Tuesday, August 6, 2013

John Douglas and the 1863 Queensland Parliament

In 1863, there was a mood of optimism in the Queensland colony.  The settlement of Somerset at the tip of Cape York had been established by John Jardine in March of that year, as had the Queensland Turf Club, while educational choices were increased by the establishment of All Hallows Convent and the Ipswich Grammar School in Brisbane and Ipswich respectively.  1863 was also the year Pacific Islanders were first brought to Queensland to work in the emerging sugar industry.[1]  The population of Queensland had doubled from 25,000 to 50,000 people since 1859, while the colony’s revenue during this period had similarly increased, from £178,000 to £356,000 per annum.[2]

Politics in Queensland were in their infancy, with the new colony not yet four years old.  Nevertheless, a measure of stability was provided through Governor Bowen and Premier Herbert continuing to hold office.  Responsible government was still a relatively new concept, taken very seriously by all concerned.  However, as the historian Manning Clark observed, responsible government modelled on the British experience and exported to the Australian colonies assumed two main political parties, each with clearly defined principles and interests.[3]  This did not hold in Queensland, where there were differences of interest, but no serious differences of principles or doctrine.[4]  Consequently, parliamentarians tended to associate with men of like interest or coalesce around those with powerful ambitions and personalities for in the absence of political parties, politicians “stood out above the melee of politics.”[5]
These associations in no way resembled the disciplined political parties of today.  They were fluid class based ideological groupings, bringing parliamentarians together to get a job done or to implement a program.  In the absence of parties and party discipline, the loose interest groups that did form did so only because they shared some common objective, usually of limited duration.[6]  This invariably led to shifting alliances and frequent disagreements, and resulted in a more complex system than that found today.[7]  Often, men who were fiercely opposed to each other would suddenly appear together in the ministry.  “Measures not men was the catchcry.”[8]  This meant ministries came and went more rapidly than is the case today, and they did not change only after an election.[9]  This, as will be shown, all too frequently ensured that politics in Queensland under responsible government in the mid to late nineteenth century was stormy and unstable, with its parliaments divided into a number of regional and personal cliques who fought against themselves for “place and pay” or for some “fancied local advantage.”[10] 

The main issues of the day for colonial politicians were land, railways, immigration, and ensuring that their constituents did not miss any largesse available from the colonial treasury.  These issues were linked, for it was believed that economic progress would be expedited through large-scale policies of immigration and railway-building directed towards intensive land settlement.[11]  Moreover, economic progress and development was sacrosanct, for not only was development for its own sake considered important, but it was also generally believed that moral progress naturally followed on from economic success.[12]
The second parliament
It was against this background that Queensland’s second parliament met on 21 July 1863, with Herbert continuing as premier after successfully contesting the seat of West Moreton.[13]  Douglas took his seat of Port Curtis, having already committed himself to opposing the premier and his ministry, for he considered them to be, “a piece of incongruous patch work.”[14]

This was not surprising, as the dominant feature of Queensland politics during this period was the lack of any party organisation.[15] This absence of political groupings meant that there was ample scope for members to display their independence and vote in accordance with their beliefs, so long as they also primed the parish-pump for the benefit of their electorate.  Men like Douglas were expected to be “independent” and “to hold ideas that were very much their own,” with their strength of character and attitudes to life being of major importance.[16]  However, although independent of party, they needed to be closely aligned to their constituents’ interests if they wished to be re-elected to office.[17]
There had been a significant turnover of members in the three years between the first and second parliaments, with 12 current legislative assembly members, almost 50 per cent of the total, returned since the historical first sitting on 7 May 1860.[18]  It is worthwhile to examine the characteristics of the men, and they were all men, Douglas worked with, for it offers insight into how Queensland politicians compared to Douglas.

In a religious age, they were all practising Christians.  The majority, 15 of the 26, were Anglicans like Douglas.  The remainder comprised five Presbyterians, two Wesleyans, a Methodist, a Congregationalist, a Baptist and William Kennedy, the sole Roman Catholic.
Not surprisingly, not one of them had been born in the colony.  What was surprising was that none was born in the Australian colonies either.  With the exception of Theophilus Pugh, born in the West Indies where his father was a Wesleyan missionary, all were born in the United Kingdom.  The majority, 13, were born in England, seven in Scotland, three in Ireland and one in Wales.  It is unknown where William Kennedy, who arrived in Queensland in 1841, was born.  The Scottish influence was particularly strong, even more so when including Douglas who, although born in London, considered himself Scottish.[19]

Many of the members came from humble backgrounds.  William Groom’s father was a cordwainer, and Charles Lilley’s father was a bootmaker.  Others were the sons of farmers, merchants, clergymen or professionals.  Only three, Douglas, Gilbert Eliott and Robert Mackenzie, were of aristocratic birth.
The parliament was an interesting combination of ‘gentlemen’ and self-made men, especially Groom, who came to Australia in 1849 as a convict sentenced to seven years transportation for stealing.  Fourteen were squatters, five were in the legal profession, four were newspaper proprietors, and one was a doctor, with merchants making up the remainder.  Its composition demonstrated that the ’establishment’ was characterised by the possession of property and wealth rather than by birth.[20]

It was a diverse and combustible mix.  Although Douglas was bound to many through common ties of country, religion and profession, in other ways his beliefs and principles were at variance with the majority, as this chapter will demonstrate.  He was a squatter who supported small farmers against pastoralists.  Although devoted to the Church of England, he pushed for state support of denominational schools against the wishes of the Anglican majority.  An aristocrat by birth, he was a liberal, while the other two aristocrats were conservatives.  Moreover, in his upbringing, manner, commitment to duty, sense of fair play and respect for decorum, Douglas demonstrated very different values and behaviour to many of the self-made men inhabiting the parliamentary benches with him.  As he himself once remarked to his constituents:
Whatever faults I may have, gentlemen, and I am conscious of very many, they are not those of meanness, or of sordid avarice based on political treachery.[21]
Railway policy
Douglas was delighted to again be in the political arena, representing his electorate at the very centre of power and influence.  On his first day in parliament, he presented a petition from his constituents requesting that there be no railway construction in the south of the colony unless the northern districts received a railway as well.[22]  It was not surprising that Douglas’s constituents felt this way, for there was keen competition between the various districts over the siting of the colony’s first railway. 

In presenting this petition, Douglas was conveying the anger of his electorate whose voters believed that parliament had neglected them when constructing a railway line from Ipswich to Dalby instead of in their northern district.  The residents of Central Queensland wanted their own east-west railway from Rockhampton to Peak Downs, claiming that they had greater need than settlers on the Darling Downs did, who had grown wealthy without the necessity of a railway.[23]  Douglas had recently chaired an “indignation meeting” at Rockhampton on just this issue.  Although his views were not as stridently expressed as many others, he sagely advised them to “go in for a railway too.”
Douglas’s initial address to the Queensland parliament consisted of mercilessly criticising the Herbert ministry for alleged misconduct, due to its attempted passing of a railway Bill at the end of the previous session, an action Douglas considered unconstitutional.[24]  Douglas opposed the ministry throughout the life of the second parliament and continually fought for the establishment of railway lines and road networks in the northern districts.  In this endeavour, the local paper, the Rockhampton and Central Queensland Advertiser, faithfully supported him throughout.[25] 

Initially the railway petitions Douglas presented on behalf of his Maryborough, Rockhampton and Gladstone constituents were treated with contempt by Governor Bowen’s private secretary, Henry Pitt, who, in his reply to Douglas, suggested that the petitioners should “devote to the practical object of improving their own local institutions the energies now wasted in fruitless endeavours of this nature.”[26]  This response, as well as Douglas’s reply, which hinted darkly that failure to act on the petition “may lead to the disintegration of the colony,” were published in full in the local newspaper and helped cement his support in the northern electorate by demonstrating his willingness to stand up to what were perceived to be dominating southern interests. [27] 
The Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser considered the private secretary’s remarks “indecorous and heartless.”[28]  However, the issue did not go away, and Douglas and his Central Queensland constituents were successful the following year when a route for the great northern line out of Rockhampton was approved and surveyed.[29]

Douglas foresaw the construction of railway lines being funded on similar lines to that in America, where “railways have been constructed and are now being successfully conducted by companies largely endowed with state lands.”[30]
Railway provision in the colony, and a sustainable means of funding them through land sales, were themes to which he would repeatedly return.[31]  The issues neatly married his two overriding concerns in his early parliamentary career: that of opening the north for development through the use of an efficient means of transport, and of finding a way to ensure it occurred in a manner that would fund and support the growth of the colony, not bankrupt it.  Douglas believed that railways should be built out of the proceeds of land sales, coining the term “land-grant lines” for this process.[32]  To him they were:
not so much a source of profit at the present time, but as a means of colonisation ... So far as paying for their construction was concerned, there were ample means by the sale of crown lands in districts contiguous to the lines.[33]
The development of railways in the young colony was deemed essential, for railways were the most important symbol of a country’s industrial, economic and financial power.  The more youthful or impoverished the country, the more urgently it seized on the railway as the key to progress.[34]  Douglas, along with every other Queenslander, understood this.[35]  They knew that a railway line in their district would inject enormous investment and bring lasting economic and transportation developments.  The question was not whether Queensland should build railways, but rather where was the best route to reap the rewards sufficient to justify the cost and effort required to build them.

Railways were ideally suited to Queensland, given its vast spaces and the poor state of the transport network in a colony without a navigable inland river system and atrocious roads all too often washed away by floods or turned to dust by droughts.[36]  Unfortunately, it also ignited the fierce regionalism prevalent in the colony, and frequently resulted in bitter rivalry between the southern and northern parts of the colony.
Premier Herbert envisaged a railway system operated by private enterprise based on the economical horse-drawn tramways he had seen in England.  The Moreton Bay Tramway Company was established to build tramways in the colony but struggled to attract sufficient financial support.[37]

In July 1863, Douglas presented a petition on behalf of William Coote, the late manager and engineer of the Moreton Bay Tramway Company, to inquire into negotiations between the company and the government regarding a tramway from Ipswich to Dalby.[38]  Incorporated by an act of parliament in 1861, the company had subscribers for £53,000 worth of shares for its proposal to build a standard gauge, horse-hauled, wooden-railed tramway from Ipswich to Toowoomba.[39]  The money raised was insufficient, and the company became insolvent in late 1862,[40] with its only asset - its survey plans – being sold to the government for £3,150.[41]  The company’s failure demonstrated that private funding of railways was not viable and that the government would have to finance their construction in the colony.[42] 
Nevertheless, in 1863 the government still wished to have a tramway built.  While it initially rejected an offer from the eventual successful tender, Tooth & Company, to build the line by funding it from a combination of land grants and government debentures, it eagerly seized on their proposal to use a narrow-gauge (3’ 6”) light railway line as advocated by its consultant, Irish engineer, Abraham Fitzgibbon.[43]  Coote had nothing but contempt for a railway based on such a narrow gauge, and did not hide his strong feelings on the matter.[44]

Douglas asked that a select committee consider the matters raised in the petition.  The motion was lost, but not before the premier, Herbert, remarked that Douglas “had been made a cat’s paw of by the audacious petitioner.”[45]  The timing and manner of the petition was contentious, with Coote having been an unsuccessful candidate for the seat of South Brisbane, while at least six and possibly up to nine members of the opposition were shareholders of the defunct company.[46]  Douglas’s championing of Coote’s cause was considered by the Daily Guardian newspaper to be overly ambitious.  It regarding him as being “young and green,”[47] while the Brisbane Courier considered Douglas to be neither conversant of the rules of boards nor how parliament operated.[48]
Although hardly an auspicious start to what was to be a long and distinguished political career in Queensland, the issue of the Tramway Company gave Douglas considerable publicity and a degree of prominence.[49]  While not a shareholder in the company, he supported Coote because he, too, was firmly against the introduction of a narrow-gauge railway into the colony.[50]

A week later, the Brisbane Courier reconsidered its attitude to Douglas following his opposition to a railway Bill introduced into parliament.  The paper believed that Douglas was:
worthy of the confidence reposed in him by the northern electors. His reply to the arguments adduced in the debate was as sensible and sound as it was dignified. He refrained from indulging in facetious remarks [and] what he did state was in accordance with the high opinions which had been formed of him.[51]
Another issue that Douglas involved himself with was irregularities surrounding the Gladfield agricultural reserve on the Darling Downs.  As the reserve fell outside the boundaries of Douglas’s electorate, his raising of this matter in parliament was contentious.
Land issues
The Gladfield Reserve no. 13 was established in 1855, when part of the Gladfield run.  However, in May 1863 the area of the reserve was reduced from nine sections to only two.[52]  Douglas asked for all relevant correspondence to be placed before parliament, and demanded to know how and why this had happened, suggesting that “a great fraud had been perpetuated upon the land fund of the colony.”[53]  During debate on the matter, it transpired that the reserve had been reduced at the urging of the member for Warwick, Arnold Wienholt, a member of the government, who had not only owned the adjoining lands but who had then proceeded to buy up the released portions of the reserve for an undisclosed sum, under pre-emptive right.[54]

The colonial secretary strongly defended Wienholt, arguing that Douglas was out of order for presenting a petition from outside of his electorate.  Heated debate ensued and parliament disallowed the tabling of the petition.[55]  Douglas considered the conduct of the government and the surveyor-general to be reprehensible,[56] a position supported by both the Brisbane Courier[57] and the Daily Guardian.[58]
It had not taken Douglas long to be considered an effective political opponent, one capable of wounding the government by exposing shady deals done for the benefit of its members.  Moreover, he had demonstrated that he would not confine himself to the concerns of his electorate, but would assist voters throughout the colony.  This approach by Douglas endeared him to voters in electorates where politicians ignored their local members’ concerns, as the member for Warwick discovered when Douglas involved himself in the Warwick Reserve extension dispute.

The mayor of Warwick along with 152 other residents had asked Douglas to present a petition to parliament for the extension of the Warwick Agricultural Reserve, as “it seems our Warwick member has totally neglected us in these matters.”[59]  Douglas willingly took on this task out of a “recognised desire to promote the smaller settler”[60] and tabled it in parliament.  However, the government declined to print it, because he was not the member for that district[61] and a furious Weinholt criticised Douglas as one whom “said he would do a great deal, but he did nothing - he talked a great deal, but he was all show, he was a blatherskite.”[62]  Nevertheless, at a subsequent public meeting in the Warwick electorate, [63] Douglas was praised by those present while Weinholt was roundly condemned.[64]
Douglas had scored a convincing victory for the opposition.  He had put the government on notice that he had the ability to embarrass them not only over matters concerning his own electorate, but also on issues that concerned the entire colony.  In so doing, he demonstrated the first signs of his political ability, ability that would eventually lead him to a ministerial position and finally the premiership.

By the close of the parliamentary sitting, Douglas had become a valued opposition member, one who fought hard for his and other electorates.  This was only to be expected, as Oscar De Satge, a squatter and member of parliament for Clermont from 1869, noted.
No new member of the legislature was held worth his salt by his constituents who did not try to get a dam made or well sunk on some waterless road, to say nothing of a jail and courthouse for every opening township.[65]
However, this could be damaging to the electorate and the colony.  A contemporary observer remarked on:
The incessant conflict between local interests and the public welfare. A shower of manna descends from the London money market. Ministers propose; rapacious electors, through their representatives dispose. A scheme of public works is drawn up. It is very soon extended through irrefutable proof that the neglected districts are as much entitled to expenditure as the favoured districts.[66]
This entrenched attitude of provincialism and self-interest exasperated Governor Bowen, who was led to complain once that “every member tries to get as much as he can of public money for his constituents:  it is as if the fate of the entire English ministry was dependent upon the erection of a bridge in Wales, Scotland or Ireland.”[67]
Douglas, under the guise of equality for his electorate, ‘milked’ this for all it was worth.
Votes of money should not be extracted by threats, or by political promises, but that they should be founded on the principle of justice – on the principle that as all parts of the colony contributed towards the revenue, and were equally taxed, and that as they possessed a common property, their funds should be distributed in something like a spirit of fairness and equality.[68]
In this, he was successful; having placed on the supplementary estimates £5,000 for the development of roads in his district.[69]  On another occasion he was less successful failing to secure the establishment of a lands office in Rockhampton when the Pastoral Leases Bill was discussed, despite claiming that, “it was only by anticipating the wants of the northern districts that the increasing cry for separation would be put down.”[70] 

Towards the end of the session, Douglas had another opportunity to demonstrate to the parliament and his constituents just how stubborn he could be when adhering to his principles.  The second reading of the Loan Bill included an amount of £100,000 for emigration.[71]  A select committee had recently released a report into this matter, with one of its recommendations, according to Douglas, recommending the amending of a clause relating to land-orders in the Alienation of Crown Lands Act to “legalise the present illegal attitude of the government in connection with immigration.”[72]
This did not happen, so in the debate on the Loan Bill Douglas attempted to have the sum of £100,000 for immigration reduced to a shilling!  Here too he was unsuccessful and retired in a pique of anger and frustration.[73]  In a letter to the Brisbane Courier, Douglas claimed that parliament had endorsed:
a transaction which had not the sanction of law, and thus, in my opinion, parliament sacrificed a privilege which it aught to have held superior to the interests of either ministerialists or oppositionists.[74]
True to his word, Douglas took no further part in the session, but this was no real hardship, for it ended less than a week later. 

In only 28 sitting days, he had made a strong impact on the parliament with his maverick and uncompromising style, unwavering independence, a shared commitment to his electorate and the colony as a whole, and a refusal to sacrifice his principles on the altar of expediency.  Douglas was actively involved in every issue considered by parliament.  He had ended the 1863 session in a controversial manner, as he would commence the next session, attempting to amend the vice-regal speech!  Not for Douglas could the following unkind charge be levied, as it was by the Brisbane Courier against some of his contemporaries, on the close of the session.
For a time his seat will know him no more; the soft cushions on which his aristocratic form were so frequently ensconced will be turned over to the tender mercies of some charwoman as zealous in the service of the public, perhaps, as a few of the gentleman who left the parliament.[75]

[1] Geoff Gaylard.  The Moreton Bay Courier to the Courier Mail, 1846-1992.  Melbourne, Portside editions, 1992, p. 38
[2] Bernays, p. 28
[3] Clark (1955), pp. 321-22
[4] According to McNaughtan, this was because the colonies were engrossed in the tactics of getting wealth, and because the ethics underlying economic legislation came as common property from England.  (I. D. McNaughtan.  “Colonial Liberalism.”  In, Gordon Greenwood, ed.  Australia:  A Social and Political History.  London, Angus and Robertson, 1955, p. 111)
[5] M. B. Cameron.  W. H. Groom:  Agrarian Liberal.  BA Hons thesis.  University of Queensland, 1965, p. 29
[6] Ibid.
[7] John Gray.  Liquor and Politics 1859-1904.  BA Hons thesis.  University of Queensland, 1967, pp. 36-37
[8] Robyn Schmidt.  Joshua P. Bell as a Reflection of the Pure Merinos in Queensland, 1860-1880.  BA Hons thesis.  University of Queensland, 1972, p. 24
[9] Hirst (2002), p. 66
[10] Gray, pp. 36-37; Clark (1955), p. 322; Schmidt, pp. 22-28.  As Wilson colourfully observed, parliamentary politics in Queensland was not regulated by organised political parties, but by a balance of “individual ambitions and private spites.” (M. M. Wilson.  Party Politics in Queensland, 1859-1900.  MA thesis.  University of Queensland, 1938, p. 4)
[11] Lewis, p. 31
[12] Ibid.  Douglas was a strong believer in progress, observing in Bundaberg in 1878, “Even in his short life he could look back to the time when the country was not even stocked with sheep and cattle.  Now it teemed with human beings all preserving and striving to obtain a just reward for the labor.”  (“The Governor at Bundaberg.”  Bundaberg and Mount Perry Mail, 29 March 1878, p. 2)
[13] Bernays, p. 28
[14] John Douglas.  “To the Electors of the Port Curtis District.”  Brisbane Courier, 14 April 1863
[15] Morrison (1961), p. 557
[16] Ibid.
[17] This was because, in the days before political parties, politicians were judged almost solely on what they could do for the electorate.  (Hirst (2002), p. 70)
[18] There were actually 13 changes, the thirteenth being the move of Premier Herbert from the Leichardt to West Moreton electorate.
[19] “Mr. Douglas on the Dominion of Australia.”  Brisbane Courier, 24 October 1874, p. 5
[20] Marion Powell.  The Rise, Causes and Consequences of the Crisis of 1866 in Queensland.  B.Econ Hons thesis, University of Queensland, 1969, p. 50
[21] Brisbane Election.  Brisbane Courier, 7 November 1873, p. 2
[22] Brisbane Courier, 23 July 1863; “Legislative Assembly, 22 July 1863.”  Queensland Votes and Proceedings, 2nd session, 1863, p. 4.  A copy of the petition can be found in Queensland Votes and Proceedings, 2nd session, 1863, pp. 599-600
[23] John Kerr.  Triumph of Narrow Gauge:  A History of Queensland Railways.  Brisbane, Booralong Press, 1998, p. 23
[24] Brisbane Courier, 23 July 1863
[25] See, for instance, Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 3 October 1863; Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 3 November 1863 and a Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 29 December 1863 article lampooning the Queensland Times for ridiculing Douglas’s stance on this matter.
[26] Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 3 November 1863; Margaret Hardy.  Constitutional and Political Developments in Queensland during the Governorship of Sir George Bowen (10th December 1859-4th January 1868.)  MA thesis.  University of Queensland, 1972, p. 75-76
[27] Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 3 November 1863
[28] Ibid.
[29] Daddow, p. 21; Kerr (1998), p. 23
[30] “Legislative Assembly, 5 August 1863.”  Queensland Votes and Proceedings, 2nd session, 1863, p. 8.  The American government passed the Land Grant Act of 1850 to encourage the growth of railways and help offset the financial burden construction entailed.  The price of land was US$1.25 per acre, later raised to US$2.50 per acre.  The Act made once unwanted land valuable, and during the life of the Act, from 1850 to 1871, American railways received 131 million acres of land grants.
[31] See William Coote.  “Our Leading Public Men.  No. 1.  The Hon. John Douglas.”  The Week, 19 May 1877, p. 616
[32] Allan Morrison (1961), p. 569.  For a detailed exposition of Douglas’s land-grant lines philosophy, see, John Douglas (1882), pp. 484-99.  The idea that money received for the land itself would fund the development of railways was a variation of a concept called, in the language of imperial economics, the Doctrine of Sufficient Price.  This process, seen to be self-financing and self-perpetuating, was successfully used by Edward Gibbon Wakefield to found the settlement of Canterbury at Christchurch, New Zealand in the 1840s.  (James Morris, p. 142)
[33] “Hon. John Douglas at Warwick.”  Queenslander, 5 January 1867, p. 6.  Later on that year Douglas proposed that land be sold on the foreign market, to “revive a healthy flow of those immigrants who come out with money in their pockets.”   The benefits of this would include “the money still required to complete our railway system could thus be obtained with certainty, in connection with the still greater advantages which would result from the introduction of a class of persons possessing both capital end enterprise.”  (Queenslander, 17 August 1867, p. 5)
[34] Nicholas Faith.  The World the Railways Made.  London, the Bodley Head, 1990, pp. 5 & 59
[35] John Douglas (1882), p. 484
[36] Fitzgerald, p. 128
[37] Ibid., p. 263
[38] “Mr. Coote and the Moreton Bay Tramway Company.”  Brisbane Courier, 31 July 1863
[39] Kerr (1998), p. 4
[40] Daddow, pp. 6-7
[41] Coote embarked on a lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to secure some compensation from a government that had since utilised his initial work in the final tramway construction.  (Mason, p. 56)
[42] Kerr (1998), p. 4
[43] Ibid., pp. 4-5
[44] Daddow, p. 8
[45] “Mr. Coote and the Moreton Bay Tramway Company.”  Brisbane Courier, 31 July 1863
[46] Brisbane Courier, 31 July 1863, p. 2
[47] Daily Guardian, 31 July 1963, cited in Mason, p. 56
[48] Brisbane Courier, 31 July 1863, p. 2.  The paper now sarcastically described Douglas as a “great gun from the north” and a “star of the north,” who was now a “fallen star.”
[49] Mason, p. 56
[50] Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 1864, p. 50;  “The Railway Gauge.”  Brisbane Courier, 9 September 1863.  As Douglas later remarked:  “It would have been desirable to have a 4 ft 8½ inch gauge, but it was better to have the narrow gauge than none at all.”  (“Mr. Douglas at the School of Arts.”  Darling Downs Gazette and General Advertiser, 22 September 1883)
[51] Brisbane Courier, 6 August 1863, p. 2
[52] “The Gladfield Reserve.”  Brisbane Courier, 26 August 1863.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.; Brisbane Courier, 9 September 1863;  “The Warwick Representatives.” Brisbane Courier, 5 September 1863.  Wienholt was born on 22 January 1826 in Wales, arriving in Sydney in 1840.  In 1849, he settled the Maryvale and Gladfield Stations on the Darling Downs and represented the seat of Warwick in the legislative assembly from 10 June 1863 to 25 June 1867.  With his brother Edward, he constructed a huge pastoral empire on the Downs before retiring to Switzerland where he died on 16 January 1895.
[55] Brisbane Courier, 3 September 1863
[56] “The Gladfield Reserve.”  Brisbane Courier, 17 September 1863.
[57]Brisbane Courier, 5 September 1863.  The mayor of Warwick and 262 residents of the district had signed the petition.  They then sent it to their local member, John McLean, the member for Eastern Downs, requesting that  “the Gladfield Reserve may be restored to its original dimensions.”  However, mindful that McLean sided with the government, the mayor also requested; “should any cause prevent you from presenting the petition, it is the desire of the petitioners that you will entrust it for presentation to John Douglas.”  (“Warwick Agricultural Reserve.”  Brisbane Courier, 5 September 1863.)  This was presumably done because Douglas had previously lived in the district, was known to its inhabitants and was considered sympathetic to their interests.[58] Daily Guardian, 31 August 1863, quoted in Mason, p. 57
[59]Warwick Agricultural Reserve.”  Brisbane Courier, 5 September 1863
[60] Mason, p. 61
[61]Warwick Agricultural Reserve.”  Brisbane Courier, 5 September 1863; as the colonial secretary delicately put it, Douglas “had infringed upon a principle laid down by the House that any wants of a particular district should be advocated by the member for that district.”  Douglas was aware of the sensitivities surrounding presenting a petition for another electorate, as he had previously informed the Warwick mayor that any future petitions should be “first referred to the consideration of the local members.”  Nevertheless, Douglas was pleased that he had been asked to present it.  He later admitted “that he had been in communication with some influential inhabitants of Warwick” regarding the Gladfield Reserve, but “had no hand in getting up the requisition.”  (Mr. Douglas.  “Triennial Parliaments Bill.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 1, 1864, p. 257)
[62] “Additional Members Bill.”  Brisbane Courier, 10 September 1863
[63] Ibid.
[64] Brisbane Courier, 21 October 1863, p. 2
[65] De Satge, p. 225. 
[66] Queenslander.  “Six Years of Queensland Politics.”  Victorian Review, vol 8, May 1883, p. 61
[67]  Schmidt, p. 27
[68] Mr. Douglas.  “Address in Reply to Opening Speech.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 20, 1876, p. 85
[69] “The Northern Roads.”  Brisbane Courier, 13 August 1863; “The Northern Road.”  Brisbane Courier, 14 August 1863.  This sum was added to the Government Lien Bill in September 1863.  (“The Government Lien Bill.” Brisbane Courier, 18 September 1863)
[70] “Pastoral Lease Bill.”  Brisbane Courier, 22 August 1863
[71] “Loan Bill.”  Brisbane Courier, 17 September 1863
[72] John Douglas.  “The Loan Bill.“  Brisbane Courier, 19 September 1863
[73] “Loan Bill.”  Brisbane Courier, 17 September 1863
[74] John Douglas.  “The Loan Bill.“  Brisbane Courier, 19 September 1863
[75] Brisbane Courier, 23 September 1863, p. 2