koombana days >online resource >readings >chapter 6 >item nr-004

[“Supreme Court - Civil Side”, The Western Mail (Perth, WA), Saturday 02 July 1887, page 12, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article32705527]

SUPREME COURT - CIVIL SIDE.

(Before the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stone.)

Monday, June 27th.

GRIBBLE V. THE “WEST AUSTRALIAN.”

TEN THOUSAND POUNDS DAMAGES CLAIMED.

THE VERDICT.

THE COLONY CLEARED.

The verdict of the Court was read by the Chief Justice as follows: The question which I think we should put to ourselves is this: in writing his pamphlet and in making statements to the reporter of the Melbourne paper, and in his various lectures, did Mr. Gribble show a proper regard for the truth of the statements made by him—in short, did he upon all occasions, in writing and speaking, do so honestly, or did he show such a wilful disregard for the truth as to justify the defendants in writing of him as they did. We answer both questions in favour of the defendants.

________

At the close of the reading of the verdict, Mr. Haynes asked the Chief Justice to say upon which of the three pleas the judgment passed—the first, the second, or the third plea.

Mr. Hensman: I simply ask the Court to give judgment for the defendants, with costs.

Mr. Haynes: I must oppose that application.

The Chief Justice: The judgment in this case must be for the defendants. My brother Stone alluded to the difference between the two pleas—the plea of fair comment and the plea of justification. In giving my verdict—it is not a judgment—I did not allude to the distinction between the two pleas; but I perfectly agree with every word that has fallen from from my brother Stone on that point. The effect of that will be that upon the plea of fair comment—if there should be any question of costs arising as to the defence raised by that plea—the plaintiff will be entitled to that plea. But that will not interfere with the general judgment upon the whole case, which will be for defendants.

Mr. Haynes: If the verdict be for the plaintiff upon the first plea, it will be competent for him to move, afterwards, for a general verdict, upon the ground that the defendants cannot succeed upon their second plea of justification.

The Chief Justice: Of course you can raise that point, by moving that the judgment be set aside. But at present our opinion is that the judgment must be for the defendants upon the second plea of justification. Our opinion is that the judgment must be for the plaintiff as to the plea of fair comment, and general judgment for the defendants on the plea of justification. The effect of that will be on the question of costs, that when the costs come to be taxed it will be competent for the plaintiff to show what costs have been incurred in respect of the first plea, that has not been proved, and to get those costs. But as to the general verdict, it is for the defendants, with costs.

Mr. Hensman: I take it, also, that the judgment is for the defendants on the third plea, the £5 paid into Court.

The Chief Justice:—That must be so.

Mr. Haynes submitted that neither the first nor the third plea had been proved.

Mr. Hensman said that if a defendant raised five defences, and any of them was found a good defence, that would carry judgment for the defendant; and he submitted that upon the finding of the Court here he was entitled to a judgment for the defendants, with costs, upon the main issues.

The Chief Justice: That is really what I have been trying to explain. If it should be necessary, in order to enable Mr. Haynes to get such costs as are to be recovered under the first plea, we give judgment upon that plea in favour of the plaintiff. The judgement therefore stands for the plaintiff upon that first plea, so far as regards the question of costs only is concerned. But the general judgment in the case, upon the second plea, of justification; is for the defendants.

Mr. Haynes: I wish to draw the attention of the Court to a statement contained in ther opening speech of His Excellency the Governor, at the opening of Parliament, with reference to this case. I simply say thus: that it appeared to me at the time to be a deliberate attempt to comment upon the issue raised in this trial.

The Chief Justice (after speaking to Mr. Justice Stone) said: I think it is a great pity that the case was alluded to in the way it was. However, it did not affect the minds of the Court. It was a great pity the case was alluded to when it was pendente lite.

The Court then rose.

The following is the full text of the verdict:—

The Chief Justice said: The plaintiff in this case, which was tried before my brother Stone and myself without a Jury, is a clergyman of the Church of England, who brings his action against the defendants, who are the proprietors of a newspaper, for having libelled him in their paper, by printing of and concerning him the following words:—“We most apologise to our readers for giving them so much Gribbliana of late, but the papers of the Eastern colonies have been full of articles upon the assertions of one whom, without exaggeration, we might designate a lying, canting humbug.”

The defendants plead that they published the words complained of as journalists, and that the words were only a fair and bona fide comment upon the action of the plaintiff, and that they published the said words without malice, and further they plead that the words complained of are true in substance and in fact. In the alternative, the defendants pay £5 into Court, which sum they say is sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim.

The plaintiff, who between the years 1880 and 1885, had been engaged in missionary work amongst the aboriginal natives on the Murrumbidgee in N.S.W., arrived in this colony in the month of August of the second mentioned year, as missionary chaplain to the Bishop of Perth. Some negotiations had previously taken place between the plaintiff and the Bishop, which eventually resulted in the engagement of the plaintiff in this capacity. The plaintiff tells us that he was hospitably received on his arrival by the Governor and various heads of departments, and that he proceeded to the scene of his future work on the Gascoyne by the first opportunity which offered itself ofter his arrival. A Government reserve had been set aside for the purposes of the mission some 200 miles inland, but at the Bishop’s desire Mr. Gribble erected some premises and commenced his mission work at a spot some two or three miles from the townsite of Carnarvon.

Before carrying out this work however he made a journey into the interior as far as the Kennedy Range, and thence to Mount Dalgety. Mr. Gribble returned to Perth some time during the early part of December, having spent some 3 months at Carnarvon, and on the Gascoyne River. We hear from the plaintiff that during the whole of his first stay in that part of the colony, he was most hospitably treated by all those with whom he came into contact. Mr. Gribble remained about a fortnight in Perth, where at the request of the Bishop he gave a lecture upon the subject of the aboriginal natives of the colony. During his stay in Perth, upon this occasion, Mr. Gribble offered for publication a journal which he had kept of his movements and doings whilst on the Gascoyne, both to the Inquirer and West Australian newspapers. This he seems to have done with the full knowledge and consent of the Bishop.

Neither of these papers however, at this time accepted the manuscript which had been sent to them. This journal was not kept in the form of a diary; it shows no dates, nor does it mention the names of any settlers, whose stations Mr. Gribble had visited. Mr. Gribble returned to Carnarvon some time during the latter half of December 1886, the Bishop advising him, as he tells us, to “take a quiet attitude and, not take notice of matters that might offend his susceptibilities, so as not to offend the settlers.” He tells us that he now found himself not treated with respect by a section of the settlers.

This change in their attitude towards himself, he attributes to the lecture entitled “Only a Blackfellow” which he gave in Perth. However, it is to be borne in mind, with regard to this matter, that as early as the previous November, and before the lecture had been delivered, a meeting had been held at Carnarvon for the purpose of discussing matters of public interest, at which a resolution had been proposed by Mr. Rotton (who is an important witness in this case for the defendants,) to the effect that the meeting protested against the Government assisting or countenancing the establishment of Mission stations to the aborigines in the Gascoyne district. This resolution, Mr. Rotton says, was carried almost unanimously. On or about the 28th December, soon after Mr. Gribble’s second arrival in Carnarvon, a meeting was held by the settlers of the district and others, by whom Mr Gribble’s actions were strongly condemned and as a consequence of this meeting a petition was presented to the Missions Committee praying for the removal of their Missionary from the scene of his labours. This petition was brought down to Perth by Mr. Rotton (the gentleman who is mentioned above,) and by him was presented to the Committee, to whom he was introduced by Mr. Maitland Brown, the then member for the Gascoyne district. In the meantime Mr. Gribble had again sent his journal to the Inquirer newspaper, by the editor of which upon this occasion it was accepted and published, and Mr. Gribble tells us that before its publication, it had been read and approved by the Bishop. In consequence of the petition for the removal of Mr. Gribble which was drawn up in accordance with the resolutions which were passed at the meeting held in Carnarvon, Mr. Gribble a second time left the district and returned to Perth. On his passage down to Fremantle on board the Natal, and whilst the steamer was at anchor in Champion Bay he was some time after midnight assaulted in a very gross and outrageous manner by some of his fellow passengers, one or two of whom he identified as settlers from the North West. The defendants have not in any way attempted to deny the truth of the description given by Mr. Gribble of this assault, though he was cross-examined upon this point with the view of showing that the alleged assault was nothing more than a coarse practical joke. Be this as it may, a witness was called who said that upon the night in question he overheard two or three men upon the jetty at Geraldton discussing the merits of a pistol, and that these men, upon the witness assuring them that the pistol was capable of killing a man at 60 yards distance, went away, one of them saying “Come along! and let us lead old Gribble a dance.” Mr. Gribble tells us that after being pulled about and hustled a great deal, he took refuge in his cabin, which he had to barricade in order to shut out his assailants, who were attempting to force their way in and threatening to shoot him; and he tells us that he distinctly heard the click of a pistol in the hands of one of them. It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that his life was really in danger, but it is not difficult to believe that he thought himself to be in a very serious position; and there can be no doubt that a very gross and cowardly attack was made upon him, and that there seems to have been no one on board able to protect him from the indecent outrage to which be was subjected. It is necessary to allude to this incident, because in a great measure it would appear to account for much of Mr. Gribble’s after conduct. Having landed in Fremantle, Mr. Gribble at once came to Perth, and reported the circumstance to the Bishop, who as the chairman of the Missions Committee, at once convened a meeting of that body to consider the matter. Acting upon their advice, Mr. Gribble went to a certain solicitor for advice, who seems to have declined to have anything to do with him. He then went to another lawyer, by whom certain initial steps were taken with the view of bringing the offenders to justice. After considerable delay and one or two adjournments of the hearing, the proceedings had eventually to be abandoned. It would not be easy, and it is not necessary to decide with whom lies the blame and responsibility for this most unfortunate miscarriage of justice. One reason seems to be that the magistrate, instead of dealing at once, as he should have done with the case, asked for the advice of the Attorney General upon the matter, and the papers seem to have been some six weeks travelling through the various departments before they came back to the magistrate. Had the offenders been dealt with promptly, and punished as they well deserved to be for this outrage, it is extremely probable that the case which he have now to consider would never have been heard of. Unfortunately the aggressors went unpunished, and Mr. Gribble had some reason to look upon himself as a persecuted man, and one (as he no doubt thought) whose attempts to get justice had not been very promptly seconded by the authorities. Having failed in getting the case brought on before the Magistrate, Mr. Gribble again returned to the scene of his mission work, being accompanied this time by his wife and family. After remaining at Carnarvon for about a month, he returned to Fremantle about the 8th of May, having been summoned down to give evidence at the hearing of the charge of assault which, it was thought, would now be disposed of. However, he found on his arrival at Fremantle that nothing had yet been done to secure the presence of the defendants, and he eventually abandoned the prosecution of his case against them. Before doing this he saw the Governor upon the matter, and, at his request, wrote to him a full statement of his case, winding up his letter by saying that “If I am obliged to abandon this case through the force of circumstances, I shall most certainly lay the blame at the door of the Government of this colony . . . . I shall not keep anything back from the sister colonies, nor from the authorities, civil and ecclesiastic, in England; I shall make it my mission to reveal to the Christian world the wrongs obtaining under the British flag in Western Australia. In conclusion, I desire to know from Your Excellency whether, in view of the loss of time and money to which I have been subjected in consequence of the unwarrantable neglect and bungling of Government officials, I am to be compensated by Government.” To this letter he received no reply; he wrote, again, and, in answer, received a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of his letter. The Colonial Secretary, then, in the name of the Governor, wrote to the Dean of Perth, who was at this time acting as Bishop’s Commissary, a letter in which the passage above quoted from Mr. Gribble’s letter is thus commented upon: “With reference to the threats conveyed in the concluding portion of the Rev Mr. Gribble’s letter, His Excellency can only say that he is surprised that an exposure by a clergyman of the Church of England of “wrong,” “injustice,” and “cruelty,” alleged to be practised in this colony, should be made contingent upon the progress of an action in the Police Court, or should be in any way connected with that action, still less with a demand for pecuniary compensation.” In answer to that letter the Dean writes to the Governor as follows:—“I am sure that the Bishop will be equally grieved, with ourselves, not only at the insolent tone assumed by Mr. Gribble in his letter to the Governor, but also at the ingratitude of the man who had always received the ever ready substantial help and kindly advice of His Excellency. . . . I will only add that I trust the merited rebuke which Mr. Gribble will receive tomorrow will lead to his resigning charge of the Mission and to his departure from the Diocese.” The “merited” rebuke came in the shape of a letter from the Archdeacon, who says to Mr. Gribble, “It is not creditable to your profession as a clergyman to address the Governor himself in the manner you have done, and that you had forgotten your duty as a British subject and a christian minister in uttering the threats that your letter contains.” These “threats” are characterised by the Archdeacon as “insolent in a very high degree,” and, in conclusion, Mr. Gribble is advised “without delay to request His Excellency to pardon your error, and to allow you to withdraw your letter.” I ought to say here that Mr. Gribble told us that he had two personal interviews with the Governor upon this subject before writing the letter in question, and that the Governor had assured him that the law should take its course.” It is clear that Mr. Gribble wrote to the Governor, not as the representative of the Crown, but as the actual and, de facto, head of the Executive Government, whom Mr. Gribble held to be responsible for that which he looked upon as a miscarriage of justice, and in the circumstances he may not unnaturally have considered that he had a perfect right to address the Governor in terms which had he been in New South Wales or Victoria, he would have used not to the Governor but to the Minister of Justice. Mr. Gribble further tells us that in answer to a request from him, the Dean forbad him to preach or to lecture in any church within his parish. Mr. Gribble did, however, during his stay in Perth, on this occasion, deliver certain lectures, and he also published a pamphlet which he called “Dark Deeds in a Sunny Land, or Blacks and Whites in North West Australia.” The title of this pamphlet is a sufficient indication of its contents.

Having failed as he thought, in getting justice here, thoroughly dissatisfied with the treatment which he had received from his fellow clergymen, in a bitter, and I fear, somewhat vindictive mood, Mr. Gribble left for Sydney on the 26th of June, 1886. I cannot refrain from expressing my opinion here that had his brother clergymen continued to hold out the hand of fellowship to one with whom they did at first seem to sympathise, much mischief might have been prevented. Up to this time his principal publication had been his journal, which had received the Bishop’s approval; his pamphlet was not published and his lectures do not appear to have been delivered till after his estrangement from the Missions committee. That body had advised him to prosecute his aggressors in what has been called “the Natal case.” The lawyer to whom they recommended him refused to see him; he had entirely failed to get any reparation for what was admittedly a scandalous outrage; he had written in terms which may be called indignant certainly, but which were called insolent, to the Governor, complaining that justice had been withheld from him. No direct answer was given to him, though the Governor writes to the Missions Committee in the terms quoted above, suggesting that he wishes to make money by his grievance. He is called insolent, he is rebuked by the Church authorities and told to apologise, and to asked to be allowed to withdraw his letter to the Governor, and, finally, in making a verbal application to the Committee whilst they were sitting that he might be heard on the subject of that letter, instead of being heard then and there, he was told to put his statement into writing and send a copy to each of the five or six members who formed the committee. It is impossible, I fear, not to come to the conclusion that Mr. Gribble did not receive that consideration and sympathy from his fellow-clergymen, and the laymen who formed the committee, which he might naturally have expected. One of the charges made against Mr. Gribble is that he has falsely stated that “he had been badly and unjustly treated by the Church of England Mission Committee at Perth.” I have given a summary of Mr. Gribble’s evidence as to this alleged ill-treatment, and this evidence, such as it is, was absolutely uncontradicted at the trial; no witness having been called nor any evidence having been offered on behalf of the Missions Commitee[sic], to disprove or even to qualify the evidence which Mr. Gribble had given. As I have said, Mr. Gribble left Fremantle for the Eastern Colonies on the 26th June. At Adelaide he received a telegram which was subsequently confirmed by a letter from the Archdeacon, dismissing him from the post of missionary, and he tells us also that his son, who had been appointed to be his assistant at a salary of £25 a year, acted in that capacity for 10 or ll months and has received no wages whatever, in respect of such services.

Mr. Gribble proceeded to Melbourne, where he had two interviews with a reporter of the Daily Telegraph of that town, and the information supplied to that gentlemen appeared in the shape of two separate articles in the issues of that paper for the 6th and 9th July, 1886. From Melbourne Mr. Gribble went to Sydney where he remained some time in charge of a parish which was entrusted to him by the Bishop; during his stay in Sydney, he gave certain lectures under the auspices of the Aborigines Protection Society of N.S.W., which lectures or at all events some of them, were, reported in the local papers. Practically and substantially, the whole of Mr. Gribbie’s writings and sayings, which are the subject of inquiry in the present case, relate to ill-treatment of the natives by the settlers and by the Government, or Government officials, to immoralities alleged to be practised between the white man and the native women on the Gascoyne, and to the ill-treatment which Mr. Gribble had himself met with at the hands of certain settlers, and of the Missions Committee of Perth. It was upon these writings and sayings of Mr. Gribble that the alleged libel, the subject of this action, was based. The libel was in these words: “We must apologise to our readers for giving them so much Gribbliana of late, but the papers of the Eastern colonies have been full of articles upon the assertions of one whom, without exaggeration, we might designate a lying, canting humbug.” The defendants pleaded that at the time of publication of the said words the plaintiff was engaged in lecturing in public and in writing to the public newspapers of the Eastern Colonies and in making statements to the reporters of the said papers with a view to the publication of such statements, and he wrote and published a pamphlet called ‘Dark Deeds.’ The said lectures, letters, statements, and pamphlet were about the condition of the aboriginal natives of Western Australia, and the plaintiff stated therein that the said natives were systematically ill-treated, and cruelly and brutally used by the white settlers, the magistrates and the Government of the Colony and that the white settlers were guilty of great immoralities and gross vices and also that the plaintiff had been badly and unjustly treated by the Church of England Missions Committee at Perth; that many persons in the Colony were highly indignant at tho conduct of the plaintiff, and regarded the statements as false or as gross exaggerations and misrepresentations and as serious libels upon the Colony. And that the defendants in the discharge of their public duty as journalists wrote and commented upon the plaintiff and that the words complained of were a portion of a fair and bona fide comment upon the conduct of the plaintiff, and that they were published without malice. There was a further plea of justification, that the words are true in substance and in fact; and finally they plead payment into Court of £5 as a sufficient sum in the event of their being found liable.

On the day after the publication of the alleged libel there appeared in the defendants’ newspaper the following paragraph:—“We greatly regret that owing to editorial inadvertence a short paragraph appeared in our issue yesterday referring to Mr. Gribble’s late Native Missionary on the Gascoyne in terms which were calculated to give umbrage. We regret this the more because we have taken a strong position against Mr. Gribble’s proceedings. It is for that reason most unfortunate that anything should have appeared in these columns to which from a personal point of view he had a right to take exception. In these circumstances unasked we apologize to Mr. Gribble should those remarks and this sequel meet his eye; for the terms used towards him. Mr. Gribble however, probably knows, as do most of our readers know, that while Council is sitting circumstances to which we need not more explicitly refer cause there to be occasional interruptions of that close editorial supervision usually given to these columns. This, though it may not excuse, will explain the occurrence.”

It will be seen from the general nature of the case, and the pleadings, that the plaintiff in meeting the plea of justification must necessarily be allowed to give in evidence not only facts which came within his own experience, but also facts, of which he had been informed, as the charges which he makes against the settlers and the Government officials purport to be made not only on his own experience but also on the information and knowledge of others. These charges, and the evidence on which they were made by Mr. Gribble, must new be examined, more particularly those on which the defendants rely as justifying them in using of the plaintiff the language which is the subject of this action. In the Melbourne Daily Telegraph of July 9th, 1886, Mr. Gribble is reported to have said “The natives are unquestionably cannibals, and when I discovered the prevailing immorality of the whites among the blacks, I naturally inquired where were the half-caste children, and to my horror it was explained to me that the white masters of the slaves gave injunctions that in case any children were born, the result of their illicit amours, the children should be killed. Afterwards, they are eaten. Men I can implicitly rely on have told me they bad seen the bones of the children cleanly picked.” The evidence of Reilly, the ex-police constable, makes it clear that the scarcity of half-caste children upon the Gascoyne was remarkable. Mr. Bush gave evidence to show that the rate of births amongst native women is very low. But allowing for this fact, no doubt the number of half-caste children on the Gascoyne is low. Co-habitation between the white men and native women of that district is a very common occurrence, and teamsters and others seem habitually to keep native women. Reilly tells us that he only knew of two half-caste children on the Gascoyne, and that he had heard of two in Carnarvon. Mr. Gribble tells us that his chief authority for the statement above quoted was Mr. Foss, the Resident Magistrate of the district, who told him that it was a custom with the natives to kill and eat their half caste children. He also said that the late Revd. Mr. Campbell told him that he had heard from some one from the North West of the existence of such a custom. Mr. Foss has not appeared to contradict Mr. Gribble’s evidence concerning himself, and Mr. Campbell is dead. Reilly, who has also been mentioned as an authority upon this point, strenuously denied ever having said to Mr. Gribble that he was aware of or had ever heard of such a custom. On the other hand, the witness Stuart, called by the plaintiff, said that it was the general talk at Carnarvon, that half-caste children were killed as soon as they were born. Again, Mr. Gribble has asserted that it is the custom of the settlers to mate native women to native men, and that a native when he gets tired of the woman to whom he has been so mated is likely to murder her, and Mr. Gribble has stated that many such murders do take place. For this statement he gave as his authority one Rouse, who he says pointed out to him two native prisoners on board the Natal, and told him that they had been convicted and sentenced for a murder of this description. Rouse was not called to contradict that, though it was said that he was in Perth during the trial. But several witnesses denied the existence of such a custom, and it was also said by one of them with some force, that if a native got tired of his woman, it was much easier and safer for him to desert her, than to murder her.

In the Melbourne Daily Telegraph of the 9th, Mr, Gribble is reported to have said “The natives have no protection. Everything is done in the interest of the settlers and pearlers, nothing on the other side.” In the same paper, and in connection with the same subject, he is made to say that “the Legislature was obliged to pass an Act specially dealing with the natives pearling. That however relates only to the punishment to be inflicted for running away.” Mr. Gribble seems to have been aware that the Master and Servants’ Act of this colony, which applies to blacks as well as to whites, was framed upon the model, or was the “reflex” as he calls it, of an Imperial Act; but beyond this Mr. Gribble had to admit in the box, that he knew nothing of, and had not taken any pains to inform himself about the state of the various laws and regulations made under the laws with reference to the relations between the white masters and their native servants in this colony. Had he made enquiries he would easily have ascertained that so far, as laws and regulations can protect the natives against ill-treatment, very careful measures have been taken both by the Legislature and the Government on behalf of the interests of the aboriginal population. The Pearling Act, and the regulations made under it, have for their sole object, the welfare of those natives engaged in the pearling trade, and they do not in the remotest manner refer to, much less authorise, any punishment to be inflicted upon natives for “running away” or for any other offence. But Mr. Gribble says that whatever the laws may be, outrages are constantly committed upon natives by settlers and others under the very eyes of Government officials. Another charge which Mr. Gribble makes is, that natives who abscond from their masters during their term of service are confined at Rottnest, under terms of imprisonment varying from 6 to 12 months. To this it has been answered that, under the law, 3 months is the longest time of imprisonment which can be inflicted for the offence of absconding, and as a matter of fact it appeared from the evidence that the sentence in cases of this nature varied from one to three weeks—never exceeding the latter period.

In the Daily Telegraph of July 6th, Mr. Gribble is reported to have said “On reaching Port Gascoyne, an effort was made to prevent the landing of my building materials and supplies; but being foiled in this respect they (the settlers) forthwith ‘boycotted’ me, and even went so far as to ‘boycott’ those who showed me any sympathy or rendered me any help. These tactics were kept up for two months, and at the end of that time I was unable to get a bite to eat.” Mr. Gribble has told us that upon his arrival at Carnarvon (and this has not been denied,) an effort was made to prevent his landing, which however, be did effect apparently withont much difficulty in the police boat. He has also stated, and this has not been denied, that there was some attempt made (it does not appear by whom) to cut off his supplies; but Mr. Gribble had to admit that, during the whole of the period to which he alludes, he was always able to procure supplies for himself and his household, from the stores of Messrs. Boston and Cleveland. This very strong statement of Mr. Gribble was eventually reduced to this, that for a short period, perhaps for two or three days, during which he was able to procure beef and pork, he could not obtain any mutton. He did, however, get 50 fat sheep for the use of himself and the mission, from Mr. Forrest’s station, about the 15th of January, which oould not have been consumed by the middle of February, when he left Carnarvon. The period of “two months” to which Mr. Gribble alludes, lay between the middle of December and the middle of February; at the end of this time it seems pretty clear that Mr. Gribble had no reason to complain of being in want of stores and provisions.

Mr. Gribble is further charged with having denied that he had performed a marriage ceremony between two aboriginal natives. It appears to have become known in tho district, and indeed, Mr. Gribble himself admitted to some persons, that he “had joined two natives together.” Subsequently, on being charged with having performed a marriage ceremony which had not been registered under the marriage laws, and with having thus brought himself within the penal provisions of such laws, Mr. Gribble said to the Registrar who was questioning him upon the matter, “Well, to be concise, I have not married natives in the district.” The facts seem to be these: a native man and woman named respectively Champion and Polly, wishing to live together, Mr. Gribble refused to allow them to do so until they should have been joined under the sanction of the church. Champion understood a little English, but Polly did not understand one word. Mr. Gribble said in examination in chief that he explained to them (to Polly through Champion), “the solemnity which we Christians attach to the union between man and woman, and he said farther, that evening at the usual service, I read portions of the New Testament bearing upon the matter, explaining it to them.” In cross examination Mr. Gribble admitted that he had taken his ring off his finger and explained to them how we used it, and he said “I think I did put it on the finger of the woman.” He said further, “I cannot say whether I did or did not take a prayer out of the marriage service and read it to them.” Almost immediately afterwards, he said “I did read short portions of the marriage service of our Common Prayer Book. I don’t know what portions of I the service I left out. I did leave the bulk of the service out.” There can be no doubt that Mr. Gribble did perform that which purported to be a marriage ceremony, or something vary like one, between the two natives in question; though, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that there is much to be said for Mr. Gribble’s contention, which is that the ceremony which he performed, was not one that need have been registered under the marriage laws, and that all he denied having done was, that he had celebrated such a marriage as had to be so registered.

I pass now to the incident of the firing from Beasley’s camp, which Mr. Gribble relates in his pamphlet. He says that he and his Son were one Sunday camped on the Gascoyne where the incident is alleged to have taken place. He continues thus “Late in th afternoon a party of white men camped on the opposite side of the river, and while we were lying on some rocks reading, we heard the sharp snap of a rifle, and instantly a ball instantly a ball passed close to our heads; we sprang to our feet, but had no sooner done so, than a second report was heard and a ball passed very close to us the other side. We ran toward some trees, and while we were running two more shots were fired. After recovering ourselves I desired my son to accompany me to the opposite camp, but as he appeared to be rather timid, I ventured forthwith my native and shewing myself openly I made my way to the camp. As I drew near, I saw several rough looking men sneaking away and concealing themselves. To a man who maintained his position, and whom I fully recognised, I reported our narrow escape; without making the least excuse he replied to the effect that such conduct was too bad.” In examination-in-chief, Mr. Gribble, said with reference to this incident, that whilst he and his party were resting on one side of the river, “a party of white men and natives arrived on the opposite side and pitched their tent on a high bank. A white man and a native drove the horses across to where our horses were feeding and, noticing that his horses got mixed with mine,” (I am using Mr. Gribble’s language) “I sent my native to bring my horses to my camp; while he was so engaged, I noticed the white man in conversation with my black. I saw the native pointing to where my son was sitting. Some time afterwards, as we were washing at a pool am stooping down, we were startled by the sharp snap of a rifle, and springing up the ball whizzed just over our heads.” And he goes on to say how they heard two other reports and the whizzing of the bullets which acoompanied the reports. He tells us how his son refused to go with him to the opposite camp and how on going there together with his native, he found that it was the camp of a Government surveyor of the name of Beasley whom he recognised. He said that as he came up he saw “some of the men each take up his weapon and retire.” “I spoke to Beasley,” he said, “and asked him, ‘Is that a Martini-Henry?’ pointing to a rifle. He said, ‘No; it is a common breech-loader.’ I said, ‘was not that a Martini-Henry rifle that was fired a little while ago?’ He said ‘Yes’ I told him of the balls passing us and that we had narrowly escaped. He just shook his head and said ‘it’s too bad, Mr. Gribble, it’s too bad!’ He did not admit that he had fired the rifle. He did not say that he had been practising at a mark in the river.” And Mr. Gribble donies that he said to Beasley “Oh! I did not think for a moment that you knew anyone was there, I thought that you were firing at a tree.” Mr Gribble also says in connection with this incident “Before going up” (i.e. to the Gascoyne), “I had been warned by the Bishop not to go into the interior for some time, as the feeling was so strong against me that he apprehended danger.” The evidence of Mr. Gribble upon this point was substantially confirmed by his son. In cross examination, Mr. Gribble states that he had known Beasley previously; it would appear that they had been acquainted with one another in New South Wales. He said further “I don’t know who the men ‘who sneaked away and concealed themselves’ were. They were white men, and with them there were two natives. Each man picked up his gun and walked away; one went (I think) into the tent, the others a little way off into the scrub. There must have been 5 or 6 white men, including Beasley.” He appears to have remained some 20 minutes in the camp on this occasion; he met the party again, two days afterwards, when he returned the plates, and got some flour from Mr. King, who was the leader of the survey party. This gentleman refused to accept any payment for the flour which had been supplied to Mr. Gribble. The evidence of Mr. Beasley was taken under an order by Mr. Justice Stone in chambers. He said that upon the afternoon in question “I had four shots with a Martini-Henry rifle, at what I judged to be a meat tin, about 150 yards from me in the bed of the river. I was on the bank at the time.” This is the bank which Mr. Gribble said was “a high bank.” Mr. Beasley says “The rifle was sighted up to 300 yards; I don’t think the rifle would have carried across the river where I fired. The first two shots missed the mark, but the second two struck it.” This witness says that the river at this place was about half a mile in width from bank to bank, while Mr. Gribble says that it was from 500 to 600 yards wide. Beasley says that in about half an hour after the firing had taken place, Mr. Gribble came into the camp with his native and asked him if he had been practising rifle shooting. He answered “Yes.” He says that Mr. Gribbie’s manner was most cordial. Mr. Beasley proceeds, “He (i.e. Mr. Gribble) said that he and his son were camped on the opposite bank, and two of the bullets passed either by, or rather close to them. I said I had no idea that any one was there. He (i.e. Mr. Gribble) said “Oh he didn’t think for a moment that I knew any one was there, as he thought I was shooting at a tree on the opposite bank,” Mr. Beasley did not point out to Mr. Gribble that which he has stated in evidence that he did not think the rifle would have carried across the river, indeed he seems to have allowed the statement that the balls did pass close to Mr. Gribble and his son to pass with no other remark than that “he did not know that there was anyone there.” Taking this into consideration, together with the conduct of Mr. Gribble and his son, it is not at all unreasonable to suppose that the bullet did whistle over their heads in the manner which those gentlemen have described. I would seem monstrous to suppose that any serious mischief was intended. At the same time, a nervous and excitable person may perhaps not unnaturally, taking all the facts into consideration, and bearing in mind the Bishop’s warning, have come to the conclusion that the rifle practice, even as described by Mr. Beasley himself, was attended with circumstances which might arouse suspicion. We hear that the bank on which Mr. Beasley was camped was a high one. This has not been contradicted. There is no evidence as to the nature of the other bank. If it be a low bank, it might be thought that Mr. Gribble’s camp ought to be visible from that of Mr. Beasley, and that the latter ought not to have fired in that direction. The suggestion of Mr. Gribble is, that the party in Beasley’s camp had ascertained from his native the fact not only that a camp existed on the other bank, but that the camp was Mr. Gribble’s camp. If, on the other hand, Mr. Gribble’s bank was also a high bank, he might think it strange that bullet fired at an object lying in the sandy bed of a river 150 yards from the person firing should go so far wide of this mark as to whistle over his head on the opposite bank. It should be borne in mind that Beasley himself states the width of the river to be about half a mile, and that he said of the four shots fired two struck the object aimed at. But whatever Mr. Gribble may have thought, he should not have written the paragraph which I have quoted from his pamphlet. That paragraph was intended to convey the suggestion that a deliberate attempt had been made to shoot him and his son, and taken in connection with the rest of the pamphlet, it migh appear that this attempt had been mode by some of the settlers. In common honesty, Mr. Gribble, if he mentioned the incident at all, should have stated that the party of whom he was writing consisted of a body of Government surveyors, the leader of whom was a man with whom he was upon terms of friendship. Another very serious charge made by Mr. Gribble is with reference to that which he calls the “assignment system,” by means of which natives are “assigned” to the white people as their servants, or, as he says, as their slaves.

He says, “The natives are compelled to touch the pen to an assignment paper, which it is impossible for them to understand, and, as regards the witnessing of such assignment, the parties so acting are doubtless interested, so that in such a case the poor native becomes a bond servant by force. . . At times the wild natives are really run down and captured and taken to the stations, and then the assignment as above described takes place, and then, if they run away, which they are almost certain to do, a warrant is issued fer their arrest, and then the police are set in motion, and, if run down or ferreted out, they are taken to the Junction Police Station and there chained up for a few weeks.” In another place he says that the natives are hunted down like emus or kangaroos. In connection with this state of things he relates an incident which he says took place on Mr. Rotton’s station on the Gascoyne. In his pamphlet he says, “a certain person, directly connected with one of the principal stations on the Upper Gascoyne, informed me that at times they were obliged to go out in search of the bush natives to bring them into work, and that one day a party so engaged under the personal direction of Mr. -, the managing partner, came upon a little group of bushmen in the river bed who, on seeing the white horsemen, at once ran away. Chase was given and several escaped, but one man in particular, who was pursued by the leader of the white party, suddenly vanished, and after a diligent search the poor fellow was found concealed in a native well seven feet deep, from which he was dragged and compelled to go into bond service.” The informant turns out to have been Mrs. Rotton, the wife of Mr. Rotton, who is mentioned as the “managing partner” of the Station. Mr. Rotton was a witness in the case, and his version of the story is this: He said that he and another settler were out one day prospecting, and had travelled from about 9 in the morning till about sundown without any water, when they saw what appeared to be two or three natives encamped in the bed of a creek along whose banks they were riding. Not wishing to lose sight of these natives whose appearance held out the hopes of water not far distant, the two cantered up to the encampment, only to find on their arrival that the natives had disappeared. Mr. Rotton says that in all probability they had never seen white men before, and the apparition of white men on horseback no doubt terrified them. Mr. Rotton and his companion, having dismounted after some search, discovered an old woman with a male child, and by her were directed to a “native well” concealed in which they found an aboriginal native man, who on being spoken to kindly, came out of his hole, and helped them to obtain water for themselves and their horses. Mr. Rotton and his friend camped at the well for that night. The next morning the native asked if he might come and “work for the white fellow.” (Mr. Rotton’s friend it appears knew something of the language and was able to act as interpreter.) In accordance with the permission which was granted to him, the native came to Mr. Rotton’s station some twe days afterwards and was set to work as a shepherd. He then obtained leave to bring his woman and child on to the station, and the three lived on the station till the woman died. The man then, according to the native custom, disappeared , into the bush for some time, but he soon returned, and as Mr. Rotton says, to this day, passes his time between the station on which he had been originally received, and that of neighbouring settler. The child has grown up to be a playmate of Mr. Rotton’s own children. This is the incident out of which Mr. Gribble has woven the story to which I have alluded. It is only right here to state that in connection with this same station Mr. Gribble made a further statement to the reporter of the Daily Telegraph Melbourne, also upon the authority of Mrs. Rotton. He said that the natives are afraid of running away from their masters because “mounted men go out, and they scour the country and sieze the poor creatures who are put in chains.” He proceeds thus: “I was staying at a station once, and I asked the lady how it was the the blacks were afraid to run away.” (The station was Mr. Rotton’s, and the lady was Mrs. Rotton.) She said they were afraid of the chains. Pointing to ‘Billy’ she said of him, he was afraid now though he had been most refractory at first, and putting her hand on a black boy she said ‘You won run away will you ‘Traveller.’ He said No; me afraid chain.’ Mr. Rotton in cross-examination admitted that he had two natives on his station called “Billy” and “Traveller,” both of whom bad been arrested and kept in chains for about ten days awaiting their trial for absconding. It is also only fair to state that Mrs. Rotton was not called in order to prove what she really did say to Mr. Gribble, with regard to the man in the well, and Mr. Rotton admitted that he may have said to somebody that his wife may have been imposing upon Mr. Gribble’s credulity, though he did not think it at all possible that she had done so. With regard to the alleged conversation as to Billy an Traveller. There is no difficulty in believing that it took place in the manner described because it relates to facts which seem to be literally true, with the exception of a single mistake made in the name of one of the natives.

A good deal was said during th course of the trial about that which Mr. Gribble calls the “assignment” system. Several witnesses have said that they never heard the word used in connection with the system of native labour. Mr. Cleveland, however, who is a magistrate, and a witness for the defence, used the word two or three times in this connection; in speaking of a native servant he said “He was assigned to me for six months.” An expression which is undoubtedly used is a “signed native.” That is a native who has set his mark to a contract binding him for a term of servioe to a white master. These written contracts of service, though they are getting to be more frequent, were at one time very rare. Mr. Bush says “Before the number of white settlers became so great in the district we never used to think of ‘signing’ natives.” It becomes now necessary to consider somewhat closely the native labour system, and the relations which exist between the white masters and their aboriginal servants, because it is principally upon this system and these relations that Mr. Gribble has based the very serious charges which he has made. It has been said more than once during the course of the trial, and my brother Stone himself made the remark, that we were not sitting as a commission to enquire into the condition of the aboriginal native servants. In one sense this is perfectly true; but in another sense the statement thus put is scarcely correct. Mr. Gribble had made very serious charges with regard to certain circumstances, and as to the relations existing between the white settlers and their native servants. The truth of these statements is challenged. He is called “a lying canting humbug” in general terms, and no particulars are given on which the defendants intend to rely. In these circumstances the main issue would appear to depend upon the true state of things existing in the district with regard to which the charges were made. It is evident that the question necessarily resolves itself more or less into an enquiry as to that state of things. And farther, inasmuch as Mr. Gribble makes his statements not only on his own personal experience, but on information derived from others, it is also evident that a certain amount of hearsay evidence must be admitted. As I have before said, the practice of “signing” natives, until quite recently, has not been very prevalent. Mr. Bush says, “A large number of my natives have not been signed.” Mr. Rotton’s evidence is to the same effect. This witness says, “I have about 40 natives altogether, of whom 3 or 4 may have been signed.” “Signed” natives have agreed to serve for a certain term; those who are not “signed” have come to the various stations either unsolicited, or have been brought in by their fellow tribesmen, in quest of work, which they seem to get readily enough from the managers of the stations. There seems to be practically no difference between the conditions of service of a “signed” native and those who are not “signed.” These last mentioned can only be looked upon as hired servants, liable to be turned off at a moment’s notice, and who have therefore the right to quit their employer on the same terms. It is needless to say that no wages are paid, the only consideration for service being rations and a certain amount of clothing. Mr. Bush says: “These written agreements are more in the nature of evidence as between the settlers themselves, rather than as evidence against the native servants.” There seems to be a considerable amount of competition amongst some of the settlers at all events to get the services of the natives, who we were told, readily learn the duties which are expected of them and make excellent shepherds. Mr. Bush says “It is a source of complaint occasionally between settlers, that one settler has taken away the natives of another for the purpose of employment.” On such occasions as these the use of the written contract of service becomes apparent. “They are,” the words of this witness, “evidence as to the ownership of the services of a native, but not of the native himself. Again. It do happen sometimes that a native comos to the station of a settler from some other station and gets work there, and then the settler in the station from which he came will come and claim that native as a servant of his, asks whether there be an agreement in writing or not; and it is always is always the custom to hand over the native to the settler who claims him if you be satisified of the truth of his statements.” It appears that the natives, though they are unwilling to leave the district which their tribe belongs, dislike to remain for any length of time in one place. They soon get tired of being confined to one station, and are much given to marching off to one or other of the neighbouring stations where they readily obtain work; but, according to Mr. Bush, the settler from whose station they run away claims the right of bringing them back. When cross-examined upon this point, Mr. Bush said “I do know, that when a man takes up a run and finds a number of natives upon the the country, as fa finds work for those natives that he has more right to their services than any one else. The same witness also says “There are cases in which an intending purchaser would give a higher price for a run in consequence of it being well-stocked with natives.” “A purchaser who knows anything of this custom i.e. the custom which attaches the natives to their particular district, would properly come to the conclusion that he might [rely] on the perpetual services of the natives. With regard to this, Mr. Justice Stone said that he could see no more harm in giving higher price for a run well-stocked with natives, than in paying a higher price for land which had a good supply of water. The cases are, no doubt, strictly analogous, but there is this wide distinction between them. The purchaser of land has a right to the perpetual use of the springs of water upon his lan as long as each spring may flow, but he has no right “to reckon on the perpetual service of the natives,” because he happens to have found them on the land. On this point Mr. Rotton, (who, as well as Mr. Bush is a witness for the defendants) give some important evidence. He said that Mr. Gribble during his visit at his station had given him (Mr. Rotton) to understand that he intended to get natives for the mission from the various stations. “I told him,” said Mr. Rotton, “that if anyone interfered with the natives on my station, I would bring the law into operation against him. I meant him to understand, of course interfering with the natives against their will.” In explanation of this in cross-examination he said “I meant that if anyone interfered with natives working under a verbal or a written agreement, that I would proceed against him. I don’t think now that the law would help me in a case where the native was only a servant at will, but I thought at that time that it would help me. In one sense, I do think I can keep the natives af long as I like.” It is clear that there has been a very prevalent idea amongst the settlers that they were entitled to the service and (to put it in a very gentle form) were entitled for a very indefinite length of time to the services of the natives in their employ. Mr. Bush says in certain cases a purchase would properly come to the conclusion that he might reckon on the perpetual services of the natives. And Mr. Rotton says “In one sense I do think I can keep the natives as long as I like.” Whatever may havre taken place in the past, and in other districts of the colony, there is not a title of evidence to support the assertion that natives are in the first instance brought in compulsorily to work for the white settlers. They come of their own accord and willingly, attracted no doubt by the prospect of regular supplies of food, and [mrreryheavy] work. But I fear it is impossible to say that their position after they have once engaged themselves either verbally or in writing, is altogether a satisfactory one. Should a native who has once engaged himself run away, his master considers himself entitled to bring him back, if he can get him. When a native runs away, he rarely goes into the wild and unsettled parts of the country; should he do so, he runs a chance of falling in with a hostile tribe, by whom in all probability he woald be killed. An absconding native as a rule prefers to make his escape to the station of another settler. [This], I think, conclusively showing that their desire is not to escape from the necessity of working altogether, but merely to procure for themselves a change of scene, a desire which I presume is innate in all nomad savages. A very strong argument may be drawn from this, that as a rule the treatment which the natives receive at the hands of the masters is of a kind and conciliatory character, and indeed, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Rotton gave instances of very humane conduct being shown towards natives who happened to be in a suffering condition, though no doubt there must be exceptions to this rule.

Let us consider, however, what happens in the case of a native who runs away from his master. The latter thinks, as both Messrs. Bush and Rotton have said, that be has the law on his side, and he sets the police in motion, warrants of arrest are issued, and the natives are captured wherever they may be found, and brought back in chains. A native who in wanted by the police, whatever the charge may be against him, though it be only one of running away from a master with whom he has merely a verbal agreement, when captured is put into chains. If there be a number of them, they are chained by the neck to one another in a long row ; and he has described to us how a body of about 30 were conducted in this manner for a distance of more than 300 miles from the Peedong country into Carnarvon for the purpose of being tried. Thc charge against these men was, however, a criminal one. But to return to runaway natives. Mr. Rotton says “I don’t think more than a dozen natives in my district within my experience have been arrested for absconding and brought back to their masters, I mean arrested by the police. There may havo been a few more for whom warrants have been issued but who have not been captured. Within my own knowledge there may have been about four cases in which a settler went after an absconding native himself to other stations.” In such a case as the last mentioned where the settler himself goes to bring back the native from a neighbour’s station Mr. Bush says: “The other settler, if he were a decent person, would say that he didn’t know that the native in question was working for me, and he would let the native go back with me. Ast a rule, the native would go, but in very exceptional instances, they do not like to go.” The fact seems to be that as a rule the native, when found by his old master, returns quietly, probably because he knows that resistance would be of no use; and there is some evidence that when absconding, natives are brought before the magistrate they have the choice of returning at once either to their master or of undergoing a short torm of imprisonment. Lance Corporal Wall says that he remembers three of Mr. Rotton’s natives being fined for absconding. He says, “they may have been awaiting their trial a week. Two of these men were sentenced to seven days.” One of them, “Traveller,” of whom we have heard before, was discharged. Wall says he was discharged because he was willing to go back.” I don’t know why the others were sentenced; they might have been on the chain ten days before trial.” This witness says that he knows of eight or nine cases of warrants issued by Mr. Foss (Resident Magistrate) for the arrest of absconding natives. There may have been more; I think there were.” These were cases in which Wall was personally engaged, and he says “that other Justices of the Peace may have signed warrants just as well as Mr. Foss.” He says further, “As long as I had a warrant to arrest an absconding native, it made no difference to me whether he was a signed native or not.” This witness also describes the manner employed by the police in capturing natives. He says, “I have once stopped a little way off a native’s camp and crawled up to arrest him. About the middle of the night when they are asleep, is the best time to catch them. We always carry chains and padlocks about with us and revolvers. This is the way we go out for all natives whether absconder or not.” Ex-Police Constable Reilly says: “They always call it nigger hunting when they go to arrest natives.” As I have said, natives when arrested, whatever may be the charge against them, are put into chains, and so kept until their trial. Should they be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at Rottnest they are brought down in a steamer. A police regulation (which appears not to be very strictly used) provides that whilst on board tho steamer chains shall nat be used. On Rottnest, itself, which is practically a gaol for aboriginals, and one conducted on most admirable and humane principles, I believe chains are never used except when absolutely necessary in the case of refractory and dangerous prisoners. However, Mr. Gribble roundly asserts that natives, who are charged with offences, in consequence of there being no native protectors to look after their interests, meet with hard and unfair treatment, and do not always receive justice from those who are appointed to try them. To support this charge, he brings forward the case of the 27 men who were brought down from the Peedong country to Carnarvon (a distance of upwards of 300 miles) to be tried. These men were said to have burnt down the homestead of some station in the far interior, and to have killed and carried away some cattle. Mr. Gribble was not present at the trial, but he came up just as sentence was being pronounced against the men, and tells us that he went up to Mr. Cleveland, who was one of the presiding magistrates at the trial, and asked him whether he was satisfied that all the convicted men were guilty. Mr. Gribble says that Mr. Cleveland’s answer was “I don’t know, but this young man says they are “pointing to a man of the name of [T)nnn]. the overseer of the station on which the alleged outrage had been committed. Mr. Cleveland (whose evidence was taken under an order) does not deny that this conversation took place, but he says generally “I don’t think Gribble complained to me of the case.” Mr. Gribble further says that Corporal Smith who arrestod and brought the men down to Carnarvon said to him “Those niggers sir,” pointing to some of them, “never saw a white man till we captured them.” This seems to be likely enough, as they were what are called Peedong men, coming from district far to the Eastward. Mr. Gribble further says that at the trial no interpreter was present. There is no direct evidence upon this point, with regard to whioh, unfortunately, no question seems to have been put to Mr. Cleveland. There is this indirect evidence that Corporal Smith’s native assistant was present at the trial, and one witness speaks to having seen this man conversing with the Peedong men on some occasion before the trial took place. It would appear that the men, whose number is variously stated as from 26 to 28 were surprised by Corporal Smith and his party whilst in the act of eating the flesh of the cattle, which they had speared. Some of the party on being surprised ran away, but were subsequently captured. They were all brought down chained together in a gang. As to how natives are brought down, Lance Corporal Wall says “After they have been once chained they are never taken off the chains until they [oaie] to Carnarvon. If any one of them has to obey a call of nature, they will have to go in a body into the bush or behind a tree. These particular men, however, were not released from their chains on arriving at Carnarvon. Speaking of these men, Mr. Gribble says, and upon this point he has not been contradicted, “I have seen at many as 37 in what is called the Government lock up,” an inclosure of corrugated iron without any top, 30ft. square. They were chained at the neck to each other. This was at Carnarvon, where there is a Resident Magistrate. For several weeks it wan uncovered. They were kept there from Christmas to the early part of February. During the last 8 days, some covering was put over a portion of the enclosure—about one third of it. The covering was of corrugated iron, also, which only made the heat worse.” Speaking of this incident, Mr. Cleveland says that the heat in that enclosure must have been intense. Reilly says “the sun will make the chain so hot that you cannot bear to touch it.” The sufferings these poor men must have undergone, must have been terrible. But to return to the trial, we have before us that which purports to be the “Abstract of evidence taken at the trial,” sent down to Perth in accordance with the requisitions of a statute relating to the summary conviction of aborigines. The “information,” as it is called, was for killing 5 beasts, the property of Charles Smith on the 17th of Nov. 1885. Nothing is said as to an interpreter. Lance-Corporal Smith says “I am certain that all the prisoners were at the camp feeding on the beef, when the party arrived there. We arrested some of them directly we arrived at the samp, and tracked others from the camp. “Richard Dunn identified the carcasses of the slaughtered cattle, and “recognised several of the prisoners as being at the camp. “Aboriginal native “Billy,” who may or may not have acted as interpreter, said “I helped police to arrest prisoners. We arrested some at our camp and the others got away. We tracked them up and caught them. I am sure we caught the black fellows that got away from the first camp. All the prisoners were eating beef.” The information was for killing the cattle. It is very possible that the beast in question had been killed by some of the party, but in point of fact there was not one word of evidence upon this point. The evidence, such as it was, went to show that all the prisoners had partaken of the flesh of the slaughtered cattle. Not a question seems to have been put to any one of the witnesses on behalf of the prisoners to test the value of their evidence even upon this point; and all of the prisoners were sentenced in a bunch to two years imprisonment at Rottnest, some of them being men who, as Corporal Smith said, had never seen a white man till they were arrested. The story of these men does not end here. They, in addition to some other prisoners, being no doubt the party of 37 of whom Mr. Gribble has spoken, were sent down on board the Natal, and, in contravention of the Regulation upon the subject, were sent down in chains. Mr. Gribble, who came down in the Natal at the same time, tells us that whilst the steamer was at Geraldton (on the night on which the assault was committed on Mr. Gribble) the constable in charge of the party was on shore. We have a glimpse of these prisoners the next day. Mr. Graves, who was a witness for the plaintiff, tells us that he went on board the Natal, and he proceeds to say, “I looked down the hold, and saw a lot of blackfellows like pigs: one of them was eating part of a raw leg of mutton. The men were lying amongst their own excrement;” and he farther tells that the men were chained. This witness also told us the story of the native who had been wounded by a spear in the thigh, and had been brought down to give evidence in the case, and whom he saw lying day after day in the sun on the beach till the sore became fly-blown. The witness told us that he did what he could to help the poor man, who was eventually carried away to a camp belonging to some of his countrymen. The witness said that he asked a constable whose name he mentioned, whether “they don’t look after these blackfellows,” and the answer which he got was, “They could not do what they liked up there: the black men cured themselves.” Mr. Greaves was a stranger, and had only been some three months in the colony. An attempt was made to discredit him on the ground that he had said nothing about the evidence which he gave in court till almost the eve of the trial. Me admitted that he was a very unwilling witness, and he gave as a reason for his unwillingness “that if you offend one you offend everybody here.” It would not be right that I should pass over the hideous incident related by the witness Mr. Bovell. An attempt was made to shut the evidence out on the ground that it had reference to a fact which took place on the Murchison River and not the Gascoyne. The place in question was really situated some 50 miles from Mr. Rotton’s station. Bovell says that on one occasion he saw a white shepherd of the name of McCarthy bring up two natives on a chain, whom he tied to a tree. “He then took his stockwhip and flogged them till their backs were in streams of blood. The men were naked. “He gave them each two turns that night, and a turn each in the morning.” On being remonstrated with, McCarthy said “he was compelled to do it to show that he was the master.” The offence which they had committed was that of running away from the sheep of which they had the charge. In cross-examination, this witness said that there was no policeman within 200 or 300 miles of this spot, “and I heard that it was the custom of the place,” ie. to take the punishment of the natives into your own hands. The witness again, who is also a stranger in the colony, did not speak of this circumstance, which took place some months ago, till after the commencement of the trial. He said: “I had been in Court and heard what was going on ad thought it was my duty as a man to say what I had seen.” Attempts were made to cast discredit upon the three witnesses, Stuart, Greaves, and Bovell. All three are strangers to this colony. As far as I could see, they one and all gave their evidence in a perfectly open and straightforward manner. Not one of them could have had any interest in the case one way or the other, and I have no doubt that their only object in giving evidence was to further the cause of justice by giving us such information as they possessed. Mr. Gribble has given two other instances within his own expenses of natives, who, he says, have not received fair treatment. In each of these cases a woman was concerned. One case was that of Polly, who has been mentioned as having been married to Champion. Mr. Gribble tells us that Polly, who could not speak English, came to the mission with another girl, who explained that Polly had run away from her master, a white settler, who had flogged her. Some few days after her marriage with Champion, and during Mr. Gribble’s absence from home, her master came to the mission and had taken the girl away. Mr. Gribble says that he went to see the master “who told him that the girl was his assigned servant, and showed him a paper witnessed by another settler who was not a Justice of the Peace.” In cross-examination, Mr. Gribble said, “Mr. Foss, (the Resident Magistrate) advised me to let the settler have the woman again to save all trouble, as she was that settler’s own kept woman.” This evidence has not been contradicted. The other instance to which I have alluded is that of the woman Corega. It appears that a native of the name of Maar went on horseback from the station of one MacIntosh, to another station on which Carega was staying, for the purpose of bringing her back with him. On her refusing to accompany him, Maar tied a rope round her neok, and being on horseback himself, dragged her for some distance, and then let her go. Mr. Gribble says that when he spoke to Mr. Foss about this matter, that gentleman turning to Corporal Taylor, said “This is the same girl whom MacIntosh once before tried to get hold of; it must be enquired into.” Mr. Gribble first heard of this incident from a white man of the name of Shea, who had been on the station where this outrage had been committed, and who related the circumstances to Mr. Gribble in the presence of the girl herself. Mr. Earnest Gribble, who was also present, says that Shea told them “it was not the native boy who wanted the girl, but that it was the white man who sent the boy to fetch her for himself.” This statement was “confirmed we were told by the girl herself. Mrs. Gribble, who was also called as a witness, said that she was present when her husband and Mr. Foss were talking of this matter and when MacIntosh’s name was mentioned, and that she heard Mr. Foss say “That is the same girl about whom there has been a bother before. We must put a stop to this.” However this may be, the native Maar was tried before Mr. Foss himself for the assault upon Corega. He is reported to have said that

Corega was his woman, that he wanted to get her back, and that MacIntosh had lent him a horse to go after her, that she would not come, and that he put a rope round her neck and dragged her. MacIntosh on oath said that Maar and Carega were both in his service. Corega who was Maar’s womon ran away. “Maar asked me to lend him a horse to go after his woman. I gave Moor a rope to tie his horse up with, as there was no feed where he was going. I positively swear I did not give Maar the rope to put on his woman.” The defendant was fined £5 or in default two months imprisonment at Rottnest. The idea of imposing a fine of £5 on a Gascoyne native, who has no money, seems strange. With regard to the donbt which has been expressed as to whether the evidence was properly interpreted to the prisoners in the cattle stealing case, I should state that Coporal Wall said that, as far as his experience went, an interpreter was always employed at the trial of native prisoners in cases where the persons charged did not understand English. Another charge which Mr. Gribble makes is that native women were “assigned” to teamsters and others for purposes of immorality, and he says that “assignment of native females against their will for purposes of immorality is a sign of slavery,” suggesting that this is generally or commonly done. The case of “Polly” which I have already dealt with is the only one I think which has been mentioned, in which a woman was a party to an agreement of service. In addition to this case, however, Mr. Gribble brings forward that of the teamster Charles Deacon, whom he alleges to have had in his possession a woman who had been so assigned to him. Mr. Gribble’s evidence with regard to the alleged “assignment” is flatly contradictd by Reilly, who I referred to by Mr. Gribble as the authority who would support his statements with regard to this particular case. This witness said “I knew who Deacon’s woman was, she was a common woman who had lived first with a Chinaman and then with other white men. “She went of her own free will from a contract teamster to Deacon.” Though in cross-examination he made use of this expression “I know that she was the woman who had been passed over to Deacon by Collins” (Collins being the contract teamster) and he went on to say in cross-examination “I do not think that I mentioned this fact to Mr. Gribble; if I had done so, I think I should have remembered it.” There is absolutely no evidence to show that this woman did not go to Deacon of her own free will. Upon this point, it is right that I should draw attention to Mr. Bush’s evidence. In answer to his counsel he said “I have never heard of a case in which a black girl was assigned against her will to a white man for immoral purposes.” In answer to me he said “I have heard of black girls being told to go off with white men, the girls being willing. That is, told by the master or some one in authority. The girls seemed quite willing. In some cases, of course, it is understood that the man will cohabit with the girl. But they are not told off for immoral pnrposos, not to my knowledge.” In cross examination he said that this was done “because there were not men to do the work. There is certain work which women can do better than men.” He said also, “I have myself sent girls off with white men, but I have never known any unwillingness on the part of the girls. It is of course a natural consequence that certain things do happen.” I will take this opportunity to say that both Mr. Bush and Mr. Rotton gave their evidence in a most frank and straightforward manner; as far as I could see, there was no wish on the part of either to withhold, or to give a misleading appearance to facts which might seem to tell against the cause of the settlers. Another charge agaist Mr. Gribble is that he stated in Melbourne that he had in his possession letters from the Chief Justice and the Attorney General of Western Australia and others “expressing the deepest sympathy with the object he has in view—the exposure of the cruelties practised on the native population by the white settlers in the north and north-west of the colony.” Two letters from Mr. Hensman, the then Attorney General and one from myself, were given in evidence to support this assertion. Mr. Hensman’s first letter refers entirely to the Natal assault case, and the writer having been appealed to by Mr. Gribble, gave that gentleman certain advice of a purely friendly and non-professional character. Mr. Hensman’s second letter was in answer to an application from Mr. Gribble asking him to be present at one of his lectures in Perth. The answer was a polite refusal, the writer expressing sympathy with Mr. Gribble and hoping that he would not attribute the refusal to any want of respect towards himself. Mr. Gribble says that before this letter was written there had appeared in the papers his journal, that he had published his pamphlet, and had been lecturing on the subject of the illtreatment of the natives, and that he had every right to conclude that Mr. Hensman did sympathise with him. The letter from myself to Mr. Gribble was also written in answer to a request that I would be present at one of the lectures. I, also, in declining to be present expressed my sympathy with Mr. Gribble, and it is open to him to say of me all that he said with regard to Mr. Hensman. As a matter of fact, although a copy of the pamphlet had been sent to me, I had not read it, nor had I read the journal which had previously been published in the papers, nor did I know of any specific or particular charges of cruelty or illtreatment which Mr. Gribble had made. I did sympathise generally with Mr. Gribble, in his endeavours to do good amongst the aboriginal population, and I thought and gave him to understand that he was engaged in a good and just cause. I regret to say, however, that I am unable to think that Mr. Gribble was justified in making use either of Mr. Hensman’s or my letter, in the manner which he did—as though they were in some sort a guarantee for the truth of all the statements which he might choose to make in the other colonies. It would not be right to pass over altogether, the evidence of the witness Francisco, with regard to the relations existing between the Pearl Fishers of Roebourne and the North West, and their native divers. This evidence, however, related to a period dating back from about the year 1880, to some 25 years previous to that date. The witness states positively that it was a common practice amongst the pearlers, on the sale of a pearling boat, with its fittings to include in the sale the whole of the living crew of native divers. He mentioned some four or five cases within his knowledge in which, on the transfer of a boat, a far larger sum than the actual value of the boat was paid, the principal consideration for the purchase money, being, as he alleged, the crew of native divers. He said that he knew of one vessel worth from £90 to £100 being sold for over £1000. Another whose value when fully equipped for sea would be about £300, was sold, he believed, for over £1000. These are not the only instances which he mentioned, giving the names of the vessels and of the sellers and buyers. This witness was not scrupulous with regard to himself. He said that on his leaving the district about the year 1880, be had made an agreement for the sale of his own boat, whose “value with its stores and equipments, bar the natives, was about £700,” and that the price which had been agreed upon was £1300. He told us that the sale fell through because the bills which he had received in payment were dishonoured. This witness also stated that, in his day natives used to be hunted down as you would hunt kangaroos; and that when the pearling season was. over the native divers, instead of being allowed to go to their own haunts on the mainland, were kept on an island called Barrow Island. Upon this point there is a curious piece of confirmatory evidence contained in a letter dated April. 3rd, 1873, from the Colonial Secretary to the Government Resident at Roebourne, enclosing an Act which had been passed in 1871, regulating the pearl shell fisheries. In that letter there occurs this passage: “It is highly illegal to imprison them (ie. the native divers) whether on an island or in a dungeon. The police have therefore been instructed to interfere accordingly for the protection of the natives whenever it seems necessary, for the preservation of their rights as free men.” Various sets of regulations have been given in evidence made under Acts whose sole object is to ensure as far as possible the natives against ill-treatment. These regulations provide for the appointment of an Inspector of Pearl Shell Fisheries, and we have heard that very serious charges have been made against the late Inspector in connection with his duties under the regulations, and that this officer has within the last four months been removed from his position. Whatever may have been the iniquities practised in the Roebourne district in days now gone by, it may, I venture to think, be confidently hoped that at present a better order prevails, and that the relations existing between the pearlers and the native divers may constantly be expected to improve. I have, I think, touched upon all the leading points which have been presented for our consideration; and if any excuse be required for the length at which I have dealt with them, the importance of this case will be a sufficient one. I have been especially careful to bring forward everything that can be urged in favour of the plaintiff. My opinion is (setting aside the treatment of native prisoners generally and of runaway or absconding servants) that although there have been cases here and there of cruelty and ill-treatment the evidence which has been adduced is altogether insufficient to justify the wholesale and sweeping charges which Mr. Gribble has taken upon himself to bring against the settlers. It is, I think, admitted on all hands that much good will accrue as the result of Mr. Gribble’s action in connection with these questions, and I, for one, am certainly of that opinion; but it is most deeply to be deplored that he allowed his imagination to run riot, or his passions to obscure his judgment to such an extent as to allow him to write in the style which he has used in the pamphlet, or to offer as truth to the reporter of the Melbourne journal the garbled, sensational, and highly-coloured statement which was published as vouched for by Mr. Gribble. I say this although Mr. Gribble has every right to claim the privileges attaching to a public writer dealing with questions of the highest public interest. It is not to be expected that a writer dealing with such subjects will not occasionally allow his enthusiasm and indignation to exaggerate that which has actually come within his observation. But, I fear, Mr. Gribble has exceeded even the extended bounds which may be allowed to enthusiasm. The “prefatory note” to his pamphlet is indicative of the feelings by which he was inspired. In that introduction he has made allusions to “Dark Deeds” and to periods of persecution and slavery in the history of various countries, without much regard to historical or chronological accuracy. This has evidently been done with a view to prepare the reader for the long tale of horrors which was to follow. Mr. Gribble was no doubt in possession of facts whioh, if used even with the strictest regard to truth, might have formed a sufficiently startling narrative, but his increase of appetite “had grown by what it fed on,” and the comparatively sober statements made in his journal swelled into monstrous dimension, on his arrival in Melbourne and Sydney. I must again here express my great regret that the conduct the Mission Committee in Perth drove Mr. Gribble to appeal to an audience which would give him a hearing in the eastern colonies. Mr. Gribble was the duly appointed missionary of that committee; and with the sanction of the Bishop he had published an account of what he had seen and done in the district which had been assigned to him. His narrative gave great dissatisfaction to the settlers of that district and their friends. The committee, which had at first supported him in the matter of the “Natal” outrage, as soon as they saw that Mr. Gribble’s action had created a strong feeiing against him, at once grew cold, if not positively hostile, towards him. Their own accredited missionary had surely a right to be heard by them with regard to the statement which he had taken upon himself to make, even although they might have had strong suspicion that those statements were greatly exaggerated. No doubt, it will be said that even in the most orderly and law-abiding communities there are to be found evil disposed persons who will act in defiance of the laws; and why, it will be asked, should Mr. Gribble have raised such an outcry because there may have been found a few such characters on the Gascoyne? But to this Mr. Gribble may very well answer, that in law abiding communities, should serious charges of lawlessness at anytime be made, those charges will at once be investigated, and the offenders, should there be any, be brought to punishment; and Mr. Gribble may go on to say that when he spoke as one who had authority to speak, not only would no one listen to him, but strenuous efforts were made to silence him altogether. I am considering not the position in which Mr. Gribble finds himself now; at the conclusion of this trial, but the position in which he was placed, when, after having been made the subjeot of a grievous outrage, he was called insolent by his fellow clergymen for attempting to obtain redress for that outrage, and when broad hints were made that his real object was to make money out of his grievances. I cannot but think, and I feel constrained to express my opinion, that Mr. Gribble was not at that time treated with the consideration which he had every right to expect. He undoubtedly had much to say which loudly called for a patient hearing, for it is now admitted that the charges made by Mr. Gribble have been productive of much good. Unfortunately, this good is now accompanied by much evil as a consequence of the scandal which followed Mr. Gribble’s footsteps in the eastern colonies. Had Mr. Gribble been granted a fair and patient hearing this evil might have been averted, and the good would still have been ours and this painful trial might never have taken place. The question which I think we should put to ourselves is this: In writing his pamphlet, and in making his statements to the reporter of the Melbourne paper, and in his various lectures, did Mr. Gribble show a proper regard for the truth of the statements made by him?—in short, did he upon all occasions, in writing and speaking, do so honestly, or did he show such a wilful disregard for the truth as to justify the defendants in writing of him as they did. We answer both of these question in favour of the defendants.

Mr. JUSTICE STONE spoke as follows: In a case of such importance as this one, I think it advisable that I should make some remarks upon it. This ease is one which has engaged my most serious consideration not only on account of its importance to the plaintiff, whose character as a clergyman and missionary is at stake, and to the defendants whose conduct as public writers upon public matters is called in question, but also on account of the very grave charges which have been made by the plaintiff against the Government, magistrates, settlers and others in this colony. I have, therefore, been equally anxious with the Chief Justice that nothing which appeared in any way to bear upon the issues we have been called upon to decide should be omitted or rejected. It has frequently been difficult for the Court to decide what was or was not really admissable as evidence, owing to the absence of any particulars of the specific facts upon which the defendants relied to support their plea of justification. This no doubt has occasioned the admission of a great deal of matter that may turn out to be irrelevant. The facts of this case are shortly these: The plaintiff who for some time prior to his arrival in this Colony had been conducting a Mission amongst the aborigines of New South Wales was introduced into this Colony by the authorities connected with the Church of England here, for the purpose of ministering to the spiritual necessities of the settlers on the Gascoyne river in the north district; of this Colony and also as a Missionary to the aborigines in that part. The plaintiff arrived in the Colony about the middle of 1885, where he was welcomed and the object of his Mission spoken of in favourable terms by the defendants’ newspaper, which also accorded him its support. Shortly afterwards, he proceeded to the scene his labours where he appears to have been also welcomed and well received by the settlers and others residing in the district, and he at once proceeded to carry ont the objects for which his services had been secured. Shortly after his arrival, Mr. Gribble, in order to ascertain the suitability for the purposes of a Mission of the land set apart by the Government at the Kennedy Range and Mount Dalgety respectively, as a Mission Reserve, started on a journey into the interior and in the coarse of his journey visited most of the stations and settlers en route. At these places, according to his own statements, he was again well and hospitably received, and formed a high opinion of the settlers he met with, who also supplied him, both on his outward and homeward journey, with food and necessaries for the road. Mr. Gribble, though well satisfied with his reception and the character of the settlers, saw many things which he did not and could not approve of, and, on some occasions, felt it to be his duty to express openly his disapproval. Whether he was too severe in his condemnation of what he witnessed, or too plain in pointing out what he disapproved of does not appear, but one thing is certain, that on his return to Carnarvon some of the settlers took up a position antagonistic to him and his Mission, which resulted in an effort being made to get him removed from the district. This action of the settlers was afterwards admitted to have been ill-advised. Mr. Maitland Brown, stating on behalf of a deputation of settlers that waited upon the Bishop, that the resolution was passed under the influence of strong excitement, and did not represent the true feelings of the settlers. In consequence of the action of the settlers, and to defend himself against the attacks which had been made against him, Mr. Gribble came down to Perth to consult with the Bishop, and during his stay delivered a lecture at St. George’s Hall, ander the patronage of the Bishop and the Dean, at which lecture he recounted the experiences of his journey to the Mission Reserve, and also spoke of the character and manners of several of the settlers and the kind of entertainment he had received at their various homesteads. Mr. Gribble also made an effort to publish his journal but was dissuaded from so doing. A report of this lecture, which appeared in the newspapers, found its way to the Gascoyne and caused considerable irritation amongst tbe settlers. Mr. Gribble, accordingly, on his return from Perth to the district, met with & very unfavourable reception. Another meeting of the settlers was held at which he was strongly condemned, and although present, was refused a hearing. Mr. Gribble says he was hounded down by abuse and threats and that he informed the meeting that if they would hot hear him directly, they should hear him indirectly, and that after this meeting he finally decided to publish his journal; and accordingly wrote out an account of his experiences and sent if to the Perth press, together with an article on the native labour system. The journal and article appeared in the Daily News and in the Inquirer newspapers of the 13th January, 1886, and contained, amongst other statements, records of incidents of a most painful character affecting the settlers and others at the Gascoyne. The following month Gribble paid a second visit to Perth by s.s. Natal, and, according to his statement was subjected to very gross treatment by some of the passengers on board. On reaching Perth he reported the occurrence to the Bishop, and the matter was brought before the Missions Committee, who advised that steps should be taken to bring the offending parties to justice. The committee alco passed a resolution of sympathy with Mr. Gribble for the treatment he had received at the hands the settlers, and expressed their deep regret at the assault and indignities to which he had reported himself to have been exposed on board the Natal. The committee, however, condemned the publication by him of his journal. Much difficulty, owing to a combination of circumstances, was experienced by Mr. Gribble in commencing the proceedings against the offenders in the Natal case, and ultimately through no fault of his, was obliged to allow them to drop. I regret extremely that Mr. Gribble was prevented from bringing this case forward, because I agree with the learned counsel for the defence in thinking that if he had, we should not have read many of those terrible and revolting stories that he afterwards put before tne public and which we have had listen to during the progress of this trial. Mr. Gribble was exceedingly annoyed at the miscarriage of the Natal case, and in a letter to the Governor complaining of his failure bring the case to a hearing, threatened to publish to the world the wrongs and injustice to which he alleged the aborigines of this colony were exposed. Shortly afterward he published his pamphlet entitled “Dark Deeds in a Sunny Land” and then left for the other colonies, where he was interviewed by the reporters and where he delivered sundry lectures. The reports of those interviews and lectures afterwards appeared in the public press. In the pamphlet, in those interviews and in his lectures, Mr. Gribble drew a most horrible picture of the state of things obtaining in this oolony in regard to the treatment of the aborigines. Charging the most heinous offences againi the settlers and others, and accusing the Government of the grossest neglect of the duty to the aboriginal race. The defendants then published of the plaintiff the libel complained of, which is in these words:—[His Honour read the paragraph containing the libel.] No stronger or more serious accusation could be made against a clergyman, and it is clearly libellous, unless it can be justified or excused. The defendants have taken both grounds of defence. They say first that the subject was one of public interest, affecting as it did the treatment of the aborigines by the settlers and others in this colony that they had a right to comment on the plaintiff’s statements, and so long as they acted bona fide, kept to the subject matter and had reasonable ground for believing that the statements complained of were false, they had a right to say so, and that in language suitable to the oocasion. Secondly, they say that the words complained of are true in substance and in fact. They furnished no particulars to the plaintiff, with this second ground of defence, of the specific facts upon which they relied to support their plea, and I was much surprised to learn from the plaintiff’s Counsel that he did not wish for particulars and that he thought it an advantage not to have them. Now the object of particulars is to furnish the plaintiff with the specific facts upon which the defendant relies to support his accusations in order that the plaintiff may come prepared to disprove or answer them. The plaintiff risks his character upon the issue joined upon the plea of justification and should, if he is desirous of rehabilitating himself be anxious to come prepared with evidence to rebut the defendant’s charges. Moreover, if the defendants had furnished particulars, they would have been bound by them, and if they had set forth several specific facts upon whioh they relied, and had failed in the proof of any, their plea of justification could not have been supported, although the proof of some of them might have gone far in the reduction of damages. I cannot, therefore, understand how, if the plaintiff had any regard for his character, his counsel could say that he did not want particulars. The plaintiff, when a plea of justification is placed upon the record, is in reality the defendant, since failure to disprove the charges of prima facie proved against him inflicts upon him a heavier punishment than the award of any damages would prove to his accuser. The Courts have always held that where the libel is general the plaintiff is entitled to particulars, upon the ground that he cannot be supposed to come to trial prepared to support all the actions of his past life. Now the effect of the defendants not having given particulars in this case, and not having been called upon to give any, is that they are entitled to bring forward as many facts as they like in support without notice to the plaintiff of their plea of justification; and it is for the Court sitting as a jury, to say whether all the facts justify the epithets they have used. Had particulars been given, the defendants, as I have stated, would have been restricted to those particulars, and the plaintiff might have obtained the opinion of the Court before the case went to the jury as to the sufficiency in law of those particulars to support the plea of justification. As the libel had reference to the statements contained in the pamphlet, the plaintiff’s interviews with the reporters, and his lectures, the defendants are, I think, restricted to tbe disproof of such facts as are contained in the pamphlet, and lectures alluded to. There can be no doubt that in these days a public writer in commenting on matters of public interest is allow considerable latitude, so long as he keeps ot the subject matter and does not make reckless assertions. I agree with the learned counsel for the defendants when he says that the course of the judicial decisions in England during the present century have all been tending to protect the liberty of the Press. A few years ago it was thought that public writers in commenting upon public matters had no protection. Some of the observations in the celebrated case of Campbell v. Spottiswood, which excited considerable attention at the time, seemed to support that view. A close perusal of that case, however, will show that all that was really decided was that it is no defence to a libel that the writer of it honestly believed it to be true. Chief Justice Cockburn, in the course of that case, said, “I think you ought to have something more solid and substantial to found your allegations upon than the mere suggestion of a vague belief, which antagonism arising either from political or religious controversy would otherwise be too apt to inspire.” “You bave no right to impute to a man in his conduct as a citizen, dishonest or wicked motives, unless there is so much ground for the imputation that a jury shall be of opinion, not only that you may have honestly entertained some mistaken belief upon the subject, but that yeur belief is well founded and not without cause.” “I do not think we should be laying down the law according to what was always understood to be essential to the best interests of the community if we were to say, because a writer may fancy that the conduct of a public man is open to the suspicion of dishonesty, that, therefore, he is entitled to denounce that man as dishonest.” “I can quite understand that if a man were attacked in the public press and the jury were of opinion that the attack was well founded, the writer would be protected.” In the case of Hunter v.Sharpe, which occurred some time afterwards, it was held that a public writer in commenting npon matters of public interest, is protected and excused, if, in writing honestly, and with reasonable moderation and self control, he makes through mistaken inferences on the matter of fact involved, defamatory statements the truth of which he cannot substantiate. In that case a public writer, having in commenting upon an advertisement, represented the anthor as a quack imposter, and also (by reason of his describing himself as an M.D. on account of a diploma obtained abroad) as like “scoundrels who pass base coin,” and there being evidence that his publications teemed with statements extravagant and exaggerated, and alarming, it was held that if they were consciously so, and if the plaintiff did not really believe them, these epithets were justifiable, but further held that even if they were not so in fact, if the jury were satisfied that the writer really believed that they were so, and that he was writing honestly and with reasonable regard for moderation, he was excused and protected.

Cockburn Chief Justice In addressing the jury said, “You must say upon the whole whether you consider the plea of justification to be made out. But suppose you cannot go to that length, that will not conclude the case. Under the second ground of defence under that head, the defendant says it was a matter of public interest and conoern, that the plaintiff by his advertisements invited people to submit to his system of treatment, and that if he, the defendant, really believed it to be a delusion, then he bad a right to maintain that it was so, and that even if in drawing inferences of imposture and bad intention he fell into error, yet if he wrote honestly and with the intention of exercising his vocation as a public writer, fairly, and with reasonable moderation and judgment, he is entitled to the verdict. And I entirely agree in that view. It is not necessary that the justification should appear to you to be made out, if you think that the defendant or the writer was in the reasonable and honest exercise of his vocation as a public writer, even though he was not fully warranted in drawing the inferences he did as to the conduct of the plaintiff, and though it may be that he was not entirely justified by the absolute truth.” Now, applying the law so laid down to this case, we have to ask ourselves were the defendants writing honestly and with reasonable regard for moderation ? Bid they give vent to harsh and uncharitable views of the plaintiff or did they exercise a fair honost and impartial judgment? I think they have answered this question for themselves in the terms of the apology inserted in their paper the day after the alleged libel and also by the evidence of one of the defendants, Mr. Hackett. The apology was in these words: “We greatly regret that, owing to editorial inadvertence, a short paragraph appeared in our issue yesterday referring to Mr. Gribble, late native missionary on the Gascoyne, in terms which were calculated to give umbrage. We regret this “the more because we have taken a strong position against Mr. Gribble’s proceedings. It is, for that reason, most unfortunate that anything should have appeared in these columns to which, from a personal point of view, he had a right to take exception. In these circumstances, unasked, we apologise to Mr. Gribble should those remarks and this sequel meet his eye, for the terms used towards him. Mr. Gribble, however, probably knows, as do most of our readers know, that while Council is sitting, circumstances to which we need not more explicitly refer, cause there to be occasional interruptions of that close editorial supervision usually given to these columns. This, though it may not excuse, will explain the occurrence.” Mr. Hackett in his evidence stated that, if he had written, he would have couched the libel in different words and in answer to the Chief Justice, said that he did not approve of the terms, the wording should have been altered, the words were too coarse for the paper, and it was in consequence of that fact, that another paragraph was inserted next day, apologising for the language in which the charge had been made against Mr. Gribble. Now unfortunately for the defendants they are in this position; not having given up the name of the writer, they are supposed for the purposes of the libel to stand in the writer’s shoes and have, therefore, to take the responsibility of the libel and what was written immediately afterwards. Had the writer written honestly and with reasonable regard for moderation, there would have been no need for an apology to the plaintiff or admission that the terms of the libel were disapproved of. If the libel was written honestly and with reasonable regard for moderation but in the opinion of the writer the words were too coarse for the newspaper, an apology was due to the readers of the paper not to Mr. Gribble. I cannot in the face of the evidence come to the conclusion that the writer was “in the reasonable and honest exercise of his vocation as a public writer,” that he wrote with “reasonable moderation an judgment” when he drew the inferences he did as to the conduct of the plaintiff. I am, therefore, of opinion that the first plea has not been established.

We have now to consider the more important issue raised under the plea of justification. Now it is not necessary in order to support their plea that the defendants should prove that every statement made or published by the plaintiff is wilfully false and exaggerated or that in everything he did and said he was a “lying, canting humbug.” It is sufficient if they prove such a number of important facts bearing upon the plaintiff’s published statements as will convey to an ordinary unprejudiced mind the conviction that the plaintiff has deserved the epithets used towards him by the defendants. If a person in writing a book, purporting to be written in the interests of a certain class, and in lecturing and imparting information to reporters on the same subject, makes a few false statements, or is guilty of exaggeration, or makes many false statements and exaggeration which he honestly believes to be true, he is not to be branded as a “lying, canting humbug,” but if the book, lectures and information imparted teems with false, extravagant and exaggerated statements, well-known to the person who puts them forth if, although purporting to be written and given in the interests of a class, they are also written and given with the object of bringing discredit upon certain bodies of persons who have offended the writer, if they are also used as a cloak to cover that person’s malice against those bodies of persons, if he (the writer) further points with the finger of scorn at certain authorities as having failed in their duty to that class when he himself has also failed, then I say that such epithets as “lying, canting humbug” are fully justified.

In the case of Tighe v. Cooper, Lord Campbell (Chief Justice) said “that if the defendants, who had justified in writing of the plaintiff that ‘there was nothing too base for him to be guilty of,’ could prove the truth of this plea—viz., that the plaintiff had falsely and fraudulently denied his signature to an I.O.U.—the character given of the plaintiff by the defendant was justified;” and in the case of Hunter v. Sharp, to which I have before referred, it was held that if the extravagant, exaggerated and alarming, statements put forth by the advertiser, were consciously so, and if he did not really believe then the epithets “quack,” “impostor” and “like scoundrels who pass bad coin” were justifiable. Those who have studied the various classes of witnesses, who come before Courts of Justice are well acquainted with the class called “canting humbugs” a class who lead you to believe that they are speaking from the very best of motives, with the best intentions, and with the utmost impartiality, who shirk a downright lie, but keep as close to one as they can, whose statements whioh may be very close to truth, require to be looked into carefully, to see on which side of the line they are, if on that of falsehood, they are so near the truth, yon can scarcely distinguish it, and if, on the other side, they are equally near a lie. Now, one of the contentions of the defendants is, that the plaintiff in publishing his pamphlet, and making the statements he did was actuated, not by a praiseworthy desire to prevent the “continuance of the ill-treatment of the natives at the Gascoyne and to bring about an amelioration of their condition, but that he was actuated by feelings of malice towards the settlers and others who opposed him in this colony. That had it not been for the treatment he received at the hands of the settlers and the Missions Committee, and the miscarriage of justice in the Natal case, we should have heard nothing of the fearful charges he has made. And that, being so actuated, he wilfully concocted and exaggerated a number of incidents connected with their treatment, in order to bring discredit upon the settlers and authorities in this colony. The plaintiff, at the meeting at Carnarvon after the meeting had refused to hear him, said, “that if they would not hear him directly they should hear him indirectly.” In his preface to “Dark Deeds” he says “I would, however, have it to be understood that my journal and articles were published after and not “before all the barbarous tactics of the settlers to get rid of me. It was only when they hounded me down at the second meeting at Carnarvon that I resolved to adopt the only course open to me, viz.:—the columns of a free press.” When writing to the Governor, after hie failure loaring on the Natal case, he says, “I wish Your Excellency to understand that if I am obliged to abandon this case through the force of circumstances, I shall most certainly lay the blame at the door of the Government of this colony, and I shall be prepared to act accordingly. I shall not keep anything back from the sister colonies nor from the authorities, Civil and Ecclesiatical, in England. I shall make it my mission to reveal to the Christian world the wrong the injustice and cruelty obtaining under the British flag in Western Australia.” Again, in his letter to the Secretary of State upon the same subject he says “I assured his Excellency that the cruelty and injustice to which I had been subjected in this colony would compel me to make known to the world the iniquities obtaining under the British flag in Western Australia.” In his evidence, in answer to the defendant’s counsel, who asked him whether if he had not had to abandon the Natal prosecution the Christian world would have been deprived of these revelations? th plaintiff said “it would entirely depend upon circumstances” and upon being further asked what circumstances? said “he couldn’t say.” From these statements we may fairly gather that the plaintiff, who professed to be so indignant at the “wrongs, injustice, and cruelty,” he alleges the natives to have been subjected to, would not have said a word about it but for the treatment he received. To his mind, the injustice he had suffered far outweighed the terrible cruelties he alleges te have been practised against them. Their cause was quite a secondary consideration to him, “the cruelties and injustice I have been subjected to will compel me to make known to the world the iniquities obtaining under the British flag in W.A.” Not the wrong and gross brutalities that I know the settlers to have been guilty of towards the natives not the cause of these poor suffering creatures about whose spiritual and worldly welfare I am so much concerned but my own welfare, my own illtreatment. With the knowledge he alleges he possessed of all the terrible sufferings the natives were undergoing and of the horrible atrocities attributed by him to the settlers, one would have thought that we should have heard something about his having brought these matters under the notice of the authorities, as it was certainly his boundless duty to have done. It is true that he wrote to the Governor drawing his attention to certain immoralities which he alleged existed, and complained of having found a teamster sleeping with a native woman, and also interviewed His Excellency about the necessity of appointing native protectors to watch the interests of the natives at their trials—a subject which had before breen brought to the notice of the Governor by a commission and by him under the notice of the Legislative Council, but we do not find Mr. Gribble making any mention of the terrible cruelties he has since charged against the settlers. Yet, he afterwords complains through the press of the inaction of the Government, of their conniving at the horrible state of things which he alleges to exist and gives as a reason that the Government of the country is in the hands of a few families who are more or less interested in all matters relating to pearling and settlement in the North, and, therefore, it is very hard work to get justice for the blacks or for those who seek to befriend them. Indeed, I may go farther and show that he failed to take any notice of the grossest brutaUties which he states came under his own notice. He says, “in one case I know of seven natives who were chained to each other, and to a cart wheel, and, were then flogged with a stock whip until the blood was flowing in streams from their naked books.” “The same kind of treatment is inflicted for other offences.” “A native told me he had been floeged because he wouldn’t carry water, that his master had not given him enough bread to eat, that he had knocked him down and ill-treated him.” “I have known thirty natives to be chained neck to neck, and driven over 300 miles, and then instead of getting their discharge as they should, at the end of six months they were kept in slavery for 5, 6, or 7 years.” To the Reporter of the Melbourne Daily Telegraph, he says, “I could fill a page of your paper with instances of cruelty, I have either witnessed myself, or had learned on good authority.” He also said again in his evidence, “When the natives get disabled from the cruel treatment they receive, they are taken to islands from which they cannot swim ashore and there recruited for more slavery.” “Rushton assigned his natives to Mr. Campbell. I mean by that to convey the idea that the native lad was a slave being passed about.” I might mention several other instances, but these will suffice as examples. Can we conceive it possible that a man with a knowledge of these facts, if they are facts, or if he believed them to be so, professing to be looking after the protection of these natives; a man who professes to be indig- nant with the settlers at their behaviour, and charges the authorities with conniving at this state of things, should himself calmly sit down and take no notice of these atrocities, and make no effort to bring the parties to justice, and not even mention the matter until he had been thwarted and opposed. The same indignant person writes thus in his pamphlet: “Hearing a native woman’s cries and shrieks, two of my native men and I ran in the direction from which they came, and found two terrified creatures just emerging from the river bank, and, on enquiring what was the matter, the poor injured creature signified what had taken place, and showed the wounds, which plainly indicated that great violence had been used, the other woman at the same time showing me how she had been thrown down and then held by both arms and legs. I must say that at the sight of the outrage my very blood boiled, and, though dark as it was, I hurried away alone, after dressing the poor creature’s wounds, to the said white man’s camp and informed him of what had taken place. He said he was very sorry, and in my presence soundly reprimanded the cruel monsters. He earnestly requested me not to give the case into the hands of the police, as I said I should do. The man being a most respectable person, I agreed to stay proceedings.” What a reason for not bringing tha parties guilty of such gross brutality to justice? How soon the “boiling blood,” got cold. It is true that he did report the case of the dragging of the native girl, and also stated in his pamphlet that he heard nothing more of it, although he has since told ns in his evidence that Mr. Foss said the case must be enquired into, and that he now knows that it was enquired into and turned out wholly different to what he had been led to believe. Now, how did the plaintiff proceed to act after what he saw and heard! One would have imagined, as I have said before, that he would have communicated with his Bishop and with the Government, drawing their attention to the state of things and suggesting remedies, but no, the settlers had opposed him, he had been unable to bring to justice the offenders in the Natal outrage. So he proceeded to carry out the threats contained in his letter to the Governor and to the Secretary of State. Having, as he says, after the “barbarous tactics” of the settlers to get rid of him, first written out and sent to the Press what has been called his “Journal” and “Article on the native labour system on the Gascoyne” hut which he himself more correctly describes in his letter to the Secretary of State as “An account of my experiences,” he then wrote to the Secretary of State, and afterwards published the pamphlet entitled “Dark Deeds in a Sunny Land,” containing as he himself states at the conclusion, an account of deeds “most dark and horrible in their nature that had been committed, and were still being practised in this colony and that, too, so to speak, in the face of the representative of the greatest sovereign the world has ever seen. He then, as I have said before, went to the other colonies, where he was interviewed by the reporters to the Press, to whom he recounted a number of terrible incidents connected with the state of things obtaining in this colony in regard to the treatment of the natives, and where he also lectured upon the same subject. If in all of this he was actuated by the motives I have alluded to, one can easily understand how fiction became fact, and idle rumour personal knowledge, and an absolute false idea conveyed of the actual state of things existing in this colony. Taking the whole of the plaintiff’s conduct into consideration—the pamphlet, the reports of the interviews and the lectures, and, judging of his conduct by the light of this evidence, I can come to no other conclusion than that he was influenced by spirit of vindictiveness towards the settlers and authorities of this colony, and by a feeling of revenge upon those whom he considered had wronged him, and at whose hands he had been unjustly treated. I have, in the course of this trial, stated that I feared the case was assuming more the character of an inquiry into the treatment of the natives of this colony by the settlers and others than the trial of specific issues of fact between, the plaintiff and the defendants. I have, therefore, in the course of my judgment, endeavoured to keep to those specific issues, and not to travel out of them. In my opinion the issues are confined to what the plaintiff has said and published and to nothing else. What may or may not have occurred in relation to the natives, many years ago or since the plaintiff has made and published his statements, or what may be happening now, has nothing to do with the question. It is not to be denied that in times past gross cruelties have been practised towards the natives. It is also, unfortunately, not to be denied that immoralities exist amongst them and the whites, and that occasional acts of cruelty, are still committed. The defendants have not attempted to dispute this. But the specific issue we have to decide is whether the defendants were justified in applying ta the plaintiff the epithets complained of in regard to his published statements. I have felt compelled to refer to this, because a great deal of evidence has been given, and relied upen by the plaintiffs counsel, which to my mind cannot be taken into consideration, vis. evidence having reference to what has occurred several years ago, and to matters and occurrences not mentioned or referred to in any of the plaintiff’s published statements, and to which, therefore, the defendants cannot be said to have referred. To allude more particularly to the evidence of Francisco, as to the alleged sales of boats and natives, several years ago, at the North West, and the capturing of natives, by the man Mountain, who was imprisoned for the offence, the construction placed by the plaintiff’s counsel, on Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Bottom’s evidence, as to the disposal of stations with the natives; the evidence of Ernest Gribble in reference to the offer of £2 by the shoemaker for Mr. Gribble’s native lad, after the plaintiff had left the colony; the evidence of Bovell as to the gross and cruel misconduct of the imbecile shepherd on Cruickshank’s station on the Murchison, last February, and that of the witness Greaves, as to the native with the bad leg at Geraldton. All this, if true, is very deplorable, and deserving of the strongest condemnation, but it has nothing to do with the specific facts put forth by the plaintiff, and relied upon in support of his general charges, concerning which he has been libelled. It is to the accuracy or otherwise of those specific facts or the reasonable ground, which the plaintiff bad for believing them to be true, that we have to direct our attention. This being so, we will proceed to consider the conduct of the plaintiff and the various charges brought by him against the people of this colony, and the settlers of the Gascoyne in particular, In doing this, it must be borne in mind that the plaintiff is a clergyman

[page 18]

and missionary, one who ought to be lover of truth and hater of falsehood and wrong. In the words of the defendant’s counsel, “we expect from such a man the trnth, accuracy, and absence of exaggeration, aad an absence of bad feeling, leading him to charge the most horrible crimes and vices against those amongst whom he went to labour.” At the same time, although we expect an example in this respect by clergymen and missionaries, we must not forget that they, like other men are human, and are subject to the same frailties and infirmities. We must therefore, not be too hasty to condemn them if in honestly writing on a subject they have deeply at heart, they are guilty of slight inaccuracies and over-coloured statements. Every writer in endeavouring to expose abuses is entitled to write strongly, in such a manner as will be most likely to direct public attention to them. It is often difficult to bring the public mind to bear apon a question unless it is spoken of strongly and plainly; most reforms are bronght about in this way. So long, therefore, as a writer writes honestly, reasonably, and with due regard to the truth, so long ought he to be protected. Now, do we find the plaintiff doing this? Do we find him writing honestly, and with due regard to the truth? I have already referred to his threats to the Governor and the way in whioh he proceeded to carry them into effect. Let me now, before referring to his evidence, refer to some of his published statements, and in doing so we should bear in mind that we ought to look at his statements as a whole, and not rely altogether on one or two particular cases. I would also here observe that a lie may be told in various ways—it may be told in a plain, open manner, and so be easily met, or it may be so coloured with truth as to be difficult of detection. It is these coloured lies, lies with a faint shadow of truth, that are so dangerous; and I should say that the epithet “lying humbug” wonld apply more accurately to one who had been gnilty of telling these coloured lies than to one who had openly stated that which he knew to be untrue. Before dealing with his statements as a whole, let me refer to a few specific ones: In his preface to “Dark Deeds” he writes of this colony as having become “the nursing mother of oppression and injustice,” that “deeds of infamy find toleration in it,” explaining in his cross-examination that by those who tolerated deeds of infamy, be referred to the Government in some cases to Magistrates, police officers, managers of stations and some settlers. And he also in his pamphlet writes that “Deeds of darkness in the sense of injustice and inhumanity are practised in this land of light and blessing,” and speaks of the Missions Committee, amongst whom were the Dean and Archdeacon, his ecclesiastical superiors, as composed of “the poor creatures of circumstances and the more satellites of viceregal patronage” and after stating that he had been interdicted by the Dean and practically deserted by the Missions Committee, he concludes with this terrible indictment “truly this colony is filled with violence, the priests prophesy smooth things and the people desire td have it so.” We find the plaintiff, when forced to the proof of these dreadful statements, obliged to confess that the greater part of those horrible assertions were put forth to tbe world on mere hearsay or “report.” Like some false witnesses, he appears to consider that be is entitled to recount or repeat slanders without the slightest shadow of proof, and to quote them ever afterwards as established facts, if the persons libelled do not think it worth while to contradict them. In his letter to the Melbourne Daily Telegraph, correcting certain errors in their report of what passed at one of his interviews, he says, “The simple truth is bad enough without any colouring.” Now what are his statements and the specific facts upon which he relies to support them? I have said we ought to look at his statements as a whole, and, in doing so, I think we shall, in the first place, see whether to the ordinary reader, the idea wonld be oonveyed that tbe state- ments were founded npon mere report, or whether they do not rather appear to be based upon some more solid foundation. I think few people reading all those statements wonld come to the conclusion that they seated on such a slippery and loose founda- tion as the plaintiff has been able to build wp in the course of his evidence on this trial. Now, what are these statements? The plaintiff’s counsel places them under tbe following heads—slavery, cruelty to natives (both by the settlers and the Government), the assignment of natives, immorality, the killing and eating of half-caste children, the report that plaintiff bad heard of orders being given by masters for the killing of half-caste children, and various other charges. I wonld rather place them under the following heads: whites obtaining their native labour by running them down like emus or kangaroos, joining them neck to neck like cattle and driving them to their homesteads; compelling them to put their hands to a pen and make a cross on an assignment paper; assigned servants secured by a system of kidnapping; natives perfectly ignorant of what they are doing; when their time is up they run away, and in many cases get sentenced to six or twelve months imprisonment at Rottnest; trials on uncorroborated evidence; native girls assigned against their will for immoral purposes; half-caste children freely killed and eaten; orders given by the fathers for this to be done; bones of children seen “cleanly picked; native children the victims of white men; pearling horrors as detailed by Carley still continued; natives taken to islands from which they cannot escape and there recruited for more slavery; everything done in the interests of the pearlers and settlers, nothing on the other side; women assigned to men, who, according to native custom, known to the kill them if they dislike them; Deacon’s case; Rotton’s case; boycotting by settlers; practically deserted by Missions Committee; shooting with intent to murder; permission to Champion and Polly to live together; Missions Committee composed of men directly concerned in planting and settlement; Telegraph 6th July.

His Honor then said in reference to the manner in which Mr. Gribble had given his evidence, that it pained him much to have to say it, but he had never in the whole of his experience met with a witness who prevaricated so much, who suppressed the truth, and who was so disingenuous in his answers as was the plaintiff himself. He would go so far as to say that had not the plaintiff been in the hands of very clever cross-examining counsel, the Court would have been completely misled by his answers. Continuing a most exhaustive review of the evidence given in the case, His Honor went at length into the statements made in “Dark Deeds” and in the Melbourne Daily Telegraph of July 6, and 9. In all cases where the plaintiff’s assertions were at variance with, or were contradicted by the evidence of the defence, he said he felt constrained by Mr. Gribble’s behaviour and mode of answering in the box, to discredit the latter, and accept the version of his opponents. In particular, His Honor adverted to the evidence in connection with the supposed attempt to murder Mr. Gribble by Mr. Beasley’s survey party, his gross prevarication in regard to the proceedings attendant on the “union” of Champion and Polly, and his misrepresentation of the account given him by Mrs. Rotton in relation to the hunting down of natives by Mr. Rotton for the purpose of forcing them into bondage. In all these instances His Honor gave it as his emphatic opinion that the plaintiff’s version was wholly unworthy of belief.

In concluding, His Honor said: I have gone through all the statements I thought it necessary to notice, and I have felt it my duty to do so because I have spoken very strongly of the conduct of the plaintiff in connection with these publications. It has caused me great pain to do so. I only wish that my conscience would have allowed me to take a more lenient view of the plaintiff’s conduct than I have done. I may be wrong in thus judging the plaintiff; I hope for his sake that I am; but I can say this: that I have earnestly tried to see whether there was anything in his favour that could bring me to give a decision different from that at which I have arrived. I therefore agree with the Chief Justice that the verdict in this case must be for the defendants, on the ground that they were fully justified in using the epithets complained of.

AB notes:

There is much to be gleaned from this 1887 piece. The Gribble affair had the effect of polarising the debate about the treatment of Aborigines, and that polarisation lasted would continue well into the new century.