[“Correspondence”, The West Australian, Tuesday 01 November 1892, page 6]
CORRESPONDENCE.
BISHOP GIBNEY AND THE NOR’-WEST
SETTLERS.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir,—I should not have taken part in this controversy had it not been that Mr. Harper has thought fit, in attempting to deny the allegations of Bishop Gibney, that the natives of the Nor’-West have been cruelly ill-treated, to go out of his way to sneer at Irishmen in general, under the plausible pretext of drawing a simile between Irishmen and blackfellows. We, in these colonies, have our own troubles to contend with, and do not want old world differences introduced into our midst. As, however, Mr. Harper has referred to the crimes committed in Ireland by way almost of justification for the massacres in the Nor’-West (such is the elegant mode of his reasoning), let me tell him that he had better look to his father’s country first. Take up his infallible paper, the London Times, and glance over the items in the police courts and see if you will not find more crimes, including wife beating, robbery, child murder, debauchery, aye the whole gamut of crime—witness the West End crimes, in peaceful, Christian England than in any other civilised country. Had he better not try and justify or palliate these crimes before looking too closely into the crimes committed in the sister isle?
His reference to Ireland in the matter under discussion, is a covert insult, no doubt, to the Bishop and to all persons who either come
from Ireland, or are descendants of the Irish race, and coming from one who has accepted the position of defender of the squatters on the charges levelled against them over and over again, can only be attributed to a desire to draw public attention from the real question at issue.
The controversy has resolved itself into a concise form. On the one hand, Bishop Gibney alleges that the natives have been ill-treated with impunity; that the crime of ill-treatment of inferior races is in the opinion of theologians punished on earth by visitations such, as the late disastrous drought in the North-West, and that the drought was a visitation from Providence for the ill-treatment the natives had received at the hands of the white settlers. On the other hand, Mr. Harper denies the ill-treatment of the natives, and affirms that they have been humanely treated, and, though he does not directly do so, in an equivocal manner questions the doctrine of national punishment. I need only say, further, that Mr. A. R. Richardson, also a settler of the North West, corroborates Mr. Harper, applauds him for the stand he has taken, crowns him and all other set- tlers with laurels for their humanity, and winds up with an opinion on the question of earthly punishment, which, whilst it would reflect some credit on “Bob” Ingersoll or Tommy Walker at a freethought meeting, must be, dismissed from this controversy as idle and out ot place.
Assuming that Dr. Gibney’s allegation of ill-treatment in the past is correct, and that the doctrine of punishment is accepted, I see very little dispute between the parties. We have had the disastrous drought, and it is more in consonance with reason that, if a Providence guides our destines, we should be punished for some cause than for none at all. I do not, however, intend to discuss the theological aspect of the question, for I am sure Mr. Harper will accept without reserve the teachings of the Church of which be is such a prominent member. I feel that the ill-treatment of the natives is the only question on which the parties are really at issue. Now, I may be permitted, notwithstanding I was not born in colony, to say that I can claim as much knowledge of this question as “the humane band of hardy pioneers who gave up the comforts of home and society to explore and settle the unknown parts of the colony from purely patriotic motives.” I would ask Mr. Harper, does he deny that since the settlers, “the hardy pioneers,” have gone up north, there has not been murder after murder, massacre after massacre, of the unfortunate blacks, irrespective of age or sex. Remember the Foam passage massaere. What was done to the inhuman monster who led his ghastly brigade on to the gruesome work of slaughter? Would he not to-day be accounted a “hardy pioneer” had he not, by the avenging finger of God, met his fate between two jarrah logs on the Darling Range? Is there any need to recapitulate the horrid atrocities that have darkened the opening pages of the history of north west settle- ment? Who denies it? If I am contradicted I shall prepare a list of them and publish it for the benefit of the “hardy pioneers.” Mr. Harper calls them isolated cases. When 100 or 150 men are massacred in cold blood I cannot call that an isolated case—an isolated massacre if you like; but how many have occurred? Now for my information. I would ask Mr. Harper to name one person who has been executed in Perth for murder of a native or, to use the Common phrase, “killing a nigger” during the last twenty years? Whilst on this subject I would like to refer to Mr. McKay’s letter. That gentleman does not know what a myall hunt is. For his informationn let me tell him it is a nigger hunt. I feel sure he understands now. “Nigger hunting” was the term used about Ashburton and Roebourne when men were sent up to hunt natives and bring them down on a chain and put them on pearling boats. But perhaps Mr. McKay does not know that the “niggers” were used for diving. It is a fact, though, and they were humanely taught to dive by having a cannon shot tied to their feet, and lowered down by a rope-eye, and they were mast-headed at times.
Myall hunting is a term used more north-east from Mr. McKay’s home. Suppose a few sheep are stolen, or a man is killed by a native, not for interfering with the native women but for pastime! Well, we muster as many men as we can, and, if possible, get a policeman into the company. We mount, and bring a pack horse to carry provisions, as we intend to do good work. On a matter of fire-arms, a Snider rifle is preferred, as it makes a bigger hole in the nigger, and generally settles him at once. Now we start, and separate into twos and threes, and round the natives into a thicket. A short council of war, and the attack commences. Early dawn is the best time to begin the attack. Shall I proceed further? What need? We have seen it in the papers—man, woman and child are sent to their fate and never a conviction that I have heard of. Well, some of us—I rather think the majority—don’t look on a wild nigger as a man, and of course the only difference between killing a nigger and a kangaroo is that the beastly Perth authorities sometimes shove a fellow on his trial, and put him to no end of expense—not that there’s any fear of a conviction, but it is a beastly nuisance.
Now, with reference to chaining native prisoners to their barrows and making them work in the sun, I can only express the opinion I have before. If the native is a human being, it is a cruel mode of punishment, Mr. Adams’ opinion to the contrary, notwithstanding. It is not, so far as I know, permitted in any other British possession, and the sight of it, though it did not shock Mr. Adams, certainly shocked me considerably. But for what are they imprisoned? Stealing sheep. The settler has taken up their country, destroyed their kangaroos and roots, and to satisfy the demands of nature they steal a sheep and feed their wives and children. Let us take a similar case. A poor man in London steals a loaf of bread, is arrested and brought before a magistrate. He receives a fair trial and sentence. It turns out his family are starving, the magistrate is exe- crated as “tyrant,” public indignation is aroused, and the unfortunate man released. The native similarly circumstanced, if not shot, is imprisoned. The trial is generally a farce, and if faithfully pourtrayed here in Perth or in England, would not be believed.
Mr. Harper has given Bishop Gibney some advice. Let me now tender mine to Mr. Harper: “Presuming on a doubtfal victory over Mr. Gribble, you have over-stepped the bounds of prudence, and roused a power against you that, with ten thousand times the influence you had against Mr. Gribble, you cannot overawe nor wrestle with. Bishop Gibney’s past life is a sufficient guarantee that his utterances are reliable and based on facts, and you will find a difference between His Lordship and a clergyman, deserted in time of trouble, by those who should have supported him, but who, I am glad to say, is one of the most enthusiastic and exemplary clergyman of the English Church in the Eastern colonies.”
Mr. Harper and his sympathisers will also find that, the circumstances and conditions under which we now live are different, and that the democratic portion of the community will have no respect for a servitude distinguished only from slavery by the flimsiest line of democration[sic].
In conclusion, let me say that Mr. Harper has of late posed before the public as an authority on cold storage, electric lighting, and a chimerical panacea for good government, and if his judgment and opinion on those subjects are as unsound as they are on the native question, the public will treat his schemes as fads and himself as “a clever man, but—
Yours, etc.,
RICHARD S. HAYNES. Spotsford House, Oct. 29.
AB notes:
The ‘Gribble Affair’ raises its head again here.
This is the same Richard Haynes who:
- was acting as Norwegian Consul when the Crown of England was wrecked. (Chapter 10)
- represented Charles Hagen in the supreme-court murder trial of Hagen, Espada, and Marquez. (Chapter 18)
