3a[“St John’s (Newfoundland) Relief Fund”, The West Australian, Saturday 01 October 1892, page 3]
St John’s (Newfoundland) Relief Fund.
Public Meeting At The Town Hall.
The attendance was only moderate. His Excellency the Governor presided, and there were also on the platform, Chief Justico Onslow, Mr. Justice Hensman, Sir John Forrest, Bishops Parry and Gibney, the Rev. Father Bourke, the Mayor (Mr. S. H. Parker). Messes. J. C. H. James, W. Traylen, Thomas, Bates, E. Von Bibra, and Capt. Stuart, A.D.C.
Bishop GIBNEY said there was no question as to the generosity of the people of West Australia. It was a colony of abundance, and during his experience with it he had never seen one who was not able to throw money away in some manner or other. It was a nobler thing by far to give than to receive, and he thoroughly believed the giver would meet with his reward. He believed that God rewarded the people for their ‘good acts’, as He scourged them for their bad deeds. In the North, the people had been cruel to the blacks, and for one native life that was taken God had punished the settlers by taking away 100 or more sheep. If we dealt generously with others they would be generous to us. He had no doubt that his countrymen would respond liberally to the appeal.
Gibney overstepped the mark by implying that drought-related stock losses were punishment for bad treatment of Aborigines, and the pastoralists were quick to retaliate. See several below.
3b[“Correspondence”, The West Australian, Friday 07 October 1892, page 6]
BISHOP GIBNEY AND THE NOR’-WEST SETTLERS.
TO THE EDITOR.
SIR,—At the meeting for the St. John’s, (Newfoundland) Relief Fund, I notice that Bishop Gibney made some very unkind, uncharitable, impulsive and inconsiderate remarks with regard to the Nor’-West settlers. Now, Sir, as a settler that has been at the Nor’-West since 1869, I cannot allow Bishop Gibney’s unkind and unsympathetic remarks go by without a little comment thereon. In the last disastrous drought we lost 40,000 sheep, and according to Bishop Gibney’s impulsive and misleading reckoning, we were the slayers of 400 blacks, as he terms them. I think if he used the word natives it would sound as showing a little more respect for them. During the time that I have been on the Nor’-West, I have gained a good knowledge of what has happened among the natives before and after I went there, and I call Heaven to witness when I say that I never lifted a deadly instrument to a native in my life. Neither have I killed one. I do not say that I have not chastised them, and who can manage natives without doing so? I would like to see Bishop Gibney come through the ordeal scathless for twelve months only. Now, Sir, I am speaking for myself, but I believe I can safely say that all or nearly all of the Nor’-West settlers could speak after the same manner if they were called on to do so. What wonder that such a damaging impression prevails in Downing street, and other parts, of the world, when at our very door a gentleman like Bishop Gibney classes the whole of the Nor’-West settlers in the same category and endeavoured to convey his opinion that the Nor’-West settlers are punished by the drought for their sins against the natives. If God visited man in this world for his sins, not one would go scratchless, not even Bishop Gibney.
I remember a good number of years ago when his lordship was touring through our district, and I don’t think he could, from his observations then, make such unkind remarks as he made the other night in the Town Hall. At the time that I speak of I could venture to say that any of the settlers at the Nor’-West that came in contact with the then Father Gibney treated him as a gentleman, and with the utmost respect. Now, Sir, when his lordship, Bishop Gibney, stigmatises the Nor’-West settlers as slayers of blacks, at the rate of 10 to the 1000 sheep one can only come to the conclusion that his lordship is purposely painting the Nor’-West settlers worse than anything that the worst of them ever approached to. I certainly do not think that Bishop Gibney’s remarks with regard to the Nor’-West settlers shows any Christian spirit. But we will leave Christianity out of the question, and kindly ask his lordship to confine himself to facts the next time he speaks about the Nor’-West settlers in public.
McD. MACKAY. Fremantle, Oct. 2.
3c[“Correspondence”, The West Australian, Thursday 20 October 1892, page 6]
BISHOP GIBNEY AND THE NOR’-WEST SETTLERS.
TO THE EDITOR.
“For every sheep killed by the blacks and for which they were most cruelly treated, and in some cases killed, God had punished the settlers by taking away 100 or more sheep in the drought.” These are the words of Bishop Gibney as reported to his “entire satisfaction.” I have read these words a good many times to satisfy myself of their meaning, inasmuch as they seem to pass a sweeping condemnation upon the whole body of the pioneer settlers, and I should be extremely sorry to mistake the intention of the speaker. However, I can find no other meaning than that every case of sheep-stealing by the blacks in the north has been followed by cruelty on the part of the whites, and that for each such act of cruelty “God had punished the settlers by taking away 100 or more sheep in the drought.” In the long course of this native question, I have become accustomed to the libels of malicious, ignorant, unchristian people, but I certainly was not prepared to hear them uttered by the head in this colony of a powerful Christian Church. When the white people first settled in the North-West, they found the coast tribes in abject terror of their lives, through fear of the inland tribes who used to raid their country, slay all the men they could, capture the women, and often eat the children. All were subject at times to a condition bordering on starvation. In place of these cruel conditions of existence, the white man gave
the black security of life, ample food, and taught him how to earn a better living than he had ever dreamt of previously. The settler protected the weak, fed the hungry, and tended the sick, without any assistance from a priest of any denomination, and yet they are cursed as a body by a Christian Bishop for the sins of a few. If we accept Bishop Gibney as an interpreter of the measurements of Divine punishments, we must be struck with the hard lot of some. One of the heaviest losers of sheep in the late drought is Mr. Marmion, a pillar of Bishop Gibney’s church. To say that his losses are the punishment for cruelty to blacks committed by others, seems hard not to say unjust. Mr. Little again has been a heavy loser; he is, I think, another member of the same Church, and has been held up publicly as a model of humane treatment of the blacks; if he accepts the dictum of Bishop Gibney, a feeling of injustice is likely to arise in him also. It does appear to me extraordinary that any one in this age can accept the doctrine of a direct intervention of Providence as here indicated. If a drought is a direct punishment for sins, a destructive flood must be the same, a north wind which blights the farmer’s crops is another, a frost which destroys the innocent cottagers’ potatoes is another. Surely if you educate a man and teach him to cultivate his reasoning powers, and then tell him that, however innocent he may be, he must be punished for the sins of his neighbour, the natural result would be a rebellions spirit, doubtless atheism. I regret exceedingly having to write in this strain of a gentleman holding the high and sacred office of Bishop. But Bishop Gibney has come to my native land and made sweeping charges (without any reservation) against the pioneers of the north; to sit silent under these charges might be taken as an admission, I therefore write in self-defence. Bishop Gibney has made use of occasions in speaking publicly to show his sympathy with the Nationalist party in his native land. If I take up the records of that land, I find endless reports of cruelties compared with which the worst cases reported from the North-West sink into insignificance, and they are said to have been committed by the Nationalist party. I am not aware that Bishop Gibney has ever condemned these cruelties, and he would probably say that these reports have been greatly exaggerated. This is quite probable, and may be taken as a sound reason or doubting the truth of alleged cruelties there. Such as there may have been (?) are condemned by the settlers. I notice a short letter on this subject signed “Quabba,” which is interesting, not for what it contains bearing on the subject, but for the opportunity it offers of analysing the character of an individual from his writing, without having the remotest idea of who the individual may be. And this is what I find—the beginning and the end show a desire to say something nasty of Mr. McKay, who wrote in self-defence under a mis-apprehension—this indicates malice and injustice, the second paragraph shows a desire to flatter and admire the Bishop; this indicates sycophancy, toadyism. Then comes a condemnation of an alleged desire to “stir up strife,” yet offering to become “an important factor” in so doing; this indicates vanity and hypocrisy. His reference to “other parts of the world” indicates ignorance. Finally, signing himself “Quabba” (good) betokens self-righteousness; the absence of his own name exhibits cowardice, and the whole breathes of malice and uncharitableness.
3d[“Bishop Gibney and the Nor’-West Settlers”, The West Australian, Tuesday 25 October 1892, page 3]
BISHOP GIBNEY AND THE NOR’-WEST SETTLERS.
TO THE EDITOR.
It is at least some satisfaction to me to find that Mr. Charles Harper had to read my words “a good many times” before they were capable of the interpretation which he gave to them in his letter of the 20th instant viz.:— “a sweeping condemnation upon the whole body of the pioneer settlers” of this colony. I am of opinion, however, that even had I not taken the trouble to explain my meaning by obtaining the insertion in your columns of a leading article in the RECORD of the 13th instant, the majority of unprejudiced people here and elsewhere would have been satisfied that my illustration of cruelty to the blacks necessarily carried with it a reservation in favor of certain settlers. In fact Mr, Harper incautiously contradicts himself upon this point by subsequently inferring that I excepted the cases of Messrs. Marmion and Little—one of whom, he states, is a “pillar” of the Catholic Church and the other, a gentleman who “has been publicly held up as a model of humane treatment of the blacks,” and also a leading Catholic. I may here be permitted to digress from the question at issue, to remind Mr. Harper that he, as a member of the Anglican Synod, is much more closely identified with the section of the Christian church to which he belongs, than is Mr. Marmion as an alleged “pillar” of a Church which excludes lay jurisdiction in matters of faith. And, moreover, that in my condemnation of the treatment of “natives,” I am speaking to a professedly Christian people, and not to “rebellious spirits” ready to develop athiesm from the dogma of “a direct intervention of Providence,” accepted alike by the Church of England and the Catholic Church. If Mr. Harper would accept my advice, I would recommend him to reconcile himself with his own Church on this very matter, for its teaching evidently accords with that of the Catholic Church in, for instance, one of the Litanies of the Book of Common Prayer: “From lightning and tempest; from plague, pestilence and famine; from
battle and murder and from sudden death, Good Lord deliver us.” There is a very old Book which most Christians regard as the Word of God which says that “by the very things by which a man sinneth, by the same things also he is tormented;” and I would further remind Mr. Harper (if he be susceptible to Christian axioms) that not merely the perpetrators of deeds forbidden by God’s law get punished, but “those also who consent to them who do them.” We are all sufferers, I maintain, from the disasters that have fallen so heavily on the Nor’West settlers, not from participation in the brutalities and maltreatment practised on starving or innocent blackfellows, but (according to the sequence of Christian belief) by our apathy in connection with these events, and a general want of practical sympathy with the sufferings of humankind. As a nation of people cannot be punished in the hereafter, it follows, in the opinion of those who do not possess the “rebellious spirit” of, say a Synoaical “pillar,” that the place of punishment in such a case must be here below—whether by the means of the droughts, floods, north winds or frosts that Mr. Harper instances in his letter or by other means, is altogether beside the question.
As Mr. Harper has thought fit to ignore the whole context of the defence copied into your columns from the Record, contenting himself with harping on certain words to which he gives a too literal meaning; and as he paints the early settlers as ministering angels to the wants of the coast natives particularly, I shall, with your permission, supplement the arguments to which Mr. Harper has not yet replied, by a few more references to the outcome of that “protection” alleged to have been given to the blacks, “without any assistance from a priest of any denomination.” And here it may be as well to deny that I have “cursed as a body” the settlers—Mr. Harper included. The hon. gentleman in making such a statement as that must have been thinking of by gone days when the sensational anathemas of Exeter Hall were pronounced against the settlers of the Crown Colony, at the instance, principally, of a clergyman of his own denomination.
If, as Mr. Harper asserts, the white people in the Nor’-West carried so many blessings to the aborigines in the early days, it is strange indeed that Governor Weld in 1872 was compelled to close an official despatch to the Secretary of State in these words: “Years ago when I was a young colonist, Sir George Gipps, a most distinguished Governor, fought the same battle for justice to the Australian native against the whole force of a powerful squatter aristocracy, and enforced the im- partial administration of the law by direct interference and by measures far stronger as well as I can recollect, than any to which I have yet been obliged to resort. Supported by Her Majesty’s Home Government he inflexibly stood his ground; and as I have taken the same stand I trust that, should I be fortunate enough to receive the same support, my efforts, like his, may not prove unavailing to promote equal justice for all classes of Her Majesty’s subjects in the colony entrusted to my charge.” Does not this extract from an official publication go to show that the aborigines had more to fear from the “protection” of the white man than from the alleged tribal feuds and cannibalism from which Mr. Harper asserts they were rescued? As was asserted by the acting Attorney General of the day, “a squatter was practically Judge, Jury and Executioner” over these black slaves who, it was stated, were “taught how to earn a better living” in the employment of the settlers. The reply to that despatch from the Earl of Kimberley emphasised the existence of the conspiracy against which the Governor had to contend, in these words: “I recognise in the fullest manner the duty which lies upon the Government to spare no pains in repressing any tendency to regard lightly crimes of violence committed by white settlers against the aboriginies; and I entirely approve of your efforts to secure the due punishment of such crimes.” Thus supported, Governor Weld towards the close of his administration summed up his experience of the Native difficulty in this manner: “The Colonial secretary will remember how, on the first bush journey I undertook after entering into office, encamped at sundown under a great red-gum tree, a native, with his arm broken and sorely wounded, came forward and appealed to me for justice, and for the restoration of his wife, forcibly taken from him. The result of that appeal was, that a young European of respectable family and a native in his employ, were put upon their trial, convicted and suffered a term of imprisonment. So my Government commenced. From that day to this with the unanimous, full, and fearless support of my Executive Council (which changed as it has been in personnel, has never changed in spirit), whilst bearing in mind the difficulties and dangers pioneer settlers have to encounter, I have endeavoured to secure justice between man and man regardless of caste and colour.” So much, as an outline, for the far past.
In the article you were good enough to publish for me in your issue of the 15th instant, the restless agitation of a certain, section of settlers during the past six years to have direct control over the blacks and to put in force “effectual means” against them, was dealt with, and I need not therefore recapitulate the evidence to show that behind all this was a spirit of extermination against the “worthless niggers.” Can I be blamed for taking those opinions as fairly representative of the general feeling of the settlers—seeing that the section to which Mr. Harper claims to belong have been silent all along—the ministering-angel section, who, it is asserted, acted the Samaritan towards the Natives? I freely give Mr. Harper credit for humane treatment and generous feeling towards the blacks under his control or in the employ of his Arm at the De Grey and other squatters likewise, but from the picture his letter draws of the past, I must emphatically dissent. Almost the whole force of the settlers in the early days was arrayed against Government, and the voices of such men as Mr. Harper were silent ovor the hideous crimes of the alleged “few” white settlers, just as they are now judging by the representative men who lately have indulged in so much abuse of Sir John Forrest’s attitude in the house last session on the question of increased protection to the squatters against the depredations by the natives on their sheep and cattle. One of the correspondents uncousciously struck the key-note of most of the trouble by saying that there was “no food for the natives” out his way, and he evidentally desired the wholesale clearance of a tribe to Rottnest or the interior of the continent by the Government, at the public expense, and for the benefit of a few.
In September 1890, I landed at Le Grange Bay. When the natives gathered together as night fell, I was surprised to hear the heartrending wail that went up from the crowd. I found, on enquiry, that some of the young men who had been forcibly detained on a pearling boat had been drowned on making an attempt to escape from their captors. They believed they could swim to shore—a distance of about six miles, but only one man reached it and I had a coversation with him. For a long time I believed the story of the employers of native divers, that the blacks went with them willingly, but I afterwards found such was not the case. The Mission Fathers at Beagle Bay having purchased two pearling schooners formerly used in the trade, I was of opinion that when gently used by the missioners and well fed and clothed, they would get to understand that they were working for their own benefit, which on land they did not object to. But the idea had to be abandoned, as the Mission Fathers wrote to me saying that the natives refused to go on board, and thus an industry which would have helped the Mission had to be relinquished. The former contact of the aborigines with pearlers had evidently struck terror into their minds, and so militated against those whose kindness they acknowledged on shore.
The treatment to which aboriginal prisoners have been subjected in “doing time” in Roebourne and Derby for the alleged crime of sheep stealing or desertion would, in the opinion of any witness believing in the earthly justice of an all seeing God, be sufficient of itself to bring a curse upon the country. Sentenced to terms of three, six or twelve months these unfortunate creatures are constantly kept in irons or chains day and night. They work under a tropical sun and blistering heat on the roads, chained by the necks one to each other, and also by the legs. As they sat in that manner breaking stones I saw the blisters on their necks from the heat and working of the chains. And even when the poor wretches fall sick they are not loosed from their manacles but death itself, in many cases, releases them. This is part of what the ministering angels of the North have been doing for the coast tribes and others. What wonder that there is not half the black population around the towns along the North West Coast that existed there when the white settlers took possession of their territory, and with that their native means of living—or when I first visited the coast fourteen years ago? In the main, the civilizing influence of the employing white settler over his “niggers” has been that of the shepherd to a good dog—he is treated well if he works well. They are made useful animals—white labour-saving machines and nothing more, nor can anything more be expected under existing conditions. I have, however, every faith that the present Government will endeavour to remedy many of the evils of the system under which the aborigines suffer, for, as Sir John Forrest put it last session— “there is a screw loose somewhere.”
Finally, Mr. Harper’s allusion to the case of Ireland, by way of analogy, is an unfortunate one. In common with the leaders of the Nationalist Party in Ireland and Australia, I have several times condemned the “atrocities” of the secret societies which were mainly the result of the suppression of open organization by Government in Ireland. Moreover, the few real atrocities in Ireland were those of the weak against the strong, and founded on centuries of misrule. Not so with the white settlers whose deliberate murders in no single instance met with the punishment that invariably overtook the blackfellow convicted of a similar crime against the invaders of his country. I can point to manifesto after manifesto issued by Nationalist leaders against genuine atrocities in Ireland, but I have never yet seen the squatters of this Colony, as a body,or their representatives, do anything but take part against the efforts of the Government to stamp out the wilful and deliberate murders by the alleged “few”, of the original owners of the soil.
+ M. GIBNEY.
The Palace, Perth, October 22, 1892.
Gibney makes a good case, but should probably have ‘pulled his head in’ on this occasion.
ie. he was responding to indignation and might have saved his remarks for another time.
And signing “M. Gibney, The Palace” was probably not a good move either.
3e[“Correspondence”, The West Australian, Tuesday 01 November 1892, page 6]
BISHOP GIBNEY AND THE NOR’-WEST
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir,—I should not have taken part in this controversy had it not been that Mr. Harper has thought fit, in attempting to deny the allegations of Bishop Gibney, that the natives of the Nor’-West have been cruelly ill-treated, to go out of his way to sneer at Irishmen in general, under the plausible pretext of drawing a simile between Irishmen and blackfellows. We, in these colonies, have our own troubles to contend with, and do not want old world differences introduced into our midst. As, however, Mr. Harper has referred to the crimes committed in Ireland by way almost of justification for the massacres in the Nor’-West (such is the elegant mode of his reasoning), let me tell him that he had better look to his father’s country first. Take up his infallible paper, the London Times, and glance over the items in the police courts and see if you will not find more crimes, including wife beating, robbery, child murder, debauchery, aye the whole gamut of crime—witness the West End crimes, in peaceful, Christian England than in any other civilised country. Had he better not try and justify or palliate these crimes before looking too closely into the crimes committed in the sister isle?
His reference to Ireland in the matter under discussion, is a covert insult, no doubt, to the Bishop and to all persons who either come
from Ireland, or are descendants of the Irish race, and coming from one who has accepted the position of defender of the squatters on the charges levelled against them over and over again, can only be attributed to a desire to draw public attention from the real question at issue.
The controversy has resolved itself into a concise form. On the one hand, Bishop Gibney alleges that the natives have been ill-treated with impunity; that the crime of ill-treatment of inferior races is in the opinion of theologians punished on earth by visitations such, as the late disastrous drought in the North-West, and that the drought was a visitation from Providence for the ill-treatment the natives had received at the hands of the white settlers. On the other hand, Mr. Harper denies the ill-treatment of the natives, and affirms that they have been humanely treated, and, though he does not directly do so, in an equivocal manner questions the doctrine of national punishment. I need only say, further, that Mr. A. R. Richardson, also a settler of the North West, corroborates Mr. Harper, applauds him for the stand he has taken, crowns him and all other set- tlers with laurels for their humanity, and winds up with an opinion on the question of earthly punishment, which, whilst it would reflect some credit on “Bob” Ingersoll or Tommy Walker at a freethought meeting, must be, dismissed from this controversy as idle and out ot place.
Assuming that Dr. Gibney’s allegation of ill-treatment in the past is correct, and that the doctrine of punishment is accepted, I see very little dispute between the parties. We have had the disastrous drought, and it is more in consonance with reason that, if a Providence guides our destines, we should be punished for some cause than for none at all. I do not, however, intend to discuss the theological aspect of the question, for I am sure Mr. Harper will accept without reserve the teachings of the Church of which be is such a prominent member. I feel that the ill-treatment of the natives is the only question on which the parties are really at issue. Now, I may be permitted, notwithstanding I was not born in colony, to say that I can claim as much knowledge of this question as “the humane band of hardy pioneers who gave up the comforts of home and society to explore and settle the unknown parts of the colony from purely patriotic motives.” I would ask Mr. Harper, does he deny that since the settlers, “the hardy pioneers,” have gone up north, there has not been murder after murder, massacre after massacre, of the unfortunate blacks, irrespective of age or sex. Remember the Foam passage massaere. What was done to the inhuman monster who led his ghastly brigade on to the gruesome work of slaughter? Would he not to-day be accounted a “hardy pioneer” had he not, by the avenging finger of God, met his fate between two jarrah logs on the Darling Range? Is there any need to recapitulate the horrid atrocities that have darkened the opening pages of the history of north west settle- ment? Who denies it? If I am contradicted I shall prepare a list of them and publish it for the benefit of the “hardy pioneers.” Mr. Harper calls them isolated cases. When 100 or 150 men are massacred in cold blood I cannot call that an isolated case—an isolated massacre if you like; but how many have occurred? Now for my information. I would ask Mr. Harper to name one person who has been executed in Perth for murder of a native or, to use the Common phrase, “killing a nigger” during the last twenty years? Whilst on this subject I would like to refer to Mr. McKay’s letter. That gentleman does not know what a myall hunt is. For his informationn let me tell him it is a nigger hunt. I feel sure he understands now. “Nigger hunting” was the term used about Ashburton and Roebourne when men were sent up to hunt natives and bring them down on a chain and put them on pearling boats. But perhaps Mr. McKay does not know that the “niggers” were used for diving. It is a fact, though, and they were humanely taught to dive by having a cannon shot tied to their feet, and lowered down by a rope-eye, and they were mast-headed at times.
Myall hunting is a term used more north-east from Mr. McKay’s home. Suppose a few sheep are stolen, or a man is killed by a native, not for interfering with the native women but for pastime! Well, we muster as many men as we can, and, if possible, get a policeman into the company. We mount, and bring a pack horse to carry provisions, as we intend to do good work. On a matter of fire-arms, a Snider rifle is preferred, as it makes a bigger hole in the nigger, and generally settles him at once. Now we start, and separate into twos and threes, and round the natives into a thicket. A short council of war, and the attack commences. Early dawn is the best time to begin the attack. Shall I proceed further? What need? We have seen it in the papers—man, woman and child are sent to their fate and never a conviction that I have heard of. Well, some of us—I rather think the majority—don’t look on a wild nigger as a man, and of course the only difference between killing a nigger and a kangaroo is that the beastly Perth authorities sometimes shove a fellow on his trial, and put him to no end of expense—not that there’s any fear of a conviction, but it is a beastly nuisance.
Now, with reference to chaining native prisoners to their barrows and making them work in the sun, I can only express the opinion I have before. If the native is a human being, it is a cruel mode of punishment, Mr. Adams’ opinion to the contrary, notwithstanding. It is not, so far as I know, permitted in any other British possession, and the sight of it, though it did not shock Mr. Adams, certainly shocked me considerably. But for what are they imprisoned? Stealing sheep. The settler has taken up their country, destroyed their kangaroos and roots, and to satisfy the demands of nature they steal a sheep and feed their wives and children. Let us take a similar case. A poor man in London steals a loaf of bread, is arrested and brought before a magistrate. He receives a fair trial and sentence. It turns out his family are starving, the magistrate is exe- crated as “tyrant,” public indignation is aroused, and the unfortunate man released. The native similarly circumstanced, if not shot, is imprisoned. The trial is generally a farce, and if faithfully pourtrayed here in Perth or in England, would not be believed.
Mr. Harper has given Bishop Gibney some advice. Let me now tender mine to Mr. Harper: “Presuming on a doubtfal victory over Mr. Gribble, you have over-stepped the bounds of prudence, and roused a power against you that, with ten thousand times the influence you had against Mr. Gribble, you cannot overawe nor wrestle with. Bishop Gibney’s past life is a sufficient guarantee that his utterances are reliable and based on facts, and you will find a difference between His Lordship and a clergyman, deserted in time of trouble, by those who should have supported him, but who, I am glad to say, is one of the most enthusiastic and exemplary clergyman of the English Church in the Eastern colonies.”
Mr. Harper and his sympathisers will also find that, the circumstances and conditions under which we now live are different, and that the democratic portion of the community will have no respect for a servitude distinguished only from slavery by the flimsiest line of democration[sic].
In conclusion, let me say that Mr. Harper has of late posed before the public as an authority on cold storage, electric lighting, and a chimerical panacea for good government, and if his judgment and opinion on those subjects are as unsound as they are on the native question, the public will treat his schemes as fads and himself as “a clever man, but—
RICHARD S. HAYNES. Spotsford House, Oct. 29.
The ‘Gribble Affair’ raises its head again here.
This is the same Richard Haynes who:
- was acting as Norwegian Consul when the Crown of England was wrecked. (Chapter 10)
- represented Charles Hagen in the supreme-court murder trial of Hagen, Espada, and Marquez. (Chapter 18)
3f[“Interview with Bishop Gibney”, Daily News (Perth, WA), Tuesday 28 November 1899, page 4]
The Bishop was unable to visit the native mission of the French Trappist Order at Beagle Bay, but while at Roebourne he interviewed the condemned murderer Lillimara, and, finding him a man of remarkable intelligence, and possessing some knowledge of the precepts of Christianity, he administered to him the sacrament of baptism, and such rites as might afford him some consolation on the brink of his doom, and possibly alleviate his subsequent destiny. “We may call Lillimara a murderer,” enjoined the Bishop, “but if one of our blood suffered the same extreme penalty for the homicide of invaders on his country, we should characterise him as a patriot.”
Gibney does not pull his punches!