliver and one James Patterson about the publication of the Magazine. Both items are in the possession of Sir Victor Windeyer, who has generously permitted me to use them. (Patterson is a mystery. He is not mentioned in Barff, op. cit., 20, as being one of the first twenty-four matriculants. He may have begun his course in 1853; Windeyer’s correspondence, however, makes no mention of his taking part in the editorial work.) The biographical material on Oliver and Windeyer is from A DB. Oliver may have known Parkes through his stepfather, T. W. Smart, who was one of the Empire’s original financial backers. Empire, 14 December

436 Notes (pages 94-104) 1852, had an account of the scholarship examinations. Windeyer’s comment on Oliver is from the letter to his mother cited above. The Empire reviewed the Magazine on 24 February 1855. Oliver wrote to Parkes on 8 June 1855, PC A63, 11. 95. Mary’s comments are in a letter to her ‘Willie’, 14 March 1855, in Sir Victor Windeyer’s possession and quoted here with his permission. Woolley wrote of the students’ chagrin on 21 May 1855, PC A930, 59, and Windeyer wrote to Parkes on the same day, ibid., 280. The Empire editorial on land appeared on 22 May, 1855. Windeyer’s remarks are from letters to Mary, 8 April and 25 May 1857 (in the possesion of Sir Victor Windeyer and quoted with his permission) and to his mother, 25 May [1857], Windeyer Family Papers, ML MSS. 186/7, 421-4. (He told his mother that ‘the Article on the pamphlet about the bishop in this morning’s Empire is mine as also a certain other article on a certain other gentleman, but mind this is a strict secret especially the article on W. If you must tell anyone it may only be Aunt Eliza but only in the most solemn confidence. Parkes is so much pleased with me that he is going to make me an offer for regular contributions but this must also be a secret as I am to keep a strict incognito... thought you would like to know and read your son’s maiden article and newspaper review. I trust I shall yet tread in my father’s steps’.) 96. The letters Parkes wrote to his sisters are dated 22 November 1852, 27 May and 19 November 1853, PC A1044. Sir Alfred Stephen’s later judgment, of 14 September 1859, puts the real position of the Empire in a nutshell: ‘As a mercantile speculation [it] was not, so far as we can find, at any time a prosperous one. Certainly debts were contracted, almost from the outset, which seem continually to have increased’ (SMH, 15 September 1859). Parkes explained his difficulties to T. W. Smart, 19 May 1856, PC A897, 179, which is also the source of the words (p. 97 below) about needing more time. The subsequent bankruptcy papers include various statements about how little income Parkes ever drew personally from the paper. The agreement with Cooper, 20 January 1855, isin PC A981. Cooper recalled Parkes’s insistence on independence in a speech at Paddington, SMH, 18 May 1859. The New Year’s Day sentiment is from an editorial of 1 January 1856. 99.S.H. Beer, Modern British Parties, 40, is the source on radicalism. 100. The Empire urged action particularly in an editorial of 17 February 1851. The Bill was

presented on 4 April 1851: for a useful categorization of seats see Loveday, The Development of Parliamentary Government in New South Wales, 1856-1870, (Parliamentary Government), PhD, University of Sydney, 1962, 370 ff. The reactions [ cite are recorded in SMH, 19 April; Empire, 10 and 24 April; Gilchrist, op. cit., 501. The Empire attacked Wentworth’s ‘splenetic outbursts’ on 10 April, under the heading “The Cant of Patriotism’. The socialism charge obviously rankled: two days later a further editorial discussed it under the title ‘Sydney Socialism’. The description of local conservatives is from an editorial, ‘The Convict Conservatives’, of 22 April 1851. The

Empire, 27 March, details the establishment of the Political Association; it had commented on the need for leadership on 25th. Loveday, Parliamentary Government, 39, and Irving, op. cit., 455, also discuss the leadership and other problems. 101. The Empire attacked Lang, as quoted, on 11 January 1851. The Cowper—Campbell-Parkes relationship as representing the elements of the new liberal movement has been set out by Powell, op. cit., 179-85. 102. For the anti-transportation movement generally I draw on J. M. Ward, Earl Grey and the Australian Colonies, 1846-57, 202-5 (where Cowper’s phrase ‘indirect transportation’ is quoted), and 207-13. Powell, op. cit., 152-5, has an excellent account of the formation of the intercolonial league. My account of pre-election radical—liberal moves is based on Powell, op. cit., 172; Irving, op. cit., 436, and Empire, 14 May 1851. 103. James Waldersee, Catholic Society in New South Wales, 1788-1860, 225-8, and J. O’Brien, Catholics and Politics in New South Wales, MA, Newcastle University, 1972, 224 and 250-8, have useful accounts of the Longmore candidature. The Empire accused the Longmore camp of threatening treason on 24 July 1851 and “The Cloven Foot’

appeared next day. Parkes later denied having been the author of this editorial (Waldersee, op. cit., 232) but it is inconceivable that he was not aware that it would be published. Hawksley wrote, as quoted, to Lang on 26 July, Lang Papers, A2226, 565. 104. The letter from ‘An Irishman of No Sect’ appeared on 28 July and the doggerel on 29th. The Empire’s attacks were made on 28 July and 7, 11 and 16 August. The Empire

Notes (pages 104-16) 437 reported the Catholic speaker’s expostulations on 31 July 1851 and Freeman's Journal denounced Parkes the same day. I take such details of the Lang episode as are otherwise unacknowledged from Gilchrist, op. cit., 504-8. Mr D. W. Baker generously read my first draft of this narrative and pointed out several errors: he did not see the revised version and flaws that may remain are my responsibility. 105. The Empire paid its tribute, as quoted, to Lang on 28 April 1851, when commenting on Icely’s successful libel action. The voting figures were (Gilchrist, op. cit., 515): Lang 1191, Lamb 1015, Wentworth 991, Longmore 900, Cowper 870. The Empire reported the declaration of the poll on 18 September 1851. Cowper reflected on the result to Parkes later, on 22 December 1854, PC A876, 378-85. ‘Darkness or Light’ appeared on 13 October 1851. 106. The miners’ address to Lang is in Gilchrist, op. cit., 521. Lang left Sydney on 29 September and arrived back on 11 October. Ibid., 516, and PA, 21 October 1851, are my sources for Lang’s subsequent troubles. The Empire reported the public meeting to ‘choose’ Lang’s successor on 2] October, and the nomination on 18 November 1851. 107. The Empire (18 and 19 November) claimed Campbell's vote (1306) to be the highest ever recorded in the colony. Gilchrist, op. cit., 526, records Lang at Moreton Bay, his subsequent flitting and McGibbon’s lament. The Empire reported Parkes’s performance at the anti-transportation meeting on 8 April 1852. The Empire’s observation on the spirit of the first meeting is from 9 April and it reported and commented on the second on | and 3 July 1852. It gave an account of the dinner to O’Shanassy on 29 May 1852.

108. The Empire published Wilson’s article on 20 January 1853 and details of the nomination, where Parkes and Mort made the remarks quoted, on 10 March. Portus and Weekes each wrote to Parkes on 26 February 1853, PC A901, 4; A930, 380. 109. Parkes described himself as ‘an uncompromising radical’ at an election meeting reported in the Empire on 8 March 1853. The Empire quoted the Maitland Mercury's judgement of Parkes on 7 March. Parkes made his allegations of Thurlow’s use of patronage to Sarah, on 26 March 1853, PC A1044, and his remarks about mercantile representation at the nomination (Empire, 10 March 1853). Cowper wrote to wish him well on 3 March 1853, PC A876, 362-5. The Empire reprinted Freeman’s opinion on 4 March 1853. Parkes’s remarks to Sarah are from the letter of 26 March. He defended his candidature at a meeting reported in the Empire on 4 March. 110. Parkes’s private reflections on his progress are from the letter to Sarah, cited above. In explaining his defeat to her he added that he had a cold and looked haggard and there was arumour that ifhe were elected his health might break down: ‘the consequence was that I really think hundreds, including half my requisitionists, either abstained from voting or voted against me, out of pure kindness’. The Empire, 11 March 1853, has the election results. The reflection on ‘mental vacuity’ is from an editorial, “The Intellectual Status of Society’, of 22 October 1852. 111. The Empire pleaded on 13 December 1852 that the chance to protest against the Constitution Bill not be lost. Its attack on the Bill as proof of ‘miserable dotage’ is from an editorial of 29 July 1853, ‘Mr. Wentworth’s Constitution’. 112. PC A983 (‘Miscellaneous Papers’) includes a copy of the circular. The Empire of 3 and 5 August 1853 (especially an editorial, “The Constitution Meeting’) reports the preliminaries to the formation of the organization. The growth of the Committee's executive is reflected in advertisements—lists of names—published regularly in SMH and Empire. | also draw on P. Loveday, ‘Democracy’ in New South Wales in the 1850s. BA hons, University of Sydney, 1955, 25. Robertson wrote to Parkes on 7 August 1853, PC A63, 105-8. This sketch of Robertson is based on N. B. Nairn’s notable ADB entry. Particularly important Empire editorials attacking Wentworth’s committee appeared on 5 and 12 August. Harpur’s letter was published on 6 August 1853. 113. I base my account of the Victoria Theatre meeting on the Empire’s report, 16 August 1853.

114. The Empire reported the council discussion and reflected on Wentworth’s ‘decline’ on 17 August. The quotations in the final paragraph are from Empire comments or reports of 19, 20 and 25 August. 115. Wentworth’s speech is from the Empire report, 5 September 1853. 116. Hamilton wrote as quoted to Wentworth on 7 September 1853, PC A63, 184-7. Parkes

438 Notes (pages 116-31) sent the engraving to Sarah on 16 September 1853, PC A1044. The meeting of 5 September was reported at length in the Empire, 6 and 7 September. C. Pearl, Brilliant Dan Deniehy, 25-7, erroneously dates the protest meeting and quotes SMH, PA and Bell’s Life on the numbers present. Sf also reports the meeting on 6 September. 117. The Empire reported the banquet on | October 1853. There were some savage Empire editorials against Wentworth in this period. ‘Mr Wentworth and his Democracy’, on 22

, November, for example, mocked such shadow-fears as republicanism. A central theme throughout was that ‘shallow minds are distinguished by a horror of names more than realities’. Wentworth’s ‘donkeys’ were lampooned on 9 December. 118. The change in the character of the struggle was announced on 22 December. My account of the later work of the Constitution Committee draws heavily on Loveday, ‘Democracy’ in New South Wales. I take several points also from S. Draper, The Conservative Epoch, PhD, University of Sydney, 1972, 717. Cowper wrote, as quoted, to Parkes on 25 November 1853, PC A876, 324-5. Robertson complained to Lang about the Committee on 26 November 1853, Lang Papers, A2226, 648-54. The Empire published Lang’s attack on 20 December 1853, and reported the Committee meeting at which Parkes made his compromise proposal on 13 December. 119. The Empire attacked Thomson, as quoted, on 15 December, and published editorials castigating Wentworth on 24 and 31 December 1853 and 4, 5, 6 and 10 January 1854. The Empire commented, as quoted, on Wentworth’s departure on 20 March 1854 and described the demonstration at Macquarie Place the next day. 120. My account of the preliminaries to Parkes’s candidature is based on Empire reports of 25, 26, 27 and 28 April 1854. He called his backers ‘extreme liberals’ in a letter to Sarah, 7 May 1854, PC A1044. 121. The Empire published Hawksley’s letter on 28 April. My note on the campaign rests on a variety of Empire reports between 29 April and 2 May. Norton wrote to Parkes, as quoted, on 29 April, PC A63, 171. The Empire published the compositors’ letter on | May. 122.1 take nomination proceedings from the Empire report, 2 May 1854. 123. The Empire reported the declaration of the poll on 3 May. 124. The letter to Sarah here quoted is the one cited above, 7 May 1854. NSWLC V&P, 1854, records Parkes’s swearing in. The Empire reported the opening of the session on 7 June 1854. the child’s death occurred on 25 March 1854. Parkes wrote that day to Sarah about it, PC A1044.

125. J. Normington-Rawling, op. cit., 195-6, relates these points about Harpur’s and Deniehy’s disgust with Parkes. The Empire reported the patriotic meeting on 23 May 1854.

126. Normington-Rawling, loc. cit., and Empire, 27 January 1854, are my sources on the Australian League; the Empire rebuked Lang on | February 1854, Deniehy wrote to _ Lang on 6 June 1854, Lang Papers, ML, A2227. 127. Thisjudgement of Cowper’s purpose is from Powell, op. cit., 203-4. SMH, 21 September

1854, reported Parkes’s comments in the debate. I have examined one of the inquiries mentioned here in ‘Drink and Deviance in Sydney: Investigating Intemperance’, HS, 17, 68, April 1977, 342-60. The Empire, 19 December 1854, reported Parkes’s speech accounting for his stewardship. 128. Cowper’s words are from a letter to Parkes of 22 December 1854, PC A876, 378-85. 129. The Empire quoted the Hobart Town Courier on 3 October 1854. and Cowper’s comment is in a letter to Parkes of 27 December 1854, PC A876, 366. The Empire produced its portrait of Denison on 18 January 1855 and described Denison’s levee on | February 1855.

130. Cowper expressed his fears of ‘wild notions’ at a public meeting in a letter to Parkes on 27 January 1855, PC A876, 370-3. The Empire, 7 and 13 February 1855, reported the

public meeting and its aftermath, described the governor’s task on 30 April and reported the Queen’s birthday celebrations on 25 May 1855. Cowper told Parkes of his conversation with Denison on 9 May 1855, PC A876, 314-18, and wrote of Denison’s hopes for the coming session on 29 May 1855, PC A877, 37. 131. Denison quotes the letter to his mother in his Varieties of Vice-Regal Life (Varieties), 1, 304, erroneously dating it 8 December 1855. The gossip about Donaldson is from the Empire, 30 December 1854, and Cowper’s comments are from his letter to Parkes of 22

Notes (pages 131-42) 439 December 1854. The Empire reported the public meeting on 11 January 1855. 132. Cowper wrote as quoted on 10 January 1855, PC A876, 306-13. The Empire reported the

Donaldson campaign over the period 20-24 February 1855. Parkes spoke again at Wilshire’s nomination, Empire, 24 January 1855. The Empire remarked, as quoted, on Cooper on | March 1855, and reported the patriotic meeting on 21 February 1855. Harpur wrote to Parkes on 4 and 15 March 1855, Harpur Correspondence, ML, MSS. 947, 73-9.

133. Denison’s remarks are from a letter to his mother, 18 March 1855, op. cit., I, 308, and I take details of the council debate from SMH and Empire of 6 June 1855. Denison complained to his mother about the council’s attitude, | August 1855, op. cit., I, 312. 134. An Empire editorial of 7 September dealt trenchantly with the subject of taxation without representation and Parkes’s discussion of this issue in the house is reported in Empire, 19 and 26 July 1855. Powell, op. cit., 205, has an account of the struggle over the defence vote. See also Empire, 17 August, 7 September (“The Death-Throes of the System’). The paper commented as quoted on the Commons and the Constitution on 3 October 1855. Jevons’s letter was to his brother Herbert, 17 December 1855, Letters of W.S. Jevons, 1855-57, ML, B1610, 19-20. 135. Deniehy wrote from Goulburn on 28 September 1855, PC A71, 33-6. SMH, 16 October 1855, reported the radical-organized public meeting, and for a second meeting see ibid., 26 October. Parkes advertised his unwillingness to stand on 10 December. The letter to Cowper (12 December 1855) is from PC A990. 136. Empire, 8 January 1856, reported the public meeting to launch the bunch. SMH and Empire, 15 January 1856, reported the meeting at which Parkes offered himself. J.

Malony, An Architect of Freedom, 222-34, discusses Plunkett’s candidature, his supporters and his campaign. Powell, op. cit., 219, explains the movements of Cowper and Campbell. 137. Deniehy described ‘Plunkettry’ in his letter to Parkes of 28 November 1856, PC A71, 58-61, and Cowper spoke of Plunkett as an ‘R.C.’ when writing to Parkes on 12 January. For an example of ‘boys of Tipperary’ disturbing a meeting of Parkes’s see SMH, 6

February. J. O’Brien discusses the general question of Plunkett’s campaign and sectarianism in ‘Sectarianism in the New South Wales elections of 1843 and 1856’, Journal of Religious History, 1X, 1, June 1976, 78-83, as does Loveday, Parliamentary Government, 463-5. Duffy’s letter to Parkes is simply dated ‘April 1856’, PC A921, 1. SMH and Empire reported preliminaries for the Duffy banquet on 12 February, and the banquet itself on 12 March 1856. ADB, 3, 312-13, quotes Butler’s warning to Duffy. 138. In an editorial, ‘Making use of Mr. Duffy’, the Empire disavowed on 15 February any liberal attempt to make political capital out of Duffy’s visit. Empire, 12 March 1856, and J. O’Brien, op. cit., 83, discuss Plunkett’s attitude to Duffy. SMH and Empire reported the Sydney nomination on 13 March 1856. My account of the declaration of the poll and associated events is from the Empire’s reports, 14 and 21 March 1856.

139. The remarks on the election and events immediately thereafter rest on Loveday, Parliamentary Government, 74-8, 291-7, and Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 23-6. Denison wrote to his mother on the colony’s ‘political neophytes’, Varieties, 1, 326. ‘Chattered to death’ is from SMH, 22 August 1856, cited in Powell, op. cit., 228. Parkes to Cowper, and Cowper to Parkes, 18 December 1857, PC A876, 502-6a, make Parkes’s position as a potential minister evident. The statement of Cowper’s strength is from Loveday, Parliamentary Government, 121. Denison quotes his journal in Varieties, 1, 369. Cowper commented gloomily about the ministry to Parkes on 31 March 1857, PC A876, 479-80. 141. Loveday, Parliamentary Government, 299, quotes Denison’s remark to Donaldson, from Donaldson Papers, ML. Cowper wrote as quoted to Parkes on 22 December 1856. Parkes’s letter to the electors appeared in the Empire and SMH on 20 December. My main source for the account of Parkes’s financial difficulties is the Empire, 5 March and 17 April 1857. Parkes’s letter to Cooper, 15 November 1856, PC A1045, contained an early and detailed calculation of his position. SMH and Empire have accounts, on 27

December 1856, of the meeting at which Dalley was chosen; SMH, 29 December, carries Dalley’s advertisement accepting nomination; SMH and Empire reported nomination proceedings on 30 December. 142. Pennington to Parkes, 23 February, 3 and 4 March 1857, PC A900, 162-4, and an

440 Notes (pages 142-52) advertisement in the Empire, 4 March, provide details of Cooper’s decision to sell the paper. The Empire account book, PC A891. shows moneys owed to employees. The Empire, 21 and 26 January and 3 February 1857, reported testimonial proposals. 143. The Maitland meetings are described in the Empire, 21 March, and an undated

newspaper cutting in Windeyer Family Records and Papers, ML, D150. Parkes described Portus, as quoted, to Sarah on 17 April 1857, PC A1044. He mentioned his hopes for a moneyed man to take over the Empire at a public meeting (Empire, 17 April 1857) and reported Wilshire’s reluctance to Cooper, 1 April 1857, PC A931, 193. Parkes wrote as quoted to Montefiore on 21 March 1857, PC A932, 7-16, and appealed to Cooper in the letter of 1 April cited above. 144. The Empire reported the public meeting on 17 April 1857. Campbell declined to chair the meeting in a letter to Parkes, 11 April, PC A990. Parkes commented to Montefiore on Cooper in the letter of 21 March cited above. Harpur’s contrition is in Harpur to Parkes, 20 March 1857, Harpur correspondence, ML MSS. 947, 81-2, and Deniehy wrote on 13 March, PC A7], 62-4. Duffy wrote on 11 March [1857], PC A921, 81. 145. The pamphlet was entitled: Retirement of Mr. Parkes from the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. Parkes’s letter to Sarah about the Maitland trip is in PC A1044. Carmichael remembered his efforts for the Empire in a letter to SMH, 27 June 1859. Parkes told Sarah the crisis was over on 11 April 1857, PC A1044; the matter is also clarified in ‘Appeal against the judgment of the Chief Commissioner of Insolvent estates granting a certificate to Henry Parkes’, PC A981. Mort wrote, as quoted, on 10 February 1857, PC A69, 290. Wilson wrote to Parkes on 20 April 1857, PC A930, 742-6, observing also that he still thought it improper for an active politician to run a paper. 146. R. T. Goddard, The Union Club, 1857-97, 2, outlines the origins of the club. The Cowper letters quoted here are to Parkes, 31 March, 22 June and 30 July 1857, PC A876. 147. ‘MPs who usually vote on the Liberal side’ is a phrase Cowper used in a letter to R. T.

Jamison on 4 August 1857, Jamison Papers, ML, D38/3, 27-30. Parkes’s letter to Cowper, 4 August 1857 and marked ‘copy’ is in PC A915, 14-16. 148. The most important letters on Parkes’s possible election for Northumberland Boroughs are Parkes to Portus, 25 September and 6 October 1857, PC A932, 169, 172, and Portus to Parkes, 29 September, 6 and 9 October, PC A923, 902, 910, A932,169. The Empire quoted the Maitland Mercury’s remarks about Parkes on 8 October 1857. An unsigned letter to Parkes warned of priests marshalling support. 29 September 1857, PC A925, 8. The Empire, 17 November 1857, reported the public meeting on the land question. The Empire fulminated against the ministerial ‘conspiracy’ on 19 and reported the second public meeting on 24 November 1857. 149. Parkes’s words are from the Empire’s reports of the Wynyard Square meeting and of the North Riding nomination, 8 and 9 December 1857.

150. SMH attacked Parkes, as quoted, on 9 and published the results of the poll on 15 December 1857. The Empire described the electorate as conservative and wrote of Parkes’s handicaps on 12 December. Forster’s letter was to Arnold, 21 December 1857, Arnold Correspondence, ML, Aa47. Powell, op. cit., 266, has an excellent account of the

parliamentary crisis. The Empire commented on Robertson’s motives on 11 and speculated on the party break-up on 16 December 1857. 151. SMH, 26 May 1859, reprinted from the Maitland Mercury Robertson’s account of how Cowper was persuaded to seek a dissolution. Loveday, Parliamentary Government, 141, also has an account of these events. Parkes’s reply to the Land League is from SMH,

29 December 1857. Parkes asked Jamison for help on 30 December 1857, Jamison Papers, ML, D38/3, 36-8. He had written about the wallaby on 14 June 1856, ibid., 12. Jamison commented on the situation at St Marys on 5 February 1858, PC A69, 420, and Duffy wrote to Parkes on 12 January 1858, PC A921, 9. 152. The Empire printed McEncroe’s and Duffy’s letters on 27 January 1858, and SMH commented on Duffy’s intervention on the same day. I take nomination proceedings from the Empire, 26 January. The comment on conservatism in the North Riding is also from the Empire, 30 January 1858. Parkes wrote on the Herala’s ‘nightmare’ on 27 January, Jamison Papers, D38/3, 123. The paper’s major attack from which the quoted passage comes, was printed on the same day. There is a description of ‘Hellenie House’ as a ‘splendid example of Georgian architecture’ in G. V. F. Mann, ‘Historical notes to accompany sketches of old residences which should be recorded’, December 1931, ML,

Notes (pages 152-8) 44] A 3212. Accompanying plans show the house as being built on ‘Keat’s grant’, by the

Parramatta River near Kissing Point. The house is called ‘Helene’ in Parkes’s handwriting in the family bible, recording the birth of his seventh daughter, Gertrude Amelia, there on 13 April 1856 (cited by courtesy of Mr Fred Thom). The Empire reported Parkes’s reception at Kissing Point on | February 1858 and gave details of the

ofLoveday’s the poll oncalculations the next day. 153. declaration According to (Parliamentary Government, 141-2), twenty-two liberals who sat in the first parliament were returned to the second. Seven conservatives were defeated, six by liberals, and three retired. The Empire commented on the election and its lessons for Cowper on 4 and 10(monthly summary) February 1858. Parkes made the quoted comment on the ballot vote when the Bill was in committee, Empire, 27 August 1858. He moved an urgency motion on the Chinese issue in June and the Empire carried powerful editorials on the subject on 16th and 17th. 154. SMH complained of Parkes saving Cowper on 23 April 1858. There are good examples of Parkes’s statements on electoral reform, the Chinese and the Aboriginals in the Empire, 7 May, 16 and 19 June 1858. An editorial of 23 July scarifies the council over the Chinese Restriction Bill. The paper reported Parkes’s speech on the Chinese and gold export duties on 28 August. Parkes told Lang, as quoted, of his collapse on [5 September 1858, Lang papers, A2242, 6. The editorial about politics ruining private fortunes had appeared on 20 July 1858. 155. Annie Bolton’s lines are in Windeyer Family Papers, ML MSS. 186/20, 19a, endorsed in pencilin Mary Windeyer’s hand: ‘Verses written on Poor old Parkes, written by my very dear sister Annie when the Empire became insolvent’. Duffy wrote to Parkes on 8 September, PC A921, 13, and Parkes to Lang on 15 September 1858, Lang Papers, the letter cited above. 156. Mary Windeyer’s letter sympathizing with Parkes is simply dated ‘August 30th’ and records the ‘bitter’ tears she and her husband have shed over his misfortune (PC A930, 225-7). [quote Parkes’s response, 6 September 1858, by courtesy of Sir Victor Windeyer, who has the letter in his family papers. Note that, by the most extraordinary coincidence, Mary (born at Hove, near Brighton) had migrated to Australia in 1839 aboard the Strathfieldsaye, on the very voyage that also brought Parkes and Clarinda. Mary was

then eight, accompanying her parents and a sister; they were of course saloon passengers—among those of whom Parkes spoke so enviously in one of his letters home.

According to a family tradition Mary’s father, Rev. Robert Thorley Bolton, came into

: the saloon on one occasion and said: “There is a young man in the steerage named Henry Parkes who will be well known some day’. Bolton’s prescience did not however extend to predicting that—as another family memory later had it—the same Parkes would after Mary’s marriage usually refer to her as “The Little Lady’ (Biographical notes on Mary Elizabeth Windeyer, by her daughter. Typescript. Windeyer Family Papers, ML MSS. 186/16, Item 1). Duffy’s suggestion is in a letter of 29 September, PC A68, 567. The remark to Lang is in the letter, cited above, of 15 September. Parkes wrote to Windeyer on | December: ‘I am very unwilling to go on living upon my friend Mr. Betteridge’ (letter by courtesy of Sir Victor Windeyer). Menie reported the children’s liking for

Betteridge (including the remark quoted here, made by ‘Polly’) in a letter to Parkes on | 30 November 1860, PC A933, 123, and there are various references to Betteridge’s health in family letters at this time. Betteridge’s letters to Parkes from Mulgoa in 1860 refer to his ill-health and reveal their common literary interests (especially 8 March, 8 August and 8 September 1860, PC A919, 910-11, 897-8, 211). Parkes’s 1858 diary is PC A1011 and the quotation here is from the first entry, 19 October 1858. 157. Parkes told Sarah of their quiet life on 25 January 1859, PC A1044. The Empire editorial ‘Female Education’ appeared on 26 January 1853. Parkes’s remarks about Clarinda are from letters to Sarah, 22 November 1852, 19 June 1855 and 25 January 1859, allin PC A1044. Details of the children’s births are from the family bible, entered in Parkes’s handwriting (cited by courtesy of Mr Fred Thom). 158. Menie’s poems are “To My Father on My Birthday, 21 July 1853’, and ‘My Father, written on 12th birthday’, ND, both PC A933. Parkes to Sarah, 19 June 1855, tells of ‘The Dream’ being brought to him by ‘little romping Polly’. He published the poem in the Empire on the same day. Parkes wrote as quoted to Clarinda about Menie’s talent on 21 June 1855, PC A1044. Clarinda’s warning about Menie’s health (PC A933, 60) is

442 Notes (pages 158-71) undated: internal evidence shows, however, it must have been written in mid-1860. Menie’s letter about her ‘secret life’, 6 July, ibid., 626-9, and her appeal for communication with her father, 3 October, ibid., 568-71, do not show the year of writing. 159. Menie wrote, as quoted, on marriage on 6 May 1858, ibid., 106-8. 160. Menie to Father, 25 August 1859, ibid., 114-17, tells of her literary ‘exploits’, 161. The bankruptcy case is called a ‘pickle’ in G. Thornton to Parkes, | December 1858, PC A929, 45. Parkes wrote to Windeyer about his personal struggles on 25 November and 17 December 1858. These letters are in the possession of Sir Victor Windeyer, who has permitted me to use them. 162. The diary is my chief source for the points made here though Parkes discussed the idea of another journal with Windeyer on | December. Sir Victor Windeyer has the letter: init Parkes observes that ‘a good name should be symbolical rather than representative, but emphatic and comprehensive—better vague than definite in its meaning to the public mind’. He therefore thought the very best title for his new paper would be The Sheet of Bark. The matter of the collectorship of customs appears in two very long diary entries, 2-3 December. Parkes wrote to Lang of the problem of getting good candidates, on 11 January 1859, Lang Papers, A2242, 14. Subsequent quotes are from The Electoral Act, and How to Work It, 6, 8. 163. Windeyer sympathized with Parkes’s trials on 26 November 1858, PC A990, and Parkes

told Sarah of his changed mood on 25 January 1859, PC A1044. Parkes recorded Gleadall’s visit on 12 February 1859. I take this and the other events recorded here from the diary. Parkes told Lang of his decision to re-enter politics, in the terms quoted here, on 14 May 1859, Lang papers, A2242, 10. Lang responded on 17 May, PC A68, 614. 164. I take biographical details about Farnell and Forster from A DB. Parkes mentions his visits to Farnell in the diary. Forster’s remarks about remuneration are from a letter to Parkes on 4 October 1857, PC A922, 13-17, and his bitter remarks about Cowper were written on 5 May [1859], ibid., 20-1. Murray wrote to express his pleasure at Parkes’s imminent return on 4 June, PC A68, 17; Forster’s rejoicing is from a letter of 15 May [1859], PC A922, 65. 165-6. The Empire reported the East Sydney nomination on 8 June; Parkes had heard that James Martin claimed it was Cowper’s ‘darling object’ to control the paper, Parkes to

Martin, 30 June 1859, PC A915, 19-21. The Empire declared its independence, as quoted, on 4 June. The Empire’s remarks about Cowper and Parkes are from an editorial of 4 June. The Empire reported Parkes’s first speech on 24 May, the nomination

on 8 June and the declaration of the poll on 11 June 1859. The Empire noted Kemp’s protest on 11 June. Two PC volumes, A98 1-2, contain many papers connected with the bankruptcy proceedings and others are in the New South Wales Archives, bankruptcy files, 4250/3 (a reference for which I thank Mr N. B. Nairn). SMH published Purefoy’s judgment on 8 June 1859. 168. The Empire commented on Purefoy’s judgmenton 17 and SMH on 10 June 1859. SMH published Stephen’s final judgment on 15 September 1859. It is a most penetrating review of the whole case. 169. Parkes wrote to Windeyer on 28 November 1858. I quote the letter by courtesy of Sir Victor Windeyer. The calculation of the percentage of new members is from Loveday, Parliamentary Government, 141. SMH classified the members on 13 July, the Empire spoke of ‘obstructives and constructives’ on 15 July 1859. 170. Parkes thus described the government party in his letter to Windeyer, cited above, of 25 November. He added: ‘I imagine there will be three parties pretty distinct in the new Assembly—I mean pretty distinctly defined by personal predilection only, for it will be a jumble of opinions out of which permanent parties will begin to form afterwards in the actual work of legislation’. SMH and Empire reported Parkes’s move on 3 September and the latter called it ‘factious’ on 5th. Parkes recorded the negotiations with Murray in a diary fragment for 3 September 1859, PC A1011. The Empire attacked Parkes on 12 and 24 September 1859. 171. Powell, op. cit., 270, 290, 322-7, offers a lucid account of the events which culminated in Cowper’s defeat and retirement. Parkes’s opinion of the Forster government is from an advertisement in the Empire, 31 October 1859. The Empire commented on Forster’s eccentricities on 2 March 1860. Samples of press comment on the disorganization of party may be seen in Empire, 30 November, 5 and 22 December 1859 and 16 January

Notes (pages 171-54) 443 1860; SMH, 28 February 1860. The Empire proposed Parkes as opposition leader on |5 December 1859. 172. Empire, 15 December 1859, reported Parkes’s attempt to block supply. His resolutions

for a select committee on the condition of the working class had been won at the beginning of October. Richards, op. cit., 309, records the defence resolutions and for the magistracy and postal matters see Empire, 17 October 1859. SMH detailed Forster’s fall on | March 1860. 173. Empire, 8 March 1860, has details of the new ministry and its formation. Parkes wrote in despair to Windeyer on 11 and 13 March 1860, PC A1050. 174. Windeyer wrote on 18 March 1860, PC A913, 459-62. For Parkes’s various initiatives in the house at this time see especially Empire, 27 April, 2 and 3 May 1860. The attack on Parkes as would-be master of everything was on 7 May. For tabling and content of the report of the select committee on the working classes, see Empire, 20 and 27 April 1860.

176. The Empire reported the debate on the report on 9 May and the demonstration in Macquarie Street on 12 May 1860. The quoted Empire attack on Parkes was on 25 May 1860. Parkes wrote to Sarah of being persecuted on 12 May, PC A1044. 177. Richards, op. cit., 315, notes Parkes’s second failure to secure his resolutions. The Empire reported Parkes’s speech on the council and the indemnity bill on 22 June 1860. The Empire celebrated the session’s end on 5 July and reported Parkes’s address on Buckingham on 10 August 1860. Parkes to Sarah, 15 October 1860, PC A1044, details his movements after leaving Ryde and has the descriptions of Werrington quoted here. Letters to Parkes from R. C. Lethbridge, 15, 22, 25, 26 and 29 August (PC A893, 151, 72, 82, 84, 51) document the arrangements for renting the property. 178. Parkes listed the Werrington stock for Sarah on 21 November 1860, PC A1044. He noted the travel arrangements to Werrington in a letter to Clarinda on 19 January 1861, ibid. The Empire, 27 October 1860, had an excited description of the vote in the house and reported the public meeting on 30 October. 179. The summary of the election is from Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 31-2. Denison’s note to Young is an enclosure in a confidential despatch of 18 January 1861, CO 201/517/32, and Young’s report is in his confidential despatch of 19 April 1861, ibid., 210. Young wrote of the electorate’s mood on 23 September 1861, CO 201/519/128. 180. My observations on Parkes in the election are based on press reports (SMH and Empire between 26 November and 9 December 1860). Gleadall’s description of Parkes was

reported in the Empire, 24 November, and Parkes expressed gratification at his reception to a packed Temperance Hall audience, Empire, 30 November 1860. Young’s report of the ministry’s strength is from his confidential despatch of 21 May 1861, CO 201/518/207-11.

181. Young’s observations on the ministry’s dependence on popularity are in his confidential despatch of 19 April 1861, cited above. There were Empire criticisms of Parkes on 2 and 5 Marchand 6 April. SMH, | February 1861, reported Parkes’s speech on the duties. My account of Parkes’s other manoeuvres rests chiefly on Empire reports, 23 and 27 February, 6 and 21 March, 10 and 17 April 1861. 182. The Rotton proposal was announced in Empire of 23 April. Parkes’s suggestions of emigration lectures is in ‘Final Report from the Select Committee on Emigration’, NSWLC V&P, 1854, IT, 5; also Minutes of Evidence, Q.159, Parkes to H. H. Browne. The diary entry for 5 December 1858 records the thought of becoming emigration lecturer, PC A101 1. He wrote to Sarah as quoted on 13 February 1860, PC A1044. Duffy had written on 29 September 1858, clearly in response to an overture from Parkes: ‘Iam

sorry to say we have, and shall have, no Emigration Agent at home. The Upper House threw outa Bill appointing Agents and the public feeling here runs strongly against the appointment’ (PC A68, 567-8). Empire, 2 and 4 May 1861 reported Parkes’s motion and the ensuing discussion. Robertson’s formal offer of the post to Parkes, dated 11 May, is in PC A927, 11.

183. SMH made the quoted comment on 16 May. The Empire noted the appointment grudgingly on 18 May and SMH returned to the matter, as quoted, on 23 May 1861. 184. Windeyer’s letter to his mother, 10 May 1861, isin Windeyer Family Papers, ML MSS. 186/7, 301-4; on 13 May Parkes sent Windeyer a copy of the first draft of his reply to Robertson’s ‘letter of 11th repeating the offer previously made to me by Mr. Cowper’,

444 Notes (pages 184-96) which he had changed, he said, to ‘offering me, on behalf of yourself and colleagues’, PC A1050, 25. The Empire reported the Ragged School meeting on 14 May 1861 and

speculated on [8th about the possibility of Parkes remaining in England. Parkes inquired about his status on 19 May 1861 and Robertson replied next day, PC A876, 255, 245.

185. The Empire reported the meeting of Parkes’s friends on 21 May and the scene on the Wonga Wonga on 22nd. 186. Parkes wrote as quoted to Clarinda on 24 May 1861, PC A1044, and to Windeyer on the same day, PC Al050. Parkes asked Windeyer to remember him to friends on 29 May 1861, ibid. He told Clarinda of his doings in Sydney in the letter of 24 May, cited above, sent from Melbourne. This also contains the quoted passages about his regret at parting. The message from Port Phillip heads is dated 30 May 1861, PC A1044. 187. The message to Sarah is dated 3 August 1861, PC A1044. Parkes’s letter describing his fellow passengers for Menie is in the possession of Mr D. W. G. Thom, who generously permits me to quote it. Dalley wrote to Clarinda on 19 August 1861, PC A1045, 199. Menie sketched for Parkes ‘my dear earnest mother poring over Mr Dalley’s whimsical nonsense, taking it all in real downright earnest, and answering it with a face grave as a judge’ (PC A933, 149). ‘I am astonished’, Clarinda wrote to Dalley, ‘at the whimsical

character you give Mr. Parkes. I have always admired his courtesy to women of whatever class w[h]ether old or young, plain or beautiful, and must therefore conclude, that the lady for whom you seem to be concerned, was a very unamiable person’ (18 October 1861, ibid., 74). Parkes reported his first doings in Birmingham to Clarinda in a letter of 5 August 1861, PC A1044. 188. Parkes to Clarinda, 9 August 1861, ibid., speaks of sights from trains; Dalley’s report is from his letter to Clarinda of 19 August. Parkes told Clarinda of his visit to Stoneleigh and Kenilworth, and his first lecture, when writing on 23 August, PC A1044. Details of the Ashley Place house and Sarah’s illness and death are from Parkes to Clarinda, 13 August, 2 September, 24 October 1861, ibid., and Sarah to Parkes, 13 August 1861, PC A934. Dalley offered to come on 31 August, PC A921, 154. 189. The descriptions of Maria are from Parkes to Clarinda, 24 October and 19 November

1861, PC A1044. Clarinda wrote about Maria on 19 January 1862, PC A933. My subsequent account of events at home, and all quotations, come from the monthly letters Clarinda and Menie wrote to Parkes between June 1861 and April 1862, filed in PC A933. 190. Menie wrote to her mother about Mary Windeyer on 6 May 1862, PC A1045, 209. 192. Windeyer teased Parkes about his beard in a letter of 20 October 1861, PC A913, 405. Parkes’s instructions to Clarinda are from letters of 9 and 24 August and 25 December 1861, PC A1044. Clarinda wrote about Menie going to England on 17 October 1861, PC A933, 14. Clarinda’s declaration of love is from a letter to Parkes of 19 December 1861, ibid., 15. 193. The text of two of Parkes’s lectures, from which I take the quotations that follow, was published as a pamphlet: Freehold Homes in a Gold Country. Two Public Addresses on the Present Conditions and Natural Resources of the Colony of New South Wales,

delivered at Derby and Birmingham, by Henry Parkes, Esq., Late Member of the Legislative Assembly for East Sydney. Parkes’s speaking engagements between 20 September 1861 and 6 May 1862 are listed in advertisements filed in PC A1026, which also contains an official report he wrote on 24 October 1861 enumerating meetings to that point and commenting on them. There is also a useful general account of meetings in Fifty Years, 132-4. 194. The remark to Clarinda js from a letter of 26 September 1861, PC A1044. Bright wrote on 7 September (see Fifty Years, 133) and Pakington on 30 September and 2 October, PC A899, 347, A918, 330. The Stratford-upon-A von Herald, 18 October 1861, reported Pakington’s remark at the meeting. Parkes’s comments on English conditions are from his Australian Views of England, |, 2, 3, 8 and 76.

195. The points here are all recorded in ibid.: Disraeli, 48; National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 95-7; the ladies, 41-2; destitute children, 65-70; Oxford, 104-6; rural England and the railways, 110-13. Parkes wrote in melancholy vein to Clarinda on 24 May 1862, PC A1044. 196. Fifty Years, 134-44, details Parkes’s association with Cobden and Carlyle. Carlyle’s

Notes (pages 196-204) 445 commenton Parkes to Duffy, on 10 November 1861], is quoted by D. A. Wilson, Carlyle to Three Score-and-Ten, 440. Jane Carlyle’s remark is from a letter of 22 October 1861, quoted in Fifty Years, 136-7. Parkes’s ‘loving friendship’ with Hughes and his pleasure at being valued by the choicest spirits are from a letter to Clarinda, 19 November 1861, PC A1044. He also comments on Hughes in Fifty Years, 143. Menie speaks of Hughes reading ‘Bitter Sweet’ on 19 March 1862, PC A933. 197. Clarinda’s appreciation of her husband’s success is from a letter of 19 January 1862, ibid. Menie’s daydreams are from a letter she wrote to her father next day, ibid. Parkes complained of his isolation to Piddington, Windeyer and Clarinda. He told Clarinda: ‘Tam fast losing my knowledge of the colony; I never see a newspaper by any chance and nobody has written to me except you and Piddington’ (24 October 1861, PCA1044). Three letters at least, however, were soon to come from Cowper (23 November, 21 December 1861, 22 January 1862, PC A876, 386-93, 394-401, A877, 22-3). Piddington wrote as quoted on 21 October 1862, PC A900, 19-20. Of the correspondence with Windeyer the following letters, from which quotations are taken here, are particularly important: Parkes to Windeyer, 15 December 1861, PC A1050; Windeyer to Parkes, 20 October and 19 December 1861, PC A913, 404, A930, 210; Windeyer to Parkes, 21 May 1862, PC A930, 218. Parkes wrote of the bar and old age to Clarinda on 18 October 1861, PC A1044. He first suggested a return to business, and ‘scarce elegancies’, in the same letter, and wrote of the change he had undergone on 20 April 1862, ibid. 198. Parkes told Menie on 22 August 1862, ibid., that he would not return to his old position

and insisted to Clarinda on 26 August, ibid., that he would never again take a government situation. Parkes expressed new self-doubt, as quoted, when writing to Clarinda on 24 April 1862, ibid. The letter ‘not to be read before the children’ was dated 20 August 1862, ibid. Further elaboration of the plan came in letters to Menie, 22 August, and Clarinda, 26 August, ibid. Parkes wrote of his pain at Clarinda’s letters on 25 September, ibid. His last letters to her from England were on 27 and 31 October, and 1 November 1862, all ibid. 200. For the general political background I have relied in this chapter on the following, which are not cited in detail in the notes that follow, except when they are the source ofa quotation: Richards, op. cit.; Loveday and Martin, op. cit.; Powell, op. cit. Parkes’s letters of 31 October and 1 November 1862 to Clarinda relate his experiences at embarkation. SMH, 24 January 1863, announced the arrival of the Spray of the Ocean. Menie’s prediction that the reunion would not be silent is from a letter of 19 March 1862,

PC A933, 168, and her dream of her father on horseback was written on 20 July 1861, ibid., 539. Parkes spoke of Menie’s weakness in a letter to Clarinda, 28 January 1863, PC A1044, and Clarinda wrote to Maria of her own and Menie’s ill-health, PC A1045, 205. Parkes complained to Clarinda about the heat on 4 February 1863, PC Ai044. The letters of Menie’s which I quote here are to her father, 19 March 1862, PC A933, 168; 18 January 1863, ibid., 109-11; 26 March 1863, ibid., 181-4. 202. Windeyer’s words are from a letter to Duffy, 27 June 1861, PC A1050/2, 39. I quote Parkes’s letter to Windeyer, 19 April 1862, by courtesy of Sir Victor Windeyer. Parkes’s rebuff to his friends over the address of welcome is reported in SMH, 5 and 6 February 1863. Empire, 16, 18 and 19 June 1863, deals with Darvall’s candidature. His letters to Parkes of 3 and 15 June, PC A935, PC A881, 419, make it clear that he and Parkes had negotiated about the candidature. 203. The Empire’s comment on Darvall’s attorney generalship appeared on | August 1863. Brunker’s letter, 1 August 1863, is in PC A69, 61. Portus wrote on 3 August, PC A900, 351. SMH, 6 July 1863, tells of the Liberal Political Association. Menie wrote as quoted

on 3 August 1863, PC A933. Darvall’s letter of protest to Parkes was written the following day, PC A923, 897-9. The comment from SMH appeared on 7 August 1863. 204. Parkes told of Robertson’s approach to him in his speech at the nomination, Empire, 12

August 1863; for the most cutting of the advertisements see SMH, 7 August 1863. Parkes wrote to Clarinda about the unpleasantness of the contest on 5 August, PC A1044. Hanson to Parkes, 12 October 1863, PC A888, 156, reveals their friendship. The Empire joked about Parkes’s enemies on 8 August 1863. On irregularities at the election

see especially Empire and SMH, 14 August 1863. The Empire’s pathetic picture of Parkes is from an editorial of 13 August. Brunker’s comment is from his letter to Parkes of 17 August 1863, PC A69, 63.

446 Notes (pages 205-19) 205. SMH, 14 August 1863, reported Parkes’s outburst at the declaration of the poll. The liberal organizer was William McLean, who approached Parkes about the vacant seat on I7 August 1863, PC A887, 313-14. Parkes replied as quoted on 22 August, ibid., 313-14. The letter to Maria, 24 October 1863, is in PC A1044. 206. On the Free Trade Association, see Empire, 9 February 1864. SMH, 12 December 1863, reported the meeting to protest against Eagar’s proposals. 207. For the Braidwood vacancy I draw on SMH, 21 January, Empire, 28 January, James Rodd to Parkes, 23 January 1864, PC A927, 622. The Empire reported the nomination on | February and the election result on Sth. Rodd told Parkes of violence in the contest on 4 February 1864, PC A903, 330-1. The Empire reported the Braidwood dinner on 5

April 1864. 208. SMH made its satirical comments on the same day. SMH, 21 April 1864, reported the vacancy at Kiama, on the resignation of S. W. Gray. I depend on Empire reports of the campaign, 21-28 April, and the nomination, 29 April 1864. 209. The Empire rejoiced at Parkes’s election on 30 April and SMH commented as quoted on 3 May 1864. SMH, 9 November 1864, reported the debate in which Martin attacked Parkes. Parkes recalled this clash at the Kiama re-election of 1866, SMH, 7 February 1866.

210. The Empire, 20 December 1864, reported the Kiama nomination. Cowper referred to Parkes’s ‘black ingratitude’ in a letter to Lang, quoted by Powell, op. cit., 143. SMH reported the Kiama banquet on 19 August 1865. 211. The diary note is in PC A920, 321. 212. Parkes wrote as quoted to Martin on 8 January 1866, PC A932, 14-15. His attack on

Burdekin is from SMH report of the debate, 10 January 1866. My. account of Windeyer’s election is from Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 48-9, 174, where full documentation for this interpretation is set out. Parkes to Martin, 14 January 1866, PC A932, 18, sets down his reaction to Plunkett’s proposal, which is also dealt with in Parkes

to Plunkett, ibid., 175. 213. This letter to Clarinda, 17 January 1866, isin PC A1044. For my explanation of Parkes’s following I am indebted to Loveday’s Parliamentary Government, 188-90 and 511-18, where a seminal voting analysis permitted accurate definition of the factions and their strengths—definition, incidentally, which demonstrates the precision of Parkes’s own understanding of the balance of power as he set it out for Clarinda. 214. Parkes gave a detailed account of his negotiations with Martin in forming the coalition at the nomination at Kiama for his ministerial re-election, 7 February 1866. SMH’s irony is from an editorial of 24 January. Marks refused to nominate Parkes in a letter of 26 January 1866, PC A896, 319. 215. My account of the business is based on letters, bound in PC A1027, mostly between Parkes, Maria and W. H. Cooper, and which cover the whole period up to the virtual suspension of buying, late in 1865. Maria wrote about ‘Lanach’ on 13 July 1864 and Cooper's observations are from a letter to Parkes on 24 August 1864. The goods listed

here, together with many others, are mentioned in the extant invoices. Maria told Parkes of Cornforth’s remark on 25 September 1865. Cooper explained on 26 April 1865 why Maria did not understand the seriousness of the position. Maria reported the meeting of creditors on 22 August 1865 and Cooper told of the strain on Maria on 25th. 216. Parkes gave his instructions to Fowler and Steele on 30 January 1866, Sir Henry Parkes, miscellaneous documents, ML, Ap18/1, 11. Maria’s remarks are from a letter of 25 July 1864, PC A1027. Menie wrote to Maria on 17 February 1866, PC A1045, 225; Harpur wrote to Parkes on 13 and 17 February 1866, ML MSS. 947, 105-6, 109-11. Windeyer’s words are from his letter to Parkes of 18 January 1866, PC A913, 430-41. 217. Parkes wrote, as quoted, to Windeyer on 24 January 1866, ML MSS. 186/8, 179-81. 218. Parkes wrote to Clarinda about his new work on 25 and 26 January 1866, PC A1044, and to Halloran, as quoted, on 29 January 1866, PC A931, 488. Parkes to Martin, 7 April 1866, PC A932, 20, records these quarrels. 219. The description of statues in England is from Australian Views of England, 38-9. K. S. Inglis, The Australian Colonists, 67, notes the origins of the statue, and SMH described its unveiling on 24 April 1866. Parkes told Maria the object of the trip when writing on 24 May 1866, PC A1044. The railway had reached nine miles beyond Picton, SMH, 23 May 1866. “Vix’ called Flood Parkes’s Boswellin SMH, 18 May 1866. Parkes told Maria about the buggy’s armament on 29 April 1866, PC A1044.

Notes (pages 220-9) 447 220. SMH, 16 May 1866, reported the Albury banquet. Parkes described Beechworth and complained of pressure of time in Melbourne in letters to Halloran, 18 and 31 May,

Turnbull Library, Wellington, MS. papers 469. Parkes reported his activities in Melbourne and his plan to return to work on 4 June to Halloran, ibid. the Mudgee description was also to Halloran. SMH lampooned Parkes’s travels on 5 July 1866. SMH, 18 September 1866, reported Parkes’s speech to his constituents, following his trip. 221. On the need for prison reform see e.g. SMH, 23 May 1866. Parkes writes in Fifty Years,

162-5, on reformist needs and the government’s response. M. Quinn to Parkes, 2 January 1868, PC A901, 203-5, tells of the Catholic industrial school at Bathurst. 222. Parkes’s explanation of his approach to administration is from Fifty Years, 171. John O’Sullivan, The Bloodiest Bushrangers, especially 92-100, has a good account of the Carroll expedition and the Jindera murders. Martin to Parkes, 14 January 1867, PC A63, 202-8, and Young to Parkes, 11 January 1867, PC A968, record shock at the deaths. Young to Parkes, 7 May, ibid., is informative about the methods eventually used to defeat the Clarkes. Parkes to Halloran, 21 February 1867, Turnbull Library, MS. papers 469, records his inspection of Tarban Creek. My sources for the points about Manning are Fifty Years, 205-7, and ADB, 5, 204. Parkes’s description of Sydney Infirmary 1s

from Fifty Years, 175, and for the request for a commission of inquiry see D. H. Borchardt, Checklist of Royal Commissions Select Committees and Boards of Inquiry, IV, New South Wales 1855-1960, 61.

223. Parkes’s original letter to Florence Nightingale is in BM Add. Mss. 47757/1. He acknowledged her agreement on 24 December 1866, 47757/27, and gave his impressions of Lucy Osburn, and of the nurses’ arrival, on 5 March 1868, 47757/40. Lucy Osburn wrote to Florence Nightingale of her middle eastern experience on 4 December 1868, BM Add. Mss. 47757/95, of the loss of Parkes as colonial secretary on 9 October 1868, 47757/88, and of Parkes’s ‘angel’ speech during November 1868, 47757/92. 224. SMH, 13 September 1866, reported Parkes’s second reading speech on the public schools bill. C. Turney, Pioneers of Australian Education, 228, quotes Wilkins on the combined school. 225. Ibid., 203, is my source for the quotation from Wilkins’s report. For details of the legislation, A. Barcan, A Short History of Education in New South Wales, 127-34, is a succinct source. G. Haines, Lay Catholics and the Education Question in Nineteenth Century New South Wales, 7-9, is my authority for Polding’s views and the quotations. Haines has generally influenced my interpretation of the Catholic attitude, which is slightly at variance with the views taken by Mark Lyons, Aspects of Sectarianism in New South Wales, circa 1865 to 1880, PhD, ANU, 1972, the other authority in this field.

I wish, however, to acknowledge my debt to Dr Lyons, who in his thesis severely and, generally speaking, justly criticizes my previous work, especially my article on

education and the O’Farrell affair, in E. L. French (ed.), Melbourne Studies in

Education, 1960-1, 25-47. As the present chapters show, I have considerably revised my view of Parkes’s relations with the Catholics of New South Wales, though I still do not take a position identical with that of Dr Lyons. His thesis remains in my opinion the best single account of the sectarian implications of events in New South Wales between 1866 and 1870. 226. SMH, 18 September 1866, reported Parkes’s speech at Kiama and Father Conway’s remarks.

227. Freeman’s Journal noted Parkes’s rise to office late in life on 7 February 1866 and attacked his alleged views on religious teaching, as quoted, on 22 September 1866. On O’Sullivan, see Lyons, op. cit., 50-2, and also his article in A DB, 5, 384. Parkes wrote on

19 April 1862 to Windeyer about Catholics in British politics. The letter is in the possession of Sir Victor Windeyer, who kindly permits me to quote from it. 228. Correspondence on the Dillon case, ‘handed to us for publication’, appeared in the Empire on 9 March 1867. PC A955 has a collection of papers on Dillon’s dismissal, including printed copies of correspondence tabled in the assembly on Robertson’s motion. My account 1s constructed from these papers, the chief quotation being from Halloran (for Parkes) to Sheehy, 11 March 1867. See Barcan, op. cit., 130, for reforms effected by the Council of Education, and Haines, op. cit., 69-71, 81-3, and Lyons, op. cit., 61-3, 68, 70-3, for relations between the Catholic heirarchy and the Council. 229. Wilkins wrote understandingly, as quoted, on 15 June 1867, PC A930, 309-12.

448 Notes (pages 230-40) 230. The quotations about Robertson are from Bede Nairn’s article in ADB, 6, 38-46. Parkes’s words are from the Empire’s report of the assembly debate on the Catholic orphan school at Parramatta, 18 July 1867. For other examples of opposition tactics against Parkes see SMH, 24 July and 1 August: debates on the textbook and Dillon issues. K. Sinclair, ‘Australian Inter-government Negotiations, 1865-80, Ocean Mails and Tariffs’, AJPH, XVI, 2, August 1970, 153-6, has an account of the issues at this conference and the outcome. 231. T. Richards, op. cit., 427-8, has the text of the resolutions passed at the conference. Young’s letter to Parkes, 13 April [1867], is from PC A968.

232. The Empire, 22 March 1867, quoting the Argus, reported Parkes’s speech at the squatters’ dinner. The Empire, 5 March 1867, quoting the Melbourne Herald, notes secrecy regarding conference proceedings. Parkes wrote to Clarinda about his experiences on 17, 22 and 23 March 1867, PC A1l044. The Empire criticized Parkes on 22 March for attending the squatters’ dinner. He wrote, as quoted, to Maria on 23 April 1867, PC A1044. Parkes told Maria on 24 January 1868 about Clarinda and the girls’ jaunt to town, ibid. The Empire described the Duke’s arrival on 22 and 23 January. The Empire criticized ministerial dress on | February, in its summary of the news. 233. Parkes described his meeting with the Duke at government house, as quoted, for Maria, on 24 January 1868, PC A1l044. The Empire reported the Review on 25 January,

the anniversary day luncheon on 28th, the St Andrew’s ceremony on 29th, the horticultural exhibition on 30th, the Weatherboard Falls visit on | February, the citizens’ ball on 2nd, the Fort Street visit on 15th and the Waratah school opening on 13th.

234. ‘Cutting out Work for the Prince’ is from Empire, 14 February. Ibid., 27 February, 6 and 7 March, described the visit to the Hunter. Mrs Windeyer wrote, as quoted, to Mary on 5S March 1868, ML MSS. 186/13, 75-6. SMH and Empire, 13 March 1868, had detailed reports of the shooting. There are also graphic eyewitness accounts in Ruth Bedford, Think of Stephen, especially 206, from which the quoted words about the shots are taken. 235. SMH (from which I take relevant quotations) and Empire, 14 March 1868, reported the Hyde Park meetings and proceedings in parliament. SMH monthly summary for the overland mail, 27 March 1868, conveniently summarizes what was publicly known

about the O’Farrell affair up to that point. See also Lyons, op. cit., 104-14, for the immediate spread of news after the shooting. Lyons, 82-4, also notes O’Sullivan’s

treatment of Fenian activities in England. O’Farrell’s words to the sergeant (Rawlinson) after his arrest were clarified at the preliminary magisterial inquiry on 13 March, reported in SMH, 17 March 1868. 236. The Empire reported Parkes’s activities on 13 March 1868. Parkes quotes extracts from O’Farrell’s ‘Diary’ in Fifty Years, 192-3. The original is in the New South Wales Archives, 4/768.1, ‘Alleged Conspiracy in New South Wales, 1867-8’. The Empire, 20 March 1868, reported on ‘O’Farrell in Gaol’. 237. SMH and Empire, 19 March 1868, reported on the treason felony bill in parliament. Lyons, op. cit., 115-16, explains its similarity to English legislation. Parkes told Maria on 9 July 1868 about threatening letters he had received, PC A1044. Lyons, op. cit., 119-32, and A. W. Martin, ‘A Note on the Attempted Assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh, Sydney 1868’, La Trobe Historical Studies, I, 1, April 1971, 23, note 16,

speak of the atmosphere in which the act worked and give examples of ludicrous supposed ‘plots’. The priest quoted is Rev. T. McCarthy, speaking at an indignation meeting of the Guild of St Mary and St Joseph, SMH, 24 March 1868. The Empire reported Polding’s pastoral on 30 March and the laying of the Town Hall foundation stone on 6 April, and reflected on the need to reduce sectarian animus on 7 April 1868. O’Farrell’s trial was reported by both SMH and Empire on | April 1868. 238. Parkes explained the government’s insistence on O’Farrell’s execution to Maria, 9 July 1868, PC Al044. SMH and Empire reported O’Farrell’s hanging on 22 April 1868. O’Farrell’s confession, following circumstances to be detailed in the next chapter, was printed in SMH, 23 April 1868. 240. Polding’s remarks are from a letter of 22 April 1868 to Abbot Gregory, N. N. Birt, Benedictine Pioneers in Australia, I, 133. Lyons, op. cit., 162-4, has an excellent account of O’Farrell’s last days.

Notes (pages 241-52) 449 241. | take the account of parliamentary events on 22 April from the SMH report, 23 April 1868. The letter about Dwyer, Dalley and Macleay was to W. A. Duncan, 5 October 1868, PC A931, 249. The quotation is from SMH editorial of 25 April. On Benedict see Lyons, op. cit., 166-7. The documents are in “Alleged Conspiracy in New South Wales’, Archives, loc. cit. Lyons also considers that Parkes acted under stress, op. cit., 170-1. 242. Polding’s opinion of O’Farrell is from Birt, loc. cit. McLerie put his view in a letter he wrote on 10 August 1868, at Parkes’s request. Dunmore Lang wrote, as quoted, to Parkes on 29 April 1868, PC A924, 197. On the dismissal of Dwyer and the reading of Polding’s letter in parliament, see Lyons, 172-3. SMH, 8 May 1868, reported the opening of the Goulburn school; John Graham to Parkes, 26 May [1868], PC A68, 663, refers to the Sunday School meeting. O’Sullivan wrote, as quoted, on 22 May 1868, PC A909, 395-6. 243. Parkes instructed Halloran about secrecy on 5 May, Turnbull Library, MS. papers 469. W. M. Campbell warned as quoted about possible assassins on | June 1868, PC A920, 224. Parkes wrote to Maria on the subject on 9 July 1868, PC A1044. Lyons, op. cit., 216, notes English criticism and initial disallowance of the treason felony act. McLerie’s letter is among the ‘evidence’ in Henry James O’Farrell, Report of Committee with Evidence, NSWLA V&P, 1,715 ff. SMH reported the Kiama speech on 26 August 1868. 244. The SMH editorial quoted here appeared on 28 August 1868. For the fortunes of the ministry generally see Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 70-1. Parkes complained to Martin as quoted on 19 February 1868, PC A932, 30-1. Martin recalled their difficulties when

writing to Parkes on 17 September 1868, PC A925, 93. Parkes described Eagar’s childishness in a letter to John Marks, 19 September 1868, PC A932, 117, and the Eagar—Parkes exchange noted here is in memoranda of 2 September 1867, PC A915, 91, and A921, 737. 245. My account of the Duncan affair is from Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 71-2, 177, where

detailed documentation may be seen. 246. Martin told Parkes on 17 September 1868 of his efforts to persuade Eagar to accept the apology. The letters quoted here are Parkes to A. A. P. Tighe, 19 September, PC A932, 453-4; T. A. Murray to Parkes, 18 September, PC A925, 294; J. L. Montefiore to Parkes, 18 September, PC A895, 92; James Byrnes to Parkes, 15 September, PC A919, 815-16, 818. Lang wrote, as quoted, to Parkes on 24 November 1868, PC A891, 304-5.

247. The parliamentary exchanges about the O’Farrell documents were reported by the Empire on || December 1868, which detailed Parkes’s tabling of the documents on 19 December 1868. Quotations of words and events at the inquiry are from the report of the Select Committee on the O’Farrell case. 248. Empire, 17 and 18 February 1869, reported the debate on Macleay’s resolutions. Parkes lobbied as well as argued for the final vote, as is clear from Parkes to Lang, 11 February 1869, Lang Papers, A2242, 51-7. 249. The Kiama correspondent was Robert Miller, to whom Parkes wrote as quoted on 8 July 1868, PC A1050/2, 132-3. Parkes wrote to Lang about Robertson and the Catholics on

27 November 1868, Lang Papers, A2242, 42. The points about the Loyal Orange Institution are from Lyons, op. cit., 177-92. The exchange between Parkes and the PPA

took place on 8 and 10 March 1869, PC A901, 76-9. Parkes reported the ladies’ congratulations to Robert Miller, 12 March 1869, PC A1050/2, 156. The rector of St Jude’s wrote,as quoted, on 18 February 1869, PC A926, 84. Parkes’s Port Macquarie admirer was Edward Holland, 24 February 1869, PC A923, 504-5. 250. Parkes to Maria, 14 July 1868, PC A1044, tells her he is ‘head man’. The Empire’s criticism 1s from an editorial of 19 February 1869. Belmore commented on Parkes, as quoted, in a despatch of 27 February 1869, CO 201/551 /231. Parkes wrote to Halloran of his possible abandonment of public life on 24 February 1869, Letters to Henry Halloran, uncat. MSS., set 292, ML. 251. SMH, 16 March 1869, reported the dinner parties at government house; the columnist commented on the parliamentary banquet in ibid., 5 April 1869. J. P. Mayger was the friend whom Parkes told of his disillusion with politics and his losses, 21 August 1869, PC A915, 112. The Empire reported the opening of the Windsor school on 7 September 1869. Menie’s letter describing Thom is undated, [“‘Wednesday’], PC A1052. 252. Menie wrote on 15 November 1871 about visiting home, PC A933, 309-10, and about Clarinda and the new baby on 13 January 1870, ibid., 270-3. She remarked on her

450 Notes (pages 252-61) father’s need for a partner in a letter of 23 May 1869, ibid., 55. Menie’s letter of 15 October 1869 is in ibid., 258-61. Her remarks about politics and Catholicism are from this and from another letter of 1 October, ibid., 248-51. 253. Parkes’s election speeches are from the Empire’s report of 1 December 1869. The Empire commented on the bitterness of the campaign in its monthly summary of 31 December 1869 and reported Parkes’s speech at the declaration of the poll on 6 December 1869. 254. St Julian’s remarks are from a letter to Parkes of 1 March 1869, PCA70, 328. The Empire

reported the West Sydney meeting on 6 December 1869. 255. Dalley’s letter of parting when he left England is undated (‘Sat.evening’), PC A881, 83. Parkes wrote, as quoted, to Clarinda on 16 June 1862, PC A1044, For this view of — Dalley’s position I am indebted to Bede Nairn, both from personal discussion, and from his and Martha Rutledge’s entry on Dalley in A DB, 4, 6-9. The exchange with Windeyer

is documented in Parkes to Windeyer, 19 September; Windeyer to Parkes, 22 September; Parkes to Windeyer, 26 September 1868: ML MSS. 186/8, 240. 256. SMH and Empire reported the nomination, 3 December 1869. For Parkes’s nomination

of Wearne see Empire, 8 December, and for the West Sydney results, ibid., 10 December. On the testimonial fund see below, notes re p. 263. Menie’s remarks of 9 December are in PC A933, 275. 257. For Cowper’s election see Empire, monthly summary, 31 December 1869. Parkes, elected for both East Sydney and Kiama, chose to sit for the latter (SMH, 25 February 1870). The Empire observed on 25 March 1870 the disposition of new members to give Cowper fair play. Maria’s prayer was in her letter to Parkes of 19 March, PC A934, 126. Parkes’s note to possible lenders, 19 January 1870, is in PC A1050. Specific cases are evident in Chisholme to Parkes, PC 920, 491 and 494; Berry to Parkes, PC A873; Icely to Parkes, PC A889, 371-2; Graham to Parkes, PC A886, 80; Maunsell to Parkes, PC A895, 338; Smith to Parkes, PC A928, 790. Parkes wrote on 16 July 1870 to Miller about his lack of political friends, PC A1050/2, 188. Menie wrote, as quoted, on 16 July 1870. 258. Parkes told Maria the story of the bankruptcy on 8 and 31 October 1870, PC A1044. SMH reported his resignation from parliament on 15 October, and the insolvency on 17 and 26 October. He resigned the Council of Education presidency on 10 October, PC A915, 143. Menie pleaded for a letter on 4 November, PC A933, 300-1. Parkes’s remark to Maria about the relief of bankruptcy is in the letter of 31 October, cited above. Holt wrote, as quoted, to Parkes on 22 November 1870, PC A886, 357-8. Maria reported

events in Birmingham, especially the reactions to the bankruptcy of Griffin (her solicitor) and Larnach (Bank of New South Wales) and creditors, on 21 and 29 December 1870 PC A934, and wrote as quoted on 23 January 1871, ibid. 259. The plan to write for the Courier and the Age is reflected in T. P. Stephens to Parkes, 28 October 1870, PC A909, 82. Fairfax declined to take articles on 4 November 1870, PC A883, 421. Mackay made his offer on 17 November, PC A895, 1. Parkes recalls his work on the new daily paper in Fifty Years, 213; Robert Harwood to Parkes, 31 August 1871,

PC A917, 138-40, makes it clear that Harwood was the proprietor and the colonial secretary's newpaper register, New South Wales Archives, 4/7819, shows Harwood registering in December 1870 the Sydney Mercantile Advertiser (in locating this information I wish to acknowledge the advice of Mr Jim Gibbney, of the ADB). Parkes told Maria of his hard work at writing, and predicted he would be prime minister in twelve months, on 27 January 1871, PC A1044. SMH, 3 and 4 November 1870, reported

the Kiama by-election. Parkes announced by advertisement his acceptance of the seat, ibid., 10 November. The Empire summary of 2 December deals succinctly with the political crisis caused by Cowper’s defeat. 260. SMH, 10 December 1870, reported Parkes’s resignation. The Parkes—Forster exchange appeared in SMH, 13, 15, 19, 22, 26 and 30 December 1870. The quotation is from Forster’s letter published on 15th. On the formation of the Martin-Robertson ministry see Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 75. Parkes wrote as quoted to Martin and to Duffy on 23 December 1870, PC A915, 130-3, 139. 261. Mackay wrote to Parkes on 7 January 1871, PC A894, 438. Forster’s words are from the Herald correspondence. Parkes wrote to Cooper, as quoted, on 28 January 1871, PC A878, 28-9, 33-4. Cooper, who had begun the correspondence on 27 January, replied on | February, ibid., 36, A920, 171.

Notes (pages 262-70) 451 262. Bell wrote to Parkes on 2 February, PC A919, 755. The letters to Maria quoted here are dated 24 February and 24 March 1871, PCA1044. Menie’s remark isin a letter of 27 July 1871, PC A933, 305. Parkes’s work for Hall is documented in letters and reports from the unpaginated PC A1008, on which much of the account which follows rests. Parkes wrote from Melbourne on 19 April, from Launceston on 27 April, from Hobart on 30 April, from Adelaide on 12 May, from Kooringa on 18 May, from Brisbane on 9 June, PC A1044. 263. For the early stages of the testimonial fund see Parkes to Robert Miller, 12 March and 24 April 1869, PC A1050; Parkes to W. R. Piddington and J. Wearne, 18 March 1869, PC A1044; J. Wearne to Parkes, 23 March 1869, PC A913, 203; Parkes to Clarinda, 6

April 1869, PC A1044. Parkes to Clarinda, | February, and Parkes to Maria, 24 February 1871, ibid., detail the purchases of property. Mary Parkes wrote to Maria about Lansdowne on 31 August 1871, PC A1045, 266. 264. Parkes told Clarinda she must attend to the move on 16 April 1871. He referred to the rain in his letter from Adelaide on 12 May and to the family’s ‘discomfort’ on 27 May, from Melbourne. He berated Annie on 19 May, PC A1044. Clarinda wrote about the antelope on 22 April [1871], PC A933, 62. Parkes thanked Halloran for the koala on 3 November 1868, Turnbull Library, MS. papers, 469. Menie told her mother, on 8 July 1869, about the nightmare, PC A933, 243. Parkes reported the Melbourne dinner in his letter to Clarinda, 19 April 1871, told her of the birds and animals from Adelaide on 27 May 1871, and complained about Hall on 21 August 1871, PC A1044. 265. Parkes wrote, as quoted, to Maria on 12 July 1871, ibid. He raised the Yearbook scheme with Clarinda on 25 August 1871, ibid., and wrote of his release from the court on 19 September 1871, ibid. He told Maria of his anticipated relief on 6 October 1871, ibid. That same day he wrote to the publishers Ferguson and Moore, PC A932, 111. Menie

commented on the Yearbook on 16 October and spoke of the ‘bombshell’ on [5 November 1871, PC A933, 33-4, 311. 266. The Mudgee speech, delivered on 27 December 1871, is reported in Empire, 1 January 1872. Wisdom wrote on 10 September 1871, PC A914, 222, and Lloyd expressed his joy on 27 September 1871, PC A924, 414. Montefiore warned Parkes against borrowing or

lending on 18 July 1871, PC A895, 50, and advised him to become a professional politician on 18 October, ibid., 120-1. Bell urged Parkes on 2 February 1871 to forma party, PC A919, 755. 267. The letter to Annie is in PC A1044. Parkes wrote to W. H. Cooper on 28 January 1871, PC A878, 29-32, and to Lang on 29 July 1871, Lang Papers, A2242, 63-4. Lang to Parkes, 5 August 1871, 301-2, recalls Lang’s retirement. The other Lang quotations are from this letter. Parkes reported having written to Wearne in his letter to Lang. Lloyd wrote on 15 August 1871, PC A924, 411. 268. As late as October 1868 Parkes had rejected advice from W. A. Duncan to propitiate his

Catholic antagonists, describing them in an exceptionally bitter letter as ‘low and loathsome creatures’ (Parkes to Duncan, 5 October 1868, PC A931, 250). Duffy wrote, as quoted, on 14 December 1870, PC A921, 34-6. One copy of the letter is endorsed in Parkes’s hand: “The original sent to Mr. Carlyle’. Since the original is in PC, Carlyle evidently returned it at Parkes’s request. Parkes replied to Duffy on 23 December 1870, PC A915, 137-8. He wrote of Butler to Cooper on 28 January 1871, PC A878, 29-32. Butler to Parkes, ND (‘30 December’), PC A872, 319, discusses the wig, and Butler refers to ‘better times’ in another undated letter, ibid., 201.

269. Butler explained to Parkes about the Catholic party and his own efforts to abate antagonism on 5 September [1871], ibid., 291; and declared his ‘inexpressible longing’ for animosities to end in an undated letter to Parkes, ibid., 103. Parkes wrote to Maria about his activities and reputation in Victoria on 22 April 1871, PC A1044. Butler to Parkes, 16 August [1871], PC A872, 294, records the hope that Parkes will resume his career, and he wrote on 5 September, ibid., 288, of his fear of the squatters and the need for a new land policy. A speaker recalled the statement about Butler’s admirers and the umbrella at the Argyle nomination of 1872, Goulburn Herald, 6 March 1872. Butler’s letter to Parkes about the Catholic wish to reconcile differences is undated, PC A872, 209, 211. 270. Wearne to Parkes, ND, PC A912, 168-70, speaks of the trip with Parkes to Mudgee and expresses pleasure at Catholic hostility. The Empire, | January 1872, also recorded the

452 Notes (pages 270-81) Mudgee trip. Cassin wrote to Parkes on 14, 18 and 20 December 1871, PC A879, 281-2,

285, 309-12. I depend on Empire, 2 January 1872, for the nomination and SMH, 8 January, for the declaration of the poll. Butler consoled Parkes on 9 January [1872], PC A872, 307-8.

271. For Forster’s election to the opposition leadership and other parliamentary events noted here see Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 76. Windeyer explained Parkes’s situation

to his wife on 26 January 1872, ML MSS. 186/13, 102. The three Windeyer letters quoted here are dated 26, 27 and 28 January 1872, ibid., 95-6, 108-9 and 277h. For Parkes’s electoral work generally, see my ‘Henry Parkes and Electoral Manipulation, 1872-82, HS, 8, 31, November 1958. Important letters documenting Parkes’s 1872 network include the following, all to Parkes, from the correspondents listed, and in PC: R. Wisdom, 19 February, A926, 96 (Morpeth); B. Lee, 20 February, A892, 382 (Morpeth); J. F. Burns, 26 February, A872, 27 (Morpeth); S. Scholey, 28 February, A909 (East Maitland); L. F. de Salis, 15 March, A882, 175, 19 March, A881, 395a (Queanbeyan); J.J. Wright, 13 February, A930, 788 (Queanbeyan); G. Maunsell, 18 March, A925 (Moama); D. Cassin, 3 and 10 February, A917, 372 and 122. Cooper’s principal letters to Parkes are 28 February, A915, 201, 7 March, A920, 176, 9 and 14 March, A878, 21 and 39. 273. Butler’s letters are all undated. Those quoted are in PC A872, 226, 224, 230, and A919, 610, 619, 651.

274. SMH, \|3 February, reported the nomination, and next day gave an account of the declaration of the East Sydney poll. Wearne to Parkes, ND, PC A912, 169, mentions Goold’s office in the Orange Lodge. SMH, 15 and 16 February, reported the West Sydney meetings. Butler to Parkes, ND, PC A919, 641, records Quinn’s efforts to find an opponent for Martin. Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 77, have a summary of the election results. 275. The 1872 diary (PC A1013) covers only the events of cabinet formation and appears to have been a kind of aide mémoire for Parkes’s own purposes. He wrote the letter to Wearne on I 1 May 1872, PC A932, 476.

276. The politicians’ allegiances discussed here are deduced chiefly from division list analyses which Loveday and I prepared for Parliament, Factions and Parties. See also, in that work, pp. 81-2. Montefiore commended Samuel to Parkes on 18 July 1871, PC A895, 49-50. As an example of Innes’s affectionate letters to Parkes see PC A889, 148 (30 September 1874). Butler’s note, ND, about Catholics not reconciled to Parkes is in

PC A62, 99. Wearne’s warning against including Fitzpatrick in the cabinet is in an undated letter, PC A912, 168-9. Parkes’s explanation of his choice of Butler is from the letter of 11 May, cited above. 277. Parkes to Lang, 17 May 1872, Lang Papers, A2242, 65-7, contains the same assurance as he gave Wearne. He had written to Butler on 27 January 1872, PC A915, 220, offering

the attorney generalship. The letter to Vaughan is in PC A932. For events at the re-election nomination and the pro-Jones meeting I rely on SMH, 21 May 1872. Innes quoted Dalley’s description of the Butler alliance when writing to Parkes on 28 May 1872, PC A889, 111. Parkes reported the election to Maria on 25 May, PCA1044. SMH, 23 May 1872, reported the declaration of the poll. The voting was: Parkes, 2686; Jones, 1216.

278. Martin told Belmore of the ‘curious combination’ on 18 May 1872, Letters to Lord Belmore from his ministers, ML, A2544/4, 484. 279. The description of the Liberal party is Robert Wisdom’s, 24 August 1882, NSWPD, VU, 111. SMH spoke of the Spartan kings on 11 September 1872. K. S. Inglis, op. cit., 250-3, has a notable description of Wentworth’s funeral. Parkes’s remarks are from his speech

in the house supporting the proposal that Wentworth be given a state funeral. 280. Parkes to T. B. Potter, 9 May 1874, PC A900, 381, discusses the Cobden Club medal and the evolution of Parkes’s views on the tariff. Sir Hercules Robinson, the governor, wrote

of Parkes’s reform on 16 October 1873, PC A927, 164-6. Robinson’s remarks at the Commemoration are from Speeches Delivered by His Excellency Sir Hercules G. R. Robinson, 53. The under secretary’s comment 1s written on a confidential despatch of Robinson’s of 9 August 1872, CO 201/570, despatch 9708/146. Robinson’s letter of 8 February 1875 is in PC A927, 175-8. 281. For examples of Robinson’s admiration of Parkes’s assessment of affairs see his letters

Notes (pages 281-90) 453 of 15 and 16 January 1874, PC A901, 331-4 and 335-8; 23 June 1874, PC A927, 171-4. He asked Parkes to print his speech on 26 November 1874, PC A927, asked fora forecast of the party position on 15 January 1875, ibid., sought advice about the ‘scamps’ on 14 December [1873], PC A927, 219-22, and sent Parkes the photographs on 23 October 1873, PC A901, 310-12. The luncheon invitation of February 1875 is in ibid., 280-1. The six ministers wrote to Clarinda on 14 May 1874, ML FM3/796. 282. Holt to Parkes, 10 November 1873, PC A886, 354-5, sets out the arrangements for the picnic. SMH, 5 February 1872, had an interesting editorial on Holt’s oyster-growing experiments. Traditional sectarian tensions in Queanbeyan are discussed in L. F. de Salis to Parkes, 15 March 1872, PC A882, 175. Arrangements for the banquet and the

quoted comment are in de Salis to Parkes, 2 January 1873, ibid., 63; de Salis had previously remarked on Butler, as quoted, in a letter of 19 March 1872, PC A881, 395a.

J. J. Wright to Parkes, 31 December 1872, PC A913, 71, makes arrangements for horsemen to meet Parkes outside Queanbeyan. 283. The best account of the quarrel that led to Butler’s resignation is Martha Rutledge’s, ‘Edward Butler and the Chief Justiceship, 1873’, HS, 13,50. April 1968, 207-22. Though

my account and interpretation differ slightly from hers I wish to acknowledge my debt to Rutledge’s work. The Parkes—Butler letters were published in SMH, 12 November 1873: except where otherwise stated, my quotations are from this source. Robinson’s letter, 24 October 1873, is in PC A970.

284. The cipher telegrams between Parkes and Robinson are in PC A904, 65-7. My subsequent narrative, though not the interpretation, draws on Rutledge, op. cit. 285. Parkes’s version of the Gardiner affair is in Fifty Years, 277-93, and a powerful pamphlet, The Case of the Prisoner Gardiner, The Prerogative of Pardon, A Chapter of History (hereafter Prisoner Gardiner), 1876. The latter quotes a number of documents in the case, with perfect accuracy where they can be checked, and is cited below as the most convenient reference source. I take general points about Gardiner’s career from ADB. Prisoner Gardiner, 4-5, is my authority for this account of Parkes’s early actions in the case. Menie wrote wryly about the uproar on 25 June 1874, PC A933, 323-4. 286. SMH, 12 June 1874, reported the heated scene as the assembly vote took place. Prisoner Gardiner, 9-11, has Parkes’s minute for the governor in full. Robinson had remarked, as quoted, to Carnarvon on 5 June 1874, CO 201 /577/200ff. Robinson’s remark about Parkes’s ‘droll’ notion on criminals’ relations is in CO 201 /577/238, despatch of 29 June 1874. His minute to the executive council, and the executive council’s decision, is in Prisoner Gardiner, \2-15. The strange Martin—Robinson squabble over the ‘advice’ Martin was alleged to have given is in SMH, 21 July 1875. Robinson’s ‘Notes of my recollections’, an appendix to his printed letter to Martin, is particularly important on

the meeting between the two and Robinson’s attitude to his responsibilities. For Robinson’s and Parkes’s letters of 18 and 19 June see Prisoner Gardiner, 15-16, and PC A971, 325-6.

287. Robinson’s letter of 23 June to Parkes is PC A927, 171, and his minute of the same date for the executive council is quoted in Prisoner Gardiner, 17-20. Robinson to Carnarvon, 30 June 1874, confidential, was subsequently published by SMH, 30 July 1875. Prisoner Gardiner, 21, has the text of Combes’s motion. 288. SMH summary of news, 28 November 1874, succinctly reported Parkes’s attitude to the

motion, and the outcome. The SMH comment on party is from an editorial of 7 December 1874. The summary of news for the overland mail, 26 December 1874, observed the counter-productive effect of Parkes’s repudiation of unfaithful men. SMH noted on 10 December 1874 how the Gardiner affair had been ‘dropped out of sight’. Parkes described Robertson’s ‘lynx-eyed watchfulness’ in Prisoner Gardiner, 19. Parkes to Allen, confidential, 30 January 1875, PC A901, 292-7, reports Robinson’s reaction to the vote and Parkes’s interview with him.

289. Parkes in the same letter quotes Robinson on Hay. The governor’s procedural difficulties are also implicitly referred to here and specifically explained in a memo from

Robinson to Robertson, 5 February 1872, Prisoner Gardiner, 22-4. Robinson’s five letters to Parkes on 1, 2 and 3 February, PC A901, 249-52, 244-7, 223-9, 209-12, 269-72,

detail the negotiations with Hay and Manning and discuss Parkes’s position. 290. Parkes reported the assembly’s reception of his message to Robinson on 3 February 1875, ibid., 257-67. Robinson’s remarks to Parkes were in two notes of the same day,

454 Notes (pages 290-7) ibid., 209-12, 269-72. Graham, op. cit., 195, cites Robinson’s curt remark to Robertson, referring to the papers published on the case by SMH, where the regret at Manning’s failure appeared. See also Prisoner Gardiner, 22-4. 291. Martin’s allegation of Robinson’s complaint against Parkes is in the correspondence published by SMH, 21 July 1875. Parkes wrote on 20 July 1875 requesting Robinson’s permission to publish the personal notes, PC A932, 267-73. Menie worried about losing precious time in a letter of 31 August 1874, A933, 337, and wrote on the painful question

of Parkes’s papers and biography on 5 October 1874, PC A1052. It is a significant comment on the family’s attitude to Robert that it was not he, but Varney, to whom Menie thought the precious ‘memorials’ ought to be entrusted. She was, however, herself at length to receive the gold watch presented to her father in 1850; it was in 1978 still in the possession of her grandson, Mr Fred Thom. Parkes wrote to Byrnes as quoted on 8 June 1874, PC A915, 340. 292. The note to Casey, on the same day, is in PC A931, 222-3. The lugubrious letter to Clarinda was on 10 March 1875, PC A915, 401. The Moama friend was Maunsell, 26 July 1875, ibid., 384. Correspondence explaining the publication of Parkes’s speeches includes Parkes to Blair, 11 May 1875, 20 February and 14 March 1876, PC A931, 32, 24 and 28; Blair to Parkes, 4 February, 28 May, 12 June and 13 September 1875, 23 February 1876, PC A919, 531, 535, 538, 542, 544. Parkes wrote to his publisher, George Robertson, about Menie on 21 February 1876, PC A932, 311. Menie’s comment was on 10 March 1876, PC A933, 349. 293. The work was entitled Speeches on Various Occasions Connected with the Public A ffairs of New South Wales, 1848-74, by Henry Parkes, with an introduction by David Blair. The passage on ‘Public Education’ is on p. xii. Extant notes sending out the volume were to Harrison, 4 April 1976, PC A915, 439; to Carnarvon, 11 April, ibid., 433; to Gladstone,

11 April, BM Add. MSS 44449, 256; to Carlyle, 12 April, Carlyle Papers, National Library of Scotland; to Hughes, 19 April, PC A915, 474; to Kimberley, 22 April, PC A931, 566; to Disraeli, 4 May, PC A915, 476. Parkes wrote, as quoted, to Menie on 15 February 1876, PC A934, 392-4. Her reply, 22 February 1876, is PC A933, 340-2. 294. Parkes accused Menie of misunderstanding him in a letter of 28 February 1876, PC A934, 395. Menie’s second response, as quoted, was on 10 March 1876, PC A933, 348. Parkes accepted the knighthood in a letter, as quoted, to Robinson on 17 May 1876, PC A972. Menie wrote on publication problems on | May 1876, PC A933, 359-60. She was sad about her father’s birthday on 29 May 1876, ibid., 355-6. 295. Menie wrote to grieve at her father’s loss of faith in everything on 16 April 1877, ibid., 362-9. She told her father of the accident on 25 July 1877, ibid., 379-83, and of William’s death on | August, ibid., 383-7. This letter is endorsed ‘Mary will be met’—a reference

to her sister Mary’s action in coming to Menie at once. Robinson wrote of the tragedy on 8 August 1877, PC A927, 203-5. 296. Menie to Parkes, 16 August 1877, PC A933, 630-3, records the aftermath of William’s death. Parkes complained to Clarinda about the burden of Lansdowne on 12 and 22 September 1871, PC A1044. H. Thompson, Back to Cabramatta and Canley Vale Week, 13, notes the points made here about Canley Grange. The journalist is William Freame, who wrote on Canley Vale and Cabramatta in the Parramatta Argus of 13 July 1926 (cuttings in W. G. Freame, Press Contributions, ML, vol. 6). Robinson commiserated with Parkes about the floods on 27 February 1873, PC A970. Parkes gave his orders to Clarinda about moving on 14 March 1873, PC A1044: the same letter has details of the house and how it came to be theirs. William Thom to Parkes, 9 May 1873, PC A934, 350, expressed pleasure that, as quoted, the family was comfortably settled at Ashfield. The site and position of Faulconbridge are described in a booklet produced by Hardie and Gorman for the sale of the property. The booklet, which bears the date ‘9 November’, but no year, hitherto in the possession of the late Cobden Parkes, is now in ML. It has seventeen pages and the quotations describing the position and virtues of the property are from it. E. Grainger, Martin of Martin Place, esp. 136-7, discusses the building of the houses, and Parkes’s neighbours. 297. Martin to Parkes, Dixson Library, MSQ383, 395, discusses common problems in the area. Various letters from Annie and Varney, at Faulconbridge, to Parkes, at Ashfield, make the fact clear that the first mountain residence was a holiday house, 4, 6 and 22 May 1877, PC A933. Robertson to Parkes, 11 July 1877, PC A902, 60, accepts an

Notes (pages 297-301) 455 invitation for his family to visit Faulconbridge. Parkes to J. Hamel [?], | January 1878, PC A931, 508, accepts a tender of £342 to erect a cottage at Faulconbridge. Annie’s memories of Faulconbridge are from PC A1045, copy ofa statement called ‘Comments on Article in “Australian Gossip and Story” published by W. Brook & Co. in 1895 the year before my father died, by A. T. Parkes’. There is a useful note on Faulconbridge in RAHS J&P, 24, 3, 1938, 237, and Springwood Historical Society published in 1977 an illuminating pamphlet, Faulconbridge, by Allan E. Searle. Menie’s remembered appreciation of Mary’s coming is from a letter to Isabella Murray on 6 August 1883, MP (on MPsee below re p. 337), see also my note on p. 295, above. She wrote to Parkes about the possibility of settling at Penrith on 6 August 1877, PC A933, 391-2, and expressed appreciation for his kindness on 10 May 1878, ibid., 394-6. 298. Letters in ibid. make the points cited: 20 July 1878, 399-401, no housekeeper; 12 June 1878, 402-5, gem of a servant, and scribbling; 10 September 1878, 410-13, fowls and turkeys. The arrangements about Maria’s departure are in Parkes to Maria, 1 December 1872, PC Al044, and Maria to Parkes, 26 December 1872, 17 Apriland 7 August 1873, PC A934, 171-2. Maria wrote of her illness on 20 March 1873, ibid. Parkes to Maria, 13 June 1873, PC A1044, explains Hall’s part; see also Maria to Parkes, 3 October 1873. Maria to Miss Birch, 10 February 1874, ML Doc. 1711, reports that she and Polly arrived in Sydney ‘after one of the finest voyages ever made Sydney is a large town very English looking there’s as good shops as any in Birmingham’. She told of killing the snake in a letter to Parkes on 28 December 1879, PC A934, 192-3. Hiscox to Parkes, 15 February, 21 and 29 April 1878, PC A934, detail Gertie’s marriage and the removal to Melbourne. Various lettersin MP show Mary at Forbesville. Parkes wrote to Varney about the bank job on 20 February 1876 and about the divinity of work on 12th, PC A915, 541, 539. The school report is in PC A933, 1072. Robert’s death certificate, also PC A933, gives residence, occupation, children, etc. 299. Of various letters from Robert to Parkes the most important are those of 2 July 1863, 29 November 1864 and 4 October 1873, ibid., 1036-7, 1032-4 and 1039-44. As Robert said on 2 July 1863: “you have done what many fathers would have not done and Iam very grateful to you, for your kind attention and assistance’. Maria wrote about Robert’s suffering on 28 December 1879, PC A934, 193, and Lucy Osburn told Parkes ofher wish to help on 28 October 1879, PC A898, 430. Halloran wrote as quoted on 16 January 1880, PC A923, 188, and Menie explained her feelings about Robert on 15 September 1879, PC A1052. Parkes described his investments to Cooper on 20 March 1876, PC A878, 13, when requesting the return of £400 the young man owed him. He gave Clarinda a general summary of his position on 10 March 1875, PC A915,401-4. Parkes listed Moore as his principal creditor in the letter to Clarinda. 300. Moore’s letter about his inability to help Parkes further was on 4 March 1879, PC A920, 46. Parkes to Moore, 6and 12 October 1876, ML, uncat. MSS., set 372, Letters to Charles Moore c. 1869-1880, are typical of the earlier relationship: needing £140 very badly, Parkes says he must rely for another two or three weeks on Moore’s friendship, though by mid-November ‘I shall be in a position to terminate my applications to you’. He of course wasn’t. Watson’s loan is recorded in PC A914, 294. The following document my

account of the beginnings of the Jamberoo project: Parkes and Sutherland to A. Cruttwell, 25 November 1876, PC A915, 548-50; Parkes to Sir D. Cooper, 7 September 1876, ibid., 572-4; Parkes to John Eales, 16 August 1875, Dixson Library, MS 0382, 31-2; Parkes to J. Frazer, 30 June 1876, PC A915, 429. Parkes’s letter to Moore, as cited, 6 February 1875, Letters to Charles Moore, c. 1869-1880. The 1875 plan to capitalize on the property is set outin Parkes and Samuel to Frazer, Wantetal., 6 July 1876, PC A915,

538. The 1877 negotiations are documented in Parkes and Samuel to Cruttwell, 20 January and 20 June, ibid., 563, 558-60. Cruttwell to Parkes and Sutherland, 8 August 1877, PC A880, 176-86, reports Cruttwell’s rejection of the £37 000 offer. Dowling demanded a reduction in Parkes’s ovedrdraft on 4 April 1878, PC A881, 360-1. Parkes wrote to Dowling about the sale of the property on 6 April, ibid., 364-5, and Dowling requested the payment of interest and special advances on 6 May 1879, ibid., 423-4. 301. Here, and in the pages which immediately follow, I take the essentials of the political story from Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 85-6, 101-3. On the land question generally the interpretation I present reflects my more detailed discussions in the thesis Political

Groupings in New South Wales, 1872-89, ANU, 1955, 116-21, and the article

456 Notes (pages 301-12) ‘Pastoralists in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, 1870-1890’, in A. Barnard

(ed.), The Simple Fleece, 577-91. Wisdom, the speaker quoted as objecting to land discussions revolving around squatters and selectors only, was protesting against clauses in Farnell’s bill aimed at remitting selectors’ interest payments, SMH, 5

December 1878. 302. SMH reported Robertson’s speech on the party balance, and Parkes’s on Robertson’s resignation, on 14 December 1878. Robertson told the house, in the words quoted, on 25 August 1882, how he had at first thought it impolitic to join Parkes, NSWPD, VII, 144 (cited by G. C. Morey, The Parkes—Robertson coalition Government, honours

thesis, ANU, 1968, 21). Robinson’s despatch reporting the new alliance is in CO 201/585, see especially 619-20. 304. The exchange of letters mentioned here between Parkes and Robertson took place on 8 November 1881, PC A902, 40-50. 305. Parkes commented, as quoted, about his majority to Samuel on 8 February 1881, PC A55, 5. Parkes’s disparaging remark about Fitzpatrick is recorded in NSWPD, II, 1517.

Fitzpatrick’s warning against the danger of allowing dictation to parliamentary representatives is from ibid., iv, 842-3. On Parkes as dictator, see e.g. speeches of Richard Bowker and Samuel Charles, ibid., 1506-7, expressing resentment at his attempt to discipline followers over a dispute with the upper house. Parkes justified his tactics by reference to ‘the abnormal state in which Parliament has been placed... by the utter failure of one Government after another to do the business within a proper time’ (ibid., I, 847). For a general account of this session, see Richards, op. cit., 584-97. See also Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 86-7. 306. Parkes wrote, as quoted, to Annie about the education measure on 14 April 1880, PC

A1044. The ADB article on Greenwood, 4, 292, quotes the manifesto of the public schools league. Parkes’s observations about Greenwood’s following are from Fifty Years, 303-4. I have more fully discussed Parkes’s attitudes during the seventies in ‘Faction Politics and the Education Question in New South Wales’, in E. L. French (ed.), Melbourne Studies in Education, 1960-61, 25-47. In what follows I draw on that article for matters of fact, though I have revised some of the opinions I expressed there.

307. SMH made the quoted observations on Parkes’s and Robertson’s views about education on 28 February 1876. I derive the figures of school numbers from Haines, op. cit., 147-8. Parkes claimed in his second reading speech on the 1879 bill that 20 300 children of school age were not receiving instruction, NSWPD, I, 269. The facts about the Council of Education and Robertson’s bill are documented in my ‘Faction Politics and the Education Question’. 308. SMH reported Parkes’s outburst on 16 March 1876. Haines, op. cit., 147, has a discussion of Parkes’s attitude to Robertson’s bill, considered in the light of the faction balance. 309. The ADB on Vaughan, 6, 327, quotes him saying Polding had let things run to seed. ‘Sleepy hollow’ and associated points are from Haines, op. cit., 153-4. Vaughan wrote, as quoted, to Parkes on 9 August 1879, PC A929, 159-60. On the action of Vaughan and the bishops see generally A DB, 6, 328; R. Fogarty, Catholic Education in Australia, 1806-1950, I, 248-55; Fifty Years, 308-12. 310. Haines, op. cit., 176-7, mentions Dillon’s position, and NSWPD, I, 355, records Dillon’s speech, as quoted, in the assembly. Dalley’s words are from Haines, op. cit., 172. Ibid., 177, clarifies Fitzpatrick’s position, and the criticism of Parkes’s course is from NSWPD, IT, 1210. Ibid., I, 317, reports Parkes’s remark in his second reading speech and ibid., II,

1211, records his reminder to Fitzpatrick. 311. Parkes’s remarks about Catholic fellow-citizens are quoted in Fifty Years, 317-18. Duncan wrote, as quoted, on 27 February 1880, PC A881, 236. Butler’s expression of hatred for Parkes was quoted by A. H. Jacob in the second reading debate on the 1879 bill, NSWPD, I, 352. The account of Butler’s death and its aftermath is from A DB, 3, 314.

312. SMH, 2 August 1880, reported Parkes’s speech at Ashfield and ibid., 15 September 1880, has his remarks at the banquet to Robinson. For the Robinsons’ trip to Melbourne see ibid., 16 September 1880. Graeme Davison describes the New South Wales exhibit in The Rise and Fall of Marvellous Melbourne, 2. SMH, 22 September 1880, reported

Notes (pages 312-21) 457 Parkes’s visit to Albury. Ibid., 24 September, had an account of events at Wallerawang, and on 6 October reported the Orange trip. Annie wrote on 5 October, PC A933. 313. Parkes remarked on the size of the assembly at the opening of the WallerawangMudgee railway extension. Watson wrote, as quoted, to Parkes on 16 November 1880, A914, 332-4. SMH, 16 November 1880, reported the East Sydney nomination. Ibid., 17 November 1880, gave the Masonic hall peroration. 314. Ibid., 18 November reported the declaration of the East Sydney poll. Parkes’s letter on Catholic hostility was to Evans, 18 November 1880, PC A916, 435-6. SMH commented on Catholic hostility to Parkes on 18 November 1880. 315. Richards, op. cit., 611-19, gives details of the intercolonial conference. SMH, 30 September 1880 reported Parkes’s approach to the other premiers about the conference. Charles A. Price, op. cit., 163-4, is my principal source for the Chinese question. He discusses the restrictive legislation on pp. 172-4. See also Richards, op. cit., 625-6. 316. Parkes wrote, as quoted, to Clarinda on 21 December 1880, PC A1044. 317. Parkes deals usefully with the licensing question in Fifty Years, 333-48. [have discussed in detail the 1854-55 intemperance inquiry in ‘Drink and Deviance in Sydney’, loc. cit. Parkes’s view of drink as a source of social ills is from Fifty Years, 336. He mentions his

1881 advocacy of free trade in liquor on p. 335. J. D. Bollen, Protestantism and Social Reform in New South Wales, is the best source on the temperance movement generally. 318. Mary Windeyer wrote, as quoted, on 24 April 1879, PC A930, 241-4. O’Connor’s words are from NSWPD, I, 371. The account of the boarding out legislation, and Parkes’s comment on its success, are from Fifty Years, 348-9. 319. SMH reported that Parkes was ill on 5 August 1881. J. G. L. Innes wrote on 10 August (PC A889, 205) hoping that Parkes would “come back to us soon like the fine old giant you are’. He would put off a planned dinner if Parkes proved too ill to come: ‘Without you a ministerial anniversary with me for a host would be a fiasco. For are you not my one Chief?’ Parkes reminded Robertson on 12 September 1882 (PC A63, 92-3) that it was ‘a full year since the course of public business began to be disturbed by my state of health’. J. N. Brunker, 15 September 1882, PC A63, 159, was the friend who referred, as quoted, to the strain Parkes had endured. Parkes wrote to Cooper about his plans on 1 December 1881, PC A931, 194-6. Cooper’s reply, 17 January 1882, is PC A877, 182-6. Parkes declined the testimonial in a letter to Gorman, 12 December 1881 (in possession of Mr H. A. Gorman, who kindly permits me to quote it). SMH of 9and 12 December reported the prospects of the fund: £600 had already been received and another £3000

was expected to be quickly donated. SMH, 21 and 29 December, reported the parliamentary and the citizens’ banquets. ADB quotes Young’s description of Hay, 4, 361. Many copies of Parkes’s letters at this time are in Annie’s handwriting. 320. Parkes recommended ‘the use of the pen’ to Annie in an undated letter acknowledging wishes for his 59th birthday (1874), PC A1044. He wrote about the secret of happiness on 9 January 1876, ibid., and asked for the exercise on happenings at Faulconbridge on 6 October 1877, ibid.

321. Menie wrote about the winter’s sweet coldness on 19 July 1879, PC A1052. She expressed gratitude to her father on 17 January 1881, PC A933, 419-20, and shock at his departure on 24 January 1882, ibid., 426-7. I base my discussion of the relationship between Eleanor Dixon and Parkes on evidence in the registry office for New South Wales, and the government statist’s office, Victoria. I am also indebted to Dr Chris Cunneen for expert advice in the unravelling of a complex series of clues. When twenty-two, Eleanor had a son, Franz Charles Meyer, born on 22 October 1879 at Carlton, Victoria. One Johan Otto Meyer registered the birth, describing himself as ‘Father’, though he was not married to Eleanor. The fact that this child does not later appear in Sydney, and that he is recorded as ‘living’ at the registration of the births of Eleanor’s subsequent children, suggests that he may have remained with his father. A second son, William Bertie, was born on | March 1881, also at Carlton. Eleanor registered this birth herself, but gave no father’s name. The child died on 16 May 1881 in Sydney, Eleanor having moved there from Melbourne six weeks earlier. A third child, Nellie, was born on 9 August 1882. Eleanor again registered the birth, this time giving ‘John Dixon’ as father. Nellie died within a few months. A fourth child, Sydney, was born on 21 March 1884. John Dixon was registered as his father also, though now

458 Notes (pages 321-8) Dixon was described as a ‘writing clerk’, aged thirty-two, who had allegedly married Eleanor in Victoria in February 1870. No official record ofsuch a marriage exists. Parkes

subsequently acknowledged himself to be the father of Sydney, for example in his will of 5 December 1893 (PC A981). It seems almost certain that John Dixon was a fictitious person and Parkes the father of Nellie, and possibly also of William Bertie. Eleanor’s maiden name was ‘Dixon’: it was not uncommon in this period to use the maiden name when creating a fictitious father for an illegitimate child. Parkes gives the date of his departure in Fifty Years, 351. He wrote from Honolulu on 31 December 1881, PC A 1044. Clarinda’s response is undated, PC A 1052. Parkes to Clarinda, 26 January 1882, PC A1044, gives the news from San Francisco. 322. Parkes’s claim about his reputation in America 1s from Fifty Years, 352. Examples of friends who put contacts in touch with Parkes were Cooper (Cooper to Parkes, 17 January 1882, PC A877, 182-4) and Alexander Stuart, of Towns and Co. (Stuart to Parkes, 29 December 1881, PC A907, 48). The complications of Parkes’s position as diplomat are from CO 201 /597/6, confidential, Loftus to Kimberley, 16 January 1882, with enclosures. Relevant foreign office documents, especially a copy of Sackville West’s despatch of 23 February 1883 (632 ff.), are bound in the same volume. The general account of Parkes’s movements is from Fifty Years. Parkes reported events in New York (full card tray, Hall’s having missed him) to Clarinda, 11 February 1882, PC A1044.

323. Bessie Hall wrote to Annie in Canada, | March 1882, PC A1045, 339. Parkes’s remark about Canadais from Fifty Years, 365. Ibid., 365-88, gives an account of the English tour generally. Parkes wrote to Clarinda about the Atlantic crossing and his health on 19

March 1882, PC A1044. Parkes to Clarinda, 2 April 1882, ibid., reports the civil engineers’ dinner and his need for an engagement book. John Plummer, Australian representative of the Graphic, had written on the eve of Parkes’s departure: ‘when the Royal Colonial Institute in London, invites you to a special banquet, at which the Prince of Wales [sic] presides, kindly think of your old friend here for a suggestion to that effect is now On its way to the Secretary Mr. Frederick Young, whom I have known for many

years’ (12 December 1881, PC A900, 256). The 7imes reported the dinner on 29 April 1882, and Parkes also reproduces his and Kimberley’s sayings in Fifty Years, 370-6. 324. The Leighs offered to drive Parkes ‘to any place in the neighbourhood he may like to revisit’ (Lord and Lady Leigh to Parkes, 4 April 1882, PC A1045, 349). The Times and the Birmingham Daily Post both described Parkes’s visit to Stoneleigh on 17 April 1882. I quote Parkes’s speech from the latter. Woolner undoubtedly arranged the visit to Tennyson. There is an account of itin Fifty Years, 378-9, and in the Sydney Mail, 8 July 1882 (‘Sir Henry Parkes in England’). Annie kept a brief diary of the days at Farringford, PC A933. 325. Parkes’s letter to Tennyson as quoted is dated 14 October 1876. It is in the Tennyson family papers: I was able to read it in 1957, when it was privately stored in London, with the kind permission of Lord Tennyson and through the good offices of Mr Ridgegill Trout. The Parkes letters of 10 May 1882 (on Parkes’s speech and events at Carnarvon’s

breakfast) and 21 June 1882 (Parkes’s farewell) are in the same collection. The directions about court dress are from Robert Bickerstell, recapitulating advice from Herbert of the colonial office, PC A919, 857-60, 9 May 1882. 326. Parkes wrote to Clarinda about the dinners and his health on 5 May 1882, PC A1044, and told her on 6 April, ibid., that he felt ‘benefit’ from Dr Kidd’s treatment. Kidd to Parkes, 17 August 1882, PC A924, 91, refers to ‘capsules and injections’ and relief of ‘the distress which the trusses cause’. Dr Bryan Gandevia, who kindly looked at this letter for me, thinks it possible that ‘the trusses’ might relate to bilateral inguinal herniae. ‘It was all over’ is from Fifty Years, 387, as is the account of the visit to Hercules Robinson, 389. SMH, 18 August 1882, reported the homecoming celebrations. 327. Loftus to Parkes (‘most confidential’), 23 December 1881, PC A975, reports Robertson’s decision. Robertson told Parkes the times were going merrily on 28 March 1882, PC A927, 60. Watson called the government a ‘happy family’ on 20 April 1882, PC A914,

273: he had written of Robertson’s foibles on 14 March, ibid., 277. Parkes’s

announcement about the recess 1s recorded in NSW PD, VI, 2655. 328. Lloyd noted restiveness at the continued recess on 28 April 1882, PC A891, 442. Parkes speaks of parliament reopening in Fifty Years, 390. Robertson wrote to him about the

Notes (pages 328-38) 459 cabinet meeting on 14 August 1882, PC A927, 63, 66. ADB, 4, 184-5, deals with Fitzpatrick’s death. Loftus congratulated Parkes for attacking the hierarchy in a confidential note of 14 December 1881, PC A975. I draw on the relevant A DB entries for the main points about Stuart and Forster. Stuart’s new position as opposition leader was discussed by a number of speakers in the address-in-reply debate cited below. G. H. Reid was the member who referred to a deliberative assembly needing the opposition which Stuart’s leadership now gave, NSWPD, VII, 31. Stuart’s amendments to the address-in-reply are recorded in ibid., 20-3. 329. Reid had expressed disquiet at the government’s strength on 5 July 1881, ibid., V,26and

he attacked Robertson and Parkes, as quoted, on 22 August 1882, ibid., VII, 49. Robertson’s reply to Reid is in ibid., 140, and Forster’s attack on Parkes, ibid., 96-7. 330. Parkes offered to resign on 12 September 1882. He keptacopy ofthe letter and endorsed

it with a note of Robertson’s visit, PC A63, 92-3. Parkes quotes extensively from Robertson’s second reading speech in Fifty Years, 394-403. Morey, op. cit., the best secondary account of the subject, is slightly at variance with the interpretation [ offer in what follows. Morey, and Bede Nairn (in ‘Robertson’, A DB, 6, 44-5), suggest that Robertson seized the chance when Parkes went to England to return to the cabinet, take the lands portfolio, and impose his views on colleagues to ‘reverse the government’s new

land policy’ (Nairn, ibid., 45). Circumstantial evidence gives some colour to this view (see especially Morey, op. cit., 66-8, 72-8) but I do not find it convincing. One minister,

Watson, certainly favoured Stuart-type changes, but that does not mean that the cabinet had, before Robertson came back, a ‘new land policy’. Robertson’s return to cabinet pleased everybody and Watson’s letters to Parkes, which are very frank, suggest no antagonism to Robertson over land policy. Robertson’s was certainly the dominant influence on land matters, but Parkes for one accepted that as the natural order of

things. 331. Stuart referred to free selection as the ‘apple of discord’ in his second reading speech on Robertson’s bill, NSW PD, VII, 1180. Robertson’s explanation of his aims 1s from ibid., 1171.

332. For Stuart’s position see especially ibid., 1171-85. laccept Morey’s excellent account of the squatter meeting and the defeat of the bill (op. cit., 81-6). The analysis of the voting is his. Morey, op. cit., 88, quotes Loftus on the ministry’s expectation of winning the election. Parkes wrote to Gorman on 25 November 1882, PC A1050/1, 125. This was the eve of the East Sydney election.

333. SMH reported the election speech quoted here on 24 November, and events at Tenterfield on 6 December 1882. Whereat described himself as a longstanding admirer

when writing to Parkes on 26 March 1885, PC A913, 12. Parkes later asserted his innocence of the Tenterfield nomination in a speech at St Leonards, reported by SMH, 12 October 1885. SMH reported the banquet at Tenterfield on 26 February 1883. Suttor wrote on 3 December 1882, PC A928, 484-5, and Torpy on 14 December, PC A910, 499-500, and Eckford on 18 December, PC A920, 766. 334. Eckford’s letter is dated 18 December 1882, PC A920, 766. Parkes wrote, as quoted, to Loftus on 2 January 1883, PC A916, 3-5. Loftus’s views are from his confidential despatch to Kimberley, 26 December 1882, CO 201/597/462. 335. ‘The Patriot’ is in The Beauteous Terrorist and Other Poems, \885. 336. Parkes wrote as quoted to Samuel on 12 May 1883, PC A55, 21. 337. The quoted letter about good health was to Varney from England, 14 May 1884, PC A1052. Parkes to Hardie and Gorman, 25 April 1883, ibid., arranges the Springwood sale; Parkes to Varney, 12 April 1883, ibid., gives other property details. Isabella recorded Tennyson’s compliment in her diary, 29 June 1884. This diary is among papers of the Murray family, originally in the possession of Isabella’s great grand-daughter, Mrs Jane Grey of Beecroft, who generously permitted me to consult them. The papers have been subsequently deposited in the Mitchell Library, uncat. MSS. 2421. For the purposes of this study, I designate this collection Murray Papers (MP). Annie’s remarks are from letters to her father, 3 and 17 October 1883, PC A933, A1052. Tottie remarked on her new mother’s good fortune on 20 October 1881, MP, and Aunt Kate wrote to Isabella about Mary Parkes and the marriage on 16 June 1881, MP. Mary asked Isabella to be bridesmaid on 19 May 1881, MP. 338. Lily sent kisses to the baby on 8 June 1882, MP, and Aunt Kate wrote about Mary’s

460 Notes (pages 338-46) engagement to Varney on 12 January 1882. Mary wrote to Isabella about the events at Faulconbridge on 30 January 1882, MP. Annie told Isabella of Mary’s newly-married happiness on 9 August [1883], MP. I take the events of the trip from Isabella’s diary, 13 July to 30 September 1883. 339. Isabella noted Mary’s death on 8 October, and spent her twenty-first birthday (19 August) in America. Murray wrote to Parkes about Mary on 2 September, PC A1052, and also to Isabella on 7th, MP. Parkes’s letter to Varney from New York, 7 September, isin PC A1052. I take Parkes’s and Isabella’s activities in October from Isabella’s diary. The Bulletin poem, of unacknowledged authorship, is in issue of 3 November 1883. Isabella recorded the Jowett dinner on 8 December 1883. Woolner to Parkes, 5 October

1883, MP, thanks Parkes for the gifts and presses him to visit Tennyson, who is seventy-four and ‘has several new poems which he would read to you if you asked him’. Florence Nightingale’s letter, 8 October 1883, in MP, is endorsed ‘copied Oct. 10, 83, LC.M.’ 340. Lord Leigh’s letter, 10 October 1883, MP, is from Fontainbleau. Parkes had clearly given Woolner’s, Nightingale’s and Leigh’s letters to Isabella to impress her. He wrote to her about the Prince of Wales on 28 October 1883, MP. Isabella recorded his dinner to himself on 6 June 1884. [sabella’s diary records events at Hallam’s wedding, 25 June 1884; MP also includes an unidentified newspaper report. Lady Sophia’s friendship is evident from many diary entries and a number ofher letters in the papers. Parkes wrote

to Annie of his long walks with Tennyson, e.g. letter of 3 November 1883, PC A1044—walked six miles together in drizzling rain. Isabella’s diary for 11 April 1884 records the visit to Hughes. 341. Parkes described his London life to Clarinda on 12 January 1884, PC A1044. He wrote of loneliness to Annie on 3 November 1883, ibid. Isabella records on 7 November having ‘got letter from Sir Henry asking me to go to him in London’. She left the next day on 10.15 a.m. train, and recorded Parkes as being out of sorts on 10 November. Subsequent activities (driving, shopping, etc.) are from the diary. Parkes introduced her to Prince Edward of Wales on 5 December. Morphia and the nurse were needed on 12 December. They arrived in Edinburgh on 15th, and Parkes left for London on 17th. Isabella’s letters to Parkes of 31 December 1883, 5 January 1884 (wondering when he will come), 9 January (‘you never answer half my questions’), 22 January (‘be quick’) are in PC A934. 342. Parkes wrote to Isabella about the continental trip on 6 and 9 May 1884, MP. The letter of 9 May speaks of the use she will be to him. He wrote to Varney about collecting ‘saleable goods’ on 14 May 1884 and about his early difficulty in understanding things in England on 9th, PC A1052. Isabella’s diary records packing ivory on 23 June. Parkes wrote to Varney about going to Aberdeen on 14 May 1884, PC A1052. 343. PC A931 has a series of letters to John Blair from April 1884 onwards regarding the Company. Parkes estimates his own assets as being between £10000 and £20000. Parkes sent a copy of the prospectus to Isabella: postmarked 18 April 1884, it is in MP. Murray wrote to Parkes about the Company on | June 1884, PC A934. Parkes’s remarks to Varney about the negotiations are in his letter of 14 May 1884, ibid. Isabella’s most important references to the Latimer, Clark, Muirhead connection are on 18 and 19 June 1884. She and Parkes went to Woolwich, toured the maritime stores, and had electrical firing, powder and dynamite explained to them by an officer. Of various Samuel letters to Parkes about Jamberoo at this time the most important are 17 July, | and 28 August, PC A906, 258, 252, 88. Cooper had written of losses in coal adventures on 27 June 1882, PC A920, 110. Isabella’s diary records the departure on the Germanic and (13 July 1884) Parkes’s customs difficulties at New York. 344, These events are from the diary: Gould, 16-17 July; recording the length of the trip, 30 July; Lincoln School, 31 July; Parkes’s kindness, 2 August; arrival at Port Jackson and trip to Liverpool, 29 August; Varney’s visit, 30 August. Fifty Years, 415, also deals with the arrival home. 345. Annie’s letter of 4 February 1885 is in PC A933. Isabella’s diary records Varney’s proposal (20 September), the marriage (24 December) and Varney’s kindness (25 December 1884). I discuss the parliamentary struggle over the Stuart bill in ‘Pastoralists in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales’, loc. cit. 346. Parkes’s letter to his constituents was later quoted in a hostile motion in parliament, as

Notes (pages 346-55) 461 discussed below. The text isin NSWPD, XVII, 11-12. The creditor was J. Taylor and the letter quoted is 14 October 1884, PC A1050. 347. Neill wrote to upbraid Parkes, recalling the arrangement about Clarinda’s account, on 13 September 1884, PC A897, 389. His letter about depositing money from London was on 20 November 1883, PC A918, 481. Parkes’s letter to Varney of 14 June 1884, PC A1052, speaks of drawing on him at 90 days’ sight for £288 19s 3d, half the invoice value

of cases of goods shipped on the Ethiopia. The Bank of New Zealand held the promissory note. Neill’s anger is in his letter of 13 September 1884, cited above. Blair wrote as quoted on 29 November 1884, PC A919, 562-5. The principal letters to Parkes

about Investment Company affairs are from John Blair, 29 November, 11 and 18 December 1884, PC A919, 562, A875, 387, A917, 467, and from the secretaries, 6 August

1885, A925, 619. Parkes explained about the Parramatta house to Varney on 15 November 1884, PC A1052. He asked Varney to arrange for a W.C. to be installed, ‘looking to the probability of severe illness in the family’, and wrote to Varney on 11 February, ibid., about the furniture. 348. Menie wrote as quoted about buying Faulconbridge on 25 February and reported Varney’s words on 9 March 1885, PC A933, 433, 447-50. Varney had written to Parkes in England about Menie’s impracticality on 9 June 1884, PC A1052. The same letter speaks of a creditor threatening to foreclose on Faulconbridge. The City Bank’s threat isin M. Mayer to Parkes, 28 April 1885, PC A 1052. Varney wrote in sympathy on2 May, PC A934. Parkes asked Eales for £6000 on 29 June, offering to pay 7% interest, Dixson

Library, MS Q382, 47-9. Parkes informed Annie about the £10 credit for Clarinda on 19 August 1885, PC A1044. The principal letters to document the Latimer, Clark, Muirhead story are A. Duff Morison (managing director) to Parkes, 7 November 1884, 12 May 1885, both PC A955, and 3 July 1885, PC A1022, 103; Parkes to Morison, 9 and

20 July 1885 (the resignation), ibid.,-415, 131: company secretary to Parkes, 11 September 1885, PC A955, from which the quotation is taken. 349. In what follows my authority for the main events of the colony’s Soudan adventure is Mrs B. R. Penny's definitive article, “The Age of Empire. An Australian Episode’, HS, 11, 41, November 1963, 32-42. SMH published Parkes’s letters on 14, 19 and 20 February 1885. 350. Menie wrote, as quoted, on 9 March 1885, PC A933, 454, 624-5. The letters quoted from SMH were printed on 20 February 1885. Examples of private letters to Parkes in the same vein are: Benjamin Lee, 24 February, PC A924, 513 (congratulating Parkes on his opposition to the ‘stupendous folly’ of the contingent); L. F. de Salis, 24 February, PC A881, 290 (expressing fear that the adventure will necessitate an income tax); Alexander Campbell, | March PC A880, 58 (deploring the ‘military mania’ and bemoaning its likely effect on the colony’s finances). NSWPD, XVI, records the division (240-1) and speeches of Wisdom (54) and O’Connor (241). 351. On the ‘Little Boy’, see SMH, 7 March; Bulletin, 14 March 1885; Penny, op. cit., 37. Parkes’s own account of his part in the Soudan protest is in Fifty Years, 417-23. Davies announced at the nomination that he had asked Parkes to stand. I discuss their previous association in Argyle, in ‘Henry Parkes and Electoral Manipulation, 1872-1882’, loc. cit.

Robertson wrote on 16 March 1885, PC A902. The Argyle contest is reported in Goulburn Evening Penny Post, 19,21 (nomination) March, 2 April (declaration of poll). SMH, 2 May 1885, reported the lecture. 352. Menie’s remark on the contingent is a postscript to her letter to Parkes of 25 May, PC A933, 460. NSWPD, XVII, 11-12, records Stuart’s attack on Parkes, and see 15, 31, 50 for the other speeches quoted. Parkes’s reply is also in Fifty Years, 424. 353. Menie recorded her indignation on 10 September 1885, PC A1052. Parkes’s protest at the division is from NSWPD, XVII, 627. ADB, 4, 67, quotes the DT description of Dibbs. 354. SMH, 12 October 1885, printed Parkes’s statement to the electors. For the politics of this period generally, I draw on Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 129-34. Robertson’s cry is from NSWPD, XVIII, 372. Parkes recorded the meeting with him in a diary note of 19 December [1885], PC A941. E. W. O’Sullivan speaks of the picnic in ‘From Colony to Commonwealth: Half a Century’s Reminiscences’, ML, 175-6.

355. Parkes spoke of Robertson’s illness at St Leonards, SMH, 12 October 1885, and NSWPD, XVIII, 553 records Robertson’s ministerial statement. O’Sullivan’s remarks

462 Notes (pages 355-66) are from op. cit., 177, 179-80. Martin and Loveday, op. cit., 130-1, notes the events in parliament, including Robertson’s statement about being left high and dry. NSWPD, XIX, 1243, has Robertson speaking of being ‘divorced’ from Parkes. Other details about Robertson’s leaving politics are from N. B. Nairn’s entry in ADB. 356. Copeland’s comment on Parkes is from NSWPD, XVIII, 229. The general account of political events depends on Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 123-33. See also Bruce Mansfield, Australian Democrat, 50-93. 357. The most lively recollection of the parliamentary chaos over the tariff bill was Ninian Melville’s shortly afterwards at Wallsend: Parkes’s remark to Jennings comes from this, PC A941. For another account see Mansfield, op. cit., 75-7. 358. Parkes recorded ‘his remark to Carrington in a diary note of 18 January 1887, PC AS55, 29, and made the declaration of election issues in parliament, NSWPD, XXIV, 115. He remarked to G. A. Lloyd about Reid’s ‘growing friendliness’ and even offered him a place in the cabinet (Parkes to Lloyd, 19 January 1887, PC A55, 55). Reid, however, declined. SMH reported the St Leonards nomination on 3 February 1887. Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 141-2, has the election results. 360. My account of the new ministry’s course is from Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 142-4, where full documentation is to be found. Carrington’s remark is from a note of 31 March

1891, cited by N. I. Graham, The Role of the Governor of New South Wales under Responsible Government, 1861-1890, PhD, Macquarie University, 1976, 348. Dr Graham’s chapter on Carrington, a most insightful study, :s the more notable since the were not available when1888, he wrote. 361. Carrington Wise wrote papers to Parkes as quoted on 8 August PC A912, 310-13. The general points about McMillan are from my article, ‘William McMillan, A Merchant in Politics’, RAHS J&P, XL, iv, March 1955, 1-10. Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 143, cites McMillan’s criticism of the government. 362. Parkes kept a careful account of his steps in forming this government—letters and a diary covering the days in question, PC A55, 24-57. I draw on this source for the narrative and quotations which follow. 363. Parkes wrote, confidentially, to Carrington about his attitude to ministers on 7 April 1887. This letter is in the Papers of Charles Robert Wynn-Carrington, Ist Marquess of Lincolnshire, Ist Earl Carrington. The collection is in the possession of Brigadier A. W. A. Llewellen Palmer, whose courtesy in permitting me to consult it and to publish the letters and: diary notes which appear in this and the next chapter I gratefully acknowledge. I wish also to record my appreciation of Brigadier Llewellen Palmer’s hospitality at Great Somerford, where I worked through these papers in 1969. Many of them have subsequently been microfilmed for the Australian Joint Copying Project. In subsequent citations I use the abbreviation ‘CP’ to refer to the collection. Parkes to Clarke, 11 April 1887, PC A876, 121, explains the issue in contention; the letter subsequently circulated to all ministers was Parkes to Clarke, 2 May 1887, PC A931, 172-4. There are copies of the enclosure to this letter in PC A955. Parkes to Carrington, 7 April 1887, CP, requested communication with ministers only through Parkes and in aletter of 12 April, Parkes acknowledged a note (on 7th) and conversation with Carrington which settled the matter (PC A876, 18-20, a copy: original in CP). Parkes upbraided Clarke on 19 November 1887, PC A931, 175-7. He told Carrington of his ministerial troubles on 16 December 1887, PC A916, 72. 364. Varney wrote as quoted on 15 August 1887, PC A933. The letter from Parkes to Annie, 13 September 1887, PC A1044, was written from government house, Adelaide. He wrote to her about the bankruptcy, as quoted, on 12 October 1887, ibid. Details of the collapse are from SMH, 13 October 1887. Parkes explained his position to Varney on 15 July 1889, PC A1052. 365. Maria’s sympathy came in her letter of 15 October 1887, PC A934. The testimonial meetings are reported in SMH, 24 June 1887. SMH editorial is ibid. Dibbs to Parkes, 18 October 1887, PC A881, 169, gives notice that he will query Parkes’s right to hold his seat. Parkes replied on the same day, ibid., 171, and wrote to Deakin. I have the Deakin letter, from Deakin Papers, NL, by courtesy of Professor J. A. La Nauze. 366. SMH reported the nomination, 25 October 1887. The doctor (MacLaurin) wrote about Clarinda on 10 November 1887, PC A896, 386-7. Parkes’s report to Carrington is from CP, 26 December 1887. The letters about Clarinda’s death are to Maria, 2 February

Notes (pages 366-74) 463 1888, PC A1044; to Farnell, 6 February 1888, PC A1050; to Mary Windeyer, 4 March 1888. The last was originally in ML’s Windeyer Letters and Papers, uncat. MSS., set 186, item 5, but appears to have been misplaced in subsequent cataloguing of this collection

and I am unable to cite its present location; to Carrington, ND, CP. 367. Parkes to Carrington, 25 July 1888, CP, speaks of going to Faulconbridge, ‘to see to planting round Lady Parkes’ grave’. Maria wrote about Parramatta on 12 April 1888, A934, 199-200. The arrangement about Maria’s cottage is in G. Boyce Allen to Parkes, PC A919, 48-9. Parkes tells of Maria’s illness in a letter to Lady Carrington, 5 November 1888, CP. Critchett Walker sympathized on 29 September 1888, PC A914, 414. Parkes

wrote to Carrington about Faulconbridge on 17 October 1888, CP, and Carrington’s diary entry is for the previous day. 368. The diary entries are for 30 June (Loch’s antics) and 15 July (Parkes’s visit). Parkes remarked about honours on 27 June 1867, CP, and wrote as quoted to Annie on 19 January 1888, PC A1044. Parkes’s letters of 20 January [888 (thanking for congratulations) and 29 February 1888 (expressing unconcern at the tribute) are from CP. Knutsford to Carrington, 13 January 1888, CP, explains the Queen’s reluctance to give more honours. The Bulletin observed, 21 January 1888, that New South Wales was a nation built on triple foundations: cat, gallows and rum. 369. Stephen had already proposed to the legislative council that the colony’s name be changed, Stephen to Parkes, 29 November 1887. This letter and Robertson’s, of the same date, were both reprinted for parliament in correspondence relating to “The Colony of Australia’, NSWLA V&P, third session, 1887. Knutsford to Carrington, 2 December 1887, CP, hopes the matter will be dropped. Parkes withdrew in a letter of 19 January 1888, CP. He outlined his views on the centenary to Jennings on 7 August 1886, PC A916, 51-8. Dalley wrote on 7 August 1887, PC A921, 143-6. Dibbs’s and

Walker’s remarks are from the assembly debate on resolutions of Parkes’s on celebrating the centenary, NSWPD, XXVIII, 871, 876. 370. SMH described the banquet, 27 January 1888. Carrington’s note is from his diary, 26 January. SMH, 20 January, had a special note on the work of the committee appointed to distribute gifts to the poor, and on 27th reported the opening of Centennial Park. Carrington’s role in the development of Centennial Park was outlined by SMH in reporting the opening ceremony but see also N. I. Graham, op. cit., 506, and W. F. Morrison, Aldine Centennial History of New South Wales, |, 213-17. Parkes’s remarks on the State House are from his second reading speech on the centenary celebration bill, 30 June 1887, NSWPD, XXVII, 2451-2. SMA, 28 January 1888, reported his speech at the regatta luncheon. 371. SMH, 18 January, reported the governor’s preliminary visit to Centennial Park. The trades hall ceremony is from ibid., 30 January, and the comment on Carrington, 27 January. Ibid., 24 May 1887, reported Parkes’s dinner to surviving men of the first parliament. 372. Macleay wrote as quoted on 17 May 1887, PC A990. The “Trinity of Talkers’ is from Bruce Mansfield, op. cit., 91-6. PC A941 has a handwritten report ‘for Mr. Lloyd’ by the chief of the reporting staff of the Newcastle Daily News of one of Melville’s attacks on Parkes at Wallsend. The letter to Annie, 11 December 1887, is in PC A1044. 373. Parkes wrote to Carrington about despatching the troops on 19 September 1888, CP. The definitive treatment of Walker, Parkes and the closure of the theatres is W. W. Phillips, Christianity and its Defence in New South Wales, circa 1880-1890, PhD, ANU, 1969, 350-64. Martin and Loveday, op. cit., 143-4, quotes Parkes’s remarks on his weariness, and Parkes to Carrington, 20 July 1888, CP, is an example of a report of a thirty-hour sitting. Parkes to Carrington, 14 and 18 December 1888, CP, speaks of the minor defeat and cabinet’s decision to go on. Parkes wrote of the Melbourne trip on 29 December 1888, CP, and about his defeat, as quoted, on 10 January 1889, CP. Martin and Loveday, op. cit., 143-4, has a succinct account of the defeat and its aftermath. 374. Parkes reprimanded Carrington on 17 January 1889, CP. Carrington’s diary for 16 January speaks of the party’s desire for Brunker as leader (McMillan meantime ‘said he led the party’) and for 17 January notes that the ‘rebel party’ had consulted Mr Justice Mein of Queensland. McMillan wrote to Parkes about the leadership on 19 February 1889, PC A894, 184. SMH reported declaration of the St Leonards poll on 5 February 1889.

464 Notes (pages 375-86) 375. Parkes wrote to McMillan as quoted on 21 February 1889, PC A916, 154. For Parkes’s election to the leadership see P. Loveday, A. W. Martin and R.S. Parker, The Emergence of the Australian Party System, 180. His own explanation is from Fifty Years, 519. SMH noted on 7 March that Parkes would need to omit old colleagues from the ministry. The

‘Hop’ cartoons are in Bulletin, 6 April 1889. Carrington noted the ministry’s inexperience on 12 March 1889:

378. The Bulletin remarked on Parkes’s wedding on 16 February. I cite details of the marriage from its registration, made available to me by courtesy of the A DB. ‘Hop’s’ commentis in Bulletin, ibid. Varney wrote on 1] February, PC A900, 59, and Menie on 8th, PC A933, 479-81. 379, Parkés complained to Varney about Menie on 26 February, PC A1052. His explanation to Varney of his financial position (15 July 1889, ibid.) makes it clear that his assistance to Menie and the others continued. The most scurrilous Truth article appeared on 15 March 1891. Parkes to Carrington letters are all from CP: 14 May (refusing invitation), 24 May (suggesting a birthday present), 19 June (how to deal with invitation).

380. Gullett’s letter, 10 April 1891, is also in CP. Graham, op. cit., 352, quotes Lady Carrington’s letter. The original (PC A876) is undated: Graham dates it, correctly, I think, in the second half of 1889. SMH, 12 March 1889, reported the St Leonards meeting. 381. Platform of the Liberal Political Association, 6 March 1889, PC A893, 15-19, isreprinted

in Loveday and Martin, op. cit., 163-6. Loveday, Martin and Parker, op. cit., esp. 181, deals with the party reorganization. SMH, 19 March 1889, reported the ministerial re-election. 382. The letter to Carrington was on 13 July 1889, CP. O’Connor stated his position on 17 June 1889, PC A889, 61. Parkes wrote to Carrington on definition of his position on 23 July 1889, PC A916, 160. Annie made her request on 9 June [1889], PC A933, and Parkes replied on 15th, PC A1044. 383. In what follows on Parkes’s federation moves I use Carrington’s MS. diary, CP, together with Sir Henry Parkes’ Federation Scheme, Extract from Lord Carrington’s Diary, Government House, Sydney, 1889 (Printed, ML). Quotations not attributed to other sources are from these. Parkes commended federation in a letter to Windeyer, 29 May 1861, and Duffy first wrote to Windeyer on 10 June, PC A1050. T. Richards, op. cit.,

427-31, conveniently summarizes the proceedings of the 1867 conference. G. B. Stafford wrote, PC A68, 54, of the conference as a good omen. Parkes wrote to Verdon, as quoted, on 12 April 1867, PC A9I5, 75. 384. The standard reference for Victorian attitudes to federation in the 1880s is Geoffrey Serle, “The Victorian Government’s Campaign for Federation, 1883-1889", in A. W. Martin (ed.), Essays in Australian Federation, 1-56. For Parkes’s words to Gorman, see above p. 332. Parkes quoted Gillies’s words back to him on 19 November 1889 (printed Carrington diary, 15). On Parkes’s negotiations with Gillies see J. A. La Nauze, Alfred Deakin, a Biography, I, 116, and The Making of the Australian Constitution, 4. Gillies on the ‘smaller federation’, and the Victorian acting governor’s remark, are from letters in the printed Carrington diary, 3. PC A997 has much on the Brisbane visit, including cuttings from the Brisbane Courier of 22 October 1889, cited here. 385. The letter to Carrington, 25 October 1889, is cited in the printed Carrington diary, 3-4; similarly Carrington in Adelaide, 6-11. McIlwraith’s visit, and events subsequently narrated, are referred to in ibid., 11, 18, 22. Carrington’s diary also remarks on Parkes’s secrecy (‘He hasn’t told a soul in his Cabinet—Is that quite wise’). 386. Parkes’s letter to Smith, | November, is in the printed diary, 7. Carrington records the plot against Parkes in ibid., 11 (13 November). Barton to Parkes, 11 November, ibid., 10-11, shows Smith’s suspicions to have been well founded. Smith also thought that, as an ex-Victorian, he might himself have been able to help with the politicians there if only Parkes had seen fit to consult him (Smith to Parkes, 15 November 1889, PC A907, 172). Bulletin, 2 November 1889, speaks of McMillan’s speech at Paddington. Smith, McMillan and Brunker requested an interview on 20 November, PC A991, 41. Itis clear

from printed Carrington diary, 22, that they disagreed with Parkes’s treatment of Gillies. Carrington’s letter, 25 November, is from Mcllwraith letters, 1889, no. 2132, Oxley Library, Queensland. Parkes reprimanded O’Connor on 3 December 1889, PC A889, 165.

Notes (pages 388-97) 465 388. Parkes wrote to Carrington of his feat in composing the Gladstone message, | 1 October 1889, CP. Parkes to Gladstone, BM Add. MSS. 44508/77 conveys the message. The article by ‘A Lady Critic’ is in Centennial Magazine, 5 November 1888, I, no. 4, ‘Sir Henry Parkes and his Poetry’, 213-16. The review, without identification, is in J. J. Calvert, “Press Cuttings on Cricket, etc’, ML, Q797/c. G. B. Barton’s remarks are from Poets and Prose Writers of New South Wales, 93. 389. The stanza quoted is from “Life on the Mountains’. Parkes wrote to Tennyson as quoted on 11 December 1889. The letter is in the Tennyson papers (see note re p. 325, above). Parkes’s letter to Carrington, in CP, is dated 3 January 1890. Parkes wrote to Carrington on the eve of the conference, 5 February 1890, CP. Generally, for proceedings at the conference, I relyon La Nauze, Making of the Australian Constitution, 10-19. Playford’s and Lee Steere’s remarks are from Offical Record of the Proceedings and Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference, 1890, 67-71, 115. I thank Professor La Nauze for Parkes’s letter to Deakin, 17 February 1890, Deakin Papers, NL. 391. Deakin’s remark is from The Federal Story (1944 edition), 24. Carnarvon wrote as quoted to Carrington on 14 November 1889, CP. “The crimson thread of kinship’ is from Sir Henry Parkes, The Federal Government of Australasia. Speeches delivered on Various Occasions (November 1889 to May 1890), 75. Bruce Smith sent his congratulations on 14 February 1890, PC A918, 153. The portrait by Deakin is from The Federal Story, 24-5. 392. Parkes to Carrington, 9 February 1890, tells of illness in Melbourne and 28 February of the overhaul by Roberts, CP. Carrington notes Parkes’s departure in the Ormuz in his diary, on 22 March. Parkes to Carrington, 28 March, CP, speaks of the experience outside Port Phillip heads. Hopetoun wrote to Carrington of his pleasure in entertaining Parkes, 28 March 1890, PC A63, 221-2.S. J. Way spoke of pleasure in Parkes’s company when writing on 15 April 1890, PC A913, 308-9. Parkes to Carrington, | April 1890, from

Adelaide, CP, tells of good health and plans for the trip home. Carrington’s diary records Parkes’s return on 14 April. Parkes to Carrington, 15 April, CP, records the birth of the ‘fine big boy’. 393. Parkes announced his decision to go to the birthday dinner on 13 May. The account of the accident is from SMH, 19 May, and the remarks about Nellie are from a letter to Carrington of 20 May, CP. 394. Parkes wrote of his pain to his ‘children’ on 24 May 1890, PC A1044. ‘On the rack’ is from a letter to Carrington, 25 May, CP. My account of Parkes’s illness is drawn chiefly from this source. ‘Fearful work’ is from a note of 2 June. Sitting up followed the application of plaster by the Lady Superintendent of Sydney Hospital, Miss Mackie. He reflected on his thankfulness on 25 May and on his coolness on 2 June. He thought Carrington

might like to meet O’Connor on 16 June. In this letter he describes the doctor as ‘a Sydney native 32 years of age 6 feet 2 inches high of rather cold demeanour with a fine intelligence. I am satisfied that he has treated my case throughout from his personal knowledge of the facts gained from day to day and from his individual judgment and not from book or rule’. 395. Parkes reported being weak as a child when trying to stand on 23 July. He wrote of the

crutch-walking lesson on 31 July and of his patience being worn out on | August. Subsequent letters in August (especially those of 6th, 7th, 9th) report the discovery, after the plaster had been sawn off, ofa ‘mass of bloody-looking matter’ which had to be cut away, and which had resulted from pressure by the plaster. A serious flare-up occurred on 10 September. Parkes expressed sympathy for O’Connor on 13 September, CP, and ruminated about Tasmania on 3 July, CP. He wrote to Annie about his colleagues on 3 August, PC A1044. 396. Parkes complained to McMillan about O’Connor on 12 August, PC A916, 20. Parkes to Carrington, 25 August, CP, records the cabinet meeting. T.A. Coghlan, op. cit., I,

1594, quotes the strikers’ object. Parkes reports Fosbery’s visits and the strikers’ problems in letters to Carrington, 22 August, 3 September, CP. Parkes to Carrington, 11 September, CP, tells of his relapse. McMillan requested authority on 10 September, PC A894, 152; Parkes replied on 13th, PC A894, 148. 397. On the Circular Quay incident generally see my “William McMillan, a Merchant in Politics’, op. cit., and N. B. Nairn, ‘A Note on a Colonial Treasurer’s Resignation’, HS, 13, 49, October 1967, 94-6. S/H report of the riot (including Parkes’s statement) is on 20 September and Bulletin’s (‘The Battle of Circular Quay’) on 27th.

466 Notes (pages 398-407) 398. Parkes to Carrington, 16 September, CP, tells of a cabinet meeting in parliament house. Parkes refused to answer McMillan on 20 September; the note quoted is in Windeyer letters and papers, ML. He reported events and sent earlier letters to Carrington on the same day, CP. The resignation is in PC A894, 151, and Parkes’s reply in PC A932. Carrington’s diary for 21 September records McMillan’s angry visit. Parkes to Carrington and McMillan to Carrington, both 22 September, CP, tell of the negotiations which led to McMillan’s withdrawal and Parkes’s apology. McMillan thanked Carrington for his part in settling ‘this very unpleasant occurrence’. The ‘Hop’ cartoon showing a squashed McMillan is in Bulletin, 27 September. Among the debris on the floor is ‘le sabre de mon Pere [i.e. Parkes!]’. ‘Neutrality’ is in the same issue. Nairn, loc. cit., records the unionists’ cheers for Parkes and the admirer who wrote so extravagantly was Russell Jordan, 20 September, PC A890, 167.

400. The details of service, and disbandment, of the ‘specials’ is reported in SMH, 25 November 1890. Sir Alfred congratulated Parkes on 25 November, PC A905, 359. Parkes wrote to Carrington about Jersey on 24 July 1890, CP. Carrington’s diary records

Brennan’s remarks on 28 October, the visit of the Bulletin ‘manager’ on 24th and

. Sydney’s farewell on | November. |

401. The ADB entry on Carrington quotes his parting speech. Parkes’s farewell letter, 3 November 1890, and his comment on Jersey, 18 January and 22 March 1891, are in CP. The reference to Cholmondeley is from Violet Powell, Margaret, Countess of Jersey, a Biography, \13. 402. SMH reported the banquet on 3 March 1891. For the 1891 conference I depend on J. A. La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution, 20-96. Deakin remarked, as quoted, on Parkes to Charles Pearson, in a letter of 25 March 1891, cited by La Nauze, op. cit., 47-8. A typed copy of Gullett’s letter to Carrington, 10 April 1891, is bound in the volume ‘Experiences of a Colonial Governor’, CP. Parkes wrote to Griffith in appreciation of his work on 11 April, Dixson Library, MS. Q188, II (a reference I owe to Professor R. B. Joyce). 403. Deakin’s comment on Griffith is from The Federal Story, quoted by J. A. La Nauze, op. cit., 77. SMH, 10 April, reported Parkes’s speech on the last day of the convention. The cable to High Wycombe arrived on 13 April, CP. Carrington’s telegram (‘Warmest Congratulations’) isin PC A1024. What follows on the convention bill in the New South Wales parliament is chiefly based on: La Nauze, op. cit., 88-9; J. Quick and R. R. Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, 144-6; B. R. Wise, The Making of the Australian Commonwealth, 1889-1900, 140-50; Parkes, Fifty Years, 614-18. Parkes’s complaint and account of events is from Fifty Years, 617-18.

| 404. Wise, op. cit., 147-8, quotes Barton’s criticism. Parkes’s remark to Deakin is in a letter of 26 May 1892, Deakin Papers, NL, a reference I owe to Professor J. A. La Nauze.

Parkes reprimanded Bruce Smith on 19 February 1891, PC A63, 228, wrote to Carrington about weakness and timidity on 2 January, CP, and to Gorman on 30 June, PC A1050. 405. Parkes’s letter to Barton, 26 May 1891, is in PC A916, 220. N.B. Nairn, Civilising Capitalism, 57, notes Barton’s decision to contest East Sydney. The remark about the lack of dissent on federation is from Fifty Years, 619; SMH, 16, 19 June, reported the meetings at St Leonards and Albury. I take the election results from Loveday, Martin and Parker, op. cit., 118. 406. Jersey’s remark is from a letter to Parkes of | July 1891, PC A887, 374. The Parkes, Carruthers and Reid letters quoted (1 September, 17 September and 5 August 1891 respectively) are to Carrington, CP. Nairn, Civilising Capitalism, 73-5 has the best account of the government’s fall. 407. Parkes wrote on 6 March 1892, CP, about his conversation with Barton and referred to his release from ‘slavery’ in a letter to C. A. Law, 7 April 1892, PC A1050. He explained formally his inability to continue as leader to Bruce Smith, 17 November 1891, PC A916, 229. On 9 January 1892 Parkes noted in his diary how he had assumed that Brunker or Smith would be elected leader—‘I never dreamt of Mr. Reid’. Other quotes from the diary are on advertising (6 January) and ‘little Carruthers’ (7 January). See Loveday, Martin and Parker, op. cit., 190-1, for a discussion of the voting on Reid’s election. Sticking leaders up like ninepins is from Parkes to Wise, 26 December 1893,

Notes (pages 407-17) 467 PC A55, 213. Bruce Smith wrote as quoted on 26 October 1891, PC A907, 210, and Reid conveyed the party resolution to Parkes on 18 November 1891, PC A918, 148. 409. Parkes complained of colleagues’ neglect to A. J. Gould, who visited him on 27 July 1892 (diary). The diary is also the source for the McMillan encounter (8 February), the

reading of old letters (10 January) and Hay’s death (20 January). Parkes wrote bemusedly in June 1893 to Hercules Robinson about the men he had once worked with, PC A55, 168. The date of Maria’s death is recorded in the back of the 1892 diary and Mary Murray wrote on 4 October to Parkes about the death of her‘poor Aunt’, PC A933. The obituary, ND, is a newspaper clipping in PC A1045. The quoted diary entries are for 31 January (the tomorrows), 15 March (all things crooked), 31 March (last 16 days a blank), 18 May (continuing suffering with leg), 8 July (walking in town). 410. The points about the zoo are from Taronga Zoological Park and Aquarium, 1879-194], An Official Record of Sydney’s Zoological Gardens, Past and Present, 8. The diary records Parkes presiding at a weekly council meeting on 8 January and then seeing the young tigers and lions. The letter about Cobden’s birth is to Morton, 5 August 1892, ML MSS. 2183, Jackson Papers re Sir Henry Parkes. Parkes’s diary reflects about Cobden on 3 August and his marriage on 6th. Parkes explained the change of plans for the book to Longmans Green and Co. on 20 November 1892, PC A55, 91. The explanation to readers in Fifty Years is in the preface, v-vii. 411-12. The letter asking for a good Times reviewer is to C. T. Moberly Bell, 14 July 1892, PC A 1007, 117. He made the assertion of modesty to his diary on 30 June. The review is by W.P. Trent, in Political Science, June 1893, 353 (PC A941). Parkes wrote to Florence Nightingale, mentioning her appearance in the book, on 13 November 1892, PC ASS, 79-80. The quotations from Fifty Years are at pp. 568, 570, 623, 629, 634, 540. The ‘offensive satisfaction’ of Labour is from Fifty Years, 560. The diary note, 7 March 1892, complained of Labour irresponsibility reflected in absences from the house. 413. The admirer was James Martin and the letter, ‘strictly confidential’ and written at 5 a.m. on 19 February 1894, is in PC, A55, 239-42. Duff told Ripon, 22 July 1894, of the free trade victory, Ripon Papers, BM Add. MSS. 43560/39. Parkes’s letter to Carrington, 5 November 1893, is from the Menzies Hotel, Melbourne, CP. He had also written on 28 June that ‘I am better in health than I have been for some years. I have had a long period

of rest with regular sleep...’ The points about James Martin are from A. W. Martin and P. Wardle, Members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, 1856-1901, 147. Parkes to Wise, 2 August 1894, PC A55, 253, advises that poetry and history are better studies than economics. ‘Stupid mistake’ is from Martin to Parkes, 21 February 1894, PC A895, 203; ‘Barrabas’, Martin to Parkes, [3 November 1894, PC A925, 188. 414. Boyce wrote in Parkes’s defence to SMH under the pseudonym ‘Rock’, 27 July 1894; also letter to Parkes, 24 December 1894, PC A919, 362. Governor Duff’s comments were to Ripon, loc. cit. For the party meeting which endorsed Reid see A. W. Martin, Political Developments in New South Wales, 1894-6 (Political Developments, 1894-6), M.A., University of Sydney, 1952, 64-7; J. A. Ryan, B. R. Wise: An Oxford Liberal in the Free Trade Party of New South Wales, M.A., University of Sydney, 1966, 354-7; Loveday, Martin and Parker, op. cit., 204. Ryan, op. cit., 357, quotes McMillan. McMillan to Parkes, 16 July 1894, PC A925, 837, talks of having asked for an explanation on 12th inst., and expresses surprise at Parkes’s reply of 15th. McMillan thinks it best that ‘our correspondence should cease with this letter’. Parkes’s hysterical letter of 15th is in PC ASS, 251. Parkes wrote as quoted to Windeyer on 6 August 1894, ibid., 255-6. 415. Parkes told Carrington about his ‘big scheme’ on 13 September 1892, CP, and wrote to Deakin about his federation hopes on 26 May 1892, a reference in the Deakin Papers which I owe to Professor La Nauze. Parkes reflected about his duty in his diary on 4 July 1892. He wrote to Carrington on 6 March 1892 about the ‘yarn’ that he had handed over to Barton, and referred to Barton as ‘artful dodger’ in a letter to Wise, 27 June 1893, PC A55, 153. On the Parkes, Barton, McMillan correspondence see SMH, 23 June 1893; SMH published it, 27 June 1893. Parkes on the United Australians is from a letter to Ewing. 18 September 1894, Papers of P. H. Morton, ML A3029. Ryan, op. cit., 378-9, has a good discussion of the debate and vote on Parkes’s resolutions. 416. Parkes wrote as quoted to Forrest on 13 February 1895, PC A55, 271-3. 417. Ryan, op. cit., 403-15 and Martin, Political Developments, 1894-6, 149-55 have general

468 Notes (pages 417-24) discussions of the censure motion debate. Parkes’s explanation of his motives is from this debate, NSWPD, LXXVI, 6133-4 and the terms of the motion are in ibid., 6122. Copeland wrote to Parkes to arrange the meeting on 14 May 1895, PC A920. Parkes described the coalition to Dibbs on 18 May 1895, PC A55, 315, 317. Dibbs replied on 21 May, PC A921, 338. Ryan, op. cit., 403, quotes Bulletin and SMH. Parkes’s speech isin NSWPD, LXXVII, 6122-34. 418. Reid’s words are from ibid., 6134. Parkes to Jamison, 27 October 1893, PC A55, 203,

explains how the testimonial fund ‘is to the family under this roof of no value whatsoever’. Annie thanked Parkes for the £3 on 10 December 1893, PC A933. Parkes wrote as quoted to Windeyer on 18 October 1893, Windeyer Family Papers, ML MSS. 186/10, 483c-6. He asked Windeyer to become ‘custodian of certain papers and consent to act as Executor of my Will’. The Jamison letter is the one identified above. Way sent his £50 on 12 January 1894, PC A913, 350, and wrote again about Lady Parkes’s necessities on 11 May 1894, PC A930, 463. 419. Cormack wrote as quoted on 17 December 1895. PC A879, 174. Two letters from E. M. Hunt to Parkes deal with the Hampton Villa tenancy: 14 and 28 December 1892, PC A923, 607, and A888, 401-2. Hurley made his offer of Kenilworth on 1 November 1892, PC A888, 432. Parkes wrote to Carrington on 30 June 1895 about his wife’s impending death and on 7 October 1895 with melancholy reflections of his inner sufferings during her illness, CP. For the letter to Deakin (26 July 1895, Deakin Papers) I am indebted to Professor La Nauze. The Bulletin commented on the death on 20 July. Parkes thanked Windeyer for his and his wife’s sympathy on 26 July, Windeyer Family Papers, ML

MSS. 186/11, 87-8. |

420. Parkes made the speech referred to here in the Temperance Hall, on 20 July 1895. It was

published as a pamphlet and is preserved in a scrap-book, ‘King Division Election, Parkes v Reid’, Dixson Library. The handbill is from the same collection. For a brief summary of the politics of this period see Loveday, Martin and Parker, op. cit., 207-8. Dibbs’s speech at Tamworth, Reid’s at Burwood and Parkes’s at Balmain are reported in Daily Telegraph, 9, 23, 11 July 1895. 421. Parkes wrote to Carrington of ‘perfect privacy’ and a possible visit to England on 7 October 1895, CP. The story of Parkes marrying for love turns up in various places, e.g. Clemens Family Journal, University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville, Va. Mrs Clemens, a visitor to Sydney, met Parkes at lunch and recounted her story to “Sue darling’ in a letter of 3 November 1895. I am indebted to DrStephen Murray-Smith for this reference. 422. Parkes to Annie, 2 October 1895, PC A934, proposes the arrangements noted, to ‘avoid other distressing scenes like that of this morning’. Martin wrote to Parkes about the marriage on 1 October, PC A896, 333-6, and Boyce on 24 September and 14 October 1895, PC A919, 387-96, 397-9. One of the principal sources of disreputable stories about Parkes is A. G. Stephens’s diary, Fryer Library, University of Queensland. The yarns which Stephens records—well after Parkes’s death—come from one P. J. Holdsworth, a pensioned-off civil servant, who “goes to the Athenaeum Club and gets drunk every evg.’ (diary entry for 7 May 1896). Holdsworth had been appointed by Parkes to manage the department of forests when it was created but Dibbs dispensed with his services in 1893. Stephens describes him as ‘Abt. 5 ft. 6 ins, stoutish, soft, nervous, blood-shot eyes ... Looks unhealthy, no exercise, drinks too much’. Though his stories were amusing and have been solemnly accepted by some, I find Holdsworth hardly a pukka source. The affidavit, in a number of versions, is in PC A1052. 423. Charles Lyne, secretary to the Civil Service Board, was described by SMH, 28 April 1896, as ‘a close personal friend of Sir Henry Parkes for many years’, and at Parkes’s death had almost completed, with Parkes’s assistance and approval, a biography: Life of Sir Henry Parkes G.C.M.G., Australian Statesman. SMH, ibid., quotes Lyne on Parkes’s inability to see the people’s lack of faith in him. For the Waverley contest [rely on SMA, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 February 1896. 424, McMillan to Parkes. 17 December 1895, PC A894, 257-8b, deals with the possible grant

to Parkes, and Parkes’s reply, next day, is in ibid., 252-5. Lyne’s statement about Parkes’s death-bed meeting with Reid is from Life of Sir Henry Parkes, 560. The other details of Parkes’s illness, death and funeral are from SMH, 28 and 30 April 1896.

Bibliography

This bibliography is designed simply as a working tool to assist the reader’s comprehension of my text and notes: it would be virtually impossible, not to say pretentious, to try to set down a detailed enumeration of the material which over many years has gone towards the making of the book. Three lists are offered: a note of the principal manuscript collections which I have used, a chronological record of Parkes’s own more important published work and a finding list of books, articles and theses cited in the notes to the text. Readers will observe that there are sources mentioned elsewhere in this book which do not appear in the Bibliography. Newspapers and official printed materials, such as parliamentary papers and parliamentary debates are examples. Where relevant I name these precisely in the notes: fora study such as this they are the historian’s normal stock-in-trade and it does not seem illuminating merely to list them here. Likewise, single documents, sometimes manuscript, which do not form part of the larger collections listed below, are noteworthy simply for the point they make in the general story, and it seems sufficient to take precise cognizance of them once only, in the notes.

1. Manuscript Collections The Parkes Correspondence (PC), ML, is the central collection of papers in any mee of Parkes. For simplicity and convenience I have used the general term ‘Parkes Correspondence’ to encompass all the volumes so described formally

in the Library’s classification (A871-A1053), together with others clearly associated with them as having emanated from Parkes or his family, though sometimes titled differently. Examples are volumes called ‘Public Men of Australia’, “Autograph Letters to Sir Henry Parkes’, ‘Miscellaneous Correspondence and Papers, 1850-95’, or the box of ‘Parkes Family Letters, from the Estate of the Late Varney Parkes’. Jn toto almost 200 volumes are involved. I have in the notes precisely identified the volume concerned when acknowledging quotations, using the general prefix ‘PC’ to the appropriate library number. W. M. Arnold. Correspondence, 1839-95. ML MSS. 901. Robert Wynn-Carrington, Ist Marquess of Lincolnshire, Ist Earl Carrington. Papers (CP). In the possession of Brigadier A. W. A. Llewellen Palmer. Deakin Papers, NL. 469

470 Bibliography Letters to Henry Halloran, ML, Uncat. MSS., set 292. Letters to Henry Halloran, Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand, MS. papers 469. Harpur Correspondence, ML MSS. 947. Jackson Papers re Sir Henry Parkes, ML MSS. 2187. Jamison Papers. ML. Letters of W. S. Jevons, 1855-7. ML, BI610. Rev. J. D. Lang. Papers. ML, A2226, A2242. Letters to Charles Moore, c. 1867-80. ML, Uncat. MSS., set 372. Murray Papers (MP). Formerly in the possession of Mrs Jane Grey, now in ML, Uncat. MSS., set 2421. Nightingale Papers, British Museum. The volume Add. MSS. 47757 is com-

posed of letters to and from Sydney regarding Matron Osburn and the Nightingale sisters there. Windeyer Family Papers, ML MSS. 186.

Windeyer Letters. Miscellaneous correspondence, principally of W. C. Windeyer, in the possession of Sir Victor Windeyer.

2. Henry Parkes, Principal Publications 1842 Stolen Moments. Sydney. 1857 Murmurs of the Stream. Sydney. [857 Retirement of Mr Parkes from the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. Sydney.

1859 The Electoral Act, and How to Work It. Sydney. 1861 Freehold Homes ina Gold Country. Two Public Addresses on the Present Conditions and Natural Resources of the Colony of New South Wales,

Delivered at Derby and Birmingham, by Henry Parkes, Esq., Late Member of the Legislative Assembly for East Sydney. Birmingham. 1869 Australian Views of England: Eleven Letters Written in 1861 and 1862. London. 1870 Studies in Rhyme. Sydney. 1876 The Case of the Prisoner Gardiner. The Prerogative of Pardon. A Chapter of History (Prisoner Gardiner). Sydney and Melbourne. 1876 Speeches on Various Occasions Connected with the Public A ffairs of New South Wales, 1848-74, With introduction by David Blair. Melbourne. 1885 The Beauteous Terrorist and Other Poems. Melbourne. 1889 Fragmentary Thoughts. Sydney. 1890 The Federal Government of Australasia: Speeches Delivered on Various Occasions. November 1589-May 1890. Sydney. 1892 Fifty Years in the Making of Australian History (Fifty Years), London. 1895 Sonnets and Other Verse. London. 1896 An Emigrant’s Home Letters (EHL), with preface and notes by A. T. Parkes. Sydney.

3. Books, articles and theses Austin, A. G. Australian Education, 1788-1900. Melbourne, 1961. Barcan, A. A Short History of Education in New South Wales. Sydney, 1965.

Bibliography 47] Barff, H. E. A Short Historical Account of the University of Sydney. Sydney, 1902.

Barton, G. B. Poets and Prose Writers of New South Wales. Sydney, 1866. Bedford, Ruth. Think of Stephen. Sydney, 1954. Beer, S. H. Modern British Politics: A Study of Parties and Pressure Groups. London, 1965. Birch, A. and Macmillan, D. S. The Sydney Scene, 1788-1960. Melbourne, 1962.

Birt, N. N. Benedictine Pioneers in Australia. 2 vols. London, 1911. Blainey, G. The Rush That Never Ended: A History of Australian Mining. Melbourne, 1963. Bollen, J. D. Protestantism and Social Reformin New South Wales. Melbourne, 1972.

Borchardt, D. H. Checklist of Royal Commissions, Select Committees and Boards of Inquiry, IV, New South Wales, 1855-1960. Bundoora, 1975. Brewer, I. N. Topographical and Historical Description of the County of Warwick. London, 1820. Briggs, Asa. Chartist Studies. London, 1959. ———— ‘Thomas Attwood and the Economic Background of the Birmingham Political Union’, Cambridge Historical Journal, 1x, 2, 1948, 190-216. Butlin, S. J. Foundations of the Australian Monetary System. Melbourne, 1953.

Carrington, Charles Robert Wynn. Sir Henry Parkes’ Federation Scheme, Extract from Lord Carrington’s Diary, Government House, Sydney, 1889. Printed, ML, ND. Clark, C. M.H. A History of Australia, U1. Melbourne, 1973. Coghlan, T. A. Labour and Industry in Australia. From the First Settlement in 1788 to the Establishment of the Commonwealth in 1901.4 vols. Oxford, 1918.

Cunningham, P. Two Years in New South Wales, London, 1828. Davison, Graeme. The Rise and Fall of Marvellous Melbourne. Melbourne, 1978.

Deakin, Alfred. The Federal Story. Melbourne, 1944. Denison, Sir William. Varieties of Vice-Regal Life (Varieties). 2 vols. London, 1870.

Draper, S. The Conservative Epoch. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 1972. Driver, Arthur H. Carr’s Lane, 1748-1948. Northampton, 1948. Dyster, B. “The Fate of Colonial Conservatism on the Eve of The Gold Rush’, RAHS J&P, 54, December 1968, 329-55. Fogarty, Ronald. Catholic Education in Australia, 1806-1950. 2 vols. Melbourne, 1959.

Fowles, Joseph. Sydney in 1848. Facsimile reproduction, 1962, with introduction by Morton Herman. Gilchrist, Archibald. John Dunmore Lang, chiefly autobiographical, 17991878. Melbourne, 1951. Roneo. Gill, Conrad. History of Birmingham. I. Manor and Borough to 1865. Oxford, 1952.

Gill, Conrad and Robertson, Charles Grant. A Short History of Birmingham. Birmingham, 1938. Goddard, R. T. The Union Club, 1857-1957. Sydney, privately printed, 1957.

Graham, N. I. The Role of the Governor of New South Wales under Responsible Government, 1861-1890. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, 1972.

Grainger, E. Martin of Martin Place. Sydney, 1970.

472 Bibliography Haines, Gregory. Lay Catholics and the Education Question in Nineteenth Century New South Wales: the Shaping of a Decision. Sydney, 1976. Holyoake, G. J. Bygones Worth Remembering. London, 1905. Inglis, K. S. The Australian Colonists. An exploration of Social History, 1788-1870. Melbourne, 1974. Irving, T. Fhe Development of Liberal Politics in New South Wales, 1843-55. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 1967. Knight, Ruth. //iberal Liberal. Robert Lowe in New South Wales, 1842-1850. Melbourne, 1966. La Nauze, J. A. Alfred Deakin, A Biography. 2 vols. Melbourne, 1965. ———— The Making of the Australian Constitution. Melbourne, 1972. Langford, John Alfred. A Century of Birmingham Life, I]. Birmingham, 1871. Langley, Arthur S. Birmingham Baptists, Past and Present. London, 1939. Loveday, P. ‘Democracy’ in New South Wales in the 1850’s. BA hons thesis, University of Sydney, 1955.

—— The Development of Paruamentary Governmentin New South Wales, 1856-1870, PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 1962.

Loveday, P. and Martin, A. W. Parliament Factions and Parties: The First Thirty Years of Responsible Government in New South Wales, 1856-1889. Melbourne, 1966. Loveday, P., Martin, A. W., Parker, R.S. (eds) The Emergence of the Australian Party System. Sydney, 1978. Lyne, Charles E. Life of Sir Henry Parkes, G.C.M.G., Australian Statesman. Sydney, 1896. Lyons, Mark. Aspects of Sectarianism in New South Wales circa 1865 to 1880. PhD thesis, ANU, 1972. MacDonagh, O. O. A Pattern of Government Growth: the Passenger Acts and Their Enforcement. London, 1961. Madgwick, R. B. Immigration into Eastern Australia, 1788-1857. Sydney, 1937. Malony, J. An Architect of Freedom. Canberra, 1973. Mansfield, Bruce. Australian Democrat. Sydney, 1965. Martin, A. W. ‘Drink and Deviance in Sydney: Investigating Intemperance, 1854-5’, HS, 17, 68, April 1977, 342-60. ———— ‘Henry Parkes and Electoral Manipulation, 1872-1882’, HS, 8, 31, November 1958, 268-80. ———~— ‘A Note on the Attempted Assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh, Sydney, 1868’, La Trobe Historical Studies, I, 1, 1971, 23-42. ——— ‘Pastoralists in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, 18561901’, in A. Barnard (ed.), The Simple Fleece. Melbourne, 1962.

——— Political Developments in New South Wales, 1894-6. MA thesis, University of Sydney, 1952. ———— Political Groupings in New South Wales, 1872-89: a Study in the Working of Responsible Government. PhD thesis, ANU, 1955. —~——- ‘Sir Henry Parkes and Public Education in New South Wales’, in E. L. French (ed.), Melbourne Studies in Education, 1960-61. Melbourne, 1962.

———. ‘William McMillan: a Merchant in Politics’, RAHS J&P, XL, iv, March 1955, 1-28. Martin, A. W. and Wardle, P. Members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, 1856-1901. Canberra, 1959. Meredith, Mrs Charles. Notes and Sketches of New South Wales During a Residence in that Colony from 1839 to 1844. London, 1849.

Bibliography 473 Morey, G. C. The Parkes Robertson Coalition Government, 1878-1883. BA hons thesis, ANU, 1968. Morrison, W.F. Aldine Centennial History of New South Wales. 2 vols. Sydney, 1888.

Nairn, N. B. Civilising Capitalism: the Labor Movement in New South Wales, 1870-1900. Canberra, 1973. ——— ‘A Note on a Colonial Treasurer’s Resignation’, HS, 13, 49, October 1967, 94-6.

Normington-Rawling, J. Charles Harpur, an Australian. Sydney 1962. O’Brien, J. Catholics and Politics in New South Wales, MA thesis, University of Newcastle, 1972. -—_—— ‘Sectarianism in the New South Wales Elections of 1843 and 1856’, Journal of Religious History, 1x, 1, June 1976, 78-83.

O’Sullivan, E. W. From Colony to Commonwealth. Half a Century’s Reminiscences. Typescript, ML. O’Sullivan, J. S. The Bloodiest Bushrangers. A.delaide, 1973. Payton, M. William Augustine Duncan, 1811-85, a Biography of a Colonial Reformer. MA thesis, University of New South Wales, 1965. Pearl, C. Brilliant Dan Deniehy. Melbourne, 1972.

Penny, B. R. ‘The Age of Empire. An Australian Episode’, HS, II, 41, November 1963, 32-42.

Phillips, W. W. Christianity and its Defence in New South Wales, circa 1880-1890, PhD thesis, ANU, 1969.

Powell, A. W. Patrician Democrat: The Political Life of Charles Cowper, 1843-1870. Melbourne, 1977.

——— The Political Career of Charles Cowper, 1843-1870. PhD thesis, La Trobe University, 1974. Powell, Violet. Margaret, Countess of Jersey, a Biography. London, 1978. Price, Charles A. The Great White Walls are Built. Canberra, 1974. Quick, J. and Garran, R. R. The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. Sydney, 1901. Richards, Thomas. An Epitome of the Official History of New South Wales, From the Foundation of the Colony, in 1788, to the Close of the First Session of the Eleventh Parliament under Responsible Government, in 1883. Sydney, 1883.

Robinson, Sir Hercules. Speeches Delivered by His Excellency Sir Hercules G. R. Robinson. Sydney, 1879. Robson, L. L. The Convict Settlers of Australia: an Inquiry into the Origin and Character of the Convicts Transported to New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land, 1787-1552. Melbourne, 1970. Roe, M. Quest for Authority in Eastern Australia, 1835-1851. Melbourne, 1965. Rostow, W. British Economy in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford, 1948. Rutledge, Martha. ‘Edward Butler and the Chief Justiceship, 1873’, HS, 11,50, April 1968, 207-22.

Ryan, J. A. B. R. Wise: An Oxford Liberal in the Free Trade Party of New South Wales. MA thesis, University of Sydney, 1966. Searle, Allan E. Faulconbridge. Springwood, 1977.

Serle, Geoffrey. “The Victorian Government’s Campaign for Federation, 1883-1889", in A. W. Martin (ed.), Essays in Australian Federation, 1-56. Melbourne, 1969. Shaw, A.G. L. Convicts and the Colonies: a Study of Penal Transportation from

474 Bibliography Great Britain and Ireland to Australia and Other Parts of the British Empire. London, 1966. Sinclair, K. ‘Australian Inter-government Negotiations, 1865-80, Ocean Mails and Tariffs’, AJPH, XVI, 2, August 1970. Taronga Zoological Park and Aquarium. 1879-1941. An Official Record of Sydney’s Zoological Gardens, Past and Present. Sydney, 1941.

Tholfsen, Trygve R. “The Artisan and the Culture of Early Victorian Birmingham’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal, 14, 1953-4, 146-66.

Thomson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1968 (revised edition). Thompson, H. Back to Cabramatta and Canley Vale Week. Sydney, 1935. Turney, C. Pioneers of Australian Education. Sydney, 1969. Victoria History of the Counties of England, Warwickshire, V1. London, 1951. Wakefield, C. M. Life of Thomas Attwood. London, 1885. Waldersee, James. Catholic Society in New South Wales, 1788-1860. Sydney, 1974.

Ward, J. M. Earl Grey and the Australian Colonies, 1846-57. Melbourne, 1958. ——_— ‘The Foundation of the University of Sydney’, RAHS J&P, 37, 1951. Ward, J. T. Chartism. London, 1973. Wilson, D. A. Carlyle to Three Score-and-Ten. London, 1929. Wise, B. R. The Making of the Australian Commonwealth, 1889-1900. London, 1913.

Index

Aaron, Isaac, 48, 55, 57, 65 Blair, David, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 73, 80, 292-3

Abigail, Francis, 362 Blair, John, 347

Age (Melbourne), 259 Bland, William, 42, 49, 50, 52, 60 Albert, Prince Consort, 219 boarding-out system, 318

Allan, A., 185 Bogue, Adam, 60, 120

Allen, G. Boyce, 367 Bolton, Annie, 155 Allen, R. C., 364 Bolton, Robert Thorley, 441

Allen, W. B., 165 Bourke, Sir Richard, 35 anti-transportation question (including or- Bowen, Sir George, 233

ganizations), 55, 56, 57, 66, 72, 98, 101-2 Boyce, Francis Bertie, 378, 414, 422, 424

Argus (Melbourne), 145 Brennan, P. J., 400 Arnold,President WilliamChester Munnings, Arthur, Alan,228 322Briggs. Bright, Asa, John, 35 194

Aspinall, Butler Cole, 237 Brisbane Courier, 259, 384

Atlas, 43, 50, 68, 73, 89 Brougham, Lord, 195

Attwood, George de Bosco, 9, 10 Browning, Robert, 340 Attwood, Thomas. 7, 9, 10, 16 Brunker, James, Nixon, 203-4, 374, 375, 381,

Auckland, 232 382, 383, 386, 407 Australia, 321, 338 Bryce, James, 381

Australasian Chronicle, 34-5, 37-9 Buchanan, David, 253, 254, 273, 274, 284

Australian Club, 59, 129, 131, 146 Bulletin, 339, 350, 361, 368, 372, 378, 397, 400-1, Australian Colonies Government Act, 99-100 417, 419, 421, 423

Australian League, 61, 126 ‘bunch’, 136-9 passim, 144, 151, [53

Australian Views of England, 195 Burdekin, Marshall, 211-12 Burke, Edmund, 76

Badham, Charles, 297 Burns, John Fitzgerald, 355, 356, 362

Barr, Robert, 73 bushranging, 206, 210, 220

Barton, Edmund, 357, 386, 404-5, 407, 415 Butler, Edward, 137, 152, 163, 166, 208, 268-9,

Barton, G. B., 388 272-7 passim, 282, 310, 311, 351

Beer, Samuel, 202 Byrnes, James, 167,214, 236, 246, 254, 257, 260,

Belbridge, William, 75, 86 291 Bell, Frederick, 262, 266

Bell’s Life in Sydney, 59, 64 Cameron, Angus, 423

Belmore, Earl of, 223, 232, 233, 237, 245, 250, Campbell, Alexander, 132, 327

251, 278 Campbell, Robert, 56, 58, 64, 65, 101, 106, 112,

Belmore, Lady, 223, 233. 120, 122, 131, 135, 138, 140, 144, 147

Benedict, Harry, 241, 243 Canley, N.S.W., 1, 2, 296 Bennett, Hanley, 161, 165 Carlyle, Jane, 196 Berry, Alexander, 257 Carlyle, Thomas, 16, 196, 197, 209, 253, 268,

Berry, Graham, 315 293, 351 Betteridge, Thomas, 156, 162, 198 Carmichael, Henry, 145

Birmingham, 3-17 passim, 48, 57, 103 Carnarvon, Earl of, 281, 286, 293, 325, 370, 391 Birmingham Mechanics’ Institute, 10-12 Carrington, Lord, 354, 355, 357, 358, 360, 363,

Birmingham Polish Association, 9 366, 367, 368-71 passim, 373, 374, 378-80,

Birmingham Political Union, 7-9, 17,21,37,40, 382, 383-5, 386. 391, 394-5, 398, 400-1, 402,

48, 49 403, 407, 413, 415, 419, 421

Black, John, 163, 166 Carrington, Lady, 370, 380, 401 475

476 Index

Carr’s Lane, 12-14 188, 193, 208, 444; and the education ques-

Carruthers, Joseph Hector, 375, 381, 406, 407 tion, 227, 301, 311; and attempted assassin-

Casey, J. J., 292 ation of Duke of Edinburgh, 235, 241; and Cassin, D., 269-70 Parkes, 163, 184-5, 187, 254-5, 277, 371-2:

centennial celebrations, 1888, 368-71 and the Chinese, 317; in Stuart ministry, 336,

Centennial Park, 369-70, 424 346; and Soudan, 349-51; and centenary

Charter (London), 21-2 celebrations, 369; death, 409 Chartism, 14, 16-17, 53 Dalton, Thomas, 333, 354 Cheatle, George, 14, IS Dangar, Henry Cary, 59

Cheeke, Judge, 238 D’Arcy, Michael, 137

Chinese, 83, 153, 154, 182, 315, 360 Darvall, John Bayley, 110-11, 113-18 passim,

Chisholme, J. W., 257 125, 130, 161, 163, 202-4, 209, 210, 211 Cholmondeley, Henry, 401 Darley, Frederick Matthew, 276

328 Davies, 277 Chusan, 87 Davies,John, William, 351

Church of England defence association, 307, Darwin, Charles, 25, 26

City of Sydney, 344 Davis, Bancroft, 322

Clarke, William, 362, 363 de Salis, Leopold Fane, 282-3 Clarke gang (bushrangers), 219, 222 de Salis, W. Fane, 300

Clifton, 61 Deakin, Alfred, xi, 365, 388, 390, 391, 402, 403,

Cobden, Richard, 196. 351 404, 412, 415, 419 Cobden Club, 280 Deane, J. D., 167 Coffey, Dean, 108 Deniehy, Daniel, 74, 113, 125, 126, 135, 137, Combes, Edward, 285-8 passim 139, 141, 144, 146, 164, 409

Conservatives (N.S.W.), 100, 111, 139,169,201 Denison, Sir William, 63, 88, 128-9, 130, 132,

Constitutional Association, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 133-5, 139, 140, 170, 178, 179

60-1, 65 Dibbs, (Sir) George Richard, 336, 353, 354,

Conway (Father, Kiama), 226 355, 356, 357, 365, 369, 373-5 passim, 404,

Cooper, Sir Daniel, 72, 96, 132, 137, 142, 143. 405, 411-15 passim, 417, 420

145, 172, 319, 343 Dickson, James, 143, 148, 161, 167, 204

Cooper, Walter journalist), 261, 262,267,268, — Dillon, John, 309-10

271-2, 276, 299 Dillon, ‘Red’, 228, 229

215 Dixon. Fletcher, 364

Cooper, W. H. (Birmingham business agent), — Disraeli, Benjamin, 195, 274, 293, 301, 392

Copeland, Henry, 352-3, 356, 417 Docker, Joseph, 230

Cormack, Donald, 419 Donaldson, Stuart, 131, 132, 139, 141. 151, 202

Corney, David. 333 Douglas, R. K., 15, 16 Council of Education (1867-80), 225, 228, 229, Douglass, H. G., 91

251, 258, 306, 307, 308, 311 Dowling, J., 300-1

Courtney, L., 340 Drake, James, 5

Cowper, Charles: and franchise reform (1848), Duff, Governor Sir Robert, 413, 414 52; and anti-transportation question, 54, 55, Duffy, Charles Gavan, 137-8, 141, 144, 51, 56, 66, 102: and liberal movement, 101; and 155, 156, 182, 196, 262, 268, 269, 383 elections, 102, 105 (1851), 135, 136 (1856). Duncan, William Augustine, 34-40, 47, 48. 71, 165-6, 169 (1859); and N.S.W. Constitution 89, 227, 245-6, 310, 311, 409 Committee, 112,117,118: as liberal leader in Dwyer, Father, 240, 242 legislative council, 1854-56, 127, 135; and land question, 150, 153; and office, 140 Eagar. Geoffrey, 181, 206, 207, 211, 214, 218, (1856), 170-2, 179, 180 (1859-60). 202 (1863), JA4_-5 210-12 (1865-66), 257 (1869); and Darvall. — Eales, J., 348 202-3: and Denison, 129, 130; and Donald- Eckford, Joseph, 334 son, 131; Forster on, 1859, 164; and Parkes, — Edinburgh, Alfred, Duke of, 223, 232-5, 244, 128-35 passim, 142, 144, 146, 153-4, 162. 163, 250-1, 323, 326 165, 169, 182-4, 197, 211; as agent general, Edmonds, George, 7 259, 278; death, 409; mentioned, 64, 109, — education: Duncan on, 38; Empire on, 1853,

132, 201, 216, 217 88: Parkes’s beliefs, 89; 1844 committee on, Crimean War, 125 Cowpert’s Bill, 1859, 171; Public Schools Act, Cruttwell, Alfred, 300 1866, 223-30; Robertson’s Bill, 1876, 308; Cullen, Cardinal, 227 Public Instruction Act, 1880, 305-11

Creer, Joseph, 373 89: establishment of dual system, 49; Cunningham, Francis, 48 Edwards, Major-General Bevan, 384

elections, general: 1856, 135-9; 1858, 151-3; Dalley, William Bede: elected for Sydney, 1859, 165-6, 169; 1860, 178-80; 1864, 209-10; 1857, 141; ‘bunchman’ in 1858 election, IS], 1869, 252-3; 1872, 271-5; 1877, 301; 1880, 153; emigration lecturer, 182, 184-5, 187, 313-14; 1882, 332-4: 1885, 354, 356; 1887,

Index 477

1895, 420 392, 402

358-9: 1889, 374: 1891, 405-6: 1894, 413; Gillies, Duncan, 369, 383, 384, 385, 386, 39],

Elector, 50 Gipps, Sir George, 33, 38, 39, 42-3, 112. 129. 140

Electoral Act, and How to Work It, 162-3, 164 Gladstone, William Ewart, 44, 54. 210, 214, electoral legislation: 1851, 100, 110, 136; 1858, 254, 273, 292, 293, 301, 323, 326, 340, 351,

153, 154; 1880, 305; 1893, 421 363, 381, 388, 414

Empire, 70-97 passim; foundation, 71-3; Gleadall, Stephen, 163, 180, 185, 186, 207, 212 labour difficulties, 82, 84-6; financial gold, 77-82, 85, 87, 106 difficulties, 96, 142-5; collapses, 1858, 154; Goold, Stephen Stiles, 274 revived by Hanson and Bennett, 1859, 165 Gordon, General Charles, 349, 351

Eurasians, 83-4, 86, 128, 138, 434 Gordon, S. D., 161, 167

Eureka rising, 128, 129 Gorman, Henry, 319, 332, 384, 404

Ewing, Thomas Thomson, 405 Goulburn Evening Penny Post, 351 Gould, say: 344 faction politics, 169-70, 201-2, 213, 267, 278-9, Graham, N. I., 462

288, 442 Grahame, William, 253, 257

259 Gratton, Henry, 366

Fairfax, John, 75, 136, 138, 142, 177, 195,258, Grant, James Macpherson, 63, 65

Faithful, Emily, 195 Gray, Samuel, 172

Farnell, James Squire, 164, 275, 276, 278, Great Britain, 87, 184, 186

301-2, 305, 366, 409 Great Exhibition, 81

Faulconbridge, 296-7, 298, 312, 320, 321, 337, Greenwood, James, 306

344, 345, 347-8, 364, 365, 367 Grey, third Earl, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 99, 108 Federal Council, 231, 315, 383-4 Griffith, Sir Samuel, 385, 402-3 federation, 231, 381, 382. 383-5. 390-1. 401-7, Gullett, Henry, 380, 402 414, 415-18, 420

Fehon, W. M., 373 Haines, Gregory, 225, 447, 456 Fenianism, 235-8 passim, 240, 241, 243, 247 Hall, Bessie, 322. 338

Field, Justice Stephen Johnson, 322, 344 Hall, Edward Smith, 75

409, 410-12, 415 298, 322, 338

Fifty Years in the Making of Australian History, Hall, Hayeen Hezekia, 262, 265, 267, 269, 296, FitzRoy, Sir Charles Augustus, 43, 44, 55, 58-9, Halloran, Henry, 39, 40, 53, 74, 218, 243, 299

62, 65, 89, 117, 118, 122, 124, 125, 128-9 Hamilton, Edward, 116

Fitzgerald, John Daniel, 59 Hamilton, Dr (Kiama), 208 Fitzpatrick, Michael, 276, 305, 310, 311, 318, Hampden Club, 7

328 Hanson, William, 161, 165, 204

Flanagan, Father (Kiama), 208 Harbottle, —, 162, 185, 186, 200

Flood, Edward. 65, 71, 146, 167, 170, 219, 343 Hardy, Commissioner John Richard (Ophir

Forrest. Sir John, 416 . goldfields), 80

Forster, William, 150, 164, 169, 171, 177, 205, Hargraves, Edward, 85 260, 261, 271, 275, 278, 304, 328, 329, 409 Harpur, Charles, 36-7, 39-40, 51,53, 65, 74, 112,

Fosbery, Edmund Walcoit, 396, 397, 400 125, 132. 144, 178, 216, 409

Foster, William John, 333, 362, 363 Harpur, Joseph Jehosaphat, 39, 40, 73

Fowler. Alfred, 216 Harrison, Frederick, 293 Fowles, Joseph. 47, 48 Hart, A. B., 40

Fragmentary Thoughts, 388-90 Hart, Bret, 340

Frazer, John, 300 Hart. James, 229

356 Hawkes Smith, W., 11, 12

free selection. 148, 149, 150, 178-80, 301, 331, Hashemy, 55, 56-9

free trade, 206, 267, 280, 357, 358, 374, 381. Hawksley, E. J., 48, 51, 53, 64, 66, 71, 100, 103

407-8, 414 112, 121, 126, 128, 131, 135, 136

free trade association, 35&, 361 Hay, John, 140, 178, 289, 319, 409

Freeman’s Journal, 70, 104, 109, 137,152,226-7, Heales, Richard, 63

229, 230, 236 Hearne, W. E., 363

Froude, J. A., 325 Henry, Patrick, 107, 118 Herman, Morton, 95

Galatea, 232, 234, 250 Heydon, Jabez King, 47, 61, 103, 107

Gardiner, Frank, 284-91 Hill, George, 69

Garrett (Empire accountant, 1858), 166 Hill, Richard, 151, 270 Garrett, Thomas, 304, 327, 362. 363 Hipkiss, Richard, 48, 52, 53

Garvan, James Patrick, 355 Hiscox, Robert, 298

George, Henry, 382 Hobart Town Courier, 129 Germanic, 323, 343 Holden, G. K., 90, 117, 138

33 Holding, John, 6, 14

Gibbes. Colonel John George Nathaniel, 32, Holden, J. R., 64

478 Index Holloway Head, 16, 62, 107 242; and Australian League, 61-3, 126; and Holt, Thomas, 109, 110, 258, 266, 282 the Press, 70; and goldfields, 79, 106; and the

Holyoake, G. J., 10, 13, 14 franchise, 100; in gaol, 1851, 104-5; and Hopetoun, Earl of, 392 N.S.W. Constitution Committee, 118; and

Hopkins, Livingstone (‘Hop’), 350-1, 352, 378, Crimean War, 125; and election of 1856,

390, 398, 399 136; and Blair, 61,63; and Deniehy, 126; and

Hornblower, John, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18 James Macarthur, 66; and Parkes, 61-5, 98,

Hoskins, Sir Anthony, 341 101, 128, 154-6 passim, 163, 235, 242, 246, Houghton, Lord, 340 254, 267; and Robertson, 112; death, 409; Hughes, Thomas, 196, 293, 340 mentioned, 48, 66, 72, 230

Hurley, George, 419 Lang, Wilhelmina, 61

Hurley, John, 296 Langford, John, 4, 8

Lanigan, Bishop William, 229

Icely, Thomas, 104, 257 Larnach, Donald, 214-15, 293

Illidge, J. M., 120 Launceston Examiner, 35 Imperial Federation League, 383 Lecky, W. E. H., 340

Inglis, James, 362, 366 Lee Steere, Sir James, 390, 391

Innes, Captain (Sydney police), 56-7 Leigh, Chandos, 12

Innes, Joseph George Long, 276, 277, 278 Leigh family, Stoneleigh, 1-3, 32, 324, 340, 401 intercolonial conferences: 1867, 230-2, 383; Lethbridge, R.C., 177 1880-81, 315-16, 383; 1890, 390-1; 1891, Levien, Robert, 352

401-3 Liberal and Political Association, 381; see also

Irving, T. H., 431 free tradeLiberals, association 98-9, 110-19 passim, 120, 127, 133-5,

Jamberoo, N.S.W., 300, 337, 343, 364 139, 140, 141, 146, 165, 169, 201, 278-9

James, John Angell, 12-14 Liquor Traffic Act, 1881, 317, 334

James Baines, 87 Little Boy at Manly, 351, 421

Jamison, Sir John, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 151 Livingston, Mary Ann, 299 Jamison, Robert Thomas, I51, 152, 418 Lloyd, George Alfred, 47, 266, 267, 328, 362 Jennings, Sir Patrick, 334, 336, 355, 357, 358, | Local Option League, 317

360, 369, 372 Loch, Henry Brougham, Baron, 368

Jersey, Lady, 401-2 Loftus, Lord Augustus, 322, 326, 332, 334 Jersey, Lord, 400, 401, 402, 406 Lombard Street Baptist Chapel, 14, 15 Jevons, W.S., 134 London Working Men’s Association, 16, 17

John Elder, 326 Longmore, Alexander, 103-5, 137, 227

Jones, James, 277 Lovett, William, 16

Jones, Richard, 147, 172 Lowe, Robert, 42-5 passim, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54,

Jowett, Benjamin, 339 55, 56-7, 58, 60, 64, 89, 323

Loyal Orange Institution, 249 Kemp, Charles, 120-4 passim, 136, 164, 166 lunacy reform, 221, 222

Kiama Ghost, 244, 246-8 Lyne, Charles, 423, 424

Kidd, Dr (London), 326, 337 Lyons, Mark, 447-9 passim

Kimberley, Lord, 293, 324, 325

King, George, 253 McArthur, A., 198 Knutsford, Lord, 368, 369, 383 Macarthur, James, 37, 52, 66, 119 Macarthur, John, 140

Labour Party, 406, 411, 412. 416 McCurtayne, William, 48, 120, 135, 136

Lafayette, Marquis de, [0 MacDonald, Sir John, 411 Lamartine, Alphonse Marie Louis de,51,52,53 McEachern, James, 128 Lamb, John, 49, 56-9 passim, 66, 101, 103,105, McElhone, John, 365, 366

106, 108, 109 McEncroe, Edward, 48, 63, 64, 103, 137

land issue: 38, 42-3, 148-9, 178-80, 328-9, 301, © McEncroe, Archdeacon John, 48, 70, 103, 107,

331: see also free selection 108, 113, 114, 117, 152, 208, 240

Land League (1857-59), 150, 151, 153, 166 McGibbon, John, 107 land legislation: 1846, 43; 1857 (attempted), Mcllwraith, Sir Thomas, 385, 386 148, 150; 1860-61, 171, 177, 178-80, 201,280; McIntyre (squatter), 59

1871 (projected), 269; 1878 (attempted), Mackay, Angus, 48, 52-4 passim, 68-9, 71, 74, 301; 1880, 305; 1882 (Robertson’s attempt- 78, 79, 259, 261

ed), 330-3; 1883, 345-6 McKelly, John, 73, 84 Lang, Gideon Scott, 72-3 Mackinnon, Lauchlan, 75

Lang, John Dunmore: and legislative council, Macleay, W. S., 83, 229, 240, 241, 242, 246-9 1843-55, 42, 63-5, 67, 102-5, 104-5, 106-7, passim, 253, 256, 263, 372 130; and Irish Catholics, 35, 64, 103-5, 235, McLerie, John, 242, 243, 247

Index 479 McMillan, William, 361, 362, 374, 375, 381, Neill, William, 346-7 382, 383, 386, 390, 396-400, 406-9, 414, 415, New South Wales Constitution Committee,

423 112-19 passim, 121

McNab, Francis, 166, 168 New South Wales Political Association, 100

McPhail, —, 55 Newhall Hill, 8, 9, 12, 15

mail services, 230-2, 262, 322 Nichols, George, 108 Maitland Mercury, 109, 148, 162 Nicholson, Sir Charles, 94, 125 ‘Manchester martyrs’, 236 Nightingale, Florence, 222-3, 339-40, 411 Manning, Frederick Norton, 222 Norton, James, 101, 121, 160, 268

34] O’Connell, Daniel, 8, 383

Manning, Sir William, 137, 140, 276, 289, 290,

Mansfield, Ralph, 64 O’Connor, Daniel, 318, 350, 382 maritime strike, 1890, 396-400 O’Connor, Joseph Graham, 270, 386, 396, 401 Marks, John, 214 O’Connor, Maurice, 393, 394, 395, 424

Marshall, John, 18-19 O’Farrell, Charles James, 235-9, 240-4, 246, Martin, (Sir) James: and franchise reform, 247, 248, 372, 396

1848, 52; and N.S.W. Constitutional Com- Ogg, William; 323, 326 mittee, 155; and legislative council of 1855, | Ogilvie, Alexander, 350 133; elected for Sydney, 1859, 166; ministry Oliver, Alexander, 94

of, 1863, 202, 205, 206, 209; formation of | Orange Lodge, 274 ministry with Parkes, 1866, 212-14; in office, © Ormuz, 392

1866-68, 218, 222, 228, 237, 238, 240, 244. Osborne, John, 351 246, 247; and O’Farrell case, 237-40, 247; | Osburn, Lucy, 223, 235, 299 East Sydney contest, 1869, 253; coalition O’Shanassy, John, 107, 108 with Robertson, 1870, 260, 267; and border O’Sullivan, Edward William, 354, 355, 357,

duties, 1871, 270-1; and election of 1872, 372, 412

274-8 passim; chief justice, 278, 284, 286, O'Sullivan, Richard, 227, 236, 242

287; at Wentworth’s funeral, 279; and Gardiner case, 286, 287, 291; at Numantia, 296; — Pakington, Sir John, 111, 194

and Cowper, 147; and Hercules Robinson, Palmer, Charles, 364 286, 287; and Parkes, 116, 209, 212-14, 218, Palmer, Lady Sophia, 340, 341, 342 220, 221, 245-6, 247, 284, 296-7; death, 409 Palmerston, Lord, 305

Martin, James, 413, 422 Parker, Henry Watson, 140, 146, 147, 202 Maunsell, George, 257, 292 319-27 passim, 337, 341, 344, 345, 348, 364,

Maukin, 69 Parkes, Annie, 124, 264, 267, 298, 306, 312,

Maurice, F. D., 196 366, 367, 372, 373, 378, 382-3, 395, 418, 423, Melville, Ninian, 372, 373 424 Michie, Archibald, 56, 101 Parkes, Bessie, 195

Midas, 104 Parkes, Clarinda (née Varney): marriage, 14-

Milford, Henry, 207 15: in London, 1838-39, 17-18, 22-3; in Mill, John Stuart, 209 Sydney, to 1861, 28, 31, 32-3, 46, 69,71, 124, Miller, Robert, 257 145, 157, 158. 162; and Parkes’s visit to

Montefiore, J. L., 130, 143, 144, 163, 200, 207, England, 1861-63, 186, 189-92, 197, 198, 444:

246, 266, 267, 276 1864-68, 213, 231,232, 233, 255, 262-3, 263-4,

Moore, Charles, 235, 299, 319 265, 281, 282; at Faulconbridge, 296, 298, Morehead, Boyd Dunlop, 385 319, 321, 323, 326, 344; illness and death,

Morey, G. C., 459 366-7, 423 Morison, A. Duff, 348 Parkes, Clarinda Sarah (Menie): birth, 24; in

Morpeth, 234 1847, 46; adolescence, 157-60; and Parkes’s

Morris, Augustus, 336 visit to England, 1861-63, 186, 189-92, 197,

Mort, Thomas Sutcliffe, 66, 72, 101, 108, 113. 200-1; marriage, 251, 294-8: on political

122, 145 matters, 203, 213,216,256, 262, 285, 350, 352,

Munro, James, 402, 403 353; and Parkes’s plans fora Yearbook, 265: Muntz, (Birmingham), 16 prose style, 320; and Faulconbridge, 347-8;

Murray, George, 337, 339, 343, 344, 345 and Parkes’s papers and speeches, 291, Murray, Georgina (‘Totty’), 337, 339, 342 292-3; and Parkes’s knighthood, 293-4; Murray, Isabella, 337, 338-45 passim, 422, 423 personal life, 1876-78, 294-6; and brother

Murray, Bishop James, 226 Robert’s death, 299; and Parkes’s financial 337, 338, 339, 340, 344 riage, 378-9; mentioned, 337, 411, 423, 424

Murray, Mary (first wife of Varney Parkes), assistance, 364; and Parkes’s second marMurray, Terence Aubrey, 164, 169, 170, 246 Parkes, Cobden, 410, 419

Parkes, Eleanor (née Dixon), 321, 337. 378-80,

Neild, John Cash, 362 392-3, 409, 410, 419-20, 422, 423, 457-8

480 Index

Parkes, Gertie, 189, 298 210; East Sydney, 1869, 253-4; Kiama, 1870,

Parkes, George, 30 259; Mudgee, 1872, 269-70; East Sydney, Parkes, (Sir) Henry 1872, 274; Canterbury, 1877, 313; East general: birth, 1; boyhood, 3-4; youth in Sydney, 1880, 313-14; Tenterfield, 1882, Birmingham, 4-14; marriage to Clarinda 332-3; Argyle, 1885, 351; St Leonards, 354 Varney, 1836, 14-15;in London, 1838, 17-18: (1885), 358, 366 (1887), 374-5, 381 (1889), emigration, 19-24; early life in N.S.W., 28-32: 405 (1891); Sydney, King Division, 1895

friendship with Duncan and Harpur, 34-40; (defeated), 419-20; Waverley, 1896

45: Stolen Moments, 33-4; introduction to (defeated), 423 politics, 40-5; and Lowe committee, 47-51, businesses: Birmingham and London, 17 and Constitutional Association, o 1-4, and 20, 21; Hunter Street toyshop and turnery, Hashemy agitation, 56-8; and election of 32. 46. 67; Geelong 68.9: Empire, 73, 6

ovement. 66 107: Empire ADs 4-97 16, 258-9; agent of H. H. Hall, 262-5; AusMOVEMENTS O00 Bt BINPIE. > tralian Investment Co., 343, 347, 363; ageni

‘ . . ' ae « . tr ’ ° ’ mine, ’ ’ ’

passim, and republicanism, 62-4, 101; and rLatimer, Clark, Muirhead & Co., 343, 347 N.S.W. Constitution Committee, 112-19 348 351. 364: Jamberoo mine. 300. 337, 343.

passim; and Crimean War, 125; in 1856 364

election, 135-9; fails to form ministry with Murray, 1859, 170; emigration lectureship, others’ judgements of: Blair, 1850, 63, 67;

1861-63, 182-5, 187-99; coalition govern- Gideon Scott Lang, 1850, 72-3; Maitland ment with Martin, 213-14, 218-46 passim; Mercury, 1852, 109; Hawksley, 1854, 121;

Public Schools Act, 1866, 223-30; and Deniehy, 1854, 126; Lang and Hawksley,

O’Farrell affair, 235-9, 240-4, 246-8; and 1854, 128; SMH, 149-50 (1857), 314 (1858), Duncan affair, 244-6; and intercolonial 183 (1861), 203-4 (1863), 208-9 (1864), 423 conference, 1867, 230-2; and Council of (1896); Windeyer, 163 (1859), 174 (1860); Education, 228-9, 258; and Martin-Robert- Empire, 165, 171-2 (1859), 183 (1861); Dalson coalition, 1870, 260-1; employment by ley, 254 (1869), 372 (1888); St Julian, 1869, H. H. Hall, 262-5: in 1872 election, 271-4; 254; Belmore, 1869, 250; Forster, 260 (1870), ministry of, 1872-74, 275-9, 279-88; and tariff 329 (1882); Reid, 329 (1882), 418, 424 reform, 1872, 280; Butler and the chief jus- (1895-96); Loftus, 1882, 334-5; Deakin,

ticeship, 282-4; and the Gardiner case, 391-2: Bruce Smith, 407

284-91: K.C.M.G., 293-4: formation of canal fine . ;

Parkes-Robertson coalition, 1879, 302: Hee st oy 35¢-5 363 368 399-301

Public Instruction Act, 1880, 306-11; and 319. 337. 346-7. 348. 364. 418-19. 424 intercolonial conference, 1880-81, 315-16; ,

major legislation, 1881, 315; defeat, 1882, and political leadership: 100, 147, 362, 363, 330-2; visits England, 321-7 (1882), 337-45 374-5, 382, 386, 404-5, 407-8, 412-13, 414

(1883); and Soudan expedition, 1885, 349- as political organizer: 47-54, 56-8, 63-5, 51; tariff filibuster, 1886, 356-7; and free 111-12, 117, 118-19, 121, 131, 212, 267-77,

trade victory, 1887, 358-9; and Clarinda’s 280 ,

sere F080 304 e HOO-L wl ee and Roman Catholics: 103-6, 110, 169, 208, 368-9: and centennial celebrations, 1888, 227-30, 248-9, 253, 267-9, 273-7, 284, 309-1], 368-71; dinner to surviving members of first 313-14, 317, 333-4 legislative assembly, 371-2; defeat and re- residences: Hunter Street, 46; Helene, Ryde, signation, 1889, 373-4; re-elected to free 152, 440-1; Ryde cottage, 156; Werrington,

trade leadership, 1889, 375; marriage to 177-8; Lansdowne, 263-4, 296; Canley Eleanor Dixon, 378-80; and federation, Grange, 296: Milton House, 296; Faulcon-

SPEC RE eh ranimngy —[Skapporine hay aa ae 382-6, 390-1, 401-7; accident, 1890, 392-5; bridge, 296-7, 312, 348; Parramatta, 347; and maritime strike, 396-400; resignation Hampton Villa, Balmain, 367; Kenilworth, from party leadership. 1891, 407; Fifty Years Annandale, 419, 424 in the Making of Australian History. 410-12; self-evaluations: 96-7, 173-4, 185, 196-7,232.

projected federal party, 405; death of

Eleanor, 419; contest with Reid in King 250, 261, 291-2, 293-4, 316, 323, 326, 333, 354, Division, 1895, 420: marriage toJuliaLynch, 399, 409-12 421-2: last electoral defeat, 423; death, 424 verse: 3, 33-4, 335, 388-90 elections: Sydney, 1852 (defeated), 108-10; Parkes, Henry (junior), 392 oyaney. 1854,North 120-4;Riding, Sydney, 1856, 135-9; —Parkes, Parkes,Lily, Julia196, (née296, Lynch), umberland 1857 (defeated), 298,422, 319,423, 321,424 337, 344, 149-50: Cumberland North Riding, 1859, 345, 367, 373, 378, 394, 418, 422 165-6; East Sydney, 1860, 179; East Mait- Parkes, Maria, 67, 189, 198, 205, 214-16, 219, land, 1863 (defeated), 203-5; Braidwood, 232, 237. 243, 258, 262, 265, 269, 298, 299, 1864 (defeated), 206-7; Kiama, 1864, 208, 344, 365, 367, 379, 409, 423

Index 48 | Parkes, Martha (mother of Henry). 1, 3, 5 Roberts, Sir Alfred. 392 Parkes, Mary Edith, 46, 158, 263, 264, 297, 298, Roberts, Charles James, 362

319, 321, 337, 338, 345 Robertson, (Sir) John: background, 112; and

Parkes Robert Sydney, 33, 37, 46, 186, 189-90, N.S.W. Constitution Committee, 112, 118;

201, 255, 298-9 on Donaldson ministry, 1856, 140; and

Parkes, Sarah, 3, 4. 5, 10, 19, 21, 22, 23, 30, 32, Cowper, 1857, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151; joins 33. 46, 67. 109, 124, 145, 163, 176, 178, 187-9 Cowper, 1858, 153, 169; and Parkes, 1858Parkes, Thomas (father of Henry), 1,2, 3,5, 15, 59, 162, 163; forms ministry, 1860, 172; and

20 report on condition of working classes, 176;

Parkes, Thomas (nephew of Henry), 67, 201 Land Bills, 178-9, 331-2, 334; and Parkes’s Parkes, Varney, 157, 189, 291, 296, 298, 337, appointment to emigration lectureship, 185; 338, 339, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347, 348, 364, and Parkes’s candidature for East Maitland,

378-9, 418 1863, 204; and inspectorship of prisons, 221; Parkin, George, 383 and Parkes-Martin ministry, 229-30; in Pastoral Association, 1844, 43 office, 1868-69, 246, 252: and education, 254, Paterson, 234 307-8; coalition with Martin, 1870, 260, 267; Peek, Richard, 48, 57, 58, 65, 110 in 1872 election, 272, 274; as liberal survivor,

Peel. Sir Robert, 219. 361 1870s, 278, 301; and Butler affair, 284; and Pell, Professor Morris, 92 Gardiner case, 284-91: coalition with Parkes, Pennington, W. G., 74, 108 1879-82, 304-35 passim: attacked by Reid, People’s Advocate and New South Wales Vin- 1882, 329; and Stuart Land Bill, 345; and dicator, 51-3, 66, 69, 70, 104 Parkes, 1885, 351, 354-5; end of political Piddington, William Richman. 48, 66, 108, 112, career, 355-6; and renaming of N.S.W., 120, 146, 170, 197, 248, 273, 275, 276, 278 368-9; at dinner of survivors of 1856 legis-

Plater, Count Ladislas de, 10 lative assembly, 1887, 371-2

Playford, Thomas, 390, 391 Robinson, Sir Hercules, 278, 280, 283. 285-90, Plunkett, John Hubert, 135-9 passim, 142, 177, 293, 295, 301-2, 312, 326, 341

212, 227, 310 Robinson, Lady, 281

Polding, Archbishop John Bede, 35, 79, 225-9 | Rodd, James, 65, 207

passim, 237, 240, 242, 251, 254, 309 Rofe, James, 82 Political Association, 100, 102, 104, 106 Rosebury, Lord, 349

Portus, J. A.. 108, 143, 148, 203 Rotton, Henry, 182

Potter, T. B., 293 Rutledge, Martha, 453 Press, 70, 101 Rye. Marie, 195 prison reform, 221 rotection, 175-6, 206, 356-8, 372, 465, 417 ,

997 Salt, Thomas Clutton, 9, [5 .

Protestant Political Association, 249, 253, 256, St Julian, Charles, 245

Public Schools League, 306 ce tyae tas 2 | 1, 251, 275, 276, 278, 300, 323, Purefoy, Commissioner, 166-9 passim Scholey, Stephen, 272

a Seaver, Jonathan, 395

Quaife, Barzillat, 73 sectarianism, 103-5, 137, 207. 227-30, 235-43 Quick, Sir John, 416 passim, 248-50, 253-4, 269, 270, 274-8, 282, Quinn, Bishop Matthew, 221, 226,229, 273,274 284, 309-10, 313-14, 333-4

Select Committee on the Condition of the radicalism, 76, 99, 100-1, 102: see also N.S.W. Working Classes of the Metropolis, 1859-60,

Constitutional Association, N.S.W. Consti- 172, 174-6

tution Committee Shamrock, 68

Randolph, 59 Sheehy, S. J. A., 226, 228, 229 Ranken, George, 336 Shepherd, Isaac, 163

Raphael (merchant), 207 Smart, Thomas Ware, 71, 94, 205, 210, 211 Reid, George Houstoun: first elected, 314, 328. Smith, Bruce, 375, 386, 391, 404, 407 333: in Stuart ministry, 336; supports Parkes = Smith, Professor John, 92, 93, 228, 251, 257 on free trade, 1886-87, 358; offered portfolio Smith, Thomas Whistler, 149, ISI, 152

by Parkes, 1887, 362; and George Parkin, Sobraon, 233 383; and federation issue, 403-4, 406. 416: Spray of the Ocean, 198, 200 elected free trade leader, 407; ministry of steamships. 179 1894, 412-14 passim, 417; defeats censure Steele, John, 216 move by Parkes, 1895, 418; King Division Stephen, Sir Alfred, 104, 168.234, 278, 283, 285,

election, 420; and election of 1895, 420-1: 297, 368, 400

and Parkes’s death, 424 Stewart, John, 235

Renwick, Arthur, 314, 333 Stolen Moments, 33-4

Representative, 64 Stoneleigh, 1-4, 188

Rhodes, ~-, 185 Strathfieldsaye, 23, 25,27, 28, 441

482 Index -

2:

Strong, W. E., 40 Weekly Register, 38 -

Stuart, Alexander, 307, 328, 329, 331-2, 333, © Wentworth, William Charles: description, 41; _ 335, 336, 345-6, 352-3, 355, 358, 360, 409 and transportation, 44, 54, 66; and election Sussex Street Ragged and Industrial School, of 1851, 102, 103, 105; and constitution of a

184 1853, 110-12, 114-19, 180-1; and Lowe, 42,

Sutherland, Benjamin, 48 44, 49; and Parkes, 53, 59, 100, 114-15, 123;

Sutherland, John, 276, 278, 300, 362, 409 and J. R. Holden, 64; leaves for England, Suttor, Francis Bathurst, 333 1853, 119; funeral, 279; mentioned, 37, 112, _

Sydney School of West, Arts, 90,John, 93 140, 409: SydneyMechanics’ University, 91-3 136

Sydney University Magazine, 94-5 Whereat, Edward Reeves, 333 7 White, James, 300

Tarban Creek Asylum, 292 wes. William, 224, 225, 228, 229, 233, 251,

Taylor, Adolphus George, 354 Williamson. Samuel. 84 : Tennyson, Alfred, 95, 323, 337,17, 339, 340, Wilshire James 47. 49, 56, 60, 63-7 passim | 351, 390 » 324-5, FT, 00, OV, OI” . all. 108,120, 131, 136, 138, 139, 143, 151,.153

ron se Roe aD 340 Wilson, Edward, 75, 108, 145-6 :

Theti: 999 oct Wilson, John Bowie, 260 |

Thom, William, 251, 295, 297 TR dO Ad ee Thomson, Edward Deas, 80, 119, 139, 140, 147, Windeyer Richard 40 | That. Wiliam 109. 110. 117. 120. 13] Windeyer, William Charles: background,

Torpy James 333 , education and marriage, 94-5; and Empire, Tratll William Henrv. 339 95, 143, 155, 167; friendship with Parkes,

OL em 8 West Sydney election, 1866, 212, 216-17; and Truth. 379 . , burgh, 235; disillusionment with Parkes,

Treason Felony Bill, 1867, 237. 243 attempted assassination of Duke of Edin-

, |1868, 246, 255-6; in West Sydney election, 1869, 256; in Robertson ministry, 1870, 260;

Varney, Robert, 14 and Martin ministry, 1871-72, 271; in 1872 Vaughan, John, 277, 424 election, 244, 273: in Parkes-Robertson

Vaughan, Archbishop Roger Bede, 308-9, 310, ministry, 1879, 303; judge, 1879, 318; and

311, 318, 334 . federation, 383; mentioned, 276, 413, 414, Verdon, George Frederic, 383 418, 419 ;

Vickery ehoneee 343 Wisdom, 235, 266, 350 ICKCTY, Nezer, B Robert, d349, Ri ,350, 361, 363, 413,Edward. 417 - 361) | Victoria, Queen, 231,Wise, 238, 325, 368, Wice'

(371, 373, 397 Wolverine, 329

Victoria Club, 146 Wonga Wonga, 184, 185 Woolley, Professor John, 92, 93, 94, 95, 185,

Walker, Richard Cornelius Critchett, 367, 395 186, 297

Walker, Thomas, 369, 372, 373 Woolner, Thomas, 90-1, 196, 324-5, 339

Walsh (Goulburn lawyer), 83 Wright, F. A., 353 Want, John Henry, 373

Want, R. C., 300 | Yardley, 13, 188 . . Watson, James, 300, 313,315,327, 328, 333, 343 Year Book of Australian History, 265 Watson, Thomas, 300 Young, A. V., 107

Way, S. J., 392, 418-19 Young, Sir John, 179, 180, 181, 184, 201, 218,

Wearne, Joseph, 256, 267, 269, 273, 274, 275, 222, 231 276

Weekes, Elias, 48, 49, 66, 73, 101, 108, 146 Zoological Society, 410

Henry Parkes: A Biography A. W. Martin ADDENDUM Corrections: Preface page xii, 5 lines up change son to nephew

Preface page xii, 7 lines up change Grey to Gray