Port Phillip gentlemen and good society in Melbourne before the gold rushes 9780195542127

Citation preview

PORT PHILLIP GENTLEMEN

Port Phillip Gentl AND GOOD SOCIETY IN MELBOURNE BEFORE THE GOLD RUSHES

en

“fy oO ; 4 + sa! . “,kt Ut ot 7 a \e Meg Mf rn .co ca anne : . | % ee j yk . o ao 4 ; we : ‘ ly,

a ine | SS. a4 di : | y" ie ; See AN , ; Mee ; oy &F jt "Se 4 AB mM q"* " f at .

4 as ‘ eS f 4 af ae pS ar

u/ \ oot 4 it wit ik Oe he. or — “ ;

eS Last 8 fo — “oa ieee fare ee i j

wf’ x se DF #: ee.” dy, a

r 4) of d

No 4; a yn oe ioe a o4 “ wee ; TERE ada4i ~~ tea wa: betta, wad

MELBOURNE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS OXFORD WELLINGTON NEW YORK

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Oxford London Glasgow New York Toronto Melbourne Wellington Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi

Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town

© Paul Huege de Serville 1980 First published 1980 This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Inquiries should be made to the publishers.

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION DATA De Serville, Paul Hamilton Huege, 1943Port Phillip gentlemen and good society in Melbourne before the gold rushes. Index Bibliography ISBN 0 19 554212 6

1. Pioneers — Victoria. I. Title 994’. 5°02

Designed by Alison Forbes Typeset by Meredith, Melbourne Printed in Australia by Brown Prior Anderson Pty Ltd Published by Oxford University Press, 7 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

For J.G. and M.E.H.

Let Melbourne flourish! Stull in grandeur rise, And rear her stately Buildings to the skies. —Port Phillip Patriot, 3 September 1840

Contents

Acknowledgements 11

I A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists 13

II Manners and Morals 35 III The Pale of Fashion 55

IV The Gentleman Squatter 82

V A Question of Honour 106

VI Blood, Merit. . .or Money? 125 VII The End of the Golden Age 150 Appendix I: Gentlemen by Birth 171 Appendix II: Gentlemen in Society 188 Appendix III: Colonists Claiming Gentle Birth 197 Appendix IV: Club Members 209 Appendix V: Magistrates and Committees 211 Appendix VI: Duels, Challenges, Horsewhippings and Courts of Honour 214 Appendix VII: A Select List of Insolvents 217 Appendix VII: Necrology 218

Abbreviations 219 Notes 220 Bibliography 238 Index 246

Illustrations

‘The overlander of 1840’ by George Hamilton (Rex Nan Kivell Collection, National Library of Australia) title-page

Samuel Pratt Winter, aged about seventeen, by John Winter (Mr S.R. Winter-Cooke) facing 40 Melbourne from the Falls, 1837, by Robert Russell (Dixson Galleries, Sydney) between 40 and 41

“The postponed ablution in the wilderness’ by George Hamilton (Rex Nan Kivell Collection, National Library of Australia) between 40 and 41

Charles Hamilton Macknight, by E.M. (Mrs Hamilton Macknight) between 40 and 41

John Cotton, by J.C. Brewer (Hon. M.A. Clarke) facing 41 ‘Native bathing scene on the Yarra Yarra river’ 1847, by John Cotton (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) facing 41 Georgiana McCrae, self-portrait (Mrs H.M. Littlejohn) facing 48 Farquhar McCrae, by Georgiana McCrae (Mrs H.M. Littlejohn) facing 49

The Port Phillip Patriot office and the Melbourne Club, by W.F.E. Liardet (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) facing 64

Collins Street, looking west, 1841, by Robert Russell (Mitchell Library, Sydney) facing 64

Elizabeth Street, looking north from Collins Street, 1847, by J.S. Prout (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) facing 65

Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, by Mrs R.H. Bunbury (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) facing 65

Mrs William Pomeroy Greene, 1826, by an unknown artist (Miss D.E. Browne) facing 72 ‘View of Melbourne, Port Phillip’ 1843, by W.F.E. Liardet, engraved

by J.W. Lowry (Rex Nan Kivell Collection, National Library of Australia) between 72 and 73 9

Illustrations ‘Villa on the Yarra near Melbourne’ by G.A. Gilbert (from R.D. Murray, A Summer at Port Phillip, Edinburgh, 1843) between 72 and 73 La Trobe’s Cottage, Jolimont, by an unknown artist (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) between 72 and 73

William Stawell, aged about twenty-three, daguerreotype (Miss D.E. Browne) facing 73 William Kerr (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) facing 144

Thomas McCombie (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) facing 144

William Westgarth (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) facing 145

Captain Foster Fyans, daguerreotype (Mitchell Library, Sydney) _fac-

160 .

ing 145

Evelyn Sturt (La Trobe Collection, State Library of Victoria) facing Melbourne from the Falls, 1848, by Robert Russell (Dixson Galleries, Sydney) facing 161

Separation billposter, 15 November 1850, by Messrs Ham (Dixson Galleries, Sydney) facing 161

Map of Melbourne in 1840 page 20

10

Acknowledgements

HIS STUDY of the pioneer gentlemen of Port Phillip, which ) originally appeared as a university thesis, grew from an interest (dating back to childhood) in genealogy, that ‘sonorous and decorative pursuit’, and a reading, as an undergraduate, of Martin Boyd’s novels. Miss G. H. Williams encouraged me to undertake postgraduate work and to her I owe a special debt, while my supervisor, Dr Graeme Davison, guided me with a hand both indulgent and helpful. To Mrs Guy Bakewell and Mrs W. A. K. a Beckett, both repositories of the genealogical arcana of Victorian families, I rarely appealed in vain. Major-General R. R. McNicoll generously provided me with biographical details of many of the early colonists. Miss Elaine Counsell, Miss Susan Pringle, Ms Hilary McPhee, Mrs K. E. Fitzpatrick, Dr J. C. Hibberd, Professor Weston Bate and Dr A. G. Serle offered advice and criticism. I am indebted to the Australia Council for a grant which enabled me to rewrite and considerably enlarge the original text. I owe thanks to many who have answered queries, provided information or enabled me to read manuscripts in private possession: Mr

W. A. K. a Beckett, Mr Douglas Arden, Mr J. N. Black, the late Dame Mabel Brookes, Mr Jeremy Brough, Mr P. L. Brown, the Lady Casey, Dr Michael Christie, Lady Cowper, Mr Nicholas Draffin, Dr David Fitzpatrick, Mrs David Fitzpatrick, Mrs Geoftrey Harley, Mr Michael Loader, the committee of the Melbourne Club, Mr Martin Merchant, Mr L. M. Mowle, the late Mrs A. H. Outhwaite, Mrs Elizabeth Rennie, Mr Neil Robertson, Miss K. E. Ross-Watt, Mrs K. T. Towl, Mr W. F. Wheeler, and Mr and Mrs S. R. WinterCooke. The stafts of the La Trobe Library, the Royal Historical Society of Victoria, the Mitchell Library, the Archives of the University of Melbourne, the Public Records Office (Melbourne) and the State Archives of Tasmania gave their time and services unstintingly. Miss Valerie 11

Acknowledgements Haye and Mr David Cunningham of Oxford University Press have given me every encouragement that a maiden author could desire. Many people helped me to find suitable illustrations. I am grateful to Ms Alison Forbes for her technical advice, and to the Lady Casey, the Hon. M. A. Clarke, Ms Shar Jones, Mrs H. M. Littlejohn, Miss Helen

McCrae, Dame Ella Macknight, Mrs Hamilton Macknight, Miss Barbara Perry and the staff of the National Library of Australia, Mr Ted Rotherham, and Miss Helen Skuse. Major-General R. R. McNicoll kindly drew the map of Melbourne. Lastly I acknowledge with gratitude and affection the debt I owe to my mother and grandmother for supporting me during the protracted course of this work, and the intangible influence of my father’s family with its long and (so far) fruitless interest in genealogy. Paul de Serville

12

I

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists

9 September 1841. With the boys to Jolimont to sit awhile with Mrs. La Trobe who gave us cakes, and claret and water. Then called at Captain Lonsdale’s, and, afterwards, crossed in the punt with two blackfellows and a

gin, to Sandy’s great terror. Didn’t find Mrs. Le Souef, but Mr. Le Souef ferried us across to Flinders Street in his own boat." OTHING CAPTURES THE MIXTURE of gentility and toughness,

IN ction and the primitive in Melbourne so aptly as this entry from the diary of Georgiana McCrae. Melbourne may still have been a village perched on two hills, with an encampment of the original inhabitants across the river, but it had become the chosen home of ladies and gentlemen from England, Scotland and Ireland. The illegitimate daughter of a Scottish duke could make her round of calls, take wine with a Swiss patrician, visit the officials of the settlement and their wives, for all the world as though she were crossing the

Thames at Twickenham. Only the company of the blackfellows, which so frightened her son, suggests that a mere five years before, the site of Melbourne had been part of a timeless Arcady where the first men lived by a limpid stream, at one with their Spirits, nature and all creation.

Now, among the gums, wattles and tea tree, where birds sang in sounds discordant to British ears, blinded by the light, irritated by dust, flies and heat, bewildered by the sudden changes of weather, the gentlemen colonists were busy recreating their old life in the harshness of the Antipodes. The early gentlemen are the forgotten and neglected people of Port Phillip. Their contribution to the settlement has been overlooked, and

they have been eclipsed by the men of the gold rush era, who have managed to monopolize the attention of both the public and scholars. 13

Port Phillip Gentlemen The neglect is undeserved, for the history of the gentlemen and the society they established in Melbourne is quite as interesting as that of the tumultuous 1850s. So much has been made of the egalitarian tradition in Australian society that it has overshadowed the existence of an older code, that of the gentleman. Transplanted from the Bnitish Isles by early settlers, the

code of the gentleman was upheld in each of the colonies and flourished despite many vicissitudes. It has contributed much to the diversity of Australian life. In a country nominally dedicated to the proposition of equality, the beliefs of the gentleman have been dismissed by some as effete, undemocratic and un-Australian. That they have survived at all in such an unsympathetic climate indicates an intrinsic strength. The power exercised by the code of honour was every bit as strong as that later wielded by the cult of mateship. And while the latter had few historical roots, the code of honour drew upon a venerable tradition which could sustain the gentlemen colonists in

their new life under an alien sun, twelve thousand miles away from civilization. In each of the colonies a gentle enclave grew up, a society of gentlemen and their families which attempted to reproduce as far as possible the life it had led at home. With the advent of responsible government,

political leadership passed out of the hands of the gentlemen (notably in Victoria and New South Wales) and the enclaves became islands of gentility in a democratic sea.

The enclave in Port Phillip and Victoria has a long, varied and surprisingly rich history. Its length may be gauged from the fact that the first formal act of the gentlemen—the founding of the Melbourne Club—took place in 1838, only four years after settlement began, while the first considerable measure of the democrats, Eureka, did not occur until 1854. The variety of its history derives in part from the disparate origins of the gentlemen who made up the enclave; while the richness manifests itself in a succession of novels and other works written by or about members of the enclave. In this Victoria is unique. No other colony has a body of writing, stretching over more than a

century, which can rival the work of Henry Kingsley, Rolf Boldrewood, Henry Handel Richardson and Martin Boyd. As portraits of society (leaving aside their literary merits) they are a rich mine for the social historian. This is an account of the enclave in Port Phillip during its first fifteen

years of existence, a study of the way in which English ideas of 14

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists gentility were tempered by the exigencies of colonial life. It follows the arrival of the gentlemen and their families, and their attempts to estab-

lish a social circle limited to their own kind. By 1841 most of the essential institutions of society which an Englishman would expect to find in a county town existed in Melbourne. The well disposed marvelled that these could flourish where seven years earlier there had been nothing but wilderness. The critics sneered at the imitations of Bath in Melbourne, and opposed any attempt by the gentlemen to assume social leadership of the District and dictate both the tone of good society and admission to it. It was one thing for the gentlemen to have their clubs and Assemblies. It was quite unacceptable that the Exclusive party (as their opponents labelled them) should try to control public life. The attempt by the gentlemen to assume social leadership of the District was not a success, and the reasons for their failure are discussed in this study. During the struggle between the gentlemen and their opponents a debate arose on the kind of society which Port Phillip should have. The gentlemen, whom one might loosely call the conservatives, wanted to re-create society in its traditional English

form, based on order, respect for blood and breeding, and for the principles of gentility —such a society which flourished in any English

town of substance. Their opponents, generally men of liberal opinions, wanted a society based on the principle of merit and probity of character, and open to all men of respectability. Battle was joined in 1841 but the outcome was indecisive. A more formidable enemy than their respectable opponents was awaiting the gentlemen. The colonies suffered an economic depression in 1842 under which they laboured for the next few years. It was a period of difficulty and privation. Many gentlemen lost money and a number went bankrupt. Retrenchment became general, and as ready money grew more scarce, institutions which the gentlemen had set up in the palmy days collapsed. Unkind opponents crowed at the discomfort of leaders of fashion brought low by the depression, and circulated stories about clubmen who could no longer pay their bills. The ambitions of the gentlemen were widely discussed and one of

the neatest summaries appeared in a now forgotten novel, Arabin, published in 1845. The observation of the author, Thomas McCombie, could conveniently stand as the theme of this study: In some of our Eastern Colonies, attempts have been made to form an exclusive circle by the most aristocratic emigrants; but in every instance

these have turned out failures. For a time it is all very well; but fine 15

Port Phillip Gentlemen gentlemen are the most unfortunate set of Colonists, and the more plebeian class soon acquire the money which they expend. Without money, they sink beneath the very classes they had treated with contempt. In fact, society must not be formed by emigrants, whatever their pretensions; it must be first decomposed, and the successful Colonists raise themselves into a superior rank by their industry and good name.’

The picture is overdrawn. Some of the ‘aristocratic emigrants’ sur-

vived and made important contributions to the life of the colony of Victoria. As for the ‘exclusive circle’, it too survived various economic and social convulsions, even if it was unable to command the respect of the mass of colonists beyond the pale. It is, however, true to say that 1842 was the first of a number of checks good society was to receive,

and that the gentlemen never fully recovered the position of ascendancy they had held in the first years of Melbourne’s settlement. Increasingly, men of substance were to take over the general leadership of Port Phillip and Victoria: colonists of means, respectability and (sometimes) of education, who were not gentlemen by birth and who either were excluded from good society or who declined to ally themselves with the gentlemen. For the gentlemen of Port Phillip the second half of the decade was a

time of recovery and consolidation. The tone of good society was changing; it was becoming more sedate and withdrawn. Already it was beginning to acquire some of the marks which were to distinguish

it in the 1850s. The discovery of gold transformed the colony and placed the enclave on the defensive, as the survivors of the pastoral age

learned to deal with a population indifferent to their claims. To the horde of newcomers the gentlemen were relics of an age overwhelmed by history. This study is a portrait of that forgotten age, and of the gentlemen who gave it a distinctive tone. The characteristics of the era were those

of a transitional period, when Late Georgian overlapped with Early Victorian. A more decorous note crept in as the 1840s progressed, and

for the rest of the period unregenerate and respectable qualities flourished side by side. Among the gentlemen (certainly among the younger men) the characteristics inherited from the Regency never entirely died, although they were overshadowed by the virtues of respectability, to which society in varying degrees of sincerity paid its due. The social history of the period has, with a few notable exceptions,

been largely overlooked by scholars who have shared the general 16

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists assumption that little history of substance occurred before the gold rushes. However the surviving sources—diaries, letters and family papers, guides, newspapers and memoirs—open the door to an unfamiliar landscape of a vanished society.

Among the personal papers two journals stand out: those kept by Charles Griffith and Mrs Andrew McCrae. Griffith, a gentleman by birth, was a member of the Irish Ascendancy and his detached attitude

to Melbourne society was the fruit of a mind and taste by nature aristocratic. He belonged to the Irish cousinage, a group of colonists linked by blood, marriage, friendship and upbringing. It was the most aristocratic circle in the new settlement. Unlike the English and the Scottish gentlemen, the Irish cousinage managed to survive the deluge of the gold rushes in tolerably good order. Griffith was childless but his brothers left families from whom the present representatives descend. Unfortunately for posterity, Griffith kept his diary for only eight months and gave it up when he found the work of a squatter too demanding. It was a pity—his comments on Melbourne and its colonists are trenchant and unreserved in praise or censure. The journal kept by Mrs McCrae is potentially the richest document of the 1840s. She extensively revised the original in old age and directed that a part be destroyed after her death. The remaining portions, which mainly cover the years 1840 to 1846, were later published by her grandson. While it is regrettable that the diary has not survived in its uncensored form, the present version is a moving document by an artist condemned to exile in the Antipodes, and is lightened by an agreeable malice. Born in circumstances at once grand and irregular, Mrs McCrae was the natural daughter of the 5th Duke of Gordon. A Catholic cousin proposed to her, but he was rejected by her family and Georgiana Huntly Gordon eventually married Andrew McCrae and followed him out to Port Phillip. There she observed local society with demure irony and recorded all the visitors to her house. Most of them were Scottish and the diary is a roll-call of the Scottish colonists, both gentlemen and respectable men of substance who did not move in good society. As such it is the complement and foil to Griffith’s diary, which portrays life among the Irish gentlemen colonists. Her journal traces the failure of her husband and records her disillusion

with the settlement and her longing for home. Mrs McCrae never returned to Scotland but died in the colony, leaving a family which inherited her artistic abilities.° Two other works, written by men of respectable rather than gentle 17

Port Phillip Gentlemen origins, are valuable and are used in this study. The squatter Niel Black, a farmer’s son who gradually climbed into good society, kept a

journal of his first year in Sydney and Port Phillip. It is remarkable among surviving personal papers for its frankness, its pungency of comment, and for its record of a Calvinist conscience coping with the

problems of making a fortune. The tone is very different from the worldliness of Mrs McCrae or Griffith. The writer of the second work, Isaac Batey, was a man of similar origins, though unlike Black he did not ever enter society. He came to Port Phillip as a boy with his family in the late 1840s and in 1910 he wrote his reminiscences. Batey had a keenly developed social sense and ‘placed’ all those colonists he discussed, wherever possible recording their origins. His reminiscences touch upon many subjects avoided by

nineteenth-century writers in their memoirs—murder, suicide by poisoning, duels, madness and mistresses, all described with the candour of an old man. Batey wondered if he had gone too far, though he consoled himself with the thought that Pepys had been as frank, and that in any case his own memoirs would remain unpublished and so could not hurt the children of those pioneers so forthrightly remembered.4

Other colonists, both gentlemen and men of respectability outside society, left journals and letters: Robert Russell, Robert Pohlman, the Rev. William Waterfield. Occasionally the official papers are a fruitful source. Notable are the letters between Sir George Gipps and Charles La Trobe, where the military frankness of the Governor counterpoints the early Victorian delicacy of the Superintendent. Also the papers dealing with the dismissal from office of Judge Willis, which furnish a guide to the critical years 1841-43. Some colonists published memoirs which have a general value, but few apart from the works of T. A. Browne (Rolf Boldrewood), Edward Micklethwaite Curr and Lady Stawell rise above the pedestrian. The habit of writing memoirs established itself early in Port Phillip. The first, an account of a summer’s stay in the settlement written by

the Scottish aristocrat, the Hon. Robert Murray, was published in 1843. Throughout the 1840s colonists and visitors wrote accounts of

their life and experiences in Port Phillip, laudatory or hostile, encouraging or critical. They were mainly silent during the next two decades, supplanted by gold diggers and visitors determined to enlighten an interested audience at home upon the true state of the new El Dorado. The 1870s and 1880s saw a revival of memoirs, as the 13

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists surviving colonists entered old age. Many realized that they were relics of a period forgotten or neglected, and this spurred them on to publish

a record of the years of simplicity, before the gold rushes changed everything. Aside from posthumous publications, the tradition was consummated with the memoirs of Lady Stawell (1911), a last salute to an age of innocence.

Apart from memoirs, the most important general works on Port Phillip and Victorian society were written by the merchant, William Westgarth, a colonist noted for his pointed commentaries and liberal opinions. Newspapers, however, constitute the principal source and it is a paradox that although public material they are unrestrained in their comments, while the personal papers, with the advantages of privacy,

are too often disappointingly reticent. The newspapers provide the richest detail of society, its ideas, opinions and prejudices. Although inaccurate and biased, they mirror society from day to day and carry a continuous, if usually hostile, commentary on the gentlemen colonists and polite society. In their columns the colonists debated the merits of a society based on exclusion, and it is there that one finds the most varied interpretations of colonial gentility. Despite the laws of libel and the horsewhippings of editors the newspapers were outspoken, often offensively so. They discuss personalities and private affairs which the

diaries too often pass over. The press flourished in Melbourne and while there were many ephemeral publications, three newspapers stand out. As they are used so much in this study, a note on each may be helpful. The first licensed newspaper, founded in 1838, was the Port Phillip Gazette. Owned by George Arden and Thomas Strode, it was edited by Arden, a youth of eighteen and the cadet of an ancient family. He was preoccupied with the question of gentility and in his first editorial promised readers that the Gazette would be distinguished by ‘a quiet and gentlemanly tone’. His partner, Strode, was a respectable figure who looked after the printing side and did not move in society. The Gazette was supported by two of the leading merchants of Melbourne, John Hodgson and William Rucker, and at first it was well disposed towards polite society. With his youth, enthusiasm and talents, Arden cut something of a figure in society and was a foundation member of

the Melbourne Club. However he had an unstable nature and from mid-1839 began to quarrel with many of the gentlemen colonists and to attack them in his paper. Expelled from the Club, Arden in retaliation criticized society and its tendency towards exclusion, advancing 19

Port Phillip Gentlemen

a to the Plenty River, a iS 0 iLAaif ‘Loo" Ve" \ oe “

e

ae \ \-oe" \ 7 Cemetery BN OeSIfo \tea-tree--2. oe Lc \ \ a LO, aS vo ee \ Yoo \ \ oo Ao NG Annan d \\ Ua \ We Ev hovere DO SOX" AG Neelssae NNckmoe" BER CRslopes. a oo a

- \ a“ a

a / LO c Lon c

wo \ woe A 7 “A 7 Neo NNN SSE eee ara a el ‘ ya LAD\ PENN Uo ON \\ -

Paan\\ ooo \\ \ eopa ra Oe WE -7aa \DQU-e ~~ Von" \ a > Pon ee Reserves oN AEXA vWO\ PAN oT-\ < RYAA\ ao -7 AREY “7 U7 a" QDY VAS + \ ON Qe VAN os rad OPE EN NBR Qe to" d HO ‘OrANG SOC Oeor ue" ose ao | nNN “7 LAN \ SX NO oe \S\ LZ a“Oo \ a oo" 6 3l-3. \\

ae qe \ “OE aa Soo eo 7 *) DRE ae BET 7) eow~ NGO SchSoh + *e oer’ o\-7 10

ro\markeh-—-Y *\ AOS \ LOO NON 2 AGE NY Ue =)

Qe BERS ge CLE ge ON a -O pp Ke ON é V\ eT EO Bement 8 OO 8 ie 6 Bath Governed SBS) Wea See So, Oe Bate g T-\O,\ \ FL Y

\ ENA + SEPA, taser er%\, \ces NG “A 7 Ne, i SOVEOXS ? *¢\ viene Kee_J EE ==

|; ee 9 \-* aNae oeome PiedSa \ ON eU-Ss* ta fshe. O_o ¢ieKY, oaks Eo er o\ec-" ) “7 2 ON WK \“yo 9Ssenna -_

_' ,yy see Lf pA ee Fd wl §j \‘“|\ws& fo Batman’s JOARO fo -NALffalls eon ;8Batman's 4 gardenef.»Pa \ hing tea-tree oa /Ascru b /| 0

400 yds AD c ‘ | 400 ha to the beachy m }

Melbourne in 1840 1 Flagstaff. 2 The Army and Mounted Police barracks. 3 St James’s Church. 4 The Lamb Inn. 5 Dr Cotter’s surgery, formerly the Angel Inn. 6 The Melboume Club house, originally Fawkner’s Hotel. 7 The Clarence Hotel, later the Port Phillip Bank. 8 John Batman’s house. 9 The Custom-house. 10 ‘Yarra House’, John Hodgson’s mansion, subsequently the Port Phillip Club house.

20

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists instead the claims of a society based on merit. During the depression

he withdrew from the paper, a broken and bankrupt man after his disastrous dispute with Judge Willis. The Gazette was taken over by Augustus Greeves, a doctor and hotelier, a respectable colonist outside

society. Greeves pursued a moderate course which the chronicler Garryowen later dismissed as mere expediency. In keeping with his policy there was no criticism of polite society. Greeves sold the Gazette

in 1844 to Thomas McCombie, the author of Arabin. Under his editorship the paper remained moderate and its only change was a

marked literary tone. Garryowen, among others, considered McCombie something of a ninny, but his writing, stripped of its over-ripe Romanticism, suggests a man with a keen social eye.° The Port Phillip Patriot, founded in 1839, was the opponent of gentil-

ity and good society, although in its first months, before the question of exclusion became important, it at times had some kind words for the infant society. Its owner and first editor was the outsider, John Pascoe Fawkner, a radical who loathed social pretension and privilege

in any form. In turn he was detested by many of the gentlemen colonists, who gave as good as they got. Briefly edited by J. P. Smith, a man who did not figure in society, the chair was taken by William

Kerr in early 1841, and the paper became the organ of the Scottish radicals and the most outspoken enemy of society in its exclusive form. A Scot from the middle ranks, an Orangeman and a Mason, Kerr had a vitriolic style which he used to lambast the gentlemen, the elite, the blackball, exclusion and all the armaments of good society. Fawkner did not altogether sever his connexion with the paper, writ-

ing a column under the sobriquet of Bob Short which was much resented by the victims of his jeering wit. The Patriot championed the cause of a society based on merit and respectability of character, but its language and style were more extreme than that of the Gazette. Kerr and Fawkner eventually fell out, and the latter edited the paper briefly

until his bankruptcy, when the Patriot was taken over by George Boursiquot, a journalist with a talent for light verse. He changed the emphasis of the Patriot and instead of attacking society as a whole in the bludgeoning style of Kerr or Fawkner, preferred to mock the more absurd pretensions of the gentlemen colonists.® The Port Phillip Herald, established in 1840, was the paper of good

society or, as its rivals called it, the clubman’s paper. Its original owners were William Dutton and George Cavenagh. A squatter and magistrate, Dutton had to sell his interest in the Herald after becoming 21

Port Phillip Gentlemen the victim of his squatting partners’ schemes. Although neither a clubman nor a figure in society, Dutton was a man of substance and respectability. His pastoral interests probably influenced the policy of the Herald, always sympathetic to the problems of the squatters. George Cavenagh, who edited the paper throughout the 1840s, was

a Protestant Irishman, the son of an officer in the East India Company’s army. A member of the Melbourne Club, Cavenagh attempted to defend both the Club and polite society from the attacks of Fawkner

and Kerr, although he did not make the mistake of taking up an intransigent position and invariably opted for moderation. The most reliable of the papers, the Herald was read both by the clubmen and the

Catholic Irish, whose interests it defended against the attacks of the Orangemen. It was therefore in the unusual position of representing

both the top and the bottom of Melbourne society, and its proCatholic line must at times have offended the clubmen. One of its chief reporters was the Irish Catholic, Edmund Finn (Garryowen), whose Chronicles are still an invaluable guide to the period.’ The policies and prejudices of the three main newspapers reflected the social divisions in the settlement. On the one side, the Herald acted as defender of polite society, the clubmen, the squatters, the Catholic Irish, and La Trobe and his administration. In the centre, the moderate Gazette upheld the principles of merit and respectability, and especially after the departure of Arden, became the spokesman of the solid men of Melbourne who did not belong to polite society. On the other side

stood the radical Patriot, unremitting enemy of social exclusion, champion of liberal principles, spokesman for the Scottish community and critic of La Trobe and the administration.

Later sources, historical, genealogical and literary, are of mixed value. Social history has, until recently, been neglected by local his~ torians, who have dwelt upon the discovery and pastoral origins of Port Phillip. The result has too often been social geography rather than social history, fruitless debates on matters of exploration and foundation, and an obsession with ‘first facts’. A constant crossing and recrossing of old and petty battlefields has led to a neglect of social history.

The lives and origins of the first colonists have largely been overlooked, their links with Britain ignored and the influence of European manners and culture scarcely given its due. It is as though all events before settlement and outside Australia were regarded as irrelevant. Such neglect is all the more inexcusable with only one hundred and forty years of history to be exploited —though it could be argued that 22

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists to treat our assets with contempt is an old Australian tradition. The early volumes of the Victorian Historical Magazine are a mausoleum of

minor preoccupations, and one of the results has been to make Victorian history much more boring than it deserves to be, to strengthen the view that history of substantial importance is to be found only after the gold rushes.

There has been a feeling among serious historians that the Port Phillip period represents the adolescence of Victoria, that its ideas and

interests are as naive as those of a green youth. According to this reading, the settlement did not come of age until the gold rushes and

the burgeoning of the democratic movement. There is little in the political life of the 1840s, with its prevailing mood of conservative paternalism, to appeal to many historians—a distinguished exception being Miss Margaret Kiddle, who was herself a descendant of the pioneers. One of the many strengths of Men of Yesterday is the sense of pietas, rarely found in Australian historical writing.

The standing of social history has improved since the war, and serious historians are addressing themselves to the Port Phillip period and rescuing it from the barren embrace of the amateur topographer and the local chronicler. The Western District squatter has been fortunate to have Miss Kiddle as his historian. The gentleman has usually been ignored by scholars, or when noticed, it has been in that uneasy manner which overtakes many Australians confronted by evidence of social inequality. Nor have the pioneer gentlemen received much better treatment at the hands of the genealogists. Only a handful of Port Phillip families (about thirty-six) appears in Sir Bernard Burke’s A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Colonial Gentry, a curious two-volume work (1891 and 1895) which quite belies its title. The genealogies are exiguous, often covering no more than three generations, although attempts are made at times to graft new branches on to old trees. The heraldic aspects are even less impressive. An English critic pointed out that at least a third of the entrants were technically not gentlemen, lacking coats of arms. Although a herald, Sir Bernard, ever accommodating, connived at assumed arms and even at crests without arms (another

technical impossibility). Nor could the 563 odd entrants be said to compose a gentry in the accepted sense of the term, since many were not landed, much less members of an historic order of ancient families of the untitled nobility. And even the epithet ‘colonial’ is misleading; English governors were added to give aristocratic tone to the publica23

Port Phillip Gentlemen tion, while a number of entrants no longer lived in the colonies, having bought estates in Britain. For them the Colonial Gentry was a half-way house to their final goal, inclusion in the pages of the Landed Gentry. The Victorian entries in the Colonial Gentry number over a quarter of the total, which says something for the colony’s prosperity and unashamed desire for fame. But as so few of the families descend from Port Phillip gentlemen the work has little relevance for the pregold period.®

The other main genealogical repository, Alexander Henderson’s Pioneer Families of Victoria and the Riverina (1936) and his second volume, Australian Families (1941), generally ignores the early gentlemen and their families in favour of the pastoral ascendancy of the Western District and other country areas—the descendants of successful squat-

ters (and later immigrants), few of whom were members of polite society before 1851. The third work, P. C. Mowle’s Pioneer Families of Australia, now in

its fifth edition, is limited to men who arrived in the colonies before 1838. ‘The majority of families are from New South Wales, although the number from Victoria has risen in the latest edition and the descendants of seventeen Port Phillip pioneers appear.® Genealogists, like historians, were attracted to the successful, and the gentlemen colonists (with distinguished exceptions) were not as a group successful survivors. In fact they seemed prone to failure, just as

the Scots of simple origin seemed by nature to make successful colonists. McCombie was one of the earliest writers to notice the link between

gentility and failure. Many gentlemen were to fail in the colonies, defeated by an alien country or misled by expansive ambitions. The cry of one victim would have found many responsive echoes: I have lost my capital, I have lost my health, I have lost fifteen years of the best period of my life. I have undergone many hardships, exposed myself to many dangers, and am now a poorer man than I was when I became a squatter.’°

While there may be few grand themes in Port Phillip history, there is no lack of tragedy in the lives of the first colonists —a tragedy no less

moving for want of a noble purpose. The failures drifted away into obscurity. The minority who succeeded were remembered by later generations and their achievements celebrated by historians. The cult of success seems to have affected local historians almost as powerfully

as the early colonists. The influence of Calvinism may be de24

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists tected, both in the tributes paid to the successful and the judgement passed upon the failures. What the historians have ignored or dis-

missed, the novelists have taken up. A succession of Victorian novelists over a period of one hundred and twenty years has dealt with the theme of the gentleman colonist and his fate in the Antipodes."! Paradoxically, the first of the novelists was not even a gentleman. McCombie published Arabin in 1845, as the colonies were recovering

from the depression which had claimed many gentlemen among its victims. The theme of men of good family broken by the Antipodes was attractive to a Romantic imagination stimulated by decay, decline, violence and death. McCombie again addressed himself to these subjects in his two series of Australian Sketches, where he also provided a portrait of the vanished pastoral era (a further Romantic theme).

The second novelist in the chain, Henry Kingsley, dealt with the

gentleman at length in what was to be the first novel to put the colonies on the literary map, The Recollections of Geoffry Hamlyn (1859).

It is not known if Kingsley read any of McCombie’s works; the pastoral essays in the Sketches may well have interested him when he was gathering information on the early years. Certainly Arabin and Geoffry Hamlyn are both products of the Romantic movement. Between Kingsley and the third writer of the chain, Thomas Alexander

Browne (Rolf Boldrewood), many links were forged. They were friends and moved in the same circle of gentlemen squatters. Kingsley

is supposed to have written some of his novel at Browne’s station, encouraged by his friend. In turn Geoffry Hamlyn became a great favourite of Browne’s. He began writing in 1865 and many of his novels and short stories deal with the fate of the gentleman in the colonies. The work of the first three novelists is discussed in Chapter IV, on the gentlemen squatters. Two years after Browne’s death, Henry Handel Richardson published Australia Felix (1917), the first volume of The Fortunes of Richard Mahony, a trilogy which many still consider to be the finest Australian

novel. With the subsequent volumes it forms the most detailed, dispassionate and moving study of a gentleman colonist, broken, ruined and destroyed by his own temperament and by the Antipodes. Its publication marks a development of the theme; for the first time a novelist of the first rank deals with the question of failure. And for the first time the hero is a gentleman from town and not a squatter. The trilogy is an important contribution to the study of Victorian society in the second half of the century. 25

Port Phillip Gentlemen The publication of Martin Boyd’s novel, The Montforts (1928), over-

lapped with the appearance of Henry Handel Richardson’s trilogy. The last of the novelists in the chain, Boyd has come back into vogue after years of neglect. Like Richardson, Boyd concentrated upon the city gentlemen and claimed in his autobiography that he was the only

writer to take as his subject the pre-gold gentry of Melbourne. He acknowledged no debt to earlier writers, although Boldrewood, Lady Stawell and E. M. Curr among others had written on such men. There can be no doubt that he has been the most influential writer on the gentlemen, catching his subject at the very moment when the society which had sustained them was being submerged by the rising tide of the modern age. From 1928 to 1965 Boyd recorded the history and fate of the gentlemen and of good society in his novels and auto-

biographies. He maintained that a succession of groups had ruled Melbourne society. The earliest leaders had been the gentlemen colonists during the pastoral age. The gold rushes overwhelmed them and they withdrew into an enclave. Their place was taken by the rich pastoralists from the Western District. They in turn were elbowed out of the way by the new rich of Melbourne. The three groups lived in rivalry until the disaster of the bank crash, followed twenty years later by the greater. destruction of the First World War.’” Boyd was a descendant of a number of pre-gold families. Through his mother he was the great-grandson of the fourth Resident Judge of Port Phillip and first Chief Justice of Victoria, Sir William a Beckett. Through his father Boyd was descended from the doctor, squatter and clubman, Robert Martin, whose wife, Lucy Gear, claimed among her kin St Dominic and the Empress Eugenie. Less exalted but not without interest was his descent from Melbourne’s first brewer, John Mills, whose heiress brought a substantial fortune into the a Beckett family. His paternal great-grandfather, Captain John Boyd, came out to Victoria in the 1850s as military secretary to the officer commanding the colonial forces, and so entered the Government House circle. Derived from a minor Ascendancy family, he had a common background with the Irish cousinage; later there would be intermarriage. Three of Martin Boyd’s grandparents were still alive during his childhood, and his a Beckett grandfather had arrived in Port Phillip in 1846 as a boy of thirteen. Boyd therefore had direct links with the Port Phillip period, although born forty years after the events which so transformed the colony and isolated it from its first years." It is well known that Boyd used members of his family, relations, 26

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists friends and others from the enclave as models for the characters in his novels, and that many of the incidents are based on fact. These novels are a repository of the arcane lore, beliefs and prejudices of the enclave. The history of the pre-gold families living in quiet, withdrawn style in St Kilda and other parts of Melbourne; their contempt for the new rich of Toorak; their more subdued prejudice against the Western District squatters; the convict taint; feeling against the Scots; their ambivalent attitude towards Victoria and England: these are some of the topics dealt with in the novels and the two autobiographies.

Temperament and heredity helped him in his task. A Romantic, brought up on a diet of Scott and Tennyson, Boyd was a Jacobite, in love with the past, the gothic, lost causes and old families in decay. The materialist and philistine utilitarianism of Melbourne’s plutocracy

repelled him. Both the Boyd and the a Beckett families stood aloof from the business of making money, unlike many of their contemporaries. From his father’s family Boyd inherited the belief that Ascendancy families did as they pleased, coming from a country where traditional society was still largely untouched by industry and the respectable influences of the middle classes. Margaret Kiddle was to make the same point about the Winters of Murndal. An important model and influence on the other side of the family was his grandfather, W. A. C. a Beckett, an amateur of heraldry and genealogy, an eccentric, erratic man at odds with Melbourne society, very conscious of his position as head of the family in Australia and possessor of the family estate in Wiltshire.'*

Boyd had an awareness of social distinctions which was almost

morbid, an exact knowledge of the position of all the pre-gold families, and an appreciation of their declining position in Melbourne life. He made himself their memorialist, charting their decline amid the ruins of post-war society, when all the values of western civilization had been destroyed by the Somme and its aftermath. Boyd recognized the international nature of good society, the common code which ran from Dublin to St Petersburg, and saw the demise of the

enclave in Melbourne as part of the general collapse of society in Europe. He was writing in the ruins, before all was swept away. With Boyd it is fitting that the succession of novelists writing on the theme of the gentleman and his fate in the colony should come to an end. The vein had been exhausted. Polite society had received its final tribute.

27

Port Phillip Gentlemen TO LEAVE BRITAIN was a Serious step, often the turning point in a

man’s life. Many of the younger gentlemen took the step lightheartedly. For them it was an adventure. If it did not turn out well they could always move on to another colony or return home. Older, more serious-minded men did not enter so lightly into the undertaking, especially if they had wives and children. Motives for emigration have been canvassed exhaustively. Want of money and lack of opportunity were the chief causes. The younger son’s meagre portion did not go far in Britain. George Hamilton spoke for many of his class: He was a young man, barely twenty years of age, born and bred a gentleman. He had emigrated to Australia for the purpose of working his way in the world, and gaining for himself an independence.”®

To live in the style of a gentleman and to make something out of one’s capital entailed migration to the colonies. Among both gentlemen and men of respectability the feeling was widespread that with small means money could be made. Westgarth confided to his mother that ‘the grand bent of all is the making of money and I do think that

some is to be made here’. To achieve this ambition, certain virtues were required: a capacity for hard work, a single-minded dedication, the discipline to put work before pleasure, strength of body and mind to survive in an exotic climate, and a modicum of good luck. In other words, those colonists would best succeed who possessed the Calvinist virtues. For gentlemen there were particular problems in balancing the need to make money, the claims of rank, and the style and tastes they were accustomed to enjoy. It is not difficult to appreciate that gentlemen colonists might at times find themselves in an ambiguous position. How they coped with that ambiguity is one of the themes of this study.'®

Lack of opportunity prompted many to uproot themselves.!’ ‘When I saw forty hats on the Munster Circuit, and not enough work

for twenty, I felt it was time to go, and so I came to Victoria . . .’, William Stawell later told his wife. The Irish Bar was notoriously overcrowded and many of its members made names for themselves in Port Phillip. The prospect of a long peace, slow promotion, enforced retirement on half-pay and the inducement of favourable terms for the

purchase of land spurred officers in the army and navy to migrate. Captain Richard Bunbury, a great favourite of Lord Holland, had decided to become a sheepfarmer, much to the disgust of his father 28

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists who confessed: ‘He has been seized with this epidemical rage for colonization, and I find it to my sorrow impossible to divert him from his scheme of settling in Australia’.18

Poor health forced others to leave the cold climate of Northern Europe. Stawell’s father-in-law, William Pomeroy Greene, had the choice of Greece or Australia. Greene fixed upon Port Phillip, where some of his wife’s relations had already settled.'” Among young men, feelings of restlessness, claustrophobia, or a desire for independence dictated removal to the colonies. For others the reasons to leave were more pressing. Private unhappiness, financial loss, disgrace or scandal. Whatever the cause, very few men can have chosen to leave their homeland without some form of compulsion, financial or personal. If circumstances forced gentlemen (and men of respectability) to immigrate, the colonies in turn encouraged them to become settlers. In one of the most popular guides to New South Wales in the 1830s, David Waugh listed those who would make desirable immigrants, possessed of a capital of between £500 and £2000: men in business, shopkeepers, gentlemen with moderate fortunes invested at interest, young men in some department of law, retired officers of the army or the navy, or sons of country gentlemen, of high standing in society but with comparatively small patrimonies.”°

Another writer welcomed the arrival of a better class of immigrant to New South Wales during the 1820s: military and professional men and younger sons of the squirarchy. Many of these, or their sons, later

overlanded to Port Phillip, where they joined the ranks of good society. By contrast the Patriot, the paper which supported men of merit and respectability, welcomed young men of substance but simple birth who had been ‘mortified by the contempt of the aristocracy’ .?!

The gentlemen who arrived in Port Phillip were a mixed lot. In fact it could be said that the one characteristic they shared was their desire to be considered a gentleman. What constituted a gentleman was a matter

of debate, both in England and to a lesser extent in the colonies. Various groups emphasized different aspects of the ideal, what one might call the Platonic form of the gentleman. Most claimants to the rank would have agreed on certain minimum requirements: the possession of manners, deportment, appearance, clothes, tastes and suitable education. This is to speak generally. Some undoubted gentlemen might lack one or more of these minimal requirements. 29

Port Phillip Gentlemen Antiquarians and genealogists emphasized the importance of blood and birth. The heralds required armorial bearings, the sign of gentility. Leaders of polite society, following the example of Chesterfield, regarded a polished address, a graceful manner, the ability to perform the latest dances as the sine qua non of urbane gentility. The dandies and their heirs judged a man by his coat and his cravat. The intellectual looked to a gentleman’s library, his knowledge of the classics, literature and the fine arts. The bloods judged a man by his sporting prowess and his capacity for drinking and gambling. Earnest moralists, Americans and the respectable middle classes emphasized the need for good behaviour and integrity of character. The law, more pragmatic, recognized anyone of respectability as a gentleman if he could afford to live on unearned income.”?

Generally the interpretations and emphases fell into two main groups: the aristocratic and the respectable. The first was favoured by good society, the upper classes and their allies, and others of a worldly nature. The second was preferred by the middle classes and by those

who, whatever their origins, held that merit and worth were more important than birth. The aristocratic and respectable interpretations had their champions in Melbourne, where the two parties carried on a vigorous debate during the early 1840s. Many colonial uses of the term will be found throughout this essay; two may be cited as an indication of the variety of emphasis. The first,

a protest from the young George Arden, scion of a most ancient family, was published in 1839: ‘We do bitterly regret having come into collision with Rucker, and lowered ourselves—a thing we ought not to have done, as gentlemen of birth, education, rank and character’.?*

A little pompous, perhaps, in tone, the remark betrays an awareness that gentility rests on a mixture of inherited qualities (blood, rank), advantages conferred by upbringing and aspects of personal character.

As such it is a compromise between the extreme aristocratic and respectable interpretations of gentility. The second example, a letter from an anonymous critic of the Melbourne Bar, is in complete accord with the definition favoured by men of respectability, with its stress upon education and conduct, and the power of these to elevate a man to the rank of gentleman, whatever his social origins. Sir,

The profession to which you have the honour to belong confers the rank of ‘gentleman’ upon all those admitted to its practice, however low 30

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists their origins or humble their possessions. The far higher qualifications which education confers, cast birth and poverty into the shade. There are, however, certain acquirements to be attained to render the appellation thus conceded completely in its character . . .?4

One can divide the Port Phillip gentlemen into many groups, according to nationality, origins and upbringing. There is a further division between those who were part of good society and those outside it. Within the pale of fashion three main groups stand out: gentlemen of good family, gentlemen by profession or commission, and gentlemen by upbringing. The first group, gentlemen of good birth, comprised those men and

women who belonged to tamilies in the peerage, baronetage, knightage or landed gentry in either the male or female descent. Included are those from ancient but decayed families, from families no longer landed or no longer titled, as well as a small group from the European noblesse.

The number of colonists of good birth was small, although it is apparent that they made a greater impression than their representation

would warrant. In New Zealand and Queensland the gentlemen of birth were more numerous and more distinguished. In Port Phillip their numbers were thinned by early death and failure (the operation of

McCombie’s law, that gentlemen made unfortunate immigrants). However brief their stay in Port Phillip, their presence helped to justify

the belief that the District was favoured by younger sons of good families.

Writers and colonists during the 1840s assured their audience at home that many gentlemen had immigrated, and one old colonist later claimed that there was hardly a noble family in Great Britain which was not represented in the District. This claim, a considerable exaggeration, was made to rebut the charge by a visitor that the pioneers were men of mean birth and little education (quite incorrect). Early writers regarded the presence of the gentlemen as an asset, good for the prestige of Port Phillip, and a means of attracting men of capital and respectability to the settlement.”° English gentlemen of birth were surprisingly few. More numerous were colonists from good Scottish families, while the Insh Protestant Ascendancy proved to be the best survivors (refuting McCombie’s law) and the most distinguished in the public life of the new settlement.

Few of the gentlemen (apart from the Ascendancy) left families . 31

Port Phillip Gentlemen which stayed in the colony beyond two generations. True younger sons, that is to say children of the head of a titled or landed house, were

rare. Most were cadets. With the extinction of the senior line, one peerage and four baronetcies were later inherited by junior colonial branches. In the male line, seven families from the peerage, eight from

the baronetage and forty-two from the gentry were represented in Port Phillip. A full list will be found in Appendix I, the balance comprising members of families in the knightage, families in decline or in the ascendant, and families irregularly linked with noble houses, as well as those descended from such houses in the female line. In a few cases men have been included because of their relationship to a senior officer of the Crown.?®

The gentlemen by right of profession or commission based their claim not upon blood but upon their position as clergymen of the Church of England, barristers-at-law, graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, and officers of the army and navy. The gentlemen by upbringing were a miscellaneous group of diverse origins and occupations who conformed in outward aspect to the ideal of gentility in

behaviour, deportment, style of life, taste and appearance. Both groups of gentlemen are listed in Appendix II, which includes those known to have belonged to good society in Port Phillip. Many colonists both in and outside society claimed descent from old

or titled families. Ignorance or good nature prevented these claims from being subjected to rigorous examination, and many geese were turned into swans, either at the time or later, by ambitious colonists or indulgent writers. Details of a further 110 men and women are given in Appendix III, a demonstration of the power which gentility could command, even in the colonies. The relationship between society and the gentlemen was very close

but the two entities did not completely match. Not all gentlemen belonged to good society, either through choice or exclusion. And not all members of good society were thorough-going gentlemen, espe-

cially in the early years of settlement. That such men could enter society underlines the factor of ‘colonial promotion’ (men taking a step up in society when they reached the colony), which meant that some colonists who would not have passed as gentlemen in Britain found themselves within the pale of society, if somewhat on its outer edges. Outside good society stood the men of substance and respectability: merchants, civil servants, professional men, squatters, landowners and 32

A Most Unfortunate Set of Colonists others. As magistrates, town councillors, mayors and parliamentarians they took part in the public life of the settlement. Relations between the gentlemen and the men of substance were complicated. Often they sat on the same committees and worked for the same public causes. Often, too, there was little difference between the leaders of the ‘respectable’ party and the gentlemen, except that the first were not in society and the second were. Eventually, in the 1850s, many of the respectable colonists were accepted into good society. However, during the 1840s there was considerable ill-feeling and rivalry between

those in and out of society. The exclusive ambitions of the leading gentlemen were resented by men of substance, and their social plans bitterly opposed. Time was on the side of the respectable party. As colonists, men of substance coped better with conditions in the Antipodes, and more survived the crucial first fifteen years. The division of colonists into two parties or groups began early in the history of Melbourne. One of the first signs appears in the curious wording of a public agreement in 1838, signed by numerous colonists who promised to ‘bind ourselves upon our honours and respectabil-

ity ...*" Who framed this agreement, with its assumption that only a gentleman could swear upon his honour, while a man from the middle classes would swear by his merit and the worth of his good name?e

Quite the most distinguished of the men of substance was the merchant, William Westgarth. A neighbour of Mrs McCrae, Westgarth had dealings with the gentlemen but never took a prominent place in local society although he did not want for qualifications. His books are noted for their acute judgements on colonial society and for the urbane manner in which he deals with the gentlemen, recognizing generously their contribution to public life while reserving criticism for the extreme conservative wing and its unpopular policies.?® While few men of substance rivalled Westgarth in general achievements, many were to make a substantial fortune and to establish themselves as gentlemen in the colony, although it might be some years

before their position was recognized by good society. Apart from certain colonists resident in Melbourne, the most notable group to acquire the outward trappings of gentility, from the 1850s onwards, were the Western District squatters of simple origins.

It was some time before those gentlemen in society with long memories and firm prejudices could bring themselves to overlook the origins of what one might call the ‘gentlemen on the colonial list’. The 33

Port Phillip Gentlemen essence of the memories and prejudices is distilled by Martin Boyd ina passage from The Montforts. The son of a Bristol attorney has asked to

marry the daughter of a gentleman by birth. ‘But is he a gentleman?’ Letitia had cried. ‘Well, in Australia, yes,’ said Henry. ‘But she could never take him home. He would be like old Skinner,

who was given a baronetcy on the condition that he never settled in England.’ “There is no likelihood of Amy’s returning to England for many years.

I might confess that he is scarcely the young man I had hoped for as a son-in-law, but he is hard-working, sober, and industrious.’ ‘It sounds like a reference for a butler,’ said Letitia acidly. ‘He will undoubtedly be a citizen of substance and repute,’ said Henry sternly. He did not care for sneers at solid worth, and at that moment finally decided upon his consent.?9

34

IT

Manners and Morals

HE CHARACTER of Port Phillip before the gold rushes and

) particularly before the 1842 depression owed much to the late Regency society of Great Britain, where the customs of the eighteenth century survived alongside the habits of respectability. This

ill-assorted mixture was brought out to Port Phillip as part of the spiritual baggage of the colonists. To it were added the specific contributions of the settlement itself. These, though obvious, cannot be emphasized enough. Firstly the newness, the raw and primitive surroundings which aftronted the fastidious, the conventional and many of the women. Children, high-spirited young men and old soldiers could be expected to take the rough in their stride. The climate, its heat and its vagaries, was trying to many from Britain; again soldiers and those who had served in India coped far better. In early December Mrs McCrae complained: ‘At night thermometer 47°, and this, the Australian midsummer! The boasted climate is a myth, and requires a constitution of india-rubber elasticity to sustain it’. The dust and the flies were added irritants. Naturally the health of the colonists. suffered; diarrhoea and fever were commonplace, and tempers, one suspects, were affected by life in the Antipodes.” Apart from the harsh and unpleasant aspects there was the influence

of the countryside, only a few years removed from its state of primeval innocence. To those of imagination, well read in Romantic literature, and to naturalists, the country possessed an exotic and dis-

turbing beauty. The usual reaction was to interpret it in European terms rather than to appreciate it for its own sake. It became a commonplace to compare the lightly timbered countryside to the wilder parts of a gentleman’s park. Riding across the Western District Rolf Boldrewood felt he was travelling through a succession of parks, while to Niel Black the country there equalled or surpassed the demesnes of the Scottish nobility .* 35

Port Phillip Gentlemen The bush itself affected men of imagination: its ‘appalling silence’, the still and untouched landscape, the beauty of Australia Felix which could inspire a military man to Virgilian thoughts or persuade a young surveyor that the country was ‘rather Claude like’. George Hamilton confessed: ‘We did undoubtedly cut but a sorry figure compared with the grandeur of nature around us’ .4

The pastoral quality is nowhere better captured than by Joseph Hawdon when he and Charles Bonney reached the banks of Lake Victoria. Mr. Bonney was playing a few sweet airs on his flute by the riverside for

the amusement of a listening group of about forty Blacks, pleasant, good-humoured looking fellows, some of them fervent admirers. I have

often noticed that the finest-looking men are fondest of hearing the music.°

Heirs of Scott, Byron and Wordsworth, sympathetic colonists ap-

proached the exotic flora and fauna, and the black race, with the curiosity of the Romantic amateur. The Antipodes were a challenge to the sensibilities of the British, one which few could accept wholeheart-

edly. Not surprisingly, they interpreted what they saw within the bounds of their European education. When Melbourne was still a village on tree-covered hills, the Rev. William Waterfield noted: ‘Just before the Service I was on the Hill seeing the natives wrestle and it reminded me of what I had read of the antient athletae’.® To the more imaginative and literate of the colonists Port Phillip was a variation of Eden (with thorns); a park-like Arcady, as the poet Howitt described it. Living in such an exotic and unsettling land enfranchized the children of the Romantic age and affected the temper of

the 1840s. The spirit of the times was a mixture of enthusiasm and melancholia, the mood as volatile as that of an adolescent. Life in the bush was at once exhilarating (the newness of the place, the lure of a quick fortune); monotonous (oppressive silence, absence of visitors, isolation from family and friends); and for some so depressing that they took to drink and, in a few cases, went off their head and killed themselves. Behaviour varied accordingly, ardent temperaments burnt bright in those unreconstructed days, and actions which a later period might have censored passed unremarked.’ Many rejoiced in the feeling of freedom, living in Port Phillip, and not least the gentlemen. “Here in these wilds’, proclaimed the overlander George Hamilton, ‘reigns the liberty of rags and the freedom of dirt’. Educated men enjoyed freedom from the tyranny of the laird, 36

Manners and Morals the absence of private property and special rights in the countryside. The more tedious rules of formal society could safely be ignored. It was not merely the high-spirited young who rejoiced in the feeling of freedom but sober men as well: Black, Baker and Cotton. The last recited the benefits to an English friend: one could shoot, fish or walk anywhere; trespassing did not exist. ‘Here in fact one feels at liberty, —in England “Cabin’d, Cribb’d, Confined”. Oh, my dear Sir, Australia is the land of liberty’ ® Until the 1842 depression at least, the atmosphere in the settlement

often resembled that of an unreformed public school before the tone had been elevated by a middle-class Arnold. Visitors and new arrivals were at once struck by the youth of the colonists. Such a concentration of young bachelors must have given the settlement an air of energy and vigour. Curr recalled that everyone over thirty was known as ‘old So and so’, and Richard Howitt informed people at home that in the streets ‘no deformity or old age, no decay’ was apparent. Poverty, suffering and sickness seemed largely absent from Port Phillip (at least on the surface). Married and middle-aged men were nearly as scarce as women, and the burdens of matrimony were shouldered by few in the settlement. The majority of the colonists appeared young, full of hope and promise; not surprisingly the character of Port Phillip bore many of the marks of a high-spirited, privileged youth. Something of this enthusiasm, as yet undimmed by colonial realities, can be heard in Robert Russell’s exclamation: ‘Is not ours a country of adventures?’ And to the young, Port Phillip did appear at first as a paradise hung with glittering prizes, ripe for the plucking by young gentlemen.?® The atmosphere of Melbourne was hectic, as the town experienced the first of many land booms. Few colonists could resist dabbling in

property, and speculation was made easy by the system of bills of credit. Land sales were conducted with the aid of champagne breakfasts, and experienced topers would pass the week attending auctions while the enthusiastic and gullible colonists succumbed to the orotund patter of the estate agents. The outskirts of Melbourne were marked by cairns of champagne bottles, and one of Niel Black’s first impressions of Melbourne was the sight of young magistrates sipping ‘thin champagne’. During this heady period the richer squatters resided in Melbourne (the clubhouse and the Royal Hotel being the favoured watering spots) while their overseers managed their stations.'° It must have presented a curious contrast, a little piece of the provinces in a virgin wilderness, and at times the tedium, intrusiveness 37

Port Phillip Gentlemen and bickerings of a small community where everyone knew everyone else must have depressed the more imaginative and cosmopolitan colonists. Its appearance suggests its small scale. From the distance the buildings of Melbourne looked to Griffith like children’s toy houses, a comparison confirmed by the naive paintings of Wilbraham Liardet. The smallness and the claustrophobia induced by it can be detected in

the opinions of the early colonists. James Graham welcomed the arrival of Dr McCrae, ‘a great acquisition to the place for we are in great want of a few families’.'’ One of the more engaging aspects of the small community in Port Phillip was the partiality for nicknames: Baghdad Brown (from Van Diemen’s Land, father of the turf), Continental or Pinafore Browne (the entrepreneur and speculator), Jupiter Brown and Proteus Brown (both named after the ships in which they arrived), and more prosaic Honest Joe Brown (‘universally respected for upright conduct’) were only a few of the colonists bearing sobriquets.’* One could of course have too much of the provincial jollifications and the heartiness of a small town. In moments of depression or stress some colonists recognized that Melbourne was a second-rate place with a mediocre society. Members of the Ascendancy were morbidly aware of the manners and tastes of their inferiors, men with whom in

the usual course of events they would not have had to associate. ‘Gents’ kept crossing Gnffith’s path during his first months in Melbourne, sometimes in unlikely places. Visiting La Trobe one evening,

Gniffith found the Superintendent and his wife at the end of their resources: “Our coming in seemed to give relief as he and Mrs La Trobe seemed quite exhausted in the attempt to entertain two gents who had dined there’.'* Middle-class Englishmen, Griffith found uncongenial. An evening

with Dr Clutterbuck provoked a malicious entry in the diary. The doctor put a price on all his possessions and used the word ‘party’ in the manner of a beadle or a clerk. Outside his own circle of friends, Griffith found much to critiaze. A musical evening had been more notable for quantity than quality. A poorly played game of cricket had made him melancholy for home, friends and the real thing. The taste of the town at large, especially en féte, did not appeal to him. The regatta was ‘a mere excuse for eating, drinking and guzzling of all kinds’; a few decent-looking women rolling drunk; and all crowned by ‘a ball in the evening for the gay people of Melbourne’, at two guineas a head. Nor did he care for the Scottish habit of seeing out the 38

Manners and Morals old year by getting drunk, while his contempt was further provoked by the ‘ridiculous fuss’ people made over the arrival of the Scottish chieftain, Glengarry. Griffith was no prude and liked his wine, dinners

and music as well as any gentlemen of taste, but the provinaal crudities of Melbourne irked a man used to the metropolitan pleasures

of Dublin and the finished style of a society still influenced by the eighteenth century." Among Griffith’s circle, and among gentlemen in general, the expression ‘colonial’ was already being used as a term of opprobrium, with a sense of the second-rate, for behaviour which fell below the standard expected of men of honour. There was ‘an unpleasant altercation’ in the Irish circle of gentlemen over the actions of Augustine Barton. One of the Winters condemned his conduct as ‘Colonial which very nearly amounts to being ungentlemanlike in as much as it expresses what we call at home going very close to the wind’.’® When the Gazette wanted to be offensive to the gentleman colonist, J. F. L. Foster, it referred to him as ‘A person named Foster, a kind of

Australian gentleman, or something between a lawyer and a sheep farmer .. .’ James Hunter expressed the same idea in a more backhanded fashion after an acquaintance had returned to Port Phillip with a new bride. The man’s choice disgusted Hunter, who felt he could have done much better with ‘a colonial bred’ wife.’® By singling out the squatters for their gentlemanly qualities visitors hinted at the second-rate nature of Melbourne society. Dr Clutterbuck went further and acknowledged outright the social superiority of the squatters: “There can be little doubt that a relatively greater amount of talent and respectability is to be found in the “Bush”’ than in the city’.'”

Mediocre the society might have been—but the town itself was experiencing its first boom. Men marvelled that in so short a time a bustling commercial entrepot could spring up. “This place’, Russell wrote, ‘is perhaps the most rising settlement in the world’. As one would expect of a boom, one of the first victims was commercial morality. Old hands made easy money by plucking new arrivals, often young men who presented themselves trustingly to the wolves, armed with letters of introduction. Henry Meyrick and others complained of friends and acquaintances, men they had least expected to cheat them, relieving ignorant newcomers of their capital. Black was shocked by the double standards of the gentlemen, both in Sydney and Melbourne. The problem lay in squaring one’s obligations as a gentleman with the necessity of making money. He concluded that ‘the 39

Port Phillip Gentlemen plan most generally adopted is to sink every other feeling in the love of

gain and the hope of being able to make an early return home is the Reward attached to the sacrifice’.’®

A few weeks later Black noted: “There are just two things that occupy a young man’s head here, that is Money and home’. When he reached Melbourne Black found little change (although as a place he preferred the new town to Sydney). The boom could have only one end, supported by a system of bills of credit."* In this way business is carried on to a fearful and dangerous extent. I believe there are bills in circulation here at present to the amount of £200,000, and I would not feel the least surprise although a crash took place ere long, as the Banks are checking their discounts, and many parties are very hard up for having dipped a little beyond their depth.”°

Everything in Melbourne, Black discovered, was for sale but the auctions were so suspect that he calculated as few as two out of twenty were bona fide. The gentlemen were no better than the rest. Bachelors

were especially prone to temptation because they wanted to return home as soon as possible and would make money by fair or foul means. Gentlemen, Black suggests, abandoned their principles for the duration of their colonial stay. “They think they are excusable because they came here to make money . . . Every man takes what he gets if sell he must, and takes in where and whom he can’.?! There were two groups that unprincipled gentlemen could not take in (even had they the mind to do so). These were the labouring and servant classes. Like the sick and the old, they were absent in large numbers, having been unable to afford the expensive passage to the

new settlement. Labourers formed something of an aristocracy because of their scarcity (there was a shortage throughout the 1840s), and they were wooed and cossetted by employers desperate for workers. Masters had to treat their labourers with humility, indeed with equality. Meyrick observed that The more poverty-stricken they are in England, in exactly the same ratio, the more bounceable are they when they come out here. This Wiltshire scoundrel had precisely the same food as I eat myself.

Meyrick’s outburst was prompted by the workman’s complaint that ‘there ain’t no pudding after dinner’. Black found the servants more savage than the native race. To the aristocratic Griffith the men were a

great torment and their insolence past bearing. ‘Something’, he warned, ‘must be done or this place will be ruined’. The final entry in 40

Se ta DAES eg DO TEL. BE SEP 8 ee eS Ee RS Ne ee mae OSSD PA i Pe Sere SS Le TOS ae elk . 6 EE OD BEES Se AR AT a ene OE 1 Ea + we fee NEE ERE Og a i. at @ OL LRAEGST ES OES on DEBS So “en Soe ee SOL aos URAL wot 2 SEM ERE Ee eS. BED SE et Se LTTE eee ey TE RM YP ne SSS SL RE WLM napa har fen Siuigle ap apanne sanemaagummagena: tha neater yn ween. ee BIR NET IRE SPOOL IETS LPI SCRE TI ESR IRR ISTE EE SRO EIS BS SSS SCOR

Se . res a - SUN CURR Le ee 1 RRS SER OE RCS SEES SS oO Oe SUSDET Sa ap, Sh A She ee SR OS IS ED on Ege ON USSReL Se

Rake he ::-:Lwee om .. . 3SEE .Coie. - coe UNECEP oo, EE GRRE CEE eo RTE SESE * TRESISISSERSIED Uh WL EER SESE OO sgt See atSom. woo . - SDDS Be Oo SERRE ES SL eee TNE hive Ue J aeens 0. SSE Ss ISbo SSETR Se Segeas ek aa so.aieee reer GREE Ee. eeeStat EE UME ES Mot EET ety UE eos 5ee . pi bathe ios as poe : : eo Doge RSME SARE WS2SES rego OTsees Og,UNS oonSALES LAR aD Be Un ig a Det Bee ee Ry TO OBA gs AIRS) ERS SRT EUS ge SeSecoSeUE SBR.BER ny SSSR "Doe SLRS oheee roe. aOR UE aed Esan a

: ONT RUNS ogceee EeCe eo fo eRks ae RS ORET 2 ES RS SR oo Se OER AS arSDSS ee et Re afoment a a enTRE Mia Eso TR .Ager ON ARSERAS S iY gk BRS SSE GARE DcSR ESTS LAED oP oo

pee ee OE ay UE OL ld 0 EN UME A Sn Tg en EAR hs eS do gs pa gE SAS get eg Feenstra ee Ot ou. me, (OES Seo JESU EEE.0 Ts UES SF Sete. Wt gD Ua EES DSB DEP, (FIRES Te ane eth PiieeeLakh. TREfoun Ess BiceENR ha Seee etSet Sat : WON SEE SP a EERE US TLRoe SteSoro SeCOPS etSRS tne UD AEE Sloe Stiish AER De pre S vorCite Lo.: WN EERE RW Lo SU ag SE as aChDeSDNA. gay Abate Cn TER nLSETI URS“ts Sete st aigeT TL ag oe Baio Soa Ease TT PS Vk Se TS SUPE OS)RSE.) SSR REST AST OE RS OT Ue USES CET J ESBSESE? ROE USE: CRStend ae etSR 1 UUs pes oo SE oP OS TOE or eM RO oon te EL SEPP TL ERE BDOPO FR an RIS SUE Ee npg wie BEELER Ts STEER ate a See to Be ne : ah “ee 2 CR URNS Deb RE olf. ee - mo . : fe ED SCR Sh gris Nyy Dg hi TEL i ERR Dos) 9 Fae MFR LTE anene ty

PeeEE RR ett Se TT lee mo wip) (SEU SUSU USERS go UTRE SURE Eo USES Eg Th Ge aEEe palatwoos E ORR EE pe wl ts PSUS NASD St\ RE cee- ae DEER LeEau ae ESOe *a Seb ERIE BEER fc9[MAREE Ee SLR 7 Lei Reeo, OUTER E he a ESeega ieOSE oSAVEE. pea OUBy LY LESTE See See aT (7 SESSA ee SSu0G Sipe Dae ne hebon a meh ERS pena REae Lee oe Le oeRE DUE SS: 2S SRS Sane GT chee SEB BAPEa TK DatSUEY ig aLS JORSSUESSE ESS oe ORE SAEsy SIS tgBE SE eeSe ee : ocean v Ces DP et TEESE ee a ee beSURETY aED “ SARS reosES RR TW ae. 2A.ee . - Weg St oe ee tin Fae ee es Pa Ley : CCREEES SittiEig 0 CAPES at TRS EAS Oy RRS VET yi yes th SEL Hy CIS SRSA 90 Sn oS SUL 2SRE EE TSE Sn US tefet patios it ele ee UE ELC ese aeoD 770se‘:REE . a ee:HEMT SOUTER. | UE TL, Sg Sea AAR ER ES aaaAE BE Besse ERE NS foe :Ae bey TES Bh rp Tcetgy SEPT a xh teeth ee +E SES SEER) EE Ge aeGeeS of SOE Se Sse WaETE EES CORES SgTha cr (OSTSa MISERIES. Seeee eee oo! wn Seegeat tay Sila i RII, WORSEN, i SESE REE he oS SEE a IS APT he wane pg, Pie ST tt t,o ee ee et Yee LU ie ae * ee Jovy MEE Sis nie UR ORE Heioteatin ght he rries 2 DMR Sel Sisto . VAY Tae eect -. ~ Se Ea not SEIS MEED SERS SIE TG ha GSES nt OTE Rea, nt we peye teyeee ohn Cag SLSR a 1. Bee *RE anseee »,eee CERES SyUS OSES CE oy IT Sei poo Set peitigesee cir ARE ROSUEE rT ue Tl Sun. ee . Ee oO EES SSS SeaMe SS oan SOFee Sta EE ot. as eee at en 4 eo a : 2 SEAS SEU “a ee af 1 ECR ER SS i SE aed Seon NSO BOP oa. : ADU STS BR aes aOR OCTETS TLE Ee 2 Set se EE OSE SEAR Bogert Ea eo en atScns EEE wheel ae SSIEEE hy ES Sheahan Senne amaciieecs Meee “ke st eR .oe ornFR ‘ ‘rhe, ne oe :ae| aa pesos -ee. RES SESE TSTEL Ect MOE ag. inte MtOU Lo DRS aEas orSot os> Paton weigh ettences ° ee. aeee fiutt ee Bere POUUUEDIS SichSSSA SESieUE ee EWES pe Se Praesens oe un My BESS OS san ee ere... eee Eo BERR cee ceCisSe. keh ne

Peete ee nSyl Oaoy DEE et oF ee (SORES Sn er Dad asa tet Reece ,. a1p Rees oS EUS SSS Seoo ae ee iSe a Op eT RURe ESeet RRR 8reon Jo) TT eeEEAS eat.aine ;Sa Bees ees JOUER ES ee See SS ee SOU Ree . Se . wceltengec, Ui SEIU SLATE Si Pengoeo ae eeaBee ee TE Te Ot .eee SE SERRE EEE, Cle 7s - wee Shotigut Wait neh see Ee ho eSCE tn i PBROE cod OOOES

Oi it ee aap cent SS a a . . Ld. SCL eae - oot ts panic Taeee : 0 CRD RRES SSS EEE SON SEE SE TET ge i J SRST,

Ee Re oie einen eee aMa aB . oa See . eeee RRoi aTUES Eeaaa(oe IS ETE chs ee etSa ch Ree er pregnant iy Sg UL*7 RISE ee et ARES SSE ee rare actn :A -noe +. sae . (Be Sine scans RT OR Ei Ro ORR OI FNS ORY EONS =. En SN Scie maior coer ee7)na aEER aeBre 2CEA ypene pe MTs i|SUE iSLT aeOO GE SUSE SESRR Etioaes ab Ee RL IaS ih a OR pseatneaes mY .a anRE _, | SEGRE aeee on : ae ae RE Bee SOE DEE TE pete GS Papas are SIC (CSS a @ on a EE Bete 2 UES EES EE ne Un 2 She OT, Sc Ee Re Been SS eS ci : Bscbiieas peste oc hc ae Ber Con 28 SAD NCES coh th Se ee ees OT SSR aoe eae San aa-20 0 1, “Eis:eee ESE ee Bscesi.appears ~EEESUEOEE EESL e SOeeoae e ee Berghe eigen a i EELS SR BRS OOS) IEP EUS EES) Ee SS SS SSeS DEE RRS Se CORRS aRE On TE Ee eae ae Be a A° Oo=aE CURSES SEED D2 She REE ee SSS ER.ee SLR a Perea neem rnAE rear teSuBEL TE oe oe ee aE SR SEINE SN ER oeDe ee SS 7 a a a aE RRL NTR Aa DS uh SO Ee DE Beigopmi tino ie SNE le fia eeBee JRepeater BEOa Beereg ee Gee ee SRE aeae tnRRS icesRe SUES SUE SEnt EeSon Se SS peace ees eR Sa ee eS IEE S.A 0 eee ns SE i ate ae en SEES TET aN Reeanesap seiDCS ated SE oeaeane-Bisensoeee eeashen shSRE RT eeeeeEEO, SRS eae3 SECIS ARRAS SS aRSe Oa RD oOo OSES et Been Renmin fo. Sle a aae eS “a wo CT .eeane Pees ee ts Be ce, Be LE .es EER SES Sarena .aBe otiBer. oa Perepessae . acs : BS .--th 4, EES eee : ee . ::"eit cos Ba _—— pei,” Soe -tyre “SRP Ree sree ; a ee ea AEE ; . Par TRE Pests eaten s:Bs :he . a.a “oo . Lore ee Tigieaeae Sacer ae Rema Ant Re eae ener a So. oc Bee oe ES Be ER * : aee a “yee eo ae ae ee Te, : ed Se eae a Se. 3 ic aS 7 : Foes ee EE Barner ek «. : Se Be Re a 1 Ea 7. : TE wo! aca Sic an oo: ea , : eta pepe. “Temenos eT Ba eeae ccs..Reis. -Bers act Some .>“ESSE Seaman, .Sea BoTRAE in, «RRO ae 20 eerie we

Seon Le ae bas . 1 aeer enna ean CSisABeer RD ee Sec Aa ae Meg OR? ee re eT 2h Bes Bs Sepa nee WES =ae-Sa ReSpa LES Se gee ;Oe aemel ee :«Eee SNE SEILER 7EY *

pe aed . - .

ase : See De ae ab . = . Tamme ee oe . BA SEAS aa "po wo UR TS OEE Re SLie ReeRe :ne . .; We 0 US UE NEE a a ee :Fo ora . EE See Se :.27 Be at EE ee PN aS a ERR D+ : ae [eee a ee ER "a gar 2 SEE EER Ee ee ee ZS SESE “OR orgs es Be SER PR Nnaos RET COL :-Syn SO TNE SORE SR in et tee : SE Ra aie eee . a ae eager Soe :ne Bad Ea eee EE ers inn ° BORG FRR EEE Soa a% alee TERE sO

we .ees Epes ates retro :2 ORFS . ee eon cere : dee ..Ba _-Be RR aareaeemreteeaceen ot zaa mecesnccr com *RRRRARRRR ee sree an oC aan] :4 * eto heen Seer SSE: te aoe aS 2 2 oS Pe Seo . ES ernLO SeaSO LS :: ot Horus . RE

OE ; ee eee

s pees . 1 DORSEERRE ISS: ct ipa ogee oo SEES

F .Pe , ‘ 1 Dyera) ye | :. ._] iz

ye i}= -EF. Te .“. -_ 34 =FO. y: SUHTHOCE AOOHE IV ~~. jWHTCR, 2ge=dVCU ¥+.SCUCHTCe $. =. rAro

: ffae oe PBS eT eeee ;ci.wt ae SBBP 5eeOB ie .FiFEBS wee ae ERO. etme OE, % ge: “ ” 2 1 ee ee y} ‘ BeRRS ee i, eis, a Ps Es 7 SE gee E gy RR rae oO

ra god: Reo 8 Bs : ; Fae = ig . ¥geeZmoe : : aeoPERR ee a ;22eee poo eREee ee a

an ae i o yg | : =

i 7 cA § gee ; “HE amen coer oe Me .

Be 4, 4SE Bee YP ;Pes SBS RSP 1ge ee :9:ms ge.$i,ene Ss €ae & sey ge? pp OO age :cae nS LR io *x BBS Eats xOR Pee PORES “4 eo BEBE oe. & z% bbs es 2 ee ee bas 28 ie 3 Fa ee Boe Naa ge ae Le : eben £25 ae oe x re ies Pr ee gs £e. Ee g F By aca Bay #. ae: Bi 43) ._ £ “He Wee de ag : eaae

BES Bet ‘cs 8a :BRE -. og ee eye Be ee eli co a ane es ae | “a ® 5 ee wom w ao gales € 8 aa Bee eee cl me . HOES wee BS g. ss 2Co 2Se BE ceLEER wy BERR Bee Bod St % aa ae a° foe Mo. Baar ‘Ee ~OE Bie 4ed i: 2 Be: “2 ut “e ee Bye. so ee re Be #9 ae SES. 3 BS aee Ee FEEDS Aggie % es or Sees capes REE eS ane ae Fa By pe a pone Sige ae “EEF “Ud 7 Pont Se = ea ae : SEEPS eg ‘| 4 eof ;. ae aegous % ae *ON eLeoe a,24‘gFO ; a| es Se EES Mao ae a .ae te.Se;wes ea ; BEE PRR oo ee : wit4 Show te Re FEE .;FGF if ge ee

Fee Me gg oe | >. oe ed ei oe ee

a ae Me oad Mae # . ae — oe BERS Os ke entities on. Zs aA so pee gg EY, ae coe : a: i ae is at -

ee: ae OR Br oes ae caggOE gsoeye eei BE ig Elana coe aes Sghe Boe pea P85, Big tp Bek eRe ek “es * oe RS 4 eee cee PE0Eikeotige. “~ SEE rn, ween SgPi ie Rie Fe Be oeBE csf.:set phage og By Be 8! ig e209 fs igh Bea ak eS Resa eeeS en Boas as Ry Se 7hs, | enae ae GEESE... . eSBs 8 He — i bisRee niet ESEerAilge GEaBe eeee: Se 4% eee Bee 6: 7re.ee, i,ie ae ii ee Ooee Peof aes eee Sees aR a”, peerme Rae sag oeaBasie cee peg — geben, BEBE cs Be eee te a SEES Cig ca,Me SanBe SS Pe ROE eeaeeee we Rie ee eeSS See Ree eee eae° aoar eeegg “ie, ee oseee a iieon Ree Be

—— ee Paes fe: Ga ae ee eegg Bit22 iy eas Um” Um . See Sg ee ntvee: Se Ee Ee UESGo ae OE ;eeSw Boe ae of28 oaneee So ee eee Re: ee eC :2og oe eee OSS GESRESTNS tee Reae. gee: BLE Refoawe EEParas SER es eo Sanaa peeEe ee SoeESE Ea Piro Se. IR -. SS : “ “-dle RErN hoeCoS eee ie ipa: oe SEE Se BEB ae 23 Bi 2. afoe BesBE cana Li MRO eS apace AMR adeSpe “a RRR Be ES aeie eaneeeae BR Shy seeEkg Pee. ee EOE 2|

a DET ae. gee cea eeEES ee aebe, a gas eprcs sos£2 eeBo Soke ES ee mek Se a ahia a aRe |3ee BO OE see , ee rasVE GE OOe ee TE 2, SS RR Bie a ge spe a4a Se we nl ee)Po4os eeOs GER cs Soeees aeeeae GREE ae ee 8uae aELe ‘gg ohHegeeeeh. msRS Ee — Bes I— se 2aeeee

7 BE Eee. :gee. 5 . Se SRR ee co SeNS gaees aa aSrSeer a eo*ees ey se Hie OPE SE ES ai fi Eg Ob LE ORES ee Be ESTEE: SSDEB ALE: ER: pee i + ge ie :BEG Ga %Be eeER EEEe TORR “es Geer s. wee: =Bee oyFg pee eeeeOR ieieLEE OG LsOp rag ee: ae SRBes eae(2750 . gee Spe ORD Be Seen ne Pere Bites oaeesot TERRES i See, PIE IE EE ese eeeePaes BE eon 7 %, eeBe ager Rege 7 eee Oe Se RA tg TEPie: eS. aemis, coe Sa asLEE & 3eae %% - Hohe Se oo. Es7RES See Be ne EPUB Sennen ee Be : ed eefp ee: EES

on es Re oe: eec. ae [oe a a i es Ff ae = 4 a‘gimme mea re 2a Bes s. # ane: Re; ES 2 oe LER a :neea au 0ee ooeee RN oO a“ bre Og Fo Zo fgy Ree EE ee i es eeeCe ee4 age en er soe;Pr ghee Se a. a 3g ae ae ee,s aecea oeee : aoty ae ee: _¥ we: ; wont en SSae ioe ees ae ee TE cade eeae 2Sn . ee iis a Pe ee eerie EES costs me: oe. ee i ees a ae i ae ” Eel be ae ee : a a ok VES 2 Se SHE: Paneer me 5- EE ERE EP Bet + oe vee es ge:weet ca SEALE CEoa a oo noe #3 Beeaa wet nn MESSED SeasTe 4 gs Sateen oid Bos ee a PG ee 3 PER eo : PS So PRES ie EG is i es yy aah ag Bae eae A Ps 4 ae 7 i , res OS Bes ay 3s #4 . EET Oy BEE NEES eco eae gies Ee a aa ° = eae eS = : " : em} Be NE, HO . Bt nT ee , ae¥74a4 BE*. .eR :Teeeea,he TaESR, eeOT5A :vite NSesHote -oy Pee Pees Oe oe ~Sp LPHeee Hie IeBe SGote wag ae = RUE mt etes I pe,neBo Be Ses eee ih TE Lg,

i GE “g iSri a“B.. Pi -7.erBS BENE NS SHE ® eeSige i Eee ee Eh eeBRE ae et cyepBee EeyeAa ee i Se ae aese OP eae. ee on SR eee a ee a san ee Gn; :ie eee mm OO EE gS . are fy SES ae aC See gM BS gape sg ent hs Sec ingaaaeciaaas phi ete aD » :

Long vipBe oe:i" i ae “i Se ep as weer eo A 4 .yee Sees gas : z | te: iBe‘64 Ragen ie Hage tiene aed a alSees eg Pe oa feLE ilBe om ce ?.Bg Pi ido .. Po Sh. Po23 aE 25egfn § aeCE SES His aa eS Seg Ot icseo .gS: ET ma Bee ins eee ke aeHo... Be Rink aioe the Son RSS hhoes es as ie. Ce oeTeg Pe Beg OR} ie aAB Phe ORE i pee. :S: aS Seer, oS RLS. tsaecan geBee oeeepS Sihsag hes + =Fe bees beeaele Gone iy aeoe eae Be RR ee Sege Bias ai ARNT oat~ oe _— IE| ae Raman 7 wee : oS oO BO: Sy ieee ae OE aeEO Thaye. 5. SR HRis27#3 kgeitilladaie eeeee 7seeee 78aes =

eee ee oe ee %,- Oe nt eetieEee bg ae 8 why are a7 se OSgoa ht. rr a: oe

Ps SeSeer a bet&Behee Bisig sehod, gh eee - . oe . whe Ee oy eo aS a ane 4 eos ages eeegit PeBy ee ES APPe By,RAR choneM ie Sires tee ope hoa Byles Th ye 3 a(ie Sea on eas uaye+e : ets aaa he a as BR GRR pe Rees sae Fe Co ing OS : So See ag ones yap nal ore ea cgiek _ ee aoe oe a as 2 ee fe a eS i ae ae ee “ ito Oe Lda aap eae cas ace corr Ps . 6EE pee toon : ie i ee Ss a x BS © eS Sa WORE Ss EB EME Oi 5 ORE TEI CD oe TTY See “5 Boe PTE” a gas ees ile ie RS Ie cai ony te ey an le ee : , Site, rae ;neEB eSRE i Se adeieee % ae eegare SeeDoge , “so“i LP : aie UB 8B. Be a .eRe FE i. Cade Pe 7 Pisa, Se,IS aaaee oeig 7 ae A OO i ineoe Re ie pee. Ne ae Spe28 ESE eSOBS Bn iy camer

OS aa aeLe , 5 Ne ee eee 2 fee ee eeOE i oeaR PegO CgeeBe eeke oe . Co Cg age yD OfpeWER The oo ma ae ee 7) RE wh, . abe le — OB “x?

gras LE sROR AECEE OD EGOS! Fe SS aes ’has as Ba SERS eat osEe gsere i a al BRES Se 7a ee Eo ae EGE SS, OSeae Feiieaeee : Sach ea eeame Li RRS BAe. 15 pany hy oa eeeos.SE EESBe OS“i:sgeeWee EE” ee ‘ =“ag GOL POLO.

Bi.aRRS eases (iS, ee2 aaa OO ae Be ieStig as ee Gg a eo IE Seg a SO * Be *. eine sn Bn ee ee Py hie A SN ILA LO GLEE SOG ied ecu teee SaSE, Re. Pe BS mo acer °cog Mes: esaMR aSy an 7 eyMae eo sh Eg BE :Oe SS “ihe OE BEEE efey elie ama aa“ES meee Fale 5SNe Bs” Be ayand Sage OE aBes Pe aeeaM OG RB OE ay Ses Cegeiorg ere eae Seen ereobits ge ca nr.— wae” Sciaed oe CES nr eeiNE i~ergs SS ye Spi, Eeee ee eS gece,” Seee iOy, ae REO i Ee ae ae &TIE Bao ale Se.7ee gia % :# Hey Foun *Me = %, ":ot ee So ee we Ley gg .eoron Eig "=

PSS PRse . Pas So eg Ra *Sh. ree oy |: ':ie;7et :| !::|/|‘eat 12gee an eo Ba Z. fee Ng, oeet ‘eS : ee lt on 72 3=RP ee Pa bo~iy ak :: ;|3ae sA. ee S Fe ars 88 ae ae%areoe Cede Fok ae |)* , ,Sey | =So Py fee SFR PSSSeS 3 Be RS,ekS | yi oe po a aSak Bg : oe Rene Ca ose agh Eo ae ae a3Bs i. eS BRR ye: &. xxRAE ELSES SAN cet :a“Se \ eae : -|gh -> A ,¥gE Ree a6sé ay eee SSE n* eeoe af? “od 8SUE See :2po “ee '4a;73Y 4‘: Le | FF “; be weo¥ xRe Ce PeJt -Soy a:Boor SN" RSE :Wee . Bes sate eet 2Le ae dpbo Pay cake 3 :iSSe oe ae Be he:Reus BotsRR eres HySee gS Mage Bs gg ga OF so ak Ree >< . ‘s as

Poe Ai ASee We, asSo es aSae. sg ee ee eys aS BRS oeSas PetfeSe YP te aS : rdae ®_aeS SPE Ba . er ABES eee aeSoe .i:,, a RES Pes See oe San 3TEE >Ew sySx ae : = 2ak 3ee° ar ,RES . eee a Ar E> CP, OK: SEES Hen ee gee: oS, oP ‘ etNS ee bee nae aes ar:ees raeSoS . : Re 5 wet = S88 Be.wo . . ge ee OO ab nl

co munis panna "aSees 7* Be Se¢$3 SOR EEE oe ee SN oy £=.of 324 oh aS mo SS ena TS SeRR , -.RSS #%e aSerer | ad , Fi(pee |=/2s fe aRe Sho gVeIAe Sa IER Np” SOs Sere Hy ges he Sex OF ae er BR 2age JTaoe ES SO gilt SS2a BeSe. R8 &. ges SY a, fo SES aesaSo an aeo eeBhs aac ae oR oP BETO ¢Oe 2oe FS, aR E& ce NS sae 2ao 53 ceoo ":weet 22 2 SOLAS aeSoma Seas TtOY og: eee ERS Bas Low x RE RES >Ro .&>RPS eo :aN SsSA a eae asoa se ;E s cttinig’ * aJee beg Behe Lag, Scar 2WP eea PSone kt ae oo ges x 23 ob aSe aean aes BE? yo SSS sy Be oY Lae AN Ce e | i At : fl j-ai ses : Se: oe “’ : ar Rs Lae. ate $e LEE SS 2S 2S Se: BORE os SOR Ry ae 3S wey S a ° eo BS MSS LE ek SRE SS . ee ee BS a . of fe ; a i S32, Ss {ge AS. eee . Se Same 6 CS, See Oh Bee ge gis See : a eS x be * Re & Rg |oe Z a‘ .ny SRRERR ES eh BSPsfee3.SS geese aE Sa3eeSe ae2a eRSaSE eh eeAE oo Sas DosaCe i. 25 SeeASE i Boes & VERS KE gS: see| :¢"7 oS. MO RFj 8ES Pg8BRS SES ‘2° NSE ONES clone Ss SS 24 RB eS RSSS FROES

7 x | : | ; ; aiy a re yea eK S & -< eye cae or ee ee a , * ie ls wl /

REE es Saas cae a , ee: 4GSES: *ee2sePF Soas| Bey ees ON o SSeS Se ‘3CORE ee 4See aieeeGea 7 dy dicae3; ee sete 7 : ‘,; eget :aRy ek Le: SNARE (SES ENE See “ ES eS SORES RS ee preg “Pe "See .care SteaSER ARE So OES 3efRE ER no, Se eas ae eeSRR Cpe SS 2Paes BeeAS F Se 2 ER an:>. ee. NSN 1 EkS 3goPE

ee ee5Aes Fs3eo A?DRS Ss . . Se Poss ee eta ey oe % toswes oe ~~ Se Se ieSo see: Ste

.hoe ftSS tee SSS %See , carse, Ank he oe eee wa hes Bein Fe sti. < 20 LEIS hee eS rae ~s asow ZeoLe, cy mae Go L Gite

1s . yxyx :GR y by ip wip the ‘Pin ~~aRoc eee : iteoeCANT ge ¥ w. ae eee te §iyE, tet :I =fe— hen Oe, %, ; ;yioOLE, 5?My SOBSG oe Ug igoP piss ge fe ae tity ee “af YW w aks \ BES fa 4UI iria free: FreELHf4Pat ogASSsj oe ap Ce, SS «leP LE sieininige ae: -5PgAy! “Ys as, ey i) 4:4 Aare

* t (eae Zor MEL fic LSS SS Kes Vi i le GO i a a FT ht, e & x i. | lye i OB“se « wt oul ad bakzs pe ee gy SA ipee EL GI ye;pac 3? See oeyeAa —_ i GF 4 ioe, -_

‘»"\%iy _ge: 40paiaon eeRe Ferd facie. ° -m eePad$,ARE8Be6:i cnn 4 coe eesion&&fz be3 2% a . BH i - ee Po chap eecwete steel cama sroneee ie e 4s we ~ 2 ~ ' ]oe f s 7ae i in

Oi+o LG sae 2 ea : em io Se > _ tte PE LS ewe £ siild eZ! mak 7 ee ee et oe : MR on re EE BE ES ee ge si rons goeasincee’ ames 4 el ae

ae oy Fs : ba. . : , } ’ Afi < ee ese tech . Woe aw eecinpmamamanin | ERLE weatens 8 epee 2 ie a 2. Ae Lisi Pee A i :, Sete pike BEE Sooeren. ia 8 yee “by j o) a = Lo

a ee gh a he Cn Bite egg 2 SPOOLS segs oui te o ie ge tape nine a OB Timer Bg IIRL i OE egy gr f of og ee ES i RR Gg

SER" Ges Cre we , an ge ett Re ee . Bee Le ior ae in” «See : nee eee me at or seeettca on: Cs eee sf

gies F EW « + re as: + See hee poe Blagg cau OE ann rE Ei acaliitianttntees ee el epbeowonarminag 02 Cs oer eae petra secant prctaee Sted posts SE ww? BOE 4b 9B po rare o agi

-.Me ra Paar 4 , ae iFite: ig fA ey ‘ Na 5, oo Fitrppewinersen se atet aa OE hep ae spain tped pen es a aeane ie Teoe RCE hs: TONE eee whlTigges PM TAGS Y feIEE, a e.eeaesft pam ennsoneg BAER ge BEE cece MMM NEC gee pmo

So = F Y ee 2k: & £BG Bags easy foo : eee nn JOINS eee Uy Lee : - Mee NO TN ARON OSE I ac eae Ake gist ME ssh Niet AIEEE ee CA ae, y; ; SEES ts exe ge * wParam ee 0 RBC aS sone bbe i nam Ae Re ES ee er sopsiaeeier gestion Bence oY Neg Pi Foe a a: Sie & i pf 83 : . 3 abipsticonaaa its ?- 2 a eee eee Pe he nt et coop veeie patent mpi ee OMB te 7 114, a psec oe eaten octet ty 2 ey ares Lea rocma 1 SCE an ae ceded ae ~AE gts.feeeOb Jy €s 4 Eph. Gere . sesecret we UiCEB nernent eigen sogertecese ctr . CURR nerCEG menepapa a eeans econeane Se eeIONS > ———— oth Be +: ia Eccetet atari : eetpees aT ae Lesbian tases earns he li eeEERIREA Keene nenSiOsotCS a 2 ee wirecaafern rineORE a DANN oS ROME on

ete i dapesta bet 2 #4 oe Gi inf a . [oe . ABB ons Ret ari ane ee en EE ee are ‘ oe £6 en

‘ : et me OE ag . -*OT Cagcc is ies PE:gt ae ataf OaFe eo feoe ; nae be tosees shagmoe et 2. oon ; L We RR ae HEBae Roe.» oer oes. aoe eee pitgpit Yegs “ng 0 ge . . fistances ” . eo cove cette IO serene eA seon cme a ‘once oadaia5 Caton el (dome, *a

= és 1eas geAe pee eee” B ston SS3Seer, pete, OAT APOE CE io eeCr teow . OS: seewtiete Ar eee Geen .&one . bt one ee Oe Je his vals ere sy jiPERLE ‘ men eee cose iasuessoeesttaige?? ate,ea een a2ed Pry Fe |SSee Pigiog Ponstgt ihos cg asa” | ;isEOS eae prety _ se Os Seca 27h ik. iyepealllis és ean Ppeeeanas SI oF “ 4we, a ; .#3 -ees illieAe ae ete Cpe eae Oe2ee vee Wifr scenes... SiR caress he sectecetd 95? PR. we Se, oe. ose “Lxoe BPeeis5° wgjeeeert; Sgt oer. 28come athena nminccaars ediakonsiass - em soma ane :,S on4. “an So ,.,.‘. )a. ‘ |

ative bathin , -

wr'g OT Ca ,BeGe pe ef ty _On + li tied maaan : Cemee is getsi aacaeaiate ie 7> a ;&, ‘ . . ae 3 a So aea oe2 ¥Gi - ee aieoe .Oe,” < .rroe ee :SR nao onemrensace gol eget i a 33 .eelinadiae 2 ol al osSie ee“ eS a .a

; ‘soot ae eeeneh, wid ittee Bo of oy, a— 4 SF ‘ ~wewe

Z gve2 Gow $ # a thy yr aa|ee an oe ects ore eeite a aes ©ite x5g Fiaad a aa, : EE. Cia $ a9 i.onax ond be Lt EE_ Ys a aEeoo afin? aes es ew, Xe acorde yo LPOPABR ees :on Me £ =2Sy 02€~ Barts Se ae pee ee:Sanee SE orgs ERESEE iw Ege“ag JS goa Re eae ee eaeee aesTe So acoe fg RAS ie .Ro pis OS aliasere Sg RR. oS ap Ee Se EOEeee SSS Syke Pe PST

ESoeGPE es See ORAS > SEE PS SERRE: SeeeTStwo*eeS.. eee gi “ERE ts SRE ie ee wi Ta EOEeag te 7ee SbEee Be Se ES SEE Ee eRe eRea Xe & 2sa! : : EM np. ERE Saeco See: SES SS ey RE

Py eg ee Se a ee eee eee bee ae OE eS Be sy oe . i rr re Reid Toa Ss

Bee LPS TNS a Reet ES ateASRS ied eae Sa aeSnag ees oS Pe RReoSeanaeoPyERPeSorApe BasOE EnSESS US hs eeoe Wee gis 5 eS! a SSE ee ne BR.Se te 33 SatSas: ee. SE ats RE oe SEP ee(Ee ae Rg PA Ee’ ak og Rae SESpee Ss Fe Se ae we At a : . Sis a, ie DAE SSIS OR eh | RSE ae LORE Se SE A TE eget TE SAL ge idk a cree aes Se | SS BS: eS: Bae: the ° ia = jee 3 as Fs A ge a ras : Doe ESA JOSE LS EE NS ASE Baan

PEAS Se es ef Le eee . Fe : eee

fe a J 2 a og Sage 2keepies kk RASS EE Ee Se & .. NSAN :ooRRS RS an. eee eeeee. EeeSee EN ENGR SS. EAS SS Ue RE SEEN etdee Shegiinetiee - Se eon ASE as eeSE ERTS ee See SSIES neySS SEER, SEE TSee Se =a ESE SSSR ES Sea SeEe SSRN weRR SS CN ae Se Ses SEESEN Se SeeSANS Soman eaeSERN SS See S REG SS SSE Ss Sas a : : sd = Wise “SESS Sag BE Eg ee Soph eam 2 RS epee ee So Eee -. ee es Seas =. Sa SS Sc SN Se SESS SES SASS SANS Se Se eee agheedeci REPRE oe BE a oe Se SES EEN eats EESSe ESOS = Se LL RN See Roe: S SRS RS SN SORES Ns or. eee

aes eecman ce SeeSeas te ~— Se fe|... * eeBARS ed ee ae es ae oes X63 EUeSe eo Seeee ceSsore | — 2a SRE ee eee spins Bias sinses woes SEE ae: ge Sr SESS Re ccs Ba SRR Re See ee _ aE -: Seagpiaabes = : Le Se : Std eG wee + a ; ASS Rene eons SS RRS SS SERRE: “oe NF SOR ERS Seema Ss SN Sa od SE BS SOE EERE RRS Se Se Spee peg ana Boo

_ |. .eee >. dooce oa Be eeSS EBsCe coteye weeEo =.=. SAA a a es hm oe — : NA ee eee ge Ss pee eae ee

Shug EELSRE eseteScSSS LO ER RRS See ESeen SSRN Lo. OT eeeSRE LSeeee eeeSsatemnamee Stee ee Lee See Sean ae Sen ed Pe =e eaEN SRS . SOE ToT: SSSERS Soa TEER SSS SEO kegSRS SSCS RS Siig ee CRS ees Re DRE ee Saas Sos oc. SN aee _SS=" ss CERES SRRRees a. SESee Se a Reee ge ao SS Ree es SRR ee RR PO IAS SS REET REESE SAE OE Soe SRS See EN SESS SSS SS AL SSE GN SS CRS SRS he Se BSE EES Le RRS SEES oe ac Ses SSE RR Ses te35 SSe Si SN BERS STE RES. Se ee Sy 339 53 Sapo areetn SOs See oh rere CANES Se Ee ppanccsannies = Sees ESSe LSSRR Se RS ca pee oo SS tio cca Neeot SOURS SS res SEES SR Sees Soe ee Se oes RR Sh eae SS Se By SS EeSTRe EERE Soren eons OS oeRES ERE 2 ee SSS SS Ss SSS ESSRST SeesSALE SES Ren GE heSkeee SE RR [SR a oS a ee a ER EGS 8 SS SS:

mere EE Ss BE Ee RS ES — 4. See Seer ee OS SS pa SERRE SRR SR oo Reo RN ARE as OO

= ia. ~« .SAN . | RS OE WN CR ~< teSES SoSsSA ee RS FR RE og hen. a SE eee eee NS EE Boe USERS ..—s—a_—a.‘—sléiw eeSee SEES AO GEASS clap atip Renal eee Se See os a es SS AS aS. SS * ES WEE SERS re Sg eas ~~... ERR SEAR Sia EE SES =~ rr——O BESS ESES RN SNS AGss SEEN ~~ ee eae _ SERRE, eee ee a . SESS SN Or Se SS SRE SERS ES RES ARS SSeS — a See eS SEES Sungei: famed So ES Shae nine eee Soe SS ee aS — RSSSSSs SE SN SAGER ESS SSRN EER SSeS SANG EEC SS ROSES REE RS RRS SS ae pee cess SSE Se Sung soa Sea peace SESEeeees Sn RRR Ne ESAS CNS SES LA EN SSS SS EERE Reeeee SESS SSSR S388Bees SEES ERE ee PSEA WP oNBERR: SEN SO EAS CFRASS ;"OR —.——r—S—CrS — nS sees ANS — By Oe RNSE ae ANS ERE WER SEEN SSE Are —Be i Le ##&## #3$+$¥¥| RS SE ESE eeee“oF Se rs& Re —.—— ee Ee ee EEE Es "8 ES eae ey ee SSeS oa — SN SEN oO r~—~— ~ EE ee oe eee ee Se ae Eee ae rn ee nes |cea kX nee Se JESeeRES REESE no oeow “hs Oe eee Eg es EE ea Re Behgg ce 2ERS ERE SES SSSRSSSS =—_§s——_ fy SSS SEEaae RREES SS ~~ ee SS SNR SRE SS Ee aN SEO SOR EN RR SENS SRR SETS SNe RS SSRIS cee Le Re Sco MSS BR acaoncanion see See BRN RS

oa TRE SSESETEE SRST sSeathenencneeanen SS SERS IS oie Re Ea ES SSS SENS SSNS SEES RR ENSCE RE SRN RRR SSSA SR TREN SESS SE Ses nae een SSS SRR SS SOS SEARS Shien

— NsSS REN So Bee .. SEES -ee .. —=—S—seB. SO BEES och SERS RSaa no SESS “eeeSes SS FS ne SOE Ree See HEERE Ngee RN OAS Se asee ees beige 2Begs SEE SEN EEN oe RRS *| eee fae AE NEE ~~. UF ; iFae .WEEE? SAAN HESS aRI eeeS Bi ae Bee aeeee esSEs SEES EeELSE RES: ee TNR —.)...—Crrti‘COC OO. Se aesPec .SS SNS eeeos ee EO OB FO ee eS aBReege ae : SEO oP ee ES .Ee BREE ee a SAS ae PE .... SENSE ae a 6&3 ee ee Se EOS FEES HAASE RES & SRS ce See lec E wells ESERIES SSE A SEES See LER OF . 3 RENE oo _ Ee : Beers aos SER SERRA ee SER SSS SRS Se EE Ne See ees Se . Sos . 2 . : Ee SS Scar oranoe ees .. 8 : : : ESS 2 eines go eee ESSE Ee AsWe 3 ee AER eRRNS ea SN HSSSPEBEES ScBeSoe 2gSRE eeeShe et A, alae 2h. Bae . “sEerene eeede BEES NESSES necat=a.ee28, . gee Se eee or aS Ses SE AESeS Be SR Se Ss SRE ES RETR Reser ge SSE Ee Soo | orate adtdten i SSBES Th ce * SOR ESSE

TC Pe >. Sa ¢ ’ JRC RSD SS A Se SSeS 2 ae PERT AES SL NSS

OatARES es SE eR ne, SSOe e SESS 2 SRE 2 Ee5ieSCESS ANhnsts Bereeuttions otc inant ees SOARS CseeCo Sy. LO SE RG ES SERS Eosota See oe SSRN Se SS Sy SES Me Tags m. tetageh = SMe Mew. ER EEEEee enh (ESE Sc oon Heavies oat ee ea Ee| TESS a Oy SEE ox :Reese RS a ., el 3 Ee we.- aES enna ee SEs See Sok So SS SOON bug ahFPR S See Po ee antie, 28 Seek ASRS eee eres Hae wes AS afee 7IEeee Ee Seb veOER ASS ES ae RR Bye Eas Pyar Ce OS South RE ue Seay See ES EeeEe: res eeay 2we aaa RO ae eeUaeee oh Ee ORES ESRRS SSeS aeSc eeSeaSERS SScoSaat ANS SSC See aeesciehcosetactratet ne Reece ee BSee aeee |SSRIES . = gegen aS USSOe SR EES ERR: oS pa een SS SERS. SS RES SSS ee SSS ee weenBes SrEA SER. SPREE Sl Sie Eee: wee RR acne Riker SSE eee.le weESE a SC aS SS CESS 2cnSER

SE Re “Sat eee ee as a2 SERS oe“soe ae eS| Cae oe ena UPTSESTSS CEsGG ) oo See

SEE Esvee SE Se Re Vg on ee: “REee SSS Se Se A Ses BSS SS Scones RAGE gn: oe9 +ieee . . a Nees

ee ee ee deg ae oe mPa Pe RA ee BS

Sere ene LSS See ESS cae Os ce et Seioios REE gS te oe awo SSSons DodFlswet, . Wg atk aa ae EARS SG See ates HAR wo, J SRS Be Ss Rogge a Se Sian SESE RE oSSod tht og TESTE Th eee 7 :REST eR awf th :ams URGE aT ghIEE Soon 3 RSE SSE Se ROSES SEE Sees. SORES TD UNS ges oT . : B J! OCR Beis ROSSI oy BS ERS UREA RS rn ws YT ae . . OD OSA Tae SS Sg, SEE. ee eNO SeSS TPES 2 ho? me tok pooo. an Baa zSS 9 pee SE RES NSE ESRI SEE SS SOSA a 7°PERE Mali .Lo. . oehe . ura Sah pl, Fie Sige SSR noha, eae u . eS S ene age enh SS. 7 SERRE PE tin . wn ONE : . . ” toa . wei Se an wy Pee ee NO en ee cet ee eet wo ee SURED of : x ie BER ES ES Re eS Ee SS oe eet Sas" . be ° . ste ON a yy eM eet SSE RSS SUE ete ee SR SFE A a ce a oa nce 3 SinteSniliatiics tena CUA, coaeaticca ageseeeee a SEES eTa SUIT eyaURE otToe * he wees : ne ae-aaa a SIR SR RE na REE EAS NISAS SRE Canepa URE :. 2:: :Een oe : . .B CEE, SAREE BUSS She Sage et neato TU Sr ge as to *s Toke tigbg . _" percent SERPS ee EE SET SEEM, Soe atte SE SEB Dy wd : a ae a on Se eee CN bo PALES arSRE Ste :chet UME EeEARS Dn : Bo a le neteEe araal on SS eeSERS Woe ah :oo: UN hePE eS MTEM eng :: as Soeeeeeces ES RNS ESS Sgt SEES NSBer ecies aSeo et .ela 2 tee PORE soLee : Behe too agoo SEES Reh SNcnWE NEN See BP Lo . no EERE: Me : res - OE ee PS Shoe SESS. BRE RNA apa . acat : a :eeJe a Soph ieEUS Sige AS SECoS tt mie bev une D0(Sa ceaCEES . re an agi SES ee SO ee Noes AAT Biogeiyed: Gh Ree CREE DIS een VEE SERS Seiad ays goo aE ge EY ns NO : 2 EES ect ei A Re ween nin we . 7 ec ei SECRET | UES aSEN at a agente ot ah . :o;Reuine MEA ers nae cited Ghat STE 20.MERE Pago SEE ph SEA he noe:Lt Sg Heyy ISS IS USER 7RETNA 1goofs STE rewhee th a Pte aa2SESE LE Se ee . SE oRR -4 .eeTe . eames Sin en2h 2)SSE CONSE TERS at .: :oe . .we ih URE aes ma Hee anSE SS, ST Sut RASS awot wee “te “rt ..: “hey De he CJR. SE SE [ORE ER at, vee .ET : .won .eae . ..i.tee Slepeti oR oe hE HESS ss, °mha:ban .-noe .Me, t . .Ss ..i..a SEEN TSaan URLS RG RS ASES EIGER . Lae cs “Ee ~cons . .ar . Ss RUSS ee ate Wee a mo -.REE we se, can

pr SE DSS ER SER or oa im : ai ea BS

Ne ESR LET hig PE : . . - ee an ns . Soy . . BaP SEE 3RSE a SOLAR Sa . .Se Sees . ete ~ra 2K, a Paes ° := SRL nd, eR 7. : % a ‘ RES TSE a SES EERE eee tate SLA “ o . . . 0 MESSE vant : ERSTE SEIS UESREO PEE TEREQRSSSE ISSUE TEL unk Test . an eas hae woe BS eos L : Pa t “°. . Bice EE ha et TERA SES SE onc hoe ee o see . none oe ae “ EE ae see Sect oneSUS SEES ARES SRE Se J nea bethi Te Stee : . 7” : :By : : Re Fy aa:racoy Soe cS SN Sao (POR Se ee eee moe .: ..— TU ey Sees deg a tag et " nt Ts o: : : SE aye SEM Ts a Teo age . .o . we was SSERA at PENS no BOERS Sg ets bo She ; : 7 WY Shot of :i Ree RON CSRS woOE teey= -— a oe . _Ik: “seit ee MEER NES ERO ERO STS sien wena ae eae Berk : : SLeeSUERO Tp Sinegah a : eeee LesO oe - . nat 7illiam ee

Stawell, aged about twenty-three

The Pale of Fashion was not against the idea in principle. In fact the scheme never took form; it was overwhelmed, as were many of its promoters, by the slump.*®

Aside from the institutions, there were many other aspects of polite society which were reproduced in Melbourne, both tangible and ornamental, all linked with the rank and role of the gentleman. The daily life, arcumstances and surroundings of a gentleman were all supposed to attest to his station in society. Those who intended to set up house in Melbourne with their families arrived well equipped. Mrs McCrae brought out seventy packages of clothes, furniture, food, and items

such as a four-post bedstead, nine square bottles of water from the pump of the Tower of London, and a flat bath and hand shower.°’ Moving a gentleman’s household from one end of the world to the other could be a considerable undertaking, although few arrived with as large a party as Captain Pomeroy Greene: his wife, six sons and daughter, the governess, the butler, the carpenter, the head groom and

the second groom, the useful boy, the gardener and his wife, the laundress, the man cook and his wife, the housemaid and the youngest

child’s nurse. In addition Captain Greene shipped across two thoroughbred horses, a Durham cow, and a good library, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica. At the outset, at least, there were to be no concessions to the Antipodes.*® The first settlers had lived in wattle and daub cottages, tents or huts on the hills of Melbourne. The next step was a umber or brick cottage within the bounds of the township. However the flight to the suburbs started early. At Jolimont La Trobe erected the elegant, simple prefabricated cottage he had brought out from England. Murray’s book on Port Phillip (the first full-length work on the settlement, published in 1843) has as a frontispiece an engraving of a villa by the Yarra, possessed of all the amenities desired by an English gentleman.

Throughout the 1840s both gentlemen and men of respectability built houses suited to their position in society, so that Lang could inform his British audience that the Yarra valley was dotted with villas, cottages ornés and elegant farms. Lieut.-Colonel Anderson at Fairlie, Major Davidson at Callitini, Major St John at Little Rockley; all in South Yarra. At the end of the decade the rich merchant, James Jackson, built Toorak House, the largest mansion in Melbourne. Along the river were the McCraes at Mayfield, the Currs at St Heliers,

John Orr at Abbotsford and John Hodgson at Studley Park. Little estates thickly studded the picturesque paddocks of Heidelberg: Cap73

Port Phillip Gentlemen tain Smyth at Chelsworth, the Rev. John Bolden at Leighton, Joseph Hawdon at Banyule, Thomas Wills at Lucerne, and others.°? Some suburbs were considered too far away for men who had to attend town every day. One of the many objections to Judge Willis was that, although an important functionary, he had chosen to live in such an inaccessible place as Heidelberg, while James Graham advised a client against buying Glen Ferrie, which otherwise would have been a suitable residence ‘for a Gentleman following a profession were it only nearer Town’.®°

The men created their suburban estates but it was their wives who had to run them, attend to the housekeeping, look after their families, bear children and maintain the standards expected of them as ladies. Mrs McCrae’s diary is a poignant record of the sufferings and hardships endured by women in general (and by an artist who was also a wife and mother). Much was expected of ladies, and more taken for granted. Thomas Anne and Mr. John Mundy came to our early dinner. Captain Cole, to tea, and whether for the sake of prolonging his stay beside his lady-love, or from actual thirst, he took no less than nine of our small teacups full of tea. While pouring out the seventh cup I could hardly conceal the effects of a twinge of pain, but the captain and Thomas Anne didn’t make a move till 10 p.m. The moment they were gone, I hurried off to my room at Landall’s, and sent Jane for Dr. Myer . . . Soon after eleven, Jane and the doctor arrived. At 3 a.m. I gave birth to a fine girl. The doctor, on his way home, tapped at the window of Mr. McCrae’s bedroom, and told him what had happened while he had been asleep.®!

The education of the children presented a problem. The girls were taught by their mothers or by governesses. The boys were another matter. Young Edward Curr was sent home to Stonyhurst, but few parents took up this option. Instead the gentlemen of Melbourne set

up a school, the Port Phillip Proprietary College, in 1840. Of the committee of ten, all but two were present or future members of the Club. During the early years schools enjoying the patronage of the gentlemen opened and closed at a great rate. The literary squatter, John Cotton, informed his brother in England that he had decided to send his sons down to Melbourne to board at William Brickwood’s school, which ‘the sons of all the gentry about’ attended.” In religious matters Melbourne was adequately if not prodigally supplied with churches for all the major denominations and sects. The gentlemen divided their allegiance between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland—and a few were Catholics. The Church 74

The Pale of Fashion of England, though not established, benefited from the status of its parent at home, although it was inclined to be a little complacent and torpid. It lacked the energy that marked the Presbyterians or the Catholics. The Patriot described it in characteristic style as ‘the Aristo-

cratical Church . . . patronised by the great, by the high and mighty, the especial Church of the Government Officers, appendants and dependants’. The first years were marked by a primitive ecumenism which unfortunately did not survive the decade. To begin, toleration was the rule, and the Orangeman, John Waugh, recalled the three clerics, Forbes, Geoghegan and Thomson, walking arm in arm along Collins Street .°*

Melbourne offered gentlemen and their families much the same variety of entertainment as any small town in England. There were theatricals, amateur and professional (the audience at the latter was so mixed that ladies may not have attended); a reading circle, the leading

members of which were Cuninghame, Barry, Westby, Howitt and Mackenzie; concerts by visiting artists. The gentlemen could hunt, shoot, boat on the Yarra, play cricket, or with their wives join the Toxophile Club, organized by Captain Liardet. Picnics by the Yarra were popular, distinguished by ‘delicate viands’ and ‘light musical laughter’. The more ambitious gave balls either in the larger private houses or in warehouses. The wives of John Hodgson and P. W. Welsh were the patronesses at ‘the ball of the season’, which the Patriot

commended as ‘gratifying to all the lovers of the Social virtues’. Undoubtedly the ball of the boom years was that given by Mrs Welsh. She sat on a dais, beneath a canopy, receiving ‘the elite of the place’ .®*

Gentlemen in Melbourne were quite as taken up with the ornamental aspects of their rank as their counterparts at home. Their appetite for honours, titles and distinctions was just as keen, though there was less chance of satisfying their desire. Neither settlement in an obscure colony nor the vicissitudes of life in the Antipodes abated interest in their rank. Despite the depression, an advertisement appeared in the

Herald, placed by an artist offering to engrave arms and seals. The Herald saluted the artist as a pioneer of his discipline in Port Phillip and suggested: ‘Should any of our gentry require information relative to crests or armorial bearings, from that granary of honours, the Heralds’ College, we believe Mr. A. could offer much’.® The appetite for honours shows itself in the widespread use of the

rank of esquire, in the competition for the position of magistrate, in the desire to qualify for the special jury roll and occasionally in disputes 75

Port Phillip Gentlemen over precedence. The rank of esquire (which took precedence over a mere gentleman) had formerly been limited to four classes of gentlemen, but the ruling of the heralds had been ignored by society in Great Bnitain, where any man with social pretensions adopted the usage. The custom flourished in Port Phillip, and there is a nice distinction between those colonists accorded the title and those addressed as plain

Mister. In his correspondence La Trobe observed the convention meticulously, and one can gauge whom he considered gentlemen by his use of esquire.®®

Magistrates by courtesy bore the rank, although plainly a few of them did not know how to use it. One Aboriginal Protector, a J.P. by night of his office, but not quite a gentleman, had wnitten on his luggage: Mr —— Esquire. This solecism had been noticed by Thomas Strode, not a member of society but aware of the conventional usage. Charles Ebden, of the inner circle, protested when he was not suitably addressed, as the Patriot revealed (“The Hon. Ebden annoyed that the title was not used . . .’). The newspaper dismissed him as one of ‘the

vulgar herd of cabbage-eating gentry who rejoice in the hackneyed title of Esquire’ .®”

In general, all gentlemen in the settlement used the rank, especially in public notices in the newspapers (the personal columns, committee

lists, etc.). The usage in the personal columns is a helpful guide to historians as an indication of what rank the advertiser considered himself entitled to bear. The Patriot regretted the fondness for titles among colonists but its strictures had no influence. A Melbourne merchant asked a friend in Van Diemen’s Land to use esquire when writing to him, ‘for it has its weight in Port Phillip’.®

The only honour in the gift of the colonial government was a magistracy. Justices of the peace were an important part of the administration of law during the early years when the civil service was small. Both parties benefited: the Crown had free service from the gentlemen, who in turn enjoyed the distinction of the position. Under

law, a magistracy was tied to property, and a candidate had to own estate worth £100 a year or occupy a house rated at that amount. This was only the minimum qualification, and in most counties of England

(apart from Middlesex, which was notorious for its corruption) the magistrates insisted that candidates be selected from those born and bred gentlemen.®®

The tie between land and office continued in Port Phillip. Early in 1837 Captain Lonsdale wrote to Sydney recommending that magis76

The Pale of Fashion trates be appointed as soon as land sales had been conducted and colonists had become permanent residents. There was no difficulty in finding candidates, they sought the honour in flocks. “The colonists

are much deceived by empty sounds, and a J.P. is in their eyes an aristocratic distinction’, McCombie noted in his novel, Arabin; and Gipps confirmed the general desire when introducing a new colonist, a

Mr Rowe, who had come out with a letter from a friend of Lady Gipps. Rowe had been steward to the friend, but, “These reminiscences are not perhaps to be revived in Australia—and Mr Rowe says

he has £900—therefore I suppose he will write Esqre. after his name—and perhaps soon be a candidate for J.P.’.”° In the course of correspondence between Gipps and La Trobe, the colonial qualifications were laid down by the Governor. A candidate must be over twenty-four, a resident of one year in the colony, and

must not be a practising doctor. Gipps gives no reason for the last ruling; perhaps he thought there might be a clash of interest, perhaps a

lingering social objection to doctors. The Governor instructed La Trobe to suggest names to him or his private secretary, and to have the private consent of the candidate first so that his qualifications were not discussed in public. ‘I never appoint unless recommended by you’, he

told La Trobe, an indication of the many times that candidates and their friends bypassed the Superintendent and wrote direct to Sydney.”’ Sometimes they pressed their claims too urgently, and Gipps rejected an application on behalf of Dr Thomson of Geelong: ‘Such recommendations always have the appearance of attempt at Dictation’.

Much of his correspondence was taken up with discussion of the candidates and matters became more difficult after Melbourne was incorporated and two classes of magistrates were created, for town and country. Gipps and La Trobe resisted attempts by the radicals to have aldermen made magistrates ex officio, thus thwarting William Kerr’s

ambitions.” Criticism of the magistracy was widespread throughout the decade and not only from the radicals, such as Kerr and the Patriot. At first it was hostility to those colonists over-fond of titles, but soon all the

papers, and letter writers, were criticizing the way in which they attended to their duties and administered justice. One correspondent from The Grange objected to a magistrate who was ill-educated and overbearing, and suggested that there were ‘several gentlemen of education and property’ nearby who could be appointed justices.” 7/

Port Philip Gentlemen Curr has some genial recollections of country magistrates, and of a

court of Petty Sessions in the Western District. The squattermagistrates did not know much about law, but administered a rough justice, and after the sitting discussed their verdicts over brandy and water (the favoured drink of gentlemen in the colony). ‘Many of the justices’, Curr recalled, ‘were gentlemanly young fellows, and excel-

lent sheep farmers; kept good liquor, rode good horses, and were usually well placed with a pack of fox-hounds which hunted the neighbourhood’ .’4

Apart from the honorary magistrates, there was a small body of paid magistrates: the Police Magistrates, the Commissioners of Crown Lands and the Aboriginal Protectors. In the execution of their duties all

incurred much hostility, especially from the squatters who opposed Crown policy on land and the blacks. There was also a social problem. Some of the Protectors were not gentlemen and Strode felt that they had difficulty carrying out their duties because of their ignorance of the

rules of society. The attack on the Chief Protector, Robinson, in Boursiquot’s Patriot is remarkable for its insulting and snobbish charac-

ter, given that Boursiquot was no friend of privilege. Robinson’s subordinates have not forgotten the lesson taught them by the dismissal of Messrs. Le Soueff and Sievwnght, men who in point of character, birth and education must have been degraded by having been the co-operators, much less the servants of a mechanic, who has not even the ordinary intelligence of his class to recommend him.”°

The problem with the Crown Lands Commissioners was the opposite—many colonists pronounced them haughty, arrogant and dictatorial. They were vested with considerable powers and their actions were often resented by the squatters. The most unpopular was Foster Fyans; his behaviour annoyed Gipps, who often complained of his actions, his habit of writing long letters in bad English and his want of good temper. ‘Whatever might be the honesty of his intentions it is most disreputable to the Govt. to have such a servant’. The bad feeling

was reciprocated and Fyans, noting his nickname of Dirty Gipps, called him an ‘unkindly mannered man’. The Governor ended up by not caring for the Commissioners at all. ‘Men on becoming Crown Commissioners seem to take leave of their senses’.”° The barrister Charles Baker accompanied Frederick Powlett on a tour of duty and described in tones of subdued irony the uniform he wore and the military escort he commanded. Powlett appears to have 78

The Pale of Fashion had a natural hauteur, perhaps in deference to his ducal origins, and was very short with Richard Howitt when he met him on the road— all the arrogance of a man on a thoroughbred for a dusty pedestrian. It is possibly Powlett whom E. M. Curr describes with some affection,

dressed in a uniform which reminded Curr of the sort worn by a regiment of irregular mounted nfles. Unusually for a squatter, Curr

defended the Commissioners, who delivered a rough justice and whose decisions were contested only by malcontents and crooked lawyers. The rest respected the impartiality and honour of the gentlemen who acted as Commissioners. Curr was not quite so admiring of one Commissioner when, in the middle of a dispute, the magistrate broke off to hunt a pair of emus which his orderly had just sighted.”” The creation of magistrates was an exercise in traditional patronage. Gipps had few salaried posts in his gift, certainly not enough to satisfy

the demand. He wrote ruefully to La Trobe: ‘Our correspondence would form an edifying illustration of the Thirst for Patronage’. Some of the grander colonists brought ‘strong letters of introduction’ from powerful men at home. Captain Bunbury arrived with a sheaf commending him to the Governor’s notice and patronage. Gipps took the

hint and found Bunbury a post, admitting: “They are from persons both of which I should be most anxious to serve’. Bunbury’s brotherin-law, lacking influential patrons, failed in his bid to secure a government post.’®

With the onset of the 1842 depression, the appetite for office increased. Many gentlemen having failed as squatters were glad to secure a government post. Captain Alexander McCrae, in desperate financial

straits, applied through his friends to La Trobe, ‘but, alas, there is “nothing to be disposed of”. Spent a sleepless night thinking of Alex. without a shilling to buy food for his children’.’? It was not until a year later that Mrs McCrae had good news. Met Mr. La Trobe who told me everything had been arranged for ap-

pointing Captain McCrae Clerk to the Treasury, under Captain Lonsdale, with a salary of £250 a year. Overjoyed to hear this good news.°°

During the next ten years many well-known men were fortunate enough to find berths in the civil service: Mrs McCrae’s husband, Andrew McCrae; Claud Farie; Peter Snodgrass; Edward Bell; to name

only a few gentlemen who set the fashion of entering government service after they had suffered financial reverses.

The third distinction open to gentlemen was the right to serve on 79

Port Phillip Gentlemen special juries, a privilege they shared with men of substance. Entry upon the roll was based on property—occupation of a house rated at £100 or a farm at £300. The special jury list for 1848 gives particulars of

those colonists who had proved eligibility. Among them were fiftyfour esquires, eleven gentlemen and four merchants. Special juries decided many of the important cases heard during the 1840s, including

those arising from duels and questions of honour. The Bench of magistrates made up the list of special jurymen. Inclusion on the roll was therefore one means of establishing a claim to either gentility or respectability. There must have been disappointed applicants, but only one case is known, that of George Boursiquot, the editor of the Patriot. His rival, Cavenagh of the Herald, could not resist celebrating Boursiquot’s discomfiture, suggesting that he had wanted to be officially recognized as an esquire, a claim which Boursiquot rebutted?!: If their worship’s decision could be regarded as a patent for respectability, we should be perfectly willing to base our claims upon the names in the

minority ... We will not bandy pedigrees with a person of Mr. Cavenagh’s condition (his patronym is enough).

He ended his attack on Cavenagh, who was on the special jury roll: But never mind friend Herald the magistrates have done that which your

own father could not accomplish—they have made you (like another Justice Shallow) a gentleman born, who wnites himself armigero on any bill, acquittance, warrant or obligation.®?

Characteristically, Boursiquot celebrated Cavenagh’s inclusion on the roll with a lampoon, Impartial, not neutral, attacking the inner circle and the unfortunate Irishman and his family with a mixture of malice and salacity. Hail ye whose judgement, common sense and taste Deserve the honour of the name you grace; Aristocrats of town—give place and see The walking libel of a bench decree. Immortal eight! who deemed him gentle blood And snatch’d him reeking from his native mud — Congenial souls! to dub him Esquire, hark! They make him Gentleman, God save the mark! Hear this, ye candidates for rank and fame, And learn his title to an ‘Esquire’s’ name— His birth, a canteen welcomed with a roar When nature dropt him on the canteen floor, "Tis no disgrace—what mortal sire could pay For decency from thirteen pence a day. 80

The Pale of Fashion A fitting soil, from which this Esquire sprung Who rose, like mushrooms by the force of dung. In after years we see our ‘Esquire’ bilk The twisting housemaid of her share of milk Shout forth his produce in the morning air, And shout a lie, for only chalk was there! But lo! our milkman cast his pans away, And built his fortunes on a libel’s pay;* Beat down the dying bankrupt in his bed, And grasped his bargain, as the spirit fled. Thus sprung his Organ, and thus took its rise Standing a modern catalogue of lies . . 84 * The profits of a libel action against the Weekly Chronicle Melbourne.

Disputes over precedence indicated both general touchiness and individual insecurity of rank. While there was an official scale of prece-

dence for New South Wales, there was none for Port Phillip. The government, less interested in the matter than colonists, had forgotten to give La Trobe a place. When the Mayor of the newly incorporated Melbourne claimed precedence over La Trobe himself, Gipps decided it was time to acknowledge the Superintendent officially .** Some colonists were jealous of their rank and standing. The barris-

ter Robert Pohlman, about to sign a congratulatory address to the Governor, was dismayed to find that the Deputy Sheriff and J. D. Pinnock had signed ahead of him. Redmond Barry declared that he didn’t care where he signed. Pohlman found a place, registered a complaint with La Trobe and retired distressed: ‘Being unwell it shook my nervous system’ .®°

81

IV

The Gentleman Squatter

HE SQUATTERS WERE DRAWN from all ranks of society in

) Bnitain and in the other colonies. Younger sons of the aristoc-

racy and the gentry; officers of the army and navy; clergymen; lawyers and doctors; officers of the East India Company; merchants; civil servants; farmers, clerks, shopkeepers and farm hands; young men with capital but no occupation; and even a few women on their own account. They came from the British Isles, from India, the West Indies, from New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land. A diverse lot, they attempted from the mid-1840s to unite in order to secure tenure

from the Crown. This they achieved by 1847 but the enjoyment of their protracted struggle was brief, with the influx of the diggers and the pressure to unlock the land.’ Until 1847 the squatters were in an ambiguous, even paradoxical position. They regarded themselves as the natural leaders of the colony, as a ‘gentry’, and many of their leading men were gentlemen by birth and breeding. But they did not own the land on which their flocks grazed, nor did they even have satisfactory leases. This accounts for a defensiveness of tone, an insecurity, which was scarcely in keeping with the confidence naturally expected of leaders of society. Their

defensiveness is understandable. The word squatter itself was a ridiculous term, suggestive of an undignified posture and having low associations, its traditional use being to describe American settlers of mean extraction who squatted on waste lands without legal right. For Englishmen, and especially for English gentlemen, the absence of a title to land went against the deep-held belief in the sanctity of private property. Property was after all the economic prop of gentility. For gentlemen

to have no title, no legal right, to the land they occupied was an intolerable ambiguity and the gentlemen squatters were prominent in the fight for security of tenure. It was a barrister and gentleman squat82

The Gentleman Squatter ter, Archibald Cuninghame, who was sent to London to lobby on behalf of the squatters.”

Many of the explanatory descriptions of the squatters written for home readers should be seen as reassurances that some of the best gentlemen were squatters, and that it was possible to lead the life of a squatter and yet remain a gentleman. Because the squatters were the most unusual group in the colony they received attention from every

writer, visitor and observer from the Governor down. Sir George Gipps’ description of the overlanders from New South Wales is well known. It is both a definition of a gentleman colonist and an implicit defence of the social standing of many ‘from the Sydney side’. A very large proportion of the land, which is to form the new district of Port Phillip, is already in the licensed occupation of the squatters of New

South Wales, a class of person whom it would be wrong to confound with those who bear the same name in America . . . Among the squatters of New South Wales are the wealthiest of the Land, occupying with permission of Government thousands and tens of thousands of acres; Young men of good Family and connexions in England, Officers of the Army and Navy, Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge are also in no small number among them.?

Miss Kiddle quotes it to effect, but it is questionable that it should be

applied to the Western District. There, most of the early squatters came from Van Diemen’s Land and not from Sydney. The overlanders generally settled in the central district, in the north and in Gippsland.*

Captain Foster Fyans ruled the overstraiters, the men who make up so much of Miss Kiddle’s Western District. His opinion of them was unsparing and trenchant: “Cursed squats and damned shopkeepers’. Fyans considered them quite unsuitable to be made magistrates, but his opinions have to be considered in the light of his own character. He was a man of temper and military disposition who would brook no Opposition from civilian squatters foolish enough to question his rule.

The Governor, a fellow army officer and a man of brisk manners, might have been expected to sympathize with Fyans, but his opinion of the Irishman coincided with that of the squatters. In 1846 one of the gentleman squatters contested a ruling of Fyans in the Supreme Court and won. Despite his faults Fyans was an honest and outspoken man,

one of the few colonists to leave papers which are not disfigured by that bland politeness which reduces most private writing of the period to a tone of neutrality.° 83

Port Phillip Gentlemen Fyans was quite definite that in social terms the squatters could not be treated as one group and he divided them into three sorts. The first

group—and the only one to have his respect—were the gentlemen squatters. Many of the squatters are gentlemen, worthy and excellent men, of undoubted character and well connected at home. Mount Emu is a beautiful country. A noble pack of hounds was kept up by gentlemen squatters who met every season, hunting twice and thrice a week, and meeting at each other’s houses, where good cheer and good and happy society were

ever to be met. I have sat down with thirty gentlemen at Mr. Goldsmith’s to an excellent dinner given by that gentleman .. . I may now remark, in a country like this, where dissipation prevails, among this class of gentlemen squatters in no instance did any man exceed, or forget that he was a gentleman.®

Fyans was greatly contemptuous of the second group of squatters: ‘a kind of shopboys’ he awkwardly named them, men who might be rich and successful but who lived in filthy huts with primitive furnishings. The third group disturbed his sense of the social order; shepherds

who grew rich and in time overtopped their own masters, buying them out. Some did not forget their place when they became men of property but ‘most were out of places, and it would have been better for the community had they remained shepherd rather than become masters’. This was the view of a gentleman-official, one whose relations with the squatters were troubled, but there was no doubt in the mind of Fyans that to be a gentleman was the thing.’ Much the same social division was made by the farmer’s son, Isaac Batey. ‘Presumably you are aware’, he later told the son of a gentleman squatter, ‘that there are two types of squatters, one being of the aristocratic brand, the other of the tradesmen stamp’. Of the tradesmen kind he instances William Jackson, a carpenter, and George Evans, a stonemason. Of the aristocratic kind Batey mentions the red-haired, club-footed Gilbert Kennedy, grandson of the Marquess of Ailsa. In his reminiscences he introduces a third category, those who were not quite gentlemen, who dwelt uneasily on the boundaries of gentility, ‘genteel loafers’ or ‘broken down men of a better class’. Obviously having much in common with that later phenomenon of Australian society, the remittance men, these run-down gentlemen mixed with station owners, drifting from district to district before they disappeared altogether.®

Some of the early writers attempted to calculate the proportion of gentlemen among the mass of the squatters, of whom there were 84

The Gentleman Squatter supposed to be between 900 and 1000 by the end of the 1840s. A figure of one quarter can be inferred from Murray’s descriptions of the types

of settlers generally, and of the gentlemen settlers in particular. Three-quarters of the colonists were, he thought, men who had risen in society from obscure positions, which suggests that the remaining quarter must be the ‘more than ordinary abundance of young men of good family’. This is the observation of an intelligent visitor to the District who stayed six months, and it was made on the eve of the 1842 depression which swept away many of the gentlemen squatters. One of the gentlemen to survive the crash, John Hunter Kerr, who

had a run on the Loddon, later estimated that a quarter of his neighbours were gentlemen. Richard Howitt, unsuccessful farmer and Quaker poet, gives no figures but states after a tour of Western Port On this occasion as on others, my opinion was strengthened that the squatters, most of them the younger branches of wealthy and respectable

English and Scotch families, are on the whole a very intelligent and gentlemanly race.?

The squatter George Lloyd later estimated that six out of ten of the original settlers were ‘all gentlemen of talent and the highest character’ (officers of the army and the navy, etc.). No doubt Lloyd exaggerated, as he had done with the number of gentlemen of birth reputed to have settled in the District, but his comments must be understood in their

context. Lloyd had set out to rebut the criticism of an 1850s writer who had described the pioneer settlers as ‘unintellectual and halfcivilised’. The charge was one further illustration of the arrogant ignorance later immigrants displayed of the history of Port Phillip.’ Murray, Kerr and Lloyd’s figures are all rough calculations and must be treated accordingly. To arrive at an exact or even an approxi-

mate figure would be a difficult task for a number of reasons. The contemporary definition of a gentleman varied (at least in emphasis), while modern knowledge of the origins of squatters is uneven and an understanding of which squatters in the 1840s were acceptable to polite society is limited. The task is further complicated by the rapid changes in the body of the squatters (at any one time about nine hundred). A rough count of the squatters listed in Billis and Kenyon yields a figure of about 3,100 for the years up to 1850. Many of this number were sleeping partners: townsmen or civil servants.”

In her study of the squatters of the Western District Miss Kiddle

did attempt a head-count, and concluded that 11 per cent of the squatters were gentlemen by birth and the remainder men of simple 85

Port Phillip Gentlemen origin. Later she increases the ranks of the gentlemen colonists by adding to the born gentlemen the Scottish squatters of farming stock. By this means Miss Kiddle brings the numbers of gentlemen squatters in the Western District closer to those in other districts. It is an open question whether she is entitled to assume, as she does, that Captain Fyans would have necessarily included the crofter squatters among the gentlemen. There is the further consideration that the status of such squatters in 1860 was very different from what it was in 1840. There can be little doubt that from the beginning they were treated as men of substance and that many in time became colonial gentlemen. The rise of Niel Black is indicative, and of importance as Miss Kiddle uses his papers extensively. His first essay into society was to join the young and short-lived rival to the Melbourne Club, the Port Phillip Club. In 1845, two years after its collapse, Black joined the Melbourne Club

and in the same year he was, without permission, nominated for election to the Legislative Council.’?

Membership of the Melbourne Club was one sign of interest in society and acceptance by it, and therefore a public recognition of a colonist’s rank as a gentleman. It is instructive to study the list of members and to note how few founders of prominent Western District families were elected. Russell, Chirnside, Austin, Manifold, Lloyd, Murray, Armytage, McArthur, McKellar, Officer, Fairbairn, in fact most of the leading successful squatters who stayed in the colony and built up great estates, did not join before 1850. Those from the West who did belong to the Club were usually the gentlemen by birth, the hunting men and members of mobs. There are many obvious reasons why squatters from the West would not have joined the Club: distance, infrequent visits to Melbourne, struggle to succeed— for the men who eventually triumphed were the single-minded; for them membership of a club would have been a distraction, an irrelevancy. Arriving in the Western District after touring the other colonies, Thomas Chirnside, one of the band of successful survivors, was much struck by the superior virtues of the squatters: on the Geelong side of the Western District, they appeared thoughtful for the future—industrious and persevering, willing to put their shoulder to the wheel and overcome all difficulties, and that at a ttme when they did

not know how to raise £10 to pay their license. Indeed, I have been agreeably surprised to witness so many very young men arrive in this colony possessing such perseverance, sobriety, and exemplary conduct.**

One could not find a neater summary of the Calvinist qualities86

The Gentleman Squatter needed for survival and eventual success. They were qualities which many of the gentlemen lacked. As their absence from the membership list of the Club indicates, the Western District squatters of crofter origins generally took no part in Melbourne society during the 1840s. The gentlemen squatters from the West, many of whom did not manage to establish pastoral dynasties, are noted in passing by Miss Kiddle. Whatever their failings as stockholders, the gentlemen entered into the social life of Port Phillip, and they and their equals in other parts of the settlement deserve to be brought out of obscurity."

The gentlemen squatters must have felt the ambiguities of their position more deeply than the other sorts of squatters. They had a sense of pride and of importance, on account of their contribution to the District; and a contrary feeling of neglect and insecurity. These opposites fed upon each other. A squatter wrote to the Gazette protesting that the squatting class though ‘numerous, respectable and influential’ was treated with contempt by the government. The squatters might be gentlemen but as leaseholders they did not even have a vote. They had to buy land in the settled districts to qualify for the vote. The gentleman squatter, Charles Griffith, made the point with bitterness that an illiterate bullock driver could leave his master in the country, come to Melbourne and work as a water carrier, rent a house at £20 a year and have the vote; his former master, born a gentleman, with a degree from Oxford, now owning 15,000 sheep but no land, would

not have the vote. It is a good example of the social up-ending so common in the Antipodes; his understandable animus against Melbourne reveals itself frequently during his apologia for the squatters.’®

Clutterbuck’s remarks on the social superiority of the squatters to the townsmen have already been quoted. Already in the 1840s the natural arrogance of the pastoralist was beginning to show itself—the age-old contempt of the equestrian class for the pedestrian. The feeling of superiority grew throughout the century, as the leading squatters consolidated their estates and founded dynasties. The pride and arrogance (understandable, if not attractive) were resented by members of Melbourne society, who felt that broad acres were not sufficient cause for a patronizing attitude. Their spokesman, Martin Boyd, savoured his novels with ironic or hostile comments about the Western District families. The rivalries between town and country are scarcely detectable before Separation; they belong to a period outside the scope of this study.'® 87

Port Phillip Gentlemen Although attacked by the press, government officials, radicals, townsmen and humanitarians, the squatters had at least one friend in the public arena—the Port Phillip Herald. It reprinted the boast of the Portland Mercury that the squatters were ‘the stamina of the country’ and the ‘fathers of our colonial aristocracy’. It is rare to find the word ‘aristocracy’ used without tongue in cheek. The paper reported a meeting of squatters at which the gentleman squatter, Henry Adolphus Goldsmith of Trawalla, announced: By the provision of the new constitution, the gentlemen of real wealth and standing throughout the colony were disqualified from voting. He would therefore propose the toast, those Gentlemen who had no vote.

G. F. Read returned thanks on behalf of the squatters. ‘He was happy to say that he had sold all his land and now had the honour of belonging to that class which had no vote’.!”

If the Sydney merchant, Kemble, had had his way the squatters would not only have had the vote but would have been given the freehold of their grazing land so that they could have become the gentry of the colonies. A very different tone from that used by the Patriot, no friend of the squatters, which attacked the ‘vulgar herd of the cabbage-eating gentry’. That paper was always ready to publish stories discreditable to the squatters.'® As the confidence of the squatters increased after the depression, their self-estimation enlarged. At a meeting the barrister and gentleman squatter, Archibald Cuninghame of Caddell, put the rhetorical question: ‘What class in this District is the most important as regards

numbers, intelligence, education, birth, wealth, social position .. . There is but one answer’. Cuninghame spoke to a motion put by another gentleman of birth, Godolphin Hunter Arundell of Barjarg. The Herald, always sympathetic, attacked the arbitrary rule of the Crown Commissioners, complaining that ‘wanton insults have been perpetrated by commissioners upon squatters, not inferior to them in birth or education, certainly superior to them in breeding, and at all events their equals as British subjects’. One Commissioner had even had the effrontery to order a gentleman squatter, an invalid, to take off his hat in his own house.’® It is a measure of the increase in confidence that at a public dinner at

the end of 1845 a squatter could speak of his equals as ‘this once obscure class’ and suggest ‘not long ago that a squatter conveyed to the mind the idea of a person not much more superior in intelligence to the

natives around him’. He warmed to the subject with a declaration 88

The Gentleman Squatter that he was proud to belong to a class which had pioneered the growth of a country with a great destiny.?° Observers painted the squatters in romantic terms—not always with sympathy—and in such a way as to heighten the ambiguous position of the gentlemen squatters. Dour, hard-working and single-minded

squatters of simple origin were not suited to the Romantic picture. Nor were they interested in cutting a figure. They left that to the gentlemen squatters, whose appearance and behaviour sometimes shocked observers expecting more from men of their rank. Many of the gentlemen squatters wore clothes of a material, cut and colour hitherto reserved for working men. That was not the only social taboo they were breaking. Often they wore beards—at a time when society was clean shaven. And they cut a figure of arrogance and insolence (especially the younger squatters) when they rode into Melbourne. They considered Melbourne a dull hole and the more sophisticated dismissed the town as seedy and second rate. While a very few of them combined arrogance with style, many of them were little more than the lineal descendants of the Regency bloods, showing their contempt and indifference for the town by violence and destruction.?? Not all observers were as admiring of the squatters as Murray or as

undisturbed as he was when he informed readers at home of their ‘piratical appearance and bronzed visages and moustaches and beards

of Turkish luxuriance’. The same comparison unfavourably made, appeared in a letter in the Patriot which attacked hair and whiskers. Some of the younger squatters looked more like characters out of Lord

Byron’s Mediterranean works than Britishers, or worse . . . ‘more like Italian brigands than clean faced Englishmen’. This hairy mania is very contagious; it is even caught up by some members of the Police Force. A stranger landing in town would think he had found himself in some French or Italian town, from the foreign hairy appearance of the persons he meets . . .””

The unfashionable beard signified the freedom from the constraints and conventions of society enjoyed by squatters—what Murray called ‘the advantage ofa kind of wild freedom’. It was a freedom relished by the heavy swell, Charles Ebden, whom Thomas Walker met during one of his ‘grand movements’, bringing sheep down to Port Phillip. The Sydney merchant noted the contrast between the dandified Ebden of the metropolis and the bearded pastoral magnate in the bush.”° The disturbing sight of the whiskers points to the double standard. What marked out a gentleman squatter (or for that matter a respect89

Port Phillip Gentlemen able squatter) from other squatters was not birth and upbringing alone, but the manner of living imposed on him by rank. While there was a certain amount of necessary roughness, such as no gentleman in England would have tolerated, there was still a level below which a gentleman squatter could not sink without loss of caste and without attracting the attention of the censorious. Every homestead that the critical Niel Black visited was judged according to its cleanliness and

comfort. He suspected that many of the squatters liked living in squalor, a suspicion shared by Mrs Kirkland, who complained that it was difficult in the bush to tell who was a gentleman by dress, and even alas by manners, though she sprang one visitor who claimed the rank but soon revealed that he ‘had not the manners of a gentleman’. Mrs Kirkland’s difficulties were shared by others. When W. A. Brodribb and his party stopped at a Gippsland station, the servants thought they looked more like bushrangers than gentlemen and admitted the next day that their appearance—torn clothes and long beards—was against them. It was not until the servants heard them talk that they realized they were gentlemen.” To live primitively was to lose caste, and behind that lay the threat of

anarchy. Hence the concern lest the standards should slip too far. Hence the pleasure at finding civilization in the bush. On a tour of the country districts, Charles Baker was dismayed to find young gentle-

men living piggishly, and delighted to visit a homestead where ‘in attendance upon the family was a description of footman’. One has the impression that the servant was not up to English standards but that it was of greater importance to make the effort. But then this was not a bachelor establishment— marriage made all the difference. What must his hosts have thought to find their homesteads, their hospitality and their amenities discussed for the benefit of the British public, particularly as some of the squatters could be identified? Unlike Black, Baker was not concerned with cleanliness alone, but with ease and comfort, as a pointed contrast between two households, one simple and clean,

the other comfortable and easy, makes clear. And how delighted he was to find wine served.”° In 1846 Robert Russell visited the establishment of the gentleman squatter, Robert Beauchamp, arriving after a dreary ride to find not only comfort but elegance, a well-furnished room, carpeted, furnished with easy cushioned chairs, a beautifully finished piano .. . hung with good engravings and enlivened by a small but valuable library . . . a friend on a visit—metaphysical discussions . . . not just the com90

The Gentleman Squatter fort of the house but the tout ensemble—an overseer and his wife, both persons of respectable grade lived in a neighbouring cottage and the young gentleman himself was waited on by his servant with as much form and ceremony as though the next heir to a dukedom. The fastidious would have been satisfied by food and wine. Such is the bush in Port Phillip. But I must add in fairness that this was a specimen such as you do not meet with every day.”®

The difference between the critics seems to have been that the Niel Blacks and the Dunmore Langs regarded a decent cottage as a sign of

respectability and linked a good appearance with the presence of a wife. The other critics, while acknowledging the civilizing effect of women, were more interested in discovering if the gentlemen squatters lived as gentlemen—they would presumably believe that it was not necessary to be married in order to do that and they would take for

granted that gentlemen with only a small fortune, the younger son’s portion, could hardly hope to marry early. Again such gentlemen settlers had come out to make their fortune in order to return, not to stay and found a family. The difference then is a social one—with a slight moral undertone—between the values of the gentle and the respectable.?’

Generally most gentlemen squatters lived just within the bounds of polite decency, and some (the Dunmore mob, the Winters) refused to

concede to the Antipodes. Curr noted the incongruity of armorial silver appearing in the clutter of a squatter’s hut. A few even had small libraries and there was a reading arcle in the Wannon District. Most of the squatters took their relaxation out of doors and the atmosphere of the country districts was bachelor (if not celibate), boisterous, athletic

and hearty—little different from rich sporting circles in England or Ireland. The gentlemen squatters lived roughly but not piggishly, a distinction which must be drawn because it explains the amused de-

scription of Ebden, dandy in town, bearded in the country, and Westgarth’s picture of the squatter dressing when he came to town to make up a quadrille at the Superintendent’s cottage. Westgarth was

not poking fun at the squatters nor accusing them of hypocritical double standards. He was referring to the permissible licence allowed to gentlemen squatters.?°

The fullest description of the gentlemen squatters who fell into primitive ways is to be found in McCombie’s first work. After allowing for his Romantic and heated imagination, a picture emerges which is not at heart very different from the prosaic criticisms of Black or 91

Port Phillip Gentlemen Lang. In his Sketches McCombie devotes much space to the outlandish

squatters, often men of good family, forever opening up new land, living rough and in the isolation of melancholia (a humour which was congenial to McCombie’s imagination). Cut off from the society of

their equals they drifted downwards, losing their youth, health, money and in the end losing caste, so that they ended up little different from the black race which the white men were destroying. This was a

theme McCombie explored further in Arabin—the notion that Australia debauched settlers, especially young gentlemen squatters, broke them and threw them aside.”®

What could happen to young squatters who scorned the rules and order of good society and decent convention was touched upon by their fervent critic, J. P. Fawkner, who attacked ‘the mighty aristocracy of Van Diemens Land’ and the squatters of Port Phillip, most of whom were unmarried. He excepted a minority, for whom he had a natural sympathy since they were ‘the poorest and truest’. ‘Justitia’ supported him: Let me ask you, is that class of persons friends to the domestic circle and family hearth? 1 emphatically answer NO! Their midnight orgies and broils when they

visit our towns amply prove that.?°

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. The sour comments of Fawkner and his fellow critics, whatever their truth, cannot compete with the portrait (undeniably Romantic, possibly romantic) of the

virgin primeval bush and its picturesque pioneers. This is not surprising —inconoclastic realism, especially when laced with Fawkner’s brand of envy, was out of fashion. Literate colonists, squatters and visitors could not resist the Romantic appeal of Port Phillip. So was born the myth of the gentleman squatter, inspired by the picture of the educated and well-bred settler, grazing his flocks on the rich open country which stretched for miles, confronted by the majesty of nature, the hostility of the original inhabitants, and the indifference of the Crown. Throughout the last half of the nineteenth century, and well into the present, this potent myth commanded a considerable following which has not entirely disappeared. It is still possible to meet representatives of that class who maintain that they are the true representatives of Australia. If the myth of the gentleman had no hold upon the popular imagination it could draw upon cultural reservoirs denied to the democratic ideal. Writers and articulate squatters could at the same time insist upon the code of the gentleman and upon freedom, since freedom 92

The Gentleman Squatter to the nineteenth century had just that independence of spirit which characterized an English gentleman. Freedom, breeding and education—the three in the nineteenth century went in hand, and the gentleman squatter Charles Griffith in fact suggested that educated and well-read men made the best country settlers, since they had more resources than the ordinary man with which to withstand the loneliness and monotony of life in the bush. E. M. Curr’s later claim that the early squatters were a more literate group than those of later in the century has a certain truth. He himself was to publish in Melbourne a slim volume of French verse and later still his Recollections, the fruit of a cultivated Romantic mind confronted by the challenge of the bush—without rival among the published autobiographies of squatters. The tradition of the gentleman author was strong in Port Phillip. Boldrewood cited, in his own district alone, Charles Macknight, the pamphleteer; James Dawson, the amateur of anthropology; Christopher Aplin, the geologist; and himself, who in later years was to become the leading novelist of the day and enlarge the myth of the gentleman squatter.*? From 1838, when Joseph Hawdon’s journal of his overland expedition appeared, the gentlemen took to print, and one is reminded of the ease with which the upper classes last century produced books and pamphlets on every subject imaginable. As they grew older the survivors brought out their memoirs, partly to remind Victorians of the first years of settlement, a period which many later colonists ignored in favour of the clamorous 1850s. The quality varied: a pedestrian account from W. A. Brodribb; Mrs Baxter’s bright little anecdotes; the

colourful memoir of John Hunter Kerr; George Hamilton’s melancholic journal of overlanding; the two major works of E. M. Curr and Rolf Boldrewood; and to end the line of pastoral memoirs, Cuthbert Fetherstonhaugh’s After Many Days. Although he did not arrive untl after Separation, Fetherstonhaugh, a member of the Irish Ascendancy, married the daughter of a Port Phillip pioneer, and knew and worked with many of the early gentlemen. He carried on the traditions of the Irish gentleman squatter in full-blooded manner and recalled them with nostalgia. Again, it is noticeable how easily the Irish Ascendancy,

with its sporting tastes, eccentric conduct and interest in literature, took to conditions in Australia in both town and country. Its contribution to the style of life in the colonies cannot be emphasized enough.*?

As an historical record and as an unaffected work of art Curr’s memoirs stand alone—not even Boldrewood managed to capture the 93

Port Phillip Gentlemen essence of a squatter’s life in the 1840s. Possessed of Romantic tastes and sensibilities, Curr balances feelings of nostalgia for a past era and

regret for wasted opportunities with an accurate recall of the less attractive side of life in the bush—the monotony, solitude, sense of desolation, the drying up of conversation; the sudden moods of melancholia which overcame squatters; the time heavy on hand. Curr and his brothers were active young men and during the off-

season diverted themselves with a variety of occupations; by day swimming, shooting, hunting, throwing native spears. At night they would read; travel and Bonaparte’s campaigns were their favourites. They soon exhausted their library of one hundred and fifty books and each new book was anxiously awaited by the brothers in turn. Although not then the amateur of anthropology he later became, Curr studied the customs of the local tribes, and while his opinions might sound paternalist to the modern ear his appreciation of the natural dignity, abilities and gifts of the black man forms a considerable part of his memoirs. Curr had the power at times to forget his own upbringing and judge the black man objectively. He recognized the corrupting influence of the white race and considered that in his own country ‘the blackfellow had decidedly something of the gentleman about him’ .*?

Most young squatters visited Melbourne for their pleasures but Curr preferred to explore virgin country, free of the white man, his flocks and herds, and ramble about the bush, which he treated ‘as a sort of plaisaunce, or grand park’.*4 The Romanticism implicit in Curr’s memoirs manifests itself strikingly in the novels which celebrate the life of the squatter: the morbid, dank melancholia of McCombie; the chivalric and muscular Christian-

ity of Henry Kingsley; and the hearty virility of Rolf Boldrewood. Thomas McCombie, despised by some of his contemporaries, has been neglected by later generations, yet his Sketches and his novel, Arabin, are works of high interest as social history, regardless of their claims to literary worth. Arabin was the first novel to contain Port Phillip scenes, although it seems to have been set in New South Wales proper. Its eponymous hero and the author shared many qualities. They were both from the middle ranks of society: McCombie was

born in Scotland, Arabin in an English provincial town and each educated at a Scottish university. Both emigrated, McCombie to become editor of the Gazette, and Arabin to practise as a doctor in a country town. A moody outsider, a Romantic figure at odds with the world, Arabin despises colonial society and its mundane ambitions. 94

The Gentleman Squatter The town has two other doctors; one suave in manner who serves the leading families, the other a loud, coarse, cheerful man who is hugely vulgar and looks after the poor. With neither does Arabin find anything in common. Plainly he is not at all simpatico and his practice

begins to fall off. In the main plot Arabin treats Willis, a young; violent gentleman squatter who has been rejected by Miss Walker. Willis subsequently loses his reason. Arabin meets Miss Walker and courts her with success. The story is broken up by essays on topography, the failure of the gentlemen in the colonies, and by an overheated short story on the depredations of convict bushrangers in Van Diemen’s Land. Most of McCombie’s interests appear: a mixture of violence, madness, melancholia and heroic solitude, indifferently blended with a thin and halting plot. The interest lies in the portrait of society and the squatters.?° At first Arabin condemns society for its worship of wealth. In turn the local people look down on the unhappy, melancholic and impoverished doctor. Arabin resents their attitude. Educated and cultured, a disciple of Scott and Byron, the young doctor regards himself as the superior to his neighbours. Three of the main characters sum up the class of educated colonists. The first, Butler, is a married man— good-natured and friendly, untouched by the money-mindedness of local society. Although not endowed with great sensibility (he has an unfortunate habit of teasing Arabin), Butler has one inestimable possession, which ennobles him—a fine wife. Women, McCombie and other contemporaries believed, were the standard-bearers of civilization. They saved young men, especially those of the upper ranks, from

ruin, moral and economic. They brought with them the best of English civilization and softened the asperities and coarseness of colonial life.°°

Arabin comes into a legacy and everything changes. As soon as local society hears of his good fortune, it discovers a warm feeling for him. Arabin is now a man of substance, he can marry and buy a station. He finds that he likes the colony and wishes to remain in it, and when he proposes to Miss Walker, Butler’s sister-in-law, and 1s accepted his content is complete. By his marriage and purchase of a station, Arabin allies himself with the best group among the squatters. The transformation of the gloomy young failure is portrayed with sharpness (the

hypocritical change of society’s opinion), and with good nature (to own a Station is a splendid and satisfying thing) .3”

The next representative type of squatter is Willis, a young man of 95

Port Phillip Gentlemen charming manners in his good moments, but given to bouts of insanity and melancholia. He stands for the younger sons of good family, debauched by colonial life, losing their money and health, sinking into the pit of society or becoming restless nomads. McCombie was concerned at the degeneracy of the upper ranks and returns often to the subject. Marriage was the great safeguard against such a decline, the quiet lagoon out of the eye of the storm. McCombie was conscious of the high rate of failure among the gentlemen colonists at a tme when the extent of the casualty rate was not widely recognized. Certainly he made more of the toll than any writer before Curr and Boldrewood.*8

Willis brings in another theme beloved of nineteenth-century novelists: the heir incognito. The melancholic squatter was the younger son of an aristocratic family and had concealed his rank beneath an assumed name. With the death of relations who stood between him and the title Willis unexpectedly becomes a peer of the realm. The newspapers made much of colonists who returned to England to take up titles or estates. The interest is hardly surprising when

it is remembered that most gentlemen came out to the colonies to make their fortunes and then return home. There was much envy of those fortunate men who were suddenly transported back to England

by means of an inheritance. It was a favourite theme in literature, immensely congenial to the reading public as the success of Little Lord Fauntleroy attests. It can be seen as another indication of the general

ambition to be a gentleman and to enjoy a gentleman’s estate (the modern parallel would surely be the common fantasy of winning a lottery). It was hardly a coincidence that the Tichbourne claimant was a butcher from New South Wales.*® The third representative type is Captain Thomson, described as one of the legionary band of Australian speculators, a man who has been

variously a merchant (without store or account book), a sugar speculator, grazier, land-jobber, farmer . . . a perpetual optimist ready to take advantage of any opportunity thrown up in the colony —and in

the days of the 1840 boom, much money was to be made at the expense of green and gullible newcomers; before the 1842 depression there were many Captain Thomsons in Melbourne and Sydney. The Captain prepares to return to England to act as a broker in the matter of an inheritance and tries to sell his run to Arabin. Having returned,

Thomson finds he cannot settle and comes back to the colony, a victim of that restlessness which afflicted the early settlers.*°

Among his squatters the Scots do not appear, which is strange 96

The Gentleman Squatter considering their numerous representation. Perhaps their qualities did not appeal to McCombie’s Romantic sensibility. A pity, for it would have been interesting to see how he treated his compatriots. As a literary work Arabin was forgotten, eclipsed by Geoffry Hamlyn, the Australian novel of the nineteenth century, which depicted the

gentlemen squatters in ideal terms. Henry Kingsley, like Trollope, . was preoccupied with the code of the gentlemen, and judged all his characters with any social pretensions according to their adherence to

the code. Although the novel was written in 1859, it purports to describe people and conditions before gold and presents an idealized

picture of younger sons. Many of the characters and incidents are probably based on gentlemen colonists and their lives. As with Trol-

lope, Kingsley came of an impoverished branch of an old family, which might help to explain the importance he attached to the rank of gentleman. Kingsley had an indifferent record at Oxford where he fell

into debt. He received a small legacy which settled his affairs and, accompanied by Evelyn Sturt’s nephew, sailed for Australia in 1853.

His life in Victoria is little recorded. He seems to have gone to the Caledonian goldfields, may have been a mounted policeman, perhaps even carried a swag. If Geoffry Hamlyn is any guide, he was familiar

with the Monaro district, Northern Gippsland and Southern New South Wales. As well, he is thought to have worked on a Western District station, either as an overseer or as a hand.*!

The owner of this station, Langi Willi, was the ‘languid swell’, William Mitchell, and one of Kingsley’s biographers concedes that Mitchell might have provided a model for the novel. This is quite possible, since Mitchell was described by Rolf Boldrewood as being untouched by failure or by the reverses suffered by most early settlers.

He was a rich man who did well out of squatting and always employed others to do his work. It may be these circumstances which contribute to the curious, unreal and dream-like atmosphere of much of the Australian part of the novel, where the squatting families seem to do little work and yet prosper effortlessly. Mitchell has a further importance. Although he came out after Separation, he was a school

friend of the Hunter brothers and through them met other pioneer gentlemen, such as Evelyn Sturt and Rolf Boldrewood. In turn, it was to Sturt that Kingsley had letters of introduction. Sturt’s family came from the West Country where Kingsley spent his happiest years. Most

of the families in the novel come from Devonshire. Sturt seems to have been rather a stately figure, a man whom the young Rolf Bol97

Port Phillip Gentlemen drewood idolized as the very flower of chivalry. Boldrewood’s later portrait of him suggests similarities with Major Buckley, one of the chief characters in Geoffry Hamlyn. The Hunters were high-spirited and mischievous, fearless, adventurous, excellent horsemen and popular. They too were men of good family and their exploits are likely to have given Kingsley a fuller picture of the more colourful wing of the early gentlemen squatters.*? It has been further suggested that Captain Desborough, the Irish police officer who later inherits an earldom, was based on another early gentleman, William Dana, an officer in the Port Phillip Native

Police. There is even a precedent for the inheritance of a title. An obscure civil servant in New South Wales, William Pery, succeeded his grandfather, the Earl of Limerick, in title and estates in 1844, which made a considerable noise throughout the colonies .** While the novel has been criticized for its air of unreality (most recently by Dr Coral Lansbury), for its ideal and unreal characters, and for its lack—despite bushrangers, yarding of cattle and bushfires—of Australian aspects, there is a curious parallel between the plot and events in Gippsland before Separation. This parallel may have been fortuitous, though circumstances suggest that Kingsley might have heard through various sources of the Gippsland events. Even had he not known of them, the fact that they did take place suggests that the unrealities of the novel had ample precedent in the unrealities of colonial life.*4

David Parry-Okeden was the younger son of David Parry-Okeden of More Critchell, Dorset (who married as his second wife the sister of the 6th Earl of Essex). His family were thus neighbours of the Sturts

and both had relations serving in the East India Company. ParryOkeden, as a young officer in the navy, visited the colonies and decided to settle. He sold up, married and immigrated to New South Wales, bringing out not only his wife but his brother-in-law, Hannibal Dutton, and his cousin, Henry Haygarth. A similar family migration took place in Geoffry Hamlyn. While Haygarth stayed in the Middle

District, and later published a guide to New South Wales, ParryOkeden and Dutton travelled south and settled in the Snowy RiverManeroo country where much of Geoffry Hamlyn is set. When Gipps-

land was opened, partly through the exertions of the Hunter family, the two men took up runs in the new district.* While Parry-Okeden and Dutton were away in Gippsland, Buchan Charlie, a bushranger who knew the family, raided their homestead. 98

The Gentleman Squatter Alone with her children Mrs Parry-Okeden endured a night of terror while the bushrangers searched the house for her husband’s pistols. She kept her head and dropped the pistols out of the window, where they lay in the garden undiscovered. Thwarted, the bushrangers left without further harming the family. A melodramatic plot concerning the West Country families and bushrangers runs through Geoffry Hamlyn, and it is possible that Mrs Parry-Okeden’s experience might have suggested certain aspects of the plot. Even if they did not have a direct influence, their very occurrence demonstrated that Australian life had its melodramatic moments.*® Apart from parallels in plot there is the general theme of the code of honour, which is given extraordinary prominence throughout Geoffry Hamlyn. The novel is a very much more curious work than is generally conceded, and critics are too easily tempted to dwell on its insipidities and unrealities, its novelettish qualities, all of which are undeniable. That all the ‘good’ characters are incapable of ignoble actions is not as important or as interesting as the fact that they are all gentlemen by birth and that their rank is insisted upon throughout the work. Not only are they well bred but brave, intelligent, upright, athletic and fine-looking. Muscular Christianity marries with Burke’s Landed Gentry to produce such statements as: ‘By jove! What a splendid man you are’ (the admiration of an athlete-parson for a squire’s son); the exconvict’s exclamation to the narrator, ‘I am glad Dick is got with a gentleman’; the apostrophes of the younger characters: Cecil Mayford ‘a perfect little gentleman’; Sam Buckley and James Brentford, who were gentlemen and spoke and behaved as such. The son of the villain bore the taint of his father’s mean breeding and acted accordingly. Kingsley

seems to equate good breeding with fineness of features and with nobility of action, and to couple absence of breeding with loose behaviour. The social equations are not utterly symmetrical, for the bastard son of the villain is ‘more like a beautiful woman than a man’, and ‘handsome as an Apollo, beautiful as a leopard’ .*” Generally, the good characters are men of the stamp of the squatter Harding, ‘an Oxford man, good looking too and gentlemanlike’, or of the Major, James Buckley, who with his son, Sam Buckley, provides a loose link to join the disparate parts of the novel into a form of unity.

James Buckley of Clere (an Elizabethan palace which he had been forced to sell because he could no longer afford to keep it up) had first

settled in Devon and then emigrated to New South Wales where he joined a group of Devon gentlemen. James is the ideal picture of an 99

Port Phillip Gentlemen English gentleman; as is his son Sam, who becomes a squatter in Queensland. Sam has an ambition which he confides to his wife: to make enough money (£50,000) to buy back Clere; his father he knows could do this if he wanted, but the older generation has severed its ties

with England. Sam Buckley’s reasons for returning to England suggest where the deepest sympathies of the author lay.*® Think of you and I taking the place we are entitled to by birth and education in the splendid society of that noble island. Don’t tell me all that balderdash about the founding of new empires. Empires take too long in growing for me. What honours, what society has this little colony to give, compared to those open to a fourth-rate gentleman in England? I want to be a real Englishman, not half a one. I want to throw in my lot heart and hand with the greatest nation in the world. I don’t want to be young Sam Buckley of Baroona. I want to be the Buckley of Clere. Is not that a noble ambition?*®

The novel ends with Sam established at Clere and the Major, at the

urging of Geoffry Hamlyn, returning to England. The gentlemen forced to leave England for financial reasons go home in triumph to enjoy the fruits of their success in a cosmopolitan society. If McCombie in Arabin had recognized that gentlemen colonists were failures in the Antipodes, fourteen years later Henry Kingsley acknowledged that successful gentlemen colonists listened willingly to the siren song of

England, home and beauty. By the time that Kingsley wrote his novel, gentlemen colonists and others who had survived and become successful were in a position to return home and the theme of divided allegiance enters Australian literature.*° Despite the many weaknesses of Geoffry Hamlyn, it is a fulsome tribute to the code of honour in its muscular Christian form. Although the tired fruit of the Romantic movement, it established firmly the genre of the squatting novel in Australian literature and ensured that incense was burnt at the altar of gentility for the next century. The immediate beneficiary was Thomas Alexander Browne. As he

and his family will be discussed at length in the final chapter it is enough to say here that he was a young squatter from the middle ranks

of Irish society who subscribed to the code of honour. As a young man before Separation, Browne mixed with the mobs (the gentlemen squatters) and it was at the station of William Mitchell that Browne met Henry Kingsley; according to Rose Browne, it was her father who persuaded Kingsley to take up writing seriously. Browne used the nom de plume of Rolf Boldrewood and became so well known 100

The Gentleman Squatter under this name that it is used in this study when discussing his published work. Although Boldrewood did not start wniting until the mid-1860s, his experiences before 1850 were decisive influences and formed not only the basis of Old Melbourne Memories but that of his novel, Babes in the Bush.*!

Boldrewood carried on the tradition established by Kingsley of celebrating the code of honour and the achievements of the gentlemen squatters. His leading characters are usually men and women of old family and small patrimony who have emigrated to Australia to re-

coup their fortunes. This they achieve, often with the help of old colonial hands. Drawn without concession to the weaknesses which plague most men, his heroes and heroines are well-bred people who nothing common did or mean, which does little to save them from appearing as fearful prigs in the eyes of the modern reader. As with McCombie, it is more rewarding to treat Boldrewood as a source of social history, a treasure house of polite opinions and prejudices, than

to concern oneself with questions of literary worth (for those who have a fondness for nineteenth-century fiction of the second rank, his novels will need no justification). One of the great differences between Kingsley and his successor is that Boldrewood’s characters elect to stay in Australia. The hero of A Colonial Reformer, Ernest Neuchamp (pronounced new chum by the Australians), is a well-bred, prodigiously priggish gentleman with a

younger son’s portion who comes out to Australia to make his fortune. His attitudes irritate and puzzle the colonists, who are remarkably long suffering —though it upsets them when he decides to walk rather than ride to his up-country station; it is hardly the thing for a gentleman to do and involves him in a number of embarrassments. Despite his prejudices Neuchamp makes good and is a rich man by the

time of the gold rushes. His acquaintance, the aptly named Croker, decides that the country has gone to the dogs, that the diggers will revolt and slit the throats of the propertied classes.>? Australia was always a beastly hole, but really I think, when—even before—it comes to what I have outlined it will cease to be fit for a gentleman to live in.*?

Neuchamp disagrees and states that this is precisely the time, and these are the exact circumstances, which render it a point of honour for every gentleman who has a past or present interest in the land to live in it, to stand by his colours, and lead his regiment in the battle which is so imminent.** 101

Port Phillip Gentlemen Something of the later hostility of the well-born Australian for the English may already be sensed here, and it was to be a theme which Martin Boyd would later take up. More realistic than A Colonial Reformer is The Sydney-Side Saxon, the

account of the rise, financial and social, of an English yeoman’s son, Jesse Claythorpe, who by dint of hard work, level-headedness and all those qualities traditionally associated with the English yeoman makes a success of himself. One of nature’s gentlemen, he acquires without

strain many of the marks of a born gentleman and crowns his metamorphosis by marriage to the daughter of a gentleman squatter (but not before the author has thoughtfully killed off the bewitching half-caste who has turned the honest man’s head).*° During his rise Claythorpe is able to help the son of the village squire, a promising young man who had lost all his money and taken to drink. The hero reflects on the see-saw of fate and the irony that he should be helping Reggie Leighton, when the squire had once helped him. But there’s something about gentlefolk and old blood—people may talk as they like—that stirs the heart of a true born Englishman and you see one of them brought low in a strange land, it melts the very heart within you.°®

McCombie had pointed to the demoralization of the English upper

classes in the colony and by the time that Boldrewood wrote his novels the drunken broken younger son, charming when sober, had become a stock figure in Australian society; furthermore, McCombie

had drawn attention to that social topsy-turveydom which Boldrewood uses to such effect. The hero exclaims: Fancy me being able to help a Leighton of Kings Leighton, in that way. This was the other end of the world, and wrong side up, when it comes to that, and no mistaking.®”

Claythorpe’s social apotheosis could well stand (intentional or not) for the triumph of the dour, simple sort of squatter who did so well in the colonies and overhauled the gentlemen colonists—thus putting into literary terms the rise of many prominent families in the Western District and elsewhere.*® Boldrewood has, for reasons which will become apparent in chapter

VII, a fascination with gentlemen failures, those who go to the wall unable to cope with Antipodean conditions. He does not excuse the conduct of the gentlemen who fail to live up to the demands of their 102

The Gentleman Squatter rank, and Ernest Neuchamp meets a succession of gentlemen who live in an irregular way, beginning with the bonhomous Sydneyman who makes his living by plucking new arrivals, the settler who lives piggishly, and the disdainful dandy who takes to crime. As well there are those, often men of the first fashion, who become labourers .*® The rise and fall is most clearly depicted in Babes in the Bush, a novel in which many Port Phillip pioneers appear in recognizable form (a key is given in the notes). A decaying family, the Warleighs, sink into a pit of dissipation and violence and sell up to the Effinghams, another well-bred family which has had to leave England because it can no longer live in its accustomed manner. The novel chronicles the return to prosperity of the Effinghams in New South Wales and Port Phillip and describes the lives of the gentlemen squatters during the 1840s. For the sake of fiction Boldrewood has transferred the setting from Port Phillip to southern New South Wales.®° Dramatic and moral tone is

provided by the redemption and death of the younger Warleigh, a

man who was not brought up as a gentleman, lacks all the accomplishments of his rank, and works as a labourer. Despite his declasse appearance, he has a natural nobility of bearing which all rec-

ognize. As one of the gentleman squatters observes of Robert Warleigh: Blood is a great, a tremendous thing; though he desn’t know enough for a sergeant of dragoons, yet there is a grand unconsciousness in his bearing and a natural air of authority now that he is our commanding officer, which he derives from his family ascent.*!

Babes in the Bush and the autobiographical writings of Boldrewood are among the best sources for the mobs. These, in a true Antipodean inversion, were the names given to the groups of gentlemen squatters in the various districts of Port Phillip. The members were usually the

best born among the squatters and certainly the most dashing. The mobs have something of the gamey flavour associated with the Regency period and combined exclusiveness and freedom in a manner which marked the behaviour of the gentlemen squatters as a whole. Among the gentlemen a freemasonry existed which suggests that the working men were not the only ones to band together in order to face the exigencies of the bush. “The gentlemen settlers are all capital fel-

lows. One fellow walks into another fellow’s hut and turns out his horse and eats and drinks as if it was his own’.® The writer was James Hunter, who appears briefly in Babes in the

Bush and in other works of the period. He and his brothers were 103

Port Phillip Gentlemen members of the Devil’s River mob, and later in the 1850s of the Mount Gambier mob. They were noted for their high spirits, bravery

and horsemanship, and it was quite in character that one of the brothers, John (Jack the Devil), when wanted by the police, insisted on attending a race meeting disguised as a woman. After his disguise was penetrated he managed to elude the police, despite riding side-saddle.**

Equally high-spirited was the Goulburn mob, often at odds with authority, though it redeemed itself by taking a leading part in the capture of the bushrangers in 1842. Unlike the other mobs its members spent much of their time in Melbourne and Garryowen recorded their misdeeds with an indulgent pen.®*

A very different mob in the Western District (which appears in Babes in the Bush) was the Dunmore: civilized, urbane and determined not to let standards slip merely because its members were living in the Antipodes. Like the other mobs mentioned it was Scottish in complex-

ion. The other nationalities do not seem to have had such a taste for mobs (though the Irish cousinage shares certain characteristics). Rolf Boldrewood never forgot his first glimpse of the Dunmore homestead: arriving exhausted on a drizzling evening he saw a man walking

out of a building in evening dress. The Dunmore mob boasted that most rare of possessions, a library.* A mob of a different character again was the Mount Gambier and it

flourished during the 1850s. If the Dunmore mob captured Boldrewood’s mind, the Mount Gambier won his heart; and his adulation

of the English gentlemen found suitable objects of worship in the members, especially Evelyn Sturt, whom he compared to Bayard— ‘the veritable fine fleur of the squatter type’. The character of this mob

seems to have been quieter and more mature. There must have been other mobs in existence in country districts wherever enough young gentlemen squatters were established; even among the older and more sedate gentlemen squatters there were groups and coteries in various parts of Port Phillip which were noticed by writers and visitors. One taste which drew the gentlemen squatters together was hunting.®” Many of the mobs—and the gentlemen settlers generally —hunted

regularly. There has been disagreement over the identity of the first person to bring hounds to the district. If Strode is correct, it was a rich settler from Van Diemen’s Land, James Brown (Baghdad Brown), who held the first meeting near Melbourne on 28 August 1839. Some of the settlers had even brought with them to the new colony their 104

The Gentleman Squatter pink coats and one of them, the duellist Barry Cotter, was thrown. The rest enjoyed a hard gallop for five miles. The hunt met a few days

later at Williamstown. The later history of the Melbourne hunt is obscure and overshadowed by the packs in the country districts .* A number of gentlemen settlers established packs in the Western

District, around Werribee-Bacchus Marsh, and in the central and northern parts of Port Phillip. The best-known packs were those founded by the aristocratic Compton Ferrers at Wardy Yallock and Thomas Pyke at Morockdong. Ferrers hunted four days a week, which was unusual in the District, and after a few years advertised his meets in the Herald, which also gave reports of the better days. T. H. Pyke showed an equal devotion to hunting and died a poor man after a lifetime’s support of the sport. He sold his run to Ferrers and some of his hounds to a squatter at Torrumbarry, where the first meet was held in June 1849.8°

It was Ferrers who earned the rare praise of Captain Fyans, and it was his kennels which Sir Charles Fitzroy’s son visited when the Governor arrived in Melbourne. Among the other gentlemen with packs were Major Mercer, the Learmonth brothers at Buninyong, John Cox at Mount Rouse and the Hunters in the Goulburn. By the middle of the decade there were subscription packs at Belfast, Werribee, Portland and Geelong; the first of these was recalled with enthusiasm by Mrs Baxter, a keen horsewoman. While squatters of simple origin may have hunted, it was the gentlemen squatters who established the packs and at least in the beginning paid for their upkeep. This is not surprising—gentlemen settlers were loath to forego their habits merely because they were living in the Antipodes. Nor were they prepared to abandon sport and pleasure in single-minded pursuit of fortune.”

105

V

A Question of Honour

HE TRADITIONAL MEANS of protecting one’s honour among

gentlemen was the duel, and as a survival of trial by combat it was a quick means of settling disputes without appeal to the law. In England, after a busy time during the Napoleonic Wars, the habit of duelling began to decline from the 1830s, and while prominent men might still accept challenges they used pistols instead of swords (less risk of wounding their opponent) and usually contented

themselves by firing wide. In Europe men still fought in earnest throughout the century. Even in the United States men duelled; the rules might not have been observed but the results were bloody and often mortal. By the 1840s public opinion in England was turning against the duel. It was coming to be considered outmoded, ridiculous and, for all its stately etiquette, smacking of the barbaric. Burn suggests two main reasons for the shift in public opinion; a change in the ideal of the gentleman, and some fatal duels between men who were not gentlemen. He believes that the ‘pagan’ elements in the code of honour were

giving way to standards more acceptable to a society which was increasingly influenced by respectability of behaviour rather than by aristocratic convention. Consequently the general public was not sympathetic when men of simple origin were killed in foolish attempts to imitate the conventions of gentlemen. And the general public was right, since men who were not gentlemen had no ‘honour’ to protect.

The final sanction of the respectable was not and could not be the duelling field. Obviously there were other reasons for the decline of the duel. It smacked of privilege, and the forces of reform sought to purge the law of anachronistic elements. At the same time, the Christian revival would have strengthened the hand of those who believed duelling to be nothing more than homicide licensed by society but not

by God? 106

A Question of Honour The revision of the Articles of War in 1844 was a triumph for the anti-duelling lobby —in future an officer who refused a challenge could

not be punished for cowardice. Duelling declined quite suddenly and the last important meeting in England was in 1852 between Disraeli’s

friend George Smythe and Colonel Frederick Romilly. In Europe duelling flourished unabated, in republican France as well as Wilhelmine Germany, and it is a tribute of sorts to the ideal of the duel that Proust should have fought on the field of honour—it is hard to picture Trollope, Hardy or James with sword in hand.®

Duelling was not uncommon in the colonies and in Port Phillip between 1839 and 1850 there were numerous hostile encounters. They

seem to have been more ritual in nature, and one of the rare times blood was shed in the District resulted from an impetuous contestant shooting himself in the foot. The etiquette of the duel was more often breached than observed—through haste, carelessness or ignorance. Some duels were nothing more than practical jokes, others were so marked by farce that it was hard to remember that they were hostile

meetings in which a man could lose his life, as had happened in Western Australia in 1832.4

There was another way for gentlemen to settle quarrels without going to law: the court of honour, a private arbitration by a committee of gentlemen who were nominated by the aggrieved parties. Courts of honour and similar committees met in Melbourne during the 1840s,

sometimes after a gentleman had refused to fight a duel. As a final recourse there were the courts of law and the newspapers. Men debated their grievances in the columns of the newspapers and if necessary they even paid to advertise wrongs done to them. The law-courts and the lawyers did a busy trade, for it was a most litigious age and there are the usual sour acknowledgements that the long robe profited from everyone else’s misery.” Often the question of honour was only one of the points at issue; sometimes it was the chief consideration. Despite the opinion of Dr Niel Gunson, women do not appear to have been the cause of many of the quarrels. It is difficult to establish precisely why the duel should have been so popular, especially at a time when it was dying out in England. Certainly the ttme-lag must have contributed to its enduring popularity in Port Phillip. Other reasons present themselves. One obvious cause was the general quarrelsomeness of the settlement, a characteristic of Port Phillip which has already been noted. Behind this unamiable trait lie two main reasons for duelling. Among 107

Port Phillip Gentlemen colonists generally there was a touchiness about social standing, a need

to demand that society recognize their standing as gentlemen. Men were quick to detect slights (real or imaginary) against their honour and rank, especially the younger or more socially insecure colonists.

One suspects that men were far touchier about their rank in Port Phillip, where their origins and upbringing were unknown, than at home, where their position in local society was established. Again, the common motive for emigration was often at odds with the honour of a gentleman. The need to make a fortune quickly put a strain upon the code of honour. Some could not resist the temptation to cut corners, and there were constant collisions occasioned by greed, self-interest, ambition and sharp dealing. Young gentlemen recently arrived in Melbourne were a fruitful source of income for predatory colonists, and it was largely younger men who fought duels in Port Phillip. To them the duel recommended itself as a quick, easy and cheap way of settling a quarrel—despite the risk, and even the risk made life a little interesting. The hostile encounters are of less interest than the court cases arising

out of matters of honour. Occasionally a comment is made or an opinion offered which suggests the variety of judgements on the propriety of duelling. Otherwise most of the duels seem to be little more than the performance of an archaic ritual. Few were fought in deadly earnest.®

The first encounter, between Barry Cotter and George Arden, took place in 1839. It was most suitable that Arden should have fought in the earliest affair as he was such a vociferous champion of the code of honour. The diarist Waterfield had a laconic note on the meeting and prayed it might be the last. The gods disposed otherwise. Arden’s own paper modestly carried no account of the duel but the Patriot printed a paragraph in its heaviest style, beginning ‘Bella! Horrida Bella!’, which

was Offensive towards Cotter and critical of Arden for stooping to fight ‘such an article’. The Patriot may have disapproved of an editor accepting a challenge for professional reasons, as an unwise precedent,

though the unkind could have assured Fawkner that he was quite safe—his social standing would save him from ever being challenged.

From then onwards, duels were fought throughout the decade, though the number of meetings and challenges declined after 1845, as public opinion grew in its opposition to the custom.’ The duel which became most widely known was the meeting between Maurice Meyrick and Edward Barker. It prompted a comment 108

A Question of Honour from a neighbour which sums up the traditional view of the martial aspects of the code of honour: ‘Why certainly there was only one way

for gentlemen, and that was to fight it out’. Which they did, in a sandpan on the Peninsula. Besides inspiring a piece of doggerel, it was mockingly described to an English audience by the poet Richard Howitt, to the indignation of the Meyricks, who dismissed it as a partisan

report by a friend of the Barkers. "Twas at Cape Schank. Said Captain Reid: “You must fight’. And they gladly agreed. ‘Mimosa bark Made barkers bark. But Barker’s bite Was very slight Compared with Barker’s bark.®

The names or initials of the principals have survived in seventeen duels fought between 1839 and 1850. In addition there are rumours or sketchy accounts of other duels in the newspapers, as well as reports of challenges. The majority of principals were clubmen and members of society. Peter Snodgrass fought twice and issued at least one further challenge. Another young squatter, Robert Chamberlain, also fought

two duels within six months, while the merchant and clubman, Arthur Hogue, challenged twice as well as fighting a duel. Other prominent men to appear on the field of honour included Redmond Barry (a future Acting Chief Justice), William Ryrie, Frederick Powlett, Dr David Thomas and Gilbert Kennedy. The favoured meeting places included the beach at Sandridge and Flagstaff Hill.? The particular reasons for duels and challenges varied: a woman, an injudicious remark, a supposed insult which was not withdrawn, disputes over property. A few were practical jokes, intended to tease or humiliate an unsuspecting opponent. One such victim was splattered

with jam, earning him the sobriquet of Jam Satis. Another man was tricked into issuing a challenge, and further tricked into thinking he had wounded his opponent, and urged to take flight before being arrested.!°

Few duels were as serious as that between Frederick Powlett and

Arthur Hogue, when two shots were exchanged (unusual in Port Phillip), both piercing Hogue’s coat (even more unusual). In most hostile meetings farce predominated, leading Garryowen to admit what amounts almost to a regret that the colonists did not take the ritual seriously and at least wing their opponents. Typical of the local duels were the two fought by Peter Snodgrass. In the first, the young 109

Port Phillip Gentlemen Scot considered himself insulted by William Ryne during an evening in the clubhouse. One of the seconds rode out to Heidelberg to borrow Joseph Hawdon’s pistols. Another woke up the military officer to

obtain powder and shot, only to meet with resistance from an outraged wife, determined to prevent bloodshed. A third fetched a doctor

from his bed (David Thomas). The entire party repaired to level ground near Batman’s Hill. Before the signal to fire was given, the impetuous Snodgrass shot himself in the toe. Ryrie chivalrously fired

into the air. The rest, bilked of their drama, suggested putting the doctor up against a tree. Thomas, noted for his stutter, declined the honour and offered his new bell-topper in his stead. After filling it full of holes, the party repaired to the Den, to continue drinking.” In his second duel Snodgrass challenged Redmond Barry, who had

written something in a private letter which the young Scot found offensive. The duel was fought at Sandridge and Barry arrived on a bleak winter’s morning dressed with immaculate care, wearing his ‘peculiarly fabricated bell-topper’ and ‘strap-trousered, swallow-tail coated, white-vested, gloved, and cravated to a nicety’. With majestic deliberation, Barry made a deep bow to his opponent and serenely awaited the order to fire. Snodgrass as impatient as usual fired his pistol before the order was given, and Barry fired into the air.!? Other colonists apart from gentlemen felt obliged to fight duels. Two partners in a firm of merchants, Skene Craig and A. A. Broadfoot, quarrelled and settled their differences on the field of honour.

Garryowen, in a tone of good-natured ridicule, suggested that the parties settled down to a champagne breakfast after the form if not the spirit of the ritual had been observed.'*

The gentleman squatter, J. H. Kerr, gave his English readers a mocking account of a meeting between a married merchant and a young bachelor who had paid too great attention to the older man’s wife. The code of honour still exerted enough power to persuade the merchant to issue a challenge, despite his peaceable nature and his ignorance of anything about duelling besides what he might have picked up from reading novels. However he felt bound to issue a challenge ‘because it was considered the correct course to pursue in such a case, but when he had done so it is doubtful whether he felt his position at all improved by the step he had taken.’’4 Others outside society who were involved in affairs of honour included William O‘Neil and Thomas Cunninghame, and some of the parties in the Quarry case.’? 110

A Question of Honour How far matters had changed by the end of the decade may be gauged by the support Charles Cowper received in 1848 when he refused to accept a challenge sent by Benjamin Boyd. Cowper was congratulated by the Sydney Morning Herald in an article most hostile in tone towards duelling.’® More protracted than the duels (many of which received little notice in the newspapers) and a rich mine of social history are the court cases which arose out of affairs of honour. The earliest case connected with a

man’s rank was the libel action brought by the army officer Francis Vignoles against the young squatter John Wood. The Patriot, despite its hostility to privilege, entered a defence of Wood’s claim to the rank of gentleman. He was, the radical paper claimed, the son of a highly respected army officer known to be an upright magistrate—‘therefore by birth he is a gentleman’. Furthermore Wood had never entered into any trade or calling which might degrade him. True Wood had owned

cattle, but the Patriot did not consider that stockholding debarred a man from being a gentleman.!” The first affair of honour to reach the courts was Hogue v. Carrington, a complicated dispute involving four members of the Mel-

bourne Club during 1840. It began when the merchant William Rucker spread rumours which reflected on the commercial integrity of Richard Browne, a speculator who was at the time visiting Sydney. Although Browne was the cause of the dispute he did not take any part

in the quarrel and was defended in his absence by a friend Arthur Hogue. Rucker at first denied that he was the source of the rumours but later acknowledged responsibility in an offensive letter delivered by the soliator H. N. Carrington. Hogue challenged Rucker but his friend and fellow clubman Joseph Hawdon would not let him fight a self-confessed liar. The matter came before a committee of the Club, in effect a court of honour. Among its members were James Simpson, president in 1842,

and the merchant D. S. Campbell. Papers were presented to the committee and Rucker was expelled from the Club. He thereupon disappears from the dispute. Simpson, with the true discretion of the clubman, asked for permission to destroy the papers and this, despite the opposition of Campbell, was granted.'® The dispute was continued by Carrington and a reconciliation arranged (surprisingly) by the bellicose Snodgrass did not last. Carrington spread it about that Hogue was no fighting man and posted

him as a coward. A duel was then arranged, which lapsed when 111

Port Phillip Gentlemen Carrington did not provide a second. Not gaining satisfaction, Hogue decided upon the next sanction, a horsewhipping. It was not to be a thrashing but a ceremonial humiliation. Hogue, a tall man, chose as the weapon a light lady’s whip, and alerted members of the Club. They watched from the windows as Hogue came out of the clubhouse arm in arm with George Cormack, accosted Carrington in the street and shook the whip over Carrington’s shoulder: “You are a poltroon, a

coward and no gentleman ... you will consider yourself horsewhipped . . .”29

Carrington charged him with assault and the case was heard in Sydney before Judge Willis, soon to become the first Resident Judge of Port Phillip. Damages of £1,000 were claimed. Hogue, described by the chief witness to the whipping as ‘a gentleman of fortune’, and by

the Attorney-General as one of the leading members of society, defended himself with success in a case which had traversed nearly all the

avenues open to gentlemen in the defence of their honour.”° The dispute between Peter Snodgrass and Captain George Smyth had considerable repercussions within the small community of Melbourne gentlemen. As a duellist Snodgrass needs no introduction. He was a wild young man, having nothing in common with the sober Scots of simple origin. A high-liver, he later confessed to Judge Willis that he was usually tight in the mornings. Like many gentlemen Snodgrass was undone by the depression, and during insolvency hearings quarrelled with Captain Smyth.” After the case Smyth cut Snodgrass in Collins Street and the touchy Scot sent a friend, J. M. Woolley, to wait upon Smyth and demand an apology or issue a challenge. Smyth decided that Woolley was tight, refused to deal with him, and the next morning had Snodgrass and Woolley bound over to keep the peace. According to the Patriot, Woolley, who was himself to join the ranks of the bankrupts, had threatened Smyth with ‘postings, horsewhippings, and all the other numerous ills a club life is heir to’. The three

men were members of the Melbourne Club—Smyth a foundation member—and St John, the magistrate who signed the warrant, also belonged to the Club. Deprived of redress Snodgrass laid a complaint

before the committee of the Club, charging Smyth with having broken rule 13, which governed the conduct of members towards each

other. The affair assumed a Byzantine complexity as the Club committee met six times between 20 May and 1 June 1842. Smyth gave a written explanation of his reasons for not fighting and was asked to withdraw his letter. Smyth refused unless Snodgrass withdrew his 112

A Question of Honour complaint. This Snodgrass declined to do. In fact he demanded that the matter be brought before a general meeting of the Club.?” The members then had to decide whether Smyth was justified in refusing Snodgrass satisfaction. When Smyth stood up before fortyfour members to read his defence there was a motion that he not be

heard. Some members obviously regarded the matter as open and shut; one objected that Smyth was entering too lengthy a defence. And

defence it was, as Smyth was effectively on trial by his peers as a gentleman. The minutes record that Smyth gave his views on duelling but they do not alas spell them out. The opinions of the members were divided: Thomson, one of Snodgrass’s friends, objected to the whole proceedings; Captain Ward Cole thought that one gentleman could

cut another without having to fight a duel; William Verner, a neighbour of Smyth, disagreed. After a few more opinions and com-

ments, Raymond and Verner put the motion to decide whether Smyth’s conduct had been offensive to a member. Forty-two voted: twenty-six that he should no longer be a member, while sixteen supported him. He had escaped expulsion by two votes but he had been humiliated. The meeting went on to debate Smyth’s charge that Woolley had been drunk when acting as friend to Snodgrass, and adjourned without resolution for two days. Various motions and amendments were brought forward and withdrawn, although it was agreed that Woolley’s character as a gentleman had not been impugned as a result of his part in the affair and that Smyth’s charges against Snodgrass had not

been proved. This represented a shift away from the problems of whether the duel should have been fought to the question of Snodgrass’s behaviour. The motion of confidence in Snodgrass was moved by two of Smyth’s neighbours, Verner and Martin. In the last stage of the meeting matters become confused as motions

were abandoned or withdrawn. The surviving minutes have been crossed out in places and it is hard to follow the current of battle as Snodgrass and his allies turned on Smyth. A motion to save the unfortunate Smyth’s face, proposed by Captain Cole and Charles Ebden, was defeated and a stronger resolution was carried, directing the sec-

retary to inform Smyth that his resignation had been accepted, ‘to prevent the members taking the disagreeable steps they might otherwise deem necessary’. Smyth had been expelled in all but name. William Verner gave notice of two motions which were contradictory in effect. The first was a resolution that the Club be dissolved. 113

Port Phillip Gentlemen Arden heard of it and published a paragraph in the Gazette the following day. Verner’s second motion was characteristic of a clubman—he

proposed that the minutes of the meeting be expunged from the books. Neither resolution was followed up. More important, the President, James Simpson, a man who was universally respected for his impartiality and upright nature, announced his intention of resigning

from the Club. One can only deduce that he wished to disassociate

himself in the strongest way from the decision of the members. Simpson did not rejoin the Club until September 1843.?* One would like to know more about the dispute, the charges and the character of Captain Smyth, about which little evidence is avail-

able. Snodgrass, who seems to have been a popular young man, comes across as quarrelsome and unattractive. An unflattering picture of him survives in John Cotton’s letters—the opinion of a respectable,

disenchanted father-in-law. Had Smyth, one wonders, committed that unforgivable sin in the Anglo-Saxon calendar—telling the truth aloud, in the wrong place, the wrong way, and at the wrong time? Among his opponents were some of his Heidelberg neighbours —was he ostracized by society after his ‘resignation’? He left Port Phillip and returned to England, where he died in 1845 at the age of thirty-one— one of the many gentlemen colonists destroyed by the Antipodes.?4 Fate was even-handed and caught up with Snodgrass twenty-five years later, carrying him off while he was under investigation by a parliamentary committee on a charge of bribing members of parlia~ ment.?° During the course of the dispute between John Foster and Farquhar

McCrae (both magistrates) many undercurrents in society surfaced: jealousy between the national groups, and a collision between what could be loosely called the ‘aristocratic’ gentlemen and the ‘middle class’ gentlemen. Or put in more general terms the dispute was one between gentility and respectability, between caution and chivalry, between the values of the Irish Ascendancy and the prudent Scots. Farquhar McCrae came from one of those Scottish families so hard to place: of middling rank; linked distantly with the aristocracy, the law,

the church, officialdom; landed in a minor way. In Melbourne, McCrae belonged to a small group of Scots who were resented by men as far apart as George Arden and Alexander Hunter.”® His opponent, John Fitzgerald Leslie Foster, was his social superior, a member of the Irish cousinage. Foster and his elder brother, William, who was heir to the estates of his maternal uncle, Lord Fitzgerald, had 114

A Question of Honour bought the lease of the Eummemmerring run from McCrae. A disagreement over the sale occurred and the Fosters refused to pay further

instalments until the matter was settled. The dispute dragged on for eighteen months and in the end an exasperated Foster challenged McCrae to a duel. The Scot prudently refused to meet the Irishman before the debt had been paid, and suggested that the matter should be

laid before a court of honour. Foster would have none of it but McCrae went ahead. The members of the court were all present or future clubmen, Scots and English (no Irish, presumably because Fos-

ter refused to co-operate): Charles Ebden, James Simpson, Henry Adolphus Goldsmith, George Playne, George Airey, J. D. Lyon Campbell, William Ryrie and Archibald Cuninghame. The court decided in favour of McCrae, but Foster ignored its decision, wanting satisfaction first. Denied this, he resorted to the traditional weapon of

the bilked duellist, a horsewhipping, which he administered to McCrae in Queen Street on 1 December 1843. Contented, Foster announced that he would now consent to the calling of a court of honour.?’ The effect in a small town of one magistrate whipping another was considerable, especially as McCrae had suffered the further indignity

of falling from his horse. The court of honour found in favour of McCrae and it published its opinion—the first time a court of honour had done such a thing: We cannot refrain from expressing our regret that, at a tme when with Mr Foster’s knowledge you had submitted the matter to a committee of gentlemen, before whom the investigation was still pending, you should have been subjected to public outrage alike painful to your friends and offensive to society.

Fortified, McCrae brought a charge of assault against Foster in 1844.78 The case was heard by a judge and a special jury of gentlemen and

substantial merchants, including Major Firebrace (foreman), Lieut. Charles Forrest, Edmund Westby, Edward Curr, J. B. Were and D. S. Campbell. McCrae’s barrister was a Welshman, Edward Williams, who had some reputation as an opponent of the inner circle. In his speech Williams defended the unimpeachable honour of his client, mocked the Irish code of honour and expressed surprise that Foster was considered fit to be a magistrate. The Irishman had committed a gross act of

impropriety, the more shameful because of his rank as a gentleman and a magistrate. His other arguments show a grasp of the mundane 115

Port Phillip Gentlemen considerations—McCrae’s decision not to answer Foster’s challenge while the debt was unpaid was a sensible one. Williams further re-

minded the jury that Foster was a rich man, that his brother had recently gone home after inheriting Lord Fitzgerald’s estates, and 1nvited them to fine him heavily, in proportion to his wealth and rank. It is instructive to follow the path taken by Williams, worshipping first at the altar of honour and then, more lengthily, at the altar of mammon.?9 Foster retained Redmond Barry, fellow member of the Ascendancy,

to defend him. His counsel admitted the assault and pleaded justification. While defending the Irish code of honour and insinuating that the

Scot was insensible to the finer points, he attempted to sustain the argument that an official should have the same nght to protect his honour as a private gentleman, that being a magistrate should not render a man powerless. Barry had upheld the argument in his own life (he had fought Snodgrass in 1841, conducting himself with exquisite punctilio). The contrast between him and Williams could scarcely have been greater.*° Barry’s second argument was part of a strategy to depict McCrae as a canny Scot who had taken advantage of the Fosters, newcomers to

the colony without that experience ‘which seems in this part of the world to supersede all such qualities as education, talent, and manners, which are usually esteemed at home’. It was a shrewd hit and would find at least a general mark—there had been numerous complaints of settlers (Sometimes gentlemen settlers) plucking new arrivals. In support of this, Barry contrasted the correspondence of McCrae, phrased

in the manner of a legal document, with the letters of the Irishman, written in the hand of a private gentleman. In his view Foster was a man goaded into a breach of the peace by the prevarications of the Scot.

The summing up of the Judge provides another official interpretation of the code of honour. Jeffcott considered the attack gross and unseemly, the use of the whip a degrading insult. He rebuked both men for their behaviour, attacked the court of honour and laid down the law upon duelling. McCrae was criticized for resorting to a court of honour rather than a court of law (the Judge obviously had no time for the former), and Foster was lectured for issuing a challenge—‘if either party fell, the law judged it to be murder; that was the law of the land as well as the law of God’.** The reaction of others was one of embarrassment. After the affair 116

A Question of Honour Gipps hoped that Foster would resign his commission voluntarily rather than be struck off the roll. The most pointed comment was from a witness who remonstrated with the two men at the time: ‘For God’s sake, gentlemen, cease from disgracing yourself in the public streets in that way’. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded him £250 costs. McCrae left for New South Wales where in 1846 he was challenged to a duel by the emancipist William Bland, who had been transported for killing his opponent in a duel.*?

Although duels were fought and challenges issued in country districts, affairs of honour involving squatters rarely reached the courts.

Dr Huffington, superintendent to William Bowman, had a longstanding dispute with his neighbour, George Faithfull, over boundaries and cattle. When Faithfull claimed that some of his father’s cattle had been branded by Huffington, the doctor demanded an explanation or satisfaction. Faithfull returned an answer ridiculing Huffington and both subsequently appealed to the public. Huffington posted Faithfull as a ‘malicious liar and a coward’, placing notices in town and country. Faithfull retaliated, in the custom of the period, by publishing his side in the dispute in the Patriot, the paper which delighted in prodding the soft underbelly of society.*° Huffington sued for libel and claamed damages of £2,000. A special

jury was empanelled: Major William Firebrace (foreman), William Locke, A. McCrae, G. W. Cole, J. Jackson, J. F. L. Foster, P. M‘Ar-

thur, J. B. Were, A. A. Broadfoot, C. Barnes, F. Splatt and J. P. Hunter—all gentlemen or merchants. Huffington’s counsel, Samuel Raymond, a member of the Ascendancy, made much of Faithfull’s simple origins. His father had been a sergeant in the New South Wales Corps, and while Raymond commended the older man’s industry and success, he let himself say: ‘Gentlemen, he is the son of his father, but whether he ever had a grandfather, a long and diligent research has not enabled me to decide’.*4 Turning to the ongins of his own client, Raymond insinuated delicately that he was Faithfull’s social superior, his father being a bene-

ficed clergyman and he a surgeon by profession. The barrister even

made use of the social standing of the respective employers and suggested that since William Bowman was Faithfull senior’s superior, his superintendent, Huffington, was therefore the superior of Faithfull junior, who occupied a similar position on his father’s station. Edward Williams appeared for Faithfull and refused to take the case 117

Port Phillip Gentlemen seriously. It was a vexatious affair, the matter was trumpery and time-wasting, and there had never been sufficient cause for the parties to fight. Williams refused to discuss the affair in reference to the code

of honour and felt that Huffington had had reparation enough by posting Faithfull. In his summary the judge sided with Williams and the jury awarded Huffington damages of one farthing. The noisiest scandal of the 1840s, the Quarry affair, gives the later reader an opportunity to see revealed the life and manners of the age. It is as though a door opens briefly to let one see the curious contents of a closed room. Jephson Quarry, an Irish solicitor, had arrived in Melbourne on the same ship as Mrs McCrae and set up practice. With a pugnacious temper and an unattractive appearance (dead-white skin, black hair), Quarry fancied himself as a lady’s man, and in 1842 married the beautiful daughter of William Bowman, the pastoralist involved in the Huffington case.*° Scarcely three months after the marriage, Mrs Quarry cut a vein in her arm and took a dose of laudanum. She survived. (A woman who had many admirers, it may be wondered why she married Quarry.)

During the next year it became obvious to Quarry that a man was visiting her, and he and his brother-in-law, John Willmett, lay in wait for the nocturnal lover. On Saturday, 7 September 1844 they nearly

caught the man, losing him in Jolimont. The following night they surprised two intruders and gave chase. One of them shot Willmett, who fell, believing himself to be dying. Doctors were sent for and wished to cut off his arm but Willmett refused. The barrister, Robert Pohlman, came and took a statement; the Clerk of Courts also appeared. At five in the morning the Mayor, Condell, arrived with the Rev. Mr Thomson to bring him the final consolations.*° The town on Monday was in a state of ‘intense excitement’ and it was to become more excited. The cuckolded husband made a list of his wife’s friends and admirers—both before and after marriage, and persuaded the magistrate to examine these men. They were brought before a court so packed that the first two examined had to be placed in the dock. M‘Vitie, the chief Clerk of the Treasury, deposed that he had retired to bed with Mrs M‘Vitie and had not left the house. After his solicitor

had protested at the irregular proceedings, the magistrates made a handsome apology: “We wish it to be distinctly understood that Mr. M‘Vitie leaves this Court as pure as he entered it (Laughter)’. The constable was directed to arrest the man who had laughed. G. R. Penn 118

A Question of Honour was next examined and, having four witnesses to prove his innocence,

was allowed to leave. He claimed that spite was the reason for his being placed on the list. Warrants were issued for two country settlers and the court ended its first round of examinations.°” All the papers were critical of the way in which the magistrates had conducted the case, that innocent men were examined in public while

Mrs Quarry was questioned by the Mayor in private. The Gazette claimed that twenty men, married and bachelor, were brought before the magistrates and the Patriot self-righteously announced its decision not to name the innocent. The first of the settlers, Henry Cameron, arrived in town, was committed to the watch-house, bailed out and taken to Willmett’s bedside. Willmett, who had managed to keep his arm and not to die, listened to Cameron’s voice and cleared him of the charge. The other settler, John Carfrae, travelled the hundred and fifty miles to prove his innocence, and in his annoyance, the greater for the distance he travelled, determined to bring an action against the Mayor. The Bench seems to have been rattled—certainly its actions were extreme, though it has to be remembered that the investigatory role of the police force was not established at the time. When Mrs Quarry was examined in camera, even the Chief Constable had to withdraw from the courtroom.*® The public side of the case lay dormant for some weeks while in private the laws of honour were invoked. Quarry discovered letters which -gave the identity of his wife’s lover, a near neighbour, Edward Hodgson. Mrs Quarry had wisely written: ‘Go to the bush, dearest Edward . . .’ Quarry challenged Hodgson to a duel, but Hodgson’s second would not let him fight until the letters had been examined— Hodgson denying that he had written the letters. A meeting took place on the beach between the second and Quarry which settled nothing;

still denying that he had written the letters, Hodgson nevertheless agreed to fight and a meeting was arranged in the country. The Herald got wind of the plans, spoke of Quarry’s determination to extract ‘full, complete, and ample satisfaction’ and commended him for behaving ‘throughout the whole of this painful transaction . . . [in] the part of a deeply injured husband, and an honourable man’ .*° On the morning of the duel Hodgson went to his solicitor, Henry

Moor, to make his will. Alerted, Moor applied to the Bench for warrants to keep the peace and managed to have one served upon Quarry’s second. Hodgson fled into the country, Quarry found himself another second, and negotiations to fight began a second time. In 119

Port Phillip Gentlemen the end matters became so involved that the duel was abandoned and the parties resorted to the newspapers, where letters from five of the men appeared as advertisements. The Herald showed itself to be ambivalent; it had first hoped that no blood would be shed; now it sneered

at Hodgson ‘of non-fighting fame’. From the country Hodgson wrote: I think everyman who can claim the title of gentleman will agree with me that upon the grounds and under the circumstances which Mr. Quarry thought proper to challenge me, it would have been disgraceful to myself, and grossly insulting to Mrs. Quarry had my second permitted the meeting.

Hodgson then returned to town to surrender himself, another warrant in connexion with the Willmett assault having been issued. The Patriot had a jibe at Hodgson—there was no likelihood of his committing a breach of the peace.*° Stung by insinuations of cowardice, Hodgson issued a further brace of challenges, offering to indemnify those who had been bound over to keep the peace. The arrangements collapsed in an atmosphere of acrimony and ridicule. The affair was descending into anti-climax. When the charges of assault and wounding Willmett were heard in court they were dismissed for want of evidence, and Hodgson again

left for the country with more warrants issued, one to prevent his leaving the District, the second charging him with criminal conversation.4!

The social standing of most of the parties was not high and they played little part in local society. It was obviously a case where men of obscure position felt impelled to ape the behaviour of gentlemen and to carry out the duties of the code of honour. The actors were all men dwelling on the fringe of society, gentlemen on the colonial list. The fate of the Quarrys was appropriately romantic. Having failed to elope

with Hodgson, Mrs Quarry ran away with the squatter Robert Jamieson. The cuckolded husband fought a duel in Sydney with her new lover. According to Hugh McCrae, Quarry, having avenged his honour, disowned his wife and sailed for China. He was shipwrecked off Point Curtis and nothing more was heard of him. Mrs Quarry still

beautiful in later life was to be found ‘in the bar-room of a Collingwood hotel’.*?

The Quarry affair was one of the few fought over a woman’s unfaithfulness. One of the newspapers even described Mrs Quarry as a

‘frail fair’, the traditional kind euphemism. How many settlers, one 120

A Question of Honour wonders, had enjoyed her favours? It was no wonder that the mayor examined her in private; she must have been a woman of considerable charm. IT IS NOT ALTOGETHER Surprising that magistrates should have been involved in affairs of honour—most of them were, after all, gentlemen

either by birth or repute and it must have been a difficult choice for them to make in such affairs, whether the requirements of their office or the demands of honour should prevail. In 1845 another dispute

between two magistrates erupted. During a meeting of justices, George Playne, a clubman and a doctor, quarrelled with Edward Curr, who informed his opponent that it was ‘time you were taught to use the language of a gentleman’. The following day Playne’s second, J. C. Riddell, waited upon Curr to demand an apology or to name a friend. Curr refused to do either and Riddell replied: “Then Dr. Playne must take his own course you know sir’. In retaliation Curr had the clubman bound over to keep the peace, while Playne posted Curr in

the Club. The posting was a symbolic act, proclaiming Curr’s cowardice—he was not a member of the Club and one can only think that Playne did not post him in a public place in case the redoubtable Curr sued him for libel—which he was quite likely to do.**

It was Curr who made the quarrel public by having a letter published in the Herald as an advertisement. He had had Playne bound over because of the McCrae aftair and he gave the readers a lengthy explanation of the reasons why he would not fight. Playne was an unknown man, a bachelor whose only distinction in society was that he was secretary of the Club. It was absurd of him to send a challenge to Curr, ‘an ancient patriarch of the land, with my fourteen children under my roof’, as he described himself, and expect him to stand and

risk being killed by a young man who was aggrieved that he was treated exactly as he deserved. Playne’s attack upon him was ‘shameful, unprovoked and unpardonable’. The posting in the Club he dismissed as absurd: ‘What is the Club to me or I to the Club?’** Having dealt with the mundane reasons, Curr moved on to questions of morality. This took the form of a dialogue between himself

and a friend, a worldly fellow who urged that had Curr named a friend, the two seconds could have between them arranged a reconcili-

ation which would have kept the peace while upholding the code of honour. Curr would have none of it, for even to name a second was ‘an admission of the law of the duel’. To fight a duel was to abandon 121

Port Phillip Gentlemen reason and common sense, for duels were ‘the most absurd of the remnants of barbarism’. If he were to accept a challenge he would set an example, all because he might be afraid of being called a coward. That example might be followed by a man as innocent as Curr was, and as unwilling to fight a duel—a man who might be manoeuvred

into a duel by overenthusiastic seconds and killed. If that were to happen his blood would be upon Curr’s hands. ‘It costs me nothing to set him this example, and that he shall have.’

If Playne wanted satisfaction he could take Curr to the Supreme Court. He ended the letter on a note of characteristic belligerence: And if anyone does not like my common sense principles, but prefers to them the last remnants of a code now all but exploded, let him cut me; all I ask 1s that he will do it boldly and unmistakably.

It was neither a tactful nor a conciliatory letter, offensive to Playne and

Riddell, and calculated to make Curr more disliked among the gentlemen of Melbourne. Such a letter begged for a reply from one of his many enemies, and one was published by the Patriot, always anti-Curr and anti-Catholic. The letter was written by ‘Caustic’, the nom de plume of a colonist of intelligence and fluency. It is a highly painted portrait by an enemy, opening with a broadside on Curr’s overbearing manner and pompous egotism. ‘Caustic’ considered him ‘thoroughly unfit either by birth, education or demeanour for the office of arbiter elegantiarum’. Had Curr contented himself with a dignified refusal on principle, a man of his age and family responsibilities would have had the sympathy of the public. Instead he had forfeited good will by writing a slanderous letter and showing that he was braver with the pen than with the sword. ‘Caustic’ evidently saw nothing inconsistent in claiming that Curr was guilty of ——; perhaps he too feared a writ for libel if he wrote the word cowardice in full. His own views on duelling are curious and rather slippery. The growing intelligence of the age has long since denominated the practice of duelling as an absurdity, being as it is a relic of the barbarisms of bygone days; but so long as the laws of society remain in their present state, unchecked by a stringent legislative enactment, gentlemen must be content to behave themselves decently or to submit to the penalty im-

posed by the Code of Honour on members of the class to which they claim to belong.*®

It is a clever argument and reflects the contradictory views of society. 122

A Question of Honour There is more than a hint of wanting a bet each way. It is no surprise that the custom was on the way out. ‘Caustic’s letter was every bit as offensive as Curr’s—it accused him of disgusting behaviour, unsuitable to the company of free men, and advised him to go back to Van Diemen’s Land, since he is ‘Shut out by his own act from the society of gentlemen’; to leave forever ‘the arena of public life in which his obstinacy of character and irrascibility of

Disposition prevent his appearing either with credit to himself or advantage to his fellow citizens’.

What controversialist could resist answering such a letter? Curr could not, and this time the Herald published the letter editorially. He scored easily off ‘Caustic’, noting his anonymity and his unwillingness to accuse Curr directly of cowardice. He defended the tone and content of the first letter—those who thought it vituperative had not seen the earlier draft—and he invited Playne to take up his pen if he felt agerieved; he had, after all, done so already within the privacy of the Club. “Caustic’s condemnation of duelling was dismissed as a soft option. It had no moral worth unless its writer was prepared to incur the displeasure of society by rejecting the duel entirely. Curr ended in a stentorian vein. I suppress all indignation and cleave to the nghteous cause without making ado about it. If I needed any support except from my own sense of right, I have received ecomiums and thanks enough to satisfy the most vain and to support the weakest.*®

The last word lies with the Gazette. It discussed the social consequences of posting; in some societies a man who was posted would be regarded as no longer a gentleman. The editor, however, had not heard of'a man losing rank, unless he were an officer in the army or the

navy. The opinion of the Gazette was that no man ought to be censured for refusing to fight a duel, even if his only reason were cowardice. The reactions of the world were summed up: ‘By some he would be laughed at—an officer would cut him, a religious man would deem his conduct noble, and what the world deemed cowardice, he would regard as moral heroism’.4” Curr received both congratulations and a rebuke. As a magistrate, bound to uphold the peace, he had acted correctly. But, again, if Mr. Curr is too much of a Christian to go out, we think he ought to be very circumspect in his language. Although duelling may be necessary at times, we regard it as a practice more honoured in the breach than in the observance. 123

Port Phillip Gentlemen The paper’s opinion contains that note of ambivalence which informs most of the pronouncements of the Melbourne press and which reflects the divided feelings of society. While duels, challenges and horsewhippings continued in diminishing numbers throughout the second half of the 1840s, none of the later cases has the interest of earlier aftairs.

124

VI

Blood, Merit ...or Money?

HROUGHOUT the 1840s colonists from all classes examined

| local society, its qualities and shortcomings, and engaged in debate and controversy over the form of society most suited to

a new settlement. Most of the general interpretations which have survived come from the opposition camp, so that the hostile portrait is

hardly balanced by the comments from gentlemen or unprejudiced observers. Archibald Cuninghame, in a letter to the Secretary of State,

was one of the few gentlemen to offer an opinion of Port Phillip society. A member of the Scottish gentry, barrister with squatting interests and a clubman, Cuninghame went to London to lobby for separation from New South Wales. In his letter, republished in the Herald, Cuninghame discussed the possibility of establishing an upper house in the colony. Such an institution could only be of use if there were in Port Phillip any body of men, possessed of that acknowledged wisdom, rank and influence, which makes them the recognised aristocracy of the colony, and

which would enable them, if formed into an Upper House, to impart to that house, the weight and dignity, without which it would be a worthless sham. But I look in vain for such a class of men. True it is, that there

are in the colony many gentlemen of birth, education, ability and intelligence—men thoroughly acquainted with the interests, and fully able to manage the affairs of the colony, but nevertheless either not possessed of those qualities which would benefit an Upper House, or with those qualities unrecognised and unappreciated by the public; for in a young colony men are usually stripped to the buff of their real merits, and are valued in exact proportion to their ability, energy and integrity; nor do the accidents of birth, the prestige of a high name or even the grey hairs of age, add anything to the public estimate of their nature.’

Cuninghame touches upon the main reasons why a gentry could not emerge in Port Phillip—lack of recognition by the rest of the settlement, an unwillingness to accept pre-eminence based merely on 125

Port Phillip Gentlemen the traditional notion of birth, and an emphasis on merit as the standard for excellence and leadership. The opposition to the gentlemen in

Port Philip was only an extension of a greater battle in England between the parties of reform and the parties of privilege. Cuninghame also concedes that the gentlemen en masse were not impressive, however able or distinguished individual members might have been, an opinion shared by Charles Griffith. It seems to be an admission that polite society as a whole was mixed in quality, perhaps too provincial.

There were other reasons, not mentioned by Cuninghame, why polite society could not become a gentry. They had been advanced in 1841 by George Arden during the Birthday Ball debate. Arden argued that in England customs, tradition and time nurtured the existence of

an hereditary aristocracy, an ancient landed gentry and an order of precedence. No misunderstandings arose because (so Arden claimed) everyone knew his place. But in any colony —especially in one so recently formed, there is no rank

derived from heraldic age, there can be no established landed gentry possessed of character through long residence and political influence; for in the one instance, the proofs are wanting or subject to dispute; in the other, speculation precludes local attachment and constancy.”

Port Phillip lacked the traditional props of the English gentry; patronage of the Crown, official status and privileges, possession of large and ancient estates. While a few of the gentlemen owned small estates near Melbourne (principally at Heidelberg), their possessions were overshadowed by the large squatting holdings of men in and outside of society. Such a landed class had been created in the older colonies, New South Wales, Van Diemen’s Land and, less successfully, Western

Australia; but with the cessation of land grants the Crown had no opportunity to establish a similar class in Port Phillip. The journalist, Samuel Bennett, devoted some pages of his history of Australia to the ‘territorial aristocracy’ of the settled districts of New

South Wales, chiefly established around Campbellfield. There, families granted estates by the Crown (Bennett names thirty-one) lived in the traditional style of the English squirarchy and were, he believed, a stable influence in a volatile colony. The pride of race—the consciousness of high social standing —the senti-

ment of family antiquity however absurd when carried to excess, are capable of exercising, if kept under proper control, a very restraining and refining influence upon individual character? 126

Blood, Merit . . . or Money? Many did not survive the 1842 depression, but at least they had enjoyed a brief life. Such position as the landowners of Port Phillip occupied they did so by virtue of their standing in society, not because of the extent or amenities of their small estates. In twenty years time the pastoralists of the Western District would establish themselves as a ‘gentry’ in the colonial style but in the 1840s they were still no more than leaseholders with an insecure future. Because of the constitutional arrangements and the small budget La

Trobe had no power to confer privileges and little opportunity to bestow patronage. The best he could offer were favour, goodwill, accessibility and a sympathetic ear. The gentlemen could expect less from those outside good society, many of whom were not disposed to allow their claims to social precedence nor defer to their pretensions. One of the few men to defend the existence of good society, ‘AntiSectarian’, sheltered behind a nom de plume. His letter, in reply to the Rev. A. Morison, endorsed social inequality and an hierarchical soaety as facts of life. That Melbourne has its aristocracy I am glad to hear you say; God forbid it should not have—but in the sense in which you use the term, it has not.

The gradations of society are as marked here as elsewhere, but I apprehend, sir, you would be a little startled at being denominated an exclusive or an aristocrat for declining to associate with your cook or your bootblack.*

Similarly Rolf Boldrewood, writing towards the end of his life and

looking back to his Port Phillip days, rebuked those visitors who denied the existence of good society and entered an implicit defence: Our neighbours (in the Western District), with hardly an exception, were ‘gentlefolk’. This is a matter imperfectly understood by people in Eng-

land to this day. They still persist in believing that ‘there are no class distinctions in Australian life’, that ‘everyone is as good as everybody else’ etc. That this is a mistake, such cavalier critics discover after the first year spent in any Australian state. The distinctions exist, irrespective of money, and are enforced, and acted upon, more or less decidedly.”

Boldrewood’s complaint that outsiders did not believe class distinctions existed in the colonies is still relevant, and it is not only visitors who refuse to recognize the obvious. Noteworthy is his statement that money was less important than birth and breeding. It is an observation that needs to be repeated in a country where plutocracy and aristocracy have in the popular mind been interchangeable terms. Even in Australia, Boldrewood insisted, money was not everything. 127

Port Phillip Gentlemen The ideas and ambitions of the gentlemen are to be found expressed more in their deeds (the founding of the clubs, assemblies and other

institutions) than in their comments. Their opponents, the men of respectability, made known their opinions from the early 1840s, and at first these were mainly protests against the behaviour of the gentlemen rather than platforms for the future of Melbourne society. The editors of the Patriot and its readers objected to the more ornamental signs of a

traditional society. The fondness among officials for titles and uniforms was ridiculed, and when Mackenzie of Kinlochewe presided at a

public meeting in the full glory of Highland dress, a correspondent mocked the ‘great titled man’ and asked: ‘Do you not think it possible for a man to be both good and useful without much display?”6 The objections increased as the outsiders observed the gentlemen taking all the positions on public committees, and excluding others. The Patriot lambasted the clique ‘which selected themselves for the Fire

Insurance Company [and] are now doing the same for the bank [the Port Phillip Bank]. Later the Patriot published a letter from a colonist who was present at the inaugural meeting of the Melbourne Hospital. The writer was indignant that membership of the committee had been decided in private and that no one from the floor had been able to nominate candidates. The protest gave Kerr the excuse to attack ‘the high aristocracy [who] club their heads together and nominate a clique of their own friends and place them, and them only, in every scheme

of honour, profit and distinction’. Kerr listed the Port Phillip Bank, the Insurance, Bridge and Auction Companies as similar cases, and claimed that an outsider even with the support of friends could get nowhere.’ As good society became more active, so did the objections of those colonists excluded from the pale of fashion. The chief opponents were Kerr, Arden and Fawkner, supported by a small band of anonymous letter-writers. The principle of exclusion and the practice of blackballing stirred their wrath. When the Sons of Scotia, comprising men from good society (Farquhar McCrae, William Ryrie, J. D. Lyon

Campbell, John Hunter, Hugh Jamieson and Peter Snodgrass as stewards) organized a St Andrew’s dinner, ‘Veritas’ protested at the discrimination involved: Sir,

A number of printed cards, conveying invitations to St. Andrew’s dinner, having been passed through the Post Office, I beg to enquire through whose agency such an unprecedented method of getting up the 128

Blood, Merit . . . or Moneys usual dinner on this occasion, was brought about. Attached to each card are the signatures of two very young gentlemen of the district; we can only marvel how two self-elected individuals could think of arrogating to themselves the exclusive nghts of extending invitations or undergoing the rather unpleasant distinction which attends such a proceeding .®

The complaint against self-appointed men taking it upon themselves to draw up lists for public dinners and exclude men of worth became more frequent during the next six months. Arden took issue with the founders of the Turf Club after he discovered that candidates were to be elected by ballot. It was an invidious device, leaving men of merit at the mercy of spiteful individuals; it divided the community and embittered rejected candidates.® These were in the nature of preliminary skirmishes. The big battle

took place from April to June 1841, the Birthday Ball affair, during which the newspapers and their readers debated the right of polite society to exclude men of worth from festivities organized by the inner

circle. Originally, the Turf Club had decided to hold a ball in race week and stewards, all from the inner circle, were appointed. The Club later found it could not afford to hold the ball, but the appetite for pleasure in the end triumphed and a subscription ball was announced in the club newspaper, the Herald, to be held on 24 May, the Queen’s Birthday. In other colonies the Queen’s Birthday was celebrated officially; in Port Phillip the salary of the Superintendent made this impossible, while his retiring nature caused him to shy away from official entertainment. The District paid for official meanness and for La Trobe’s temperament. The Melbourne ball was planned for sub-

scribers only and was not to be advertised. The choice of date was tactless and the stewards foolish to have chosen it.!° The Gazette and the Patriot did not at first attack the stewards for their choice of date but for the lavish arrangements (contemplated at a time when so many public works needed to be carried out) and for the

price of the tickets which the Patriot considered could be lowered without making the company any the less select. It is interesting that the Patriot was not totally opposed to the principle of selection. The high price of tickets—four guineas—suggests that the stewards hoped to put off undesired subscribers."? Hostilities opened a week later with a demure letter from ‘Cynthia’

in the Patriot. In style and matter it resembles the letter written by ‘Veritas’ in the previous November, attacking the Sons of Scotia. ‘Cynthia’ asked: 129

Port Phillip Gentlemen Can you inform me who are the gentlemen that have taken upon themselves to decide who are and who are not eligible for admission to the Birth-night Ball? and also who it was that appointed them the arbiters elegantiarum for the province of Australia Felix?”

‘Cynthia’s Latin may have been a little uncertain but the call to arms was clear. The pretensions of the self-elected to discriminate must be squashed. The letter bears the mark of a plant, and it gave Kerr (who may well have written it) the chance to add an insulting commentary

on the stewards. He affected ignorance of their identity in order to abuse them with impunity, and linked them with the ‘clique of upstart

exclusives . .. who made a miserable botch of the last St Andrew’s dinner’. Kerr invited ‘Cynthia’ to provide him with the names of the stewards, ‘these dictators of the ton’, so that he could ‘analyse their pretensions to gentility perfectly to her satisfaction, for we have no idea that a parcel of ill-bred puppies should be tamely suffered to rule the roast after any such fashion’.!*

The ‘ill-bred puppies’ were Frederick Powlett, Lyon Campbell, James Simpson, Frederick St John, William Verner and James M‘Ar-

thur, all men of mature years and all, save the last, members of the inner circle. In the manner of good society in Melbourne, the grounds of eligibility were never spelt out at the time, although some months after the affair was over the Scottish aristocrat, Robert Murray, discovered that those excluded were men in trade, barred from subscribing- despite their respectability. Not for the first time was it apparent that in Melbourne respectability was not enough. As Murray considered that all men in the town were either buyers or sellers, he found the ruling ridiculous. Hugh McCrae may have been drawing on family information when he described the affair as an attempt by first class people to keep out second class people. Sir Ernest Scott summed up the vetting in the best smoking-room style: *. . . it became known that discretion was being exercised’.'* Arden asked the familiar questions: By what rule or scale is our Colonial Society to be thus measured, or by what gauge must our individual loyalty be estimated? What is the standard of gentility which admits a candidate within the pale of qualification? What are the pretensions of those who are the self-delegated judges of their neighbour’s status in society??°

Arden deplored the system of ‘exclusionism’, practised by those ‘elegant extracts of society’, which controlled every club, charity and company in the District. The motives of the elite were based upon 130

Blood, Merit . . . or Money? ‘their own anti-Bnush illiberal principles of election and selection’, words which carry a faint echo of the great struggle in England between Liberals and Tories. Arden regretted that the elite should attempt to introduce a rigidity into a colonial society which had existed for so short a time. Melbourne with its jealous coteries resembled Rochester as described by Dickens. A national feast day, such as the Queen’s birthday, should be celebrated by all ranks of society in a spirit of unity, as happened in England—or so Arden allowed himself to believe. Kerr claimed that the town was in uproar and printed parts of two letters attacking the stewards—the remainder he refused to publish for fear of libel, an unconvincing plea in view of his record as a libeller. Surely in a society so limited as that of Melbourne, there was no occasion for these would-be dictators of the ton (the laddies of the Club) to dread coming into contact with anybody more vulgar, or more ill-bred than themselves.

The phrase ‘laddies of the Club’ has the ring of J. P. Fawkner. The other letter, after a jibe at mushroom aristocrats, continued: I never yet saw or read of a real gentleman, either by birth or breeding, who was afraid of lowering his dignity by coming into contact with his more respectable neighbours on such occasions as the ball in honour of Her Majesty’s birth-night.'®

Perhaps it was this letter which provided Kerr with the title for the ball—the Dignity ball—which he came to use in his heavy jeering manner. It is a nice irony that so scurrilous a journalist as Kerr should be the champion of the respectable outsiders in Melbourne. He announced to the public that a rival ball would be held on the same night,

lavishly arranged and run on ‘liberal principles’. The subscribers would be chosen for their respectability, and discretion would be exercised in favour of good character and standing—Kerr was no promiscuous democrat.'” The stewards kept quiet and said nothing in public. The clubman’s paper, the Herald, at length entered the lists with a belated defence. The ball was a private one with no official standing, and the stewards had the right to reject applications. The paper regarded it as merely the

Turf Club ball, postponed to a later date. The position would have been quite different had the ball been financed out of public funds, but

this was not the case. Cavenagh named the stewards, who had increased in number, and defended them from the attacks of the Patriot.

True to its preference for a moderate, conservative stand, the paper 131

Port Phillip Gentlemen ended its defence with a plea to the stewards to postpone the ball in the public interest.1®

Arden, who cared for the Herald almost as little as for the Patriot, swept aside the defence as the ‘venial observations’ of a paper notorious for its ‘selfish advocacy of Jim Crow’. Arden was especially jealous of the Herald, ‘the gentlemen’s joint stock venture’, since it appealed to

the same audience as he addressed, the literate and the respectable. Arden believed in a meritocracy and argued that a colonist should be judged by his merit and worth, and not by birth or breeding alone. For him, blood without merit was as valueless as faith without works. Divisions in society he accepted as natural and inevitable. In the colonies they should be based not on English traditions of birth, but on education. While conceding to the stewards the right to choose their friends first, he felt that they should have allotted the remainder of the tickets to respectable subscribers. Had they done this the ball would most probably have gone off without challenge. How much, one wonders, would have been avoided had the stewards followed his other advice and invited the press: ‘their privilege by the way is free admission—this for the guidance of future stewards’.’® Kerr dealt with the Herald in his jeering manner, continued to insult the stewards collectively and insisted that the ball was public and that

the stewards had no right to refuse tickets to respectable applicants. His appeal to the stewards to show magnanimity of spirit and to unite with the organizers of the public ball in a celebration of colonial harmony reads a little strangely. Kerr himself was one of the most disharmonious forces in Melbourne and during his editorship attacked most groups in the community who were not hard-working, respectable and Scottish. It was not surprising that he fell out with his proprietor, J. P. Fawkner, in the end.”° What of the rejected applicants? Few were inclined to advertise their unsuitability. Kerr quotes the case of a settler who had been accepted, while ‘the ban of exclusion’ was pronounced upon his wife, a respectable woman who suffered from a ‘supposed defect of rank’. Captain Alexander McCrae and Edward Cotton suffered at the hands of soaety because they had married beneath them or had married unsuitable women.?? One colonist did feel strongly enough to make his rejection public. George Sullivan, a retired naval officer, published the correspondence

between Meek and himself in the Patriot. His case had already been taken up by Arden, who had not used his full name but had given a 132

Blood, Merit . . . or Moneys long account of Mr S.’s rejection. Though he had a commission in the

navy and was a man of good character and conduct, S. had been refused a ticket on the grounds that he did not hold a suitable position in society —in other words he was not a gentleman. Arden upheld his

claim to be an officer and a gentleman, even bringing forward the information that S. had married the daughter of a respectable merchant

‘whose wealth and character gave him the entre to the table of a Governor in another colony’. The Patriot cast aside the delicacy of the Gazette and, presumably with the intention of embarrassing the stewards and Meek, retailed every step in the rejection of Sullivan, rehearsing his claim to the rank of gentleman, his claim, moreover, to precedence over most of the men who had been invited; his attempt to

force each of the stewards to sign a letter of refusal; and his final provocation—an insulting letter to Meek, written to goad the unfortunate secretary into issuing a challenge. Why, one wonders, did Sulli-

van persist in trying to prove his rank to men who plainly did not want to have anything to do with him. Did he not realize that the very means he used to establish his claim to gentility would only further estrange society?

In the end the subscription ball was postponed. The resourceful Kerr had bribed the gentlemen’s orchestra, the only one in Melbourne. The stewards announced that their ball would be held ten days later. It was the musicians who lost; their treachery was unprofitable and they had still not been paid in October by Kerr’s committee.?*

With glee, Kerr reported consternation in the ranks of the private subscribers and claimed that three-quarters of them had withdrawn their support and were either staying away or taking tickets for the public ball. Kerr was so unscrupulous that much of this may be wishful thinking. Furthermore, scandal had entered the arrangements for the private ball. An unnamed steward was rumoured to be having an affair with a married woman responsible for the management of the event, and his fellow stewards, Kerr claimed, were worried that some of the chief ladies of Melbourne would stay away; they had fallen out

with each other and Simpson, the most respected steward, had resigned. In an effort to restore peace the remainder had sent out invitations to some of the rejected. Or so Kerr alleged, despite contradictions from the Herald.**

The most sophisticated and telling contribution to the debate was made by ‘Peripateticus’ in a letter to the Patriot. The writer was obviously a man of sense and education, able to regard local sodety with 133

Port Phillip Gentlemen dispassion. He was one of the few to recognize the role that La Trobe, as leader of society, ought to have played, had he the temperament and the salary, and he regretted that Mr. La Trobe whose means of knowledge must be more ample than those of any other man, and whose judgement of character may be considered as generally correct, does not by public days, or some other means, draw those distinctions which society requires, and promote the

intercourse of worthy persons. It is in HIS power to do it without invidiousness, and in some sense it is his duty also.”

‘Peripateticus’ favoured a society to which admission was based on merit. Like all the opponents of the exclusive party he was no democrat. The colonists were too much of a mixed bag to allow a general social intercourse. It is impossible indeed that society should long exist, without distinctions; a line must be drawn somewhere; where choice is afforded, men will be

guided by some rule in their selection. In the colonies more especially, circumspection is needful, from the obscurity which surrounds private individuals, not to mention that many came abroad expressly for the purpose of taking up new characters, also alike to their birth and former habits. In this point of view, colonial life is a grand masquerade, in which some assume stations to which they have no pretensions, while others sink to those which they are justly entitled. In such a medley who is to judge?

The answer was La Trobe. It is difficult to escape the suspicion that much of the social wrangling of the 1840s could have been avoided had La Trobe been able and willing to lead society. In his absence the vacuum was filled by the clubmen, whose role and ambitions, not to speak of the manner in which they exercised their assumed power, ‘Peripateticus’ rejected, reserving for special contempt their assumption that ‘gold is the correlative of gentility’. While he believed in the ideal of a society based on merit, ‘real or presumable’, ‘Peripateticus’ maintained that mere wealth opened the door to good society in Australasia. It has too long been the reproach of the colonies that all other avenues to distinction being closed, opulence is the sole characteristic of merit; but

never has this sentiment been so boldly put forth as on the present occasion, or avowedly sanctioned by men of acknowledged respectabil-

ity. In proportion to the weight of their names will be the mischief produced by so unworthy a sentiment. Men readily enough accord to wealth the regard due to its possessors, nor need they in general any fresh encouragement to this purpose. To accquire a fortune by honest means pre-supposes the possession of active mental qualifications, and to spend 134

Blood, Merit . . . or Money? it as a gentleman presumes the existence of a liberal and enlightened mind. Properly speaking these are the only grounds which entitle opulence to respect.”®

The settlement’s ‘aristocracy’ was nothing but a plutocracy. This opinion was echoed by another outsider, James Clutterbuck, who coined an epigram for Melbourne: ‘Nothing for nothing is the motto’. Among a certain section of the settlement a spirit of ostentation and grubby moneymindedness prevailed. Without money, men of worth could get nowhere. As in every country there is an aristocracy and a democracy, so in Port Phillip, and here as in other places wealth and its acquisition is regarded as the chief passport to worldly distinction unless tainted with convictism. Men of talent or of birth, education and moral worth who are entitled

to associate with the highest circles are here nonentities unless accompanied with a well filled purse.?’

McCombie held the same opinion. In plain language, there exists in the Colonies but one aristocracy, and that is of wealth: rank and talent are nothing in the scales. The Colonies worship no god but Plutus: rank is not of much account; talent is re-

Spe als. abstractedly, but it commands almost no respect for individuWhile colonists debated, the Birthday Ball affair reached its climax.

If the exclusives had been discomforted and forced to retire, it was

soon the turn of the popular, respectable party to collapse in its moment of victory. In turn three of the stewards of the public ball withdrew; George Urquhart protesting that his name had been used without permission; George Langhorne stating that he had already refused to act; and J. M. Conolly, disassociating himself from the personal attacks upon the stewards of the private ball. Kerr, impenitent, attacked them as they sidled away and claimed that the club had

seduced Urquhart and Langhorne. Abraham, Kerr and Sullivan remained as stewards.?®

The public ball was not a success. Nature seemed to side with the exclusives; it rained so hard that the roads became impassable and many guests stayed away. Among those absent was the Superinten-

dent, who was on one of his visitations of the bush. Was it, one wonders, entirely a coincidence?*° The private ball was again postponed in the face of objections from the Presbyterians and was not held until 8 June. La Trobe was the chief

guest and led the dancing. Promising battle to the death against the 135

Port Phillip Gentlemen doctrine of exclusion, Kerr printed a sour report of the ball, dismissed it as dreary and informed his readers that there was a dearth of respectable women because of the scandal attached to one of the hostesses.

Three wild young men, with that predilection for breaking glass which marked the English gentleman, smashed the window of the Patriot office after the ball was over. This fed the vendetta Fawkner waged against the Melbourne Club, as he blamed its members for the destruction. Each side launched rumours and scandals to discredit the opposition. One nice point to emerge was that a known criminal was detected as an insouciant guest at the private ball, much one suspects to the chagrin of the stewards. It made their rules of entry look foolish, when the respectable but common were excluded, while the criminal slipped in.*! The visit of Sir George Gipps in October 1841 was a pendant to the Birthday Ball affair. It re-opened old scars, again provoked examination of the future of society and briefly united the press in defence of its

privileges. Gipps had never visited Port Phillip and, whatever the inhabitants might have thought, was deeply interested in the prosper-

ity of the new District. The inner circle set about planning a welcome—there was little La Trobe could do on his income, and there

was not even room enough for Gipps to stay with him. The gentlemen colonists elected a committee, arranged for an address to be

drawn up and planned a dinner. The members were: J. D. Lyon Campbell, William Verner, Arthur Kemmis, J. C. Riddell, John Hunter and Captain Ward Cole.*” Despite the buffetings received during the Birthday Ball affair, the old guard was still in control. The Patriot reacted predictably, printing a letter from ‘A Subscriber’ which asked if the committee intended to become a social tribunal of eligibility. Kerr cast down the gauntlet and declared that respectability of character not ‘fanciful’ distinctions of

birth and wealth must be the only test of admissability for ticket holders. The town threw itself into the celebrations with energy and drank much champagne; the inner circle gave the Governor a ball and the gentle and the respectable attended a levée.**

Whether through caution or revenge, the stewards for the dinner decided to ban the press while sending an account to the Sydney papers (according to the Patriot). For once the press was united 1in its opposition to the inner circle. Kerr attacked the elite with venom and

gusto, excepting from censure the four stewards reported to have sided with the press: 136

Blood, Merit . . . or Money? There exists in Melbourne a set of men who have sprung from dirt to opulence, and whose insolent and overbearing demeanour shows they have brought with them the stain of the soil from which they sprang.**

Arden made much the same comments in a less offensive tone: ‘It

would afford considerable amusement were we to investigate the characters of their parties, and sift their pretensions to talent or respect’ .3°

Even Cavenagh rebuked the stewards for their ‘negative proceedings’. The three papers joined together to produce a special issue, The Melbourne Extraordinary, which recited the case for the press and again rebuked the guilty among the stewards.*°®

In the following year (1842) the voice of respectability was once more heard. A letter, written by N.O.D., appeared in the Gazette, urging fellow colonists to watch their rights and interests, since there were two parties brawling in Melbourne, one claiming to represent the democratic interest (led by Kerr), the other labelled by its opponents as the aristocratic (led by Arden and Stephen). However such is not the case—there is no such party. England’s boasted aristocracy exists not here; but there is an aristocracy amongst you—the aristocracy of property, attained by honorable exertions; the aristocracy of wealth gained by an undeviating course of industry. Such an aristocracy, the strongest bulwark of your rights, exists here. Let your choice be from amongst them.°%’.

This could easily be the platform of the party of merit, with its emphasis on property, hard work, single-mindedness, and the underlying hostility to unearned privilege. Although prominent in business, the professions and pastoral pursuits, the men of respectability and substance did not often emerge into the social arena, preferring to follow their own interests. However in the last days of the boom a group of them decided to found their own club. The life of the Port Phillip Club was short, its history obscure and

little information about it has survived. Those known to have belonged to it were gentlemen of repute and substance: professional men, merchants and squatters. The new club seems to have had the character of a second eleven. To discuss all those connected with the club would be otiose but three leading members should be noted. The man whose name headed the provisional committee was the Presbyterian minister, the Rev. James Clow, and he, sober, respectable, Scottish, a man of substance with mercantile and squatting interests, may be said to have set the tone of the committee and of the club. The first 137

Port Phillip Gentlemen president, Thomas Wills, was a Heidelberg landowner, a man prominent in public life, thought not in society, with the unusual distinction of having had an emancipist father. In the 1845 elections he came forward as the opponent of the Melbourne Club and the squatters.

The first treasurer was a fellow magistrate, J. B. Were, a leading merchant, adviser to the Resident Judge in commercial cases, and one of the few men in commercial life to survive the 1842 depression.?® It is a comment on the Englishman’s attachment to clubs that in a

town as small as Melbourne one club was not considered enough. Why the second? Fawkner, when discussing the foundation of a new club as early as December 1839 (only a year after the formation of the Club), claimed that a second club was to be established because the

first one was not large enough. Professor Scott has suggested that blackballed candidates from the Melbourne Club started the Port Phil-

lip, following Fawkner, who thought that those rejected from the older club hoped to be eligible for the proposed club. Garryowen, who arrived in Melbourne in 1841, was more explicit and wrote forty years later that: The comparatively few people in Melbourne whose position rendered them in any way ‘clubable’ were somewhat difficult to please, and one ‘House of Call’ of this kind was found to be insufficient to provide for the

requirements of, or rather to fall in with the whims of the would be fashionables and swells of the period.®®

The first mention of the Port Phillip was not until August 1840, when the Herald reported the formation of a residential club, giving as

the reason for its foundation the want of decent accommodation in Melbourne. Sixty gentlemen had expressed an interest in joining. The Herald carried a lengthy report of a second meeting, giving a list of some of those present and adding the comment that there ‘were many unknown to us’, which reads strangely in a small town and may carry the insinuation that the unnamed men were not gentlemen or, at the very least, were not in society. Among various resolutions passed the ruling on membership reveals something of the origins of the club and

its aspirations. No man could become an original member if he was already a member of the Melbourne Club, or had been pilled by the older club. This would serve two purposes: to prevent the Melbourne Club from swamping the Port Phillip, and to establish a rival exclusiveness, so avoiding the fate of becoming a salon de refuses. The original members were defined as those who enrolled their names with the

secretary during the lifetime of the provisional committee, the list 138

Blood, Merit . . . or Money? staying open for a month. Such men did not need a proposer or seconder. After the list closed, new members were to be elected by a committee of thirteen, seven blackballs being needed to reject a candidate. It would seem that the new club was reacting against the tyranny of the blackball and was determined to minimize its use.*° The Herald was at pains to dismiss any imputation of rivalry between the two clubs, remarked upon the good feeling which existed

between the Melbourne and the Port Phillip, and regretted the inadequacy of accommodation both in the old club and at the inns of Melbourne. Generally the papers were kind to the Port Phillip and it did not attract the criticism which marked the early years of the Melbourne Club. One presumes that its policy on the blackball saved it from public hostility. It eventually took the lease of Yarra House in Flinders Street, one of the most substantial buildings in Melbourne.

The Gazette published an account of the new clubhouse in terms which were as florid as the decorations and appointments described. Arden commended the membership for its respectability and foresaw a future of promise. It is hard to resist the suspicion that his praise owed as much to his dislike of the Melbourne Club as to any intrinsic virtues possessed by the new club.*! The Port Phillip, with a membership of a hundred, seemed assured in its position. It had a delicate sense of reputation, and as the depression began to set in, it expelled two members, J. M. Darlot and D. C. Simson, both prominent squatters, after a court case revealed that they had not acted as gentlemen. Their expulsion received publicity in the Herald, which had been part owned by the man they were supposed to have defrauded, William Dutton.*? The short life of the Port Phillip Club was coming to an end. Along with other institutions and many colonists, it could not endure the depression, and in March 1843 its winding up was announced. The Herald regretted its failure and believed it would be particularly missed by country members. One of these was the squatter, Niel Black, and it is worth noting that the club was not merely the headquarters of the respectable and substantial from town and country; it was a half-way

house for those who were ascending District society. With other members, Black eventually joined the older club, at which stage his and their social metamorphosis can be said to have become as complete as was possible. In 1843 the Port Phillip Club suggested amalgamation with the Melbourne but the suggestion was rejected and the committee was told that members would be individually considered in 139

Port Phillip Gentlemen the usual way. According to Scott there was no appreciable increase in

the size of the older club. Men seem to have preferred to wait their moment to join the Melbourne. In his obituary written many years later Garryowen gave the Port Phillip a dull character; if true, it may have derived from its excessive respectability and sobnety. Though this institution enjoyed but a short life, it was not a very merry one. The members were too sedate and slow for the convivial clubism of the time, and they wanted the spice of the daredevil ‘go’ of the young bloods who favoured the other establishment. It vegetated quietly for a

couple of years, and placidly withdrew from the world of pleasure, leaving behind only as much of a memory as may attach to the well known Port Phillip Hotel which now flourishes in its place.

After its collapse, the outer circle of society made no effort to found another club until the 1850s. The debate between the two parties, the gentle and the respectable, masks further divisions in the settlement. In fact it could be said that Melbourne, founded without official sanction, was born divided —the

honour of paternity claimed by both Batman and Fawkner. This is surely the first indication of the long feud between conservatives and radicals, between gentility and respectability. Paradoxically, Batman,

the son of a convict, was not a gentleman by birth or upbringing, although many of his associates were gentlemen and good society recognized him as the founder of Melbourne. Fawkner, also the son of a convict, in his early life had little in common with the respectable citizens of Melbourne who later supported his claims. His radical opinions, intemperate tongue and quarrelsome nature did not make him an easy ally. He was always a goad on the flank, rather than a leader in the van. Batman’s early death (in 1839) left the field free for Fawkner to claim the founder’s privilege, which he proceeded to do over the next thirty years, building up a school of supporters among visiting writers whom he would take aside and impart the true facts of the founding of

Melbourne. Accordingly, liberal writers and historians repeated Fawkner’s version while conservatives tended to support Batman’s claim. It was the first ideological division in the historiography of Victoria and, characteristically, very provincial in nature.*° The original rivalry between Batman and Fawkner and their parties was overshadowed by a larger rivalry, between colonists from Van Diemen’s Land and New South Wales, the overstraiters and the overlanders. Hepburn, one of the first overlanders to reach Melbourne, recalled 140

Blood, Merit . . . or Money? that he, Hawdon and Gardiner were greeted with surprise and jealousy

by those already established in the settlement. A later overlander, Edward Bell, repeated the accusation of jealousy. It should of course be remembered that all new arrivals in country districts were viewed by those already established with suspicion, in case they should poach

on land taken up by first-comers. The overlander Charles Bonney later recalled that Port Phillip had been a general topic of discussion in New South Wales ‘in consequence of some Tasmanian settlers having

taken stock over there and claimed a right to the land as first occupiers’ .*®

The lengthiest and most explicit accusation of jealousy and resentment appeared in the unpublished memoirs of Thomas Strode, a Sydneyman who was the co-proprietor of the Gazette. Even as late as 1868

his dislike of J. P. Fawkner was intense and he accused the Van Diemonian of attempting to destroy the Gazette. Fawkner had printed the first unofficial newspaper and was soon to set up an official news-

paper, the Patriot. He not only tried to bribe and corrupt Strode’s workmen, he threatened a Mr B. (obviously Strode himself) and sought to inflame the Van Diemonians against the Sydney men. Undoubtedly there was bad feeling between all three newspapers and equally there was ample evidence of Fawkner’s sour and embittered nature; it is hard to know how far he did lead an island party, though Strode claims that he regarded the Sydney men as interlopers whom he treated with ‘inveterate hatred’. The rivalry spilled over into the Mechanics Institute, where Fawkner tried to have the Sydney men expelled. There is no doubt of Strode’s loathing of Fawkner, whom he rarely mentions by name, and one suspects that the chief reason his memoirs remained unpublished was the fear of a libel action—his account of Fawkner in his hotel manages to combine a moral tone of disapprobation with a description which is almost salacious.*7 Strode’s evidence is valuable for its outspokeness, but it could not be termed objective. Nor could the evidence of Niel Black and Foster Fyans. Miss Kiddle used Black’s condemnation of the Van Diemonians to good effect. They were, he considered, arrogant, boastful and accustomed to take by right the first place. It would be natural enough

for the pioneers of the Western District to be conscious of their achievements and it would be appropriate for Black to resent their bearing. He was a proud, touchy man, quick to recognize a slight, intended or imagined. His criticism of the Van Diemonians would have been the stronger had it come from a more urbane colonist. 141

Port Phillip Gentlemen The Vandiemonians (of whom there are a good many here) are great ‘Bouncers’ and can be known anywhere. He enters a room with a swaggering air of great importance; tells a story as if no other had an opportunity of seeing the wonderful things he has seen, therefore has no hesitation or bashfulness about him however unlikely his tale; chips his words and 1s altogether smart; struts about with the air of one accustomed to see every obstacle struck back from his presence; has upon all occasions a great deal to say about himself; his looks and manners plainly evince that the World

is his own and that in it he has no equal, even though he shd be but a paltry shopkeeper’s boy. The Vandiemonians are certainly the most self important, conceited men I ever had the luck to meet with.*®

In his own way Foster Fyans was as difficult a witness as Black. A man of choler, Fyans was Commissioner for the Portland Bay District and so ruled the squatters who were mainly of Vandiemonian origin. His grading of the squatters has already been quoted and his opinions of Vandiemonian squatters were equally terse. He did not consider ‘persons from Van Diemen’s Land fit and proper persons to receive

any compliment from our Government’, and one of the Commissioner’s earlier disputes was with a member of a leading island family, John Henty.**

Thirty years later, the Vandiemonian G. T. Lloyd defended his fellow colonists from the criticisms of Sydney men and officials. Somewhat of a blower, Lloyd claimed that the Sydney government was ‘intensely jealous’ of the intrusion of the enterprising Van Diemonians who, by their own initiative, had taken up the pick of the land in

the Western District. Lloyd suggested that the two governors were jealous of each other and valued the new settlement differently. Sydney regarded Port Phillip as a nuisance and an expense, while the Van

Diemonians, coming from a crowded island, recognized it as ‘the finest and richest colony in the world’.*® The fullest commentary was offered by the historian H. G. Turner, one of the earliest to study dispassionately the social consequences of the first rivalry —between Batman and Fawkner. While earlier writers had been content merely to discuss the rivalry, Turner realized that it had helped to divide Melbourne socially; he did not describe it in so

many words as a feud between the party of the gentlemen and the great outsider, but he left no doubt in the mind of the reader that he was antipathetic to the conduct and the claims of Fawkner. Turner made many valuable points and some contentious observations. He repeated Hepburn and Bell’s statements on jealousy and ‘the feeling of somewhat irritable rivalry’ between the two governors; and made an 142

Blood, Merit . . . or Moneys interesting claim that while Van Diemen’s Land provided the settlers, Sydney supplied the officials.°? Turner’s most valuable observation was a comparison between the

Van Diemonians and the Sydneysiders. His method is one which combines tact with truth. On one page he praises the overlanders, many of whom later filled positions of note in the political and social life of the colony. To list them would take pages, so he gives no names at all. On the following page he deals with the colonists of the Western

District in a critical manner. Citing Manifold, Roadknight, Murray, Austin, Swanston, von Stieglitz and others, he concedes that they are household words in that part of the country, but rebukes them for doing so well out of the colony yet giving it little in return, especially in the way of political leadership. This is a point that emerges often— that the successful men of the Western District were those who stayed at home, avoided the temptations of pleasure and the expense of public office, and laboured single-mindedly for their own profit.>? THE ANTIPATHIES BETWEEN the three nationalities were deeper and

more enduring and their effects can be felt in Victorian society up to

the present day. The divisions were in part cultural, political and religious: the dominant Anglo-Saxons patronizing the Celts; the Protestants of the three nations united in dislike of the Catholic Irish, who were unforgivably feckless, imprudent, extravagant, undependable and rebellious. The antipathies became more delicate when the colonists from the Ascendancy, being more aristocratic than the rest of the settlers, were inclined to nc‘ice the ordinariness of the English colonists. The Scots had the last laugh—while they lacked the imperial role of the English and the aristocratic manners of the Irish Ascen-

dancy, it was they who were the conspicuous successes and who

survived as the gentlemen went under. :

The noisiest antipathies were generated by the Catholic Irish, and the old and new battles of that unhappy country were refought in the Antipodes throughout the 1840s. The Orange and the Green parties had strong support; the Orange was led by the Presbyterian radicals, while the Green, though leaderless, was vocal and notous. Religious and racial enmities were further encouraged by the rivalry between the English Catholic, Edward Curr, who received much support from the Green faction, and his opponents, William Kerr and J. D. Lang, who carried the good fight against the Triple Crowned Whore into the new world.°? 143

Port Phillip Gentlemen The rivalries between the Green and the Orange were gross and obvious and on two occasions, in 1843 and 1846, expressed themselves in riot. The polite antipathies that the three nationalities had for each other were, in gentle and respectable circles, more decorously exhibited. As with all else in polite society, prejudice itself was expressed politely (as in fact it still is). A newspaper debate in 1844 indicates the strength of polite prejudice, exacerbated by the financial collapse of the District and by an hostility to La Trobe, whom many colonists, especially the Scottish radicals, regarded as a tool of the Sydney government. ‘Fair Play’ maintained that the Insh were given all the official positions while the English and Scottish were excluded. For two years the Irish had held monopoly of appointments, to the extent that no office was held by a Scot nor had any vacancy during that period been filled by an Englishman. ‘Fair Play’ did not hold the Sydney government responsible but blamed La Trobe (who did not of course have

power of appointment) without directly naming him. Worse, the critic feared that the Irish education system was about to be adopted

and that the purity of the English language and its pronunciation would be put at risk unless the teachers were appointed in an impartial way.>4

It is not so important that ‘Fair Play’ was correct in his charges as that he bothered to express resentment at all. He was answered by ‘Socrates’, who denied the truth of the charge and listed some of the officials who were English, but the editor added a note which refuted the argument of the letter: ‘nobody’, Kerr claimed, ‘will accuse His Honour of having displayed any partiality for the Scotch’. For the Patriot, the Scottish newspaper, this was a tame reply.®® More in character was the letter from ‘Anti- Humbug’ which struck at a number of targets. The reason that La Trobe gave no favours to the Scots was obvious—they were his most vocal critics, and none more so than Kerr, the editor of the Patriot. Although critical of La Trobe, they happened ‘to constitute the largest portion of the respect-

able inhabitants of this colony, and the Superintendent appears to entertain an instinctive aversion to worth, talent and respectability’. The argument in favour of merit and respectability (in opposition to the standards of gentility and privilege) was one much favoured by the Scottish radicals. In fact no one could have been more wedded to the standards of respectability than La Trobe. ‘Anti-Humbug’ pointed out that in the municipal elections (where the Crown lacked influence) the Scots took their rightful place in public life. All four aldermen were 144

Se Le yy BEY LLte Ye Les es a ts KE ey Le OO ae, a ERM EY Ly Ch PED ATi KEES BeSt Liste: SY, LL9ee. ei. . Me yyges Z Yong EEL Le HEGTES EE DOE LEI IEL epee ee QELS ESSE!

REEFS oe ee OEE Ltr,

g MED Aes SSEee Teo ETE: ROG t eT E agg LeLee LERGO a ee CoieLe. mn

Le PO EON SEES BES Ge Lio YessRO pleOREO nipigir TEE SesPEL Bespin Lie.LT eCCa its tee PEGE is ge sti LE EE Ey typ Lil

,

GEE Lee ee Le age a ESS apa ee KEELE Sg es a ENO cD so EES GE

Es OST LE SSE ob ese: Sa eg. Goo es Pe ermae yy a e ea ie Bas OES CSE Eeee EEES Ro. EOC amen SR ee eroyey Sen BEG eR ey Le ys Log ae sees as ey eS jy, ee LE EBB Leg a See seers: ease Be

esLeLiLT yy yeageSeerss—SsS ee ee Ly ey EE CC ee gy ey. EEL esOT ee seer nee Soh ea RBM BE “Site LE, Ys Eee isLee Rgaehr Soheis HancnBhi, EG LEG EEE EL Ce Lr Mi ES Gy Ly Eee Es Leie ae PRE See pF enna Baro Yor LE5 Hi Bee Si eeae eeEEnse OE

YY (—rrrr——CiCiCiCSN 2gee hree —— SAS a©. AR aeeeMe Pe: Be wear we -— i.“Shs a,eee mea: 2ee i [. a. rr”r~—~—r——C LYE, iy ee ees aps . .. Se ee ae Ber DD [Ea cca gg [SD a Eee rr SSS 1 a 7), EE eae 0 fe Zoek es ee OSES eeoo LEI I aLee, Se, HEEPES. Fo Une ete ome ReeeEe

ee -.rr———C OO EE ee ees pe eeNG eeeBee: | eePREE” ge ee eS* ISSR cia i. ae BSS BBE” es Dee ee i |eteei Be aOT eeasfe.Bai, LE BEI See: ee EEE ects eeeeieay aey mma: 2 fe 2 BE Loe bes yyy ee aBezg Ee yy eee eyBeppe i aos EESS ee Se Leges ere eee eee LL ahm epee tig EEE See aTae OTEae SisLe i Lae Pe ieee pee ee peor Serene Ras ince arent ania Reni eaeati SES, eee Se, lg «Pa Co

See aeiinFE ONS ag EEERE Serene a os ee ee RS5aaes ae Ree ed Beccere eTeee SEERee iapunumaeeenehe cc agepa RR ES aaSess Lg 2SSIS Fe egw ENE LT oes. Le age EERE, eae= Bf am SS eaieal Si Bee oes msotg Bees Pe ae Ree ae By ERIK: Sega et Seopa SSZ ea asFP, a “aioe EO ESE paisapos pe eae pe Te ea Be SoeZ ae LEP Sir we:ie

ee Ly ee20LL 2 ee ae LE Oz , ay Ceaegg ag Se ae eg | i é#§ i 4eee uss, tis > .l ; ES OE OE CC eae aaage AE ee LS EE a ee Le Be ih Se eeSe ee aeos "ieee eee“oe a eeCorsi ee mer Le Barat aonearetontes Mo eg ie ee ye Se aaraiae eemamarnnaet Samanta SEES. LS. ARR S RR ee SS aie toes eee BEES os Le pact

3 ee TM ee ee eeeemery 2 Ee ES ae ey ye ii _ee7 Le BER eSSA BE eee eee eS ee ee eee Bs. “Speen a. ae i oe USERS Eee SS, SERRE Be a. igs Se os eA

ge ope Se ee pei tiemneinae preeons Eee Bis siennaSe Sa ee eee. ig ee Res sia Ligte EEE PR aeBsoe ie7Seam SEBhase Stren SEE TREES ae. Eee LES eS Rese GEESE SAREE Ee SSS 7 Sa isED aac oe: Se SE Lereeg eeesLe Re, Ee a ee ea EES LSE a Ree... SS by... Sp EEE EE SSEON Sncone a aa Rn aR iia aan stawrnostauien sien Sips: negate aRRR SS Ysatt RRC ee Snag LEE hg Gea a Gc fi ES Snot enh nna nee enn BO oro SE a RE Bee 7 Tae LEE Le. gee ag eee eas eR oe Be SST ee aoe LEE UO EEE:

ee eees oe se Eee UE es Ee se Reena concen aan, Le LyeLE BEBE ss SIE ge gs Pre NE eneo|eReeilies eee aaa EEearner gc es ae Eee eee SERS LIENSRE RA LRA eR a RE ROR ' SEOeens, GREBee IESene ornate easeeESA Sn SUE aphe: ee CEES SO ae Fey Bo uc RE laa seaeaccrt i . SRS Be Lee ‘ eae EE e VV ee ee EG TEBE Se Eee emp es ay LD Eg cia. Beeepepe: hieeeh Seegn SSE i aetip Ui a Reeieato te Bege sone cio nese POSASS Doge Lee genieTey Yagee

BerWee.SoEREa Sanaa, OS:Seer Sea 2See, NiEEesSomEE i tee EY Ss eeenee Se SONIDenes Sa Regi paiEOE SUSE CSTE - eeeRI poe pi atta SS cst Rrpnoonen Ras ee 3geES %gic. ce eae igs fo ecaaaa gy aS LEER TROY Ea aeen gcSNES a iesane eSESSE RTE age Bo enES OErcemiont eee! ye BS ieccSpeco es Pe nn ot SESoe teeas IISA aceeats csESSAU

Se ge: ee ae 7eee 2iessyg fon Beee ee aye i ee eS, maa bi Be sig EO as aBe ieBe Tas) 2ag ae 2 :eenae ee ae ile SSE Tam Ci ee OS ae. Be eae ES, a aaa raeoae FSane ee tan ee BO ts BLES Sept a EES. SeSe Clay Me tage Er SeBgeeesmenedes aBe Beeb reece SRS

eg ae. 6%, ee «Be a i Cg : . ees peu. a aeer Seae. a as a-EON Lie Liga MLDS ne eeeaaea ee SS Res SEE: ..BeBe. 7 aiaSai etLR eons: GeaeEES. apian Siena ER rane Ee eeeER Wie or aeSMME Fey ERE OE ee ss, egies EO PE LE -iaeicaee bvceecenitnony: ZY ee Bapepa i ei ay Oat aeBee Sag Eeee eg cee Epona ee. LeesaS mls aoaaiSORES BeRe eeSTR SERA aS eS bixeG Ra MS ee ay me” ET eee ee Se Es Ee oR Ieeae Ti ERE ae aegtBeg il. Btne gpg LEfeeae ly 7 ee Sy a le7aa seeos, ae eis Boe LeBeie aes

ges tygl27 mae ee BROCE a ee Bigs ye ae Se eePeWa, eeBe Lee “ee eaeis ane: Reee iy Pe: Be Capea? “eei ee ee, ate oa TE LEED geae| aee. ey

Be genes ae RR HWE OR DS ata eB. Be ee DG EOE ype es OF ee Lo Sgt tee

eges ue Sn UEOE CaLee: v0Sam. A227 Bi(aieeTR pe LR oe aU9 s : hg : Bes SR ae oe oe OE ae iaae cr, i ge ioe ee afeeeESOS, BeEERE SE ee oei yt:ee icsom Sa;BO ae,els Ss “i:oe Bae Ge os Fi aarRey LE en “Tie REEpil: eS pia8aaSEES eo OE. Fs Tok Sa LOE rr an — : 2 lis Si ee BS OOTee aRe OE : :.5.2ees ae “Bp Li LRG CRE cae cone aes Te ee aBoe SC ORES ny aseee : :aoe ae 2Be Se 7 7Cig; eh, am DOM :Bie ns : TRE fa7 pegs ce iiSee erele rrBe eo: Gee a >ge

Ee ae a: Og : ey aeeee Tie, ae ee agsane _ aoo Gee pases oe 7ie:‘ :. Se a oe oad

— r—S—SCO Sites

EES a —“C—irC—isCN .a SERS pe aes EERE SEE — =petahs SE SESS OES ene See Bie a#ijj| Sree ISTE nt a Se, ZEEE gg On ee oe eee ee SB i Ee oe CoS EE SAS See De aa nae: Tae Lae ESSE SSE SeSe 7Ts aees oy i ee

ERS a ee i, Rego: ae a SE

JES SIS SoS SE ee 2 a PU Se TU i ea Bs pee ese

woth LOSE 2 SeeeRe ee” OO Ce ces eeeaeeee a Beee ears om SEaie ee (Es eagz ee ee "gaCR, i ae Oa is epee, ae esaIS Sear on. erea SOiigt a 77: igs giBop ie Os 5 ee oseee ES 5Beaaa eePOs LG

Peeeeeeeeeame | aeee i ES, BebsEe2 Ree ea, ee Ee Ry Le A Ee:

(IESE eee Sema Pomrcid ee LE Seee eR. sae SC TEENT Dias ere JESSE Sie aac i SR Re ee PS. Pic ome ce, OS heBg ie aoe SOROS

SE SE cepeer ae,fia nnBre po earca eewoh ig REeo RE DBR EME SONS 8 snare eee eeOE car Bec aS is. iaR ies TEES Lrpepe tap ete, een St ieee Ge Pigs Be SR oc ort En oeEES ERs ee SE Er Sa Seinen RRona, SeBR 2.es. % eahe “Onoe nae (EES SELES neaae a oe i a CEES SR TR RR 7pare Same ee Se Le SOOT ESRB eee eecee ee OE [errr igteRaise gn CG ae ea eGEE ),

Se ee reedeea ee a: pene OY LG ee Peer i gh Fg! BU eeei IS ee

FETS SES DS Se 2Re ae (EE, Sy SS REE ESS e. ae 23 . . 5Soe So ST ds, EOE Ie ID eed BoLeREIT foe Sle et: Bee 0 pnts Lge ee ee Be ee ee Satie a SeeOE igi aBn anech Bsemcee. . ¥F ‘ A, BE7 BE aeBee LEN [Ones LR“ETRE er adEES eahey UPR 2pe SeBe LLEEI SS % BBie . See De

ee BEE ee aGeO ee Taping CeSEPe. * ee gSGLE , Ge Ey ieee a fe Ee Sa: iON eee FS ee x BS veeee Lae: Boe Be Sapa Clb So aaa fa tag MELE Las, 2 Eg Le Sao taei Menge Pa eT Po wpe hgrn SE ee SRR a %e Uae % Beae ae eeaSee EE aLO he Pon, Sig apsigiactin Ethan =BeRS. ABe ee Lip. ise

ge gs og a aE a ee Bo a ae ee Le eas

ee Ee eg “eee : See ESia ieee %ee ; oe geSIL Z Le esa Seana apps eooe Fie Pye eee E. Pgs ©She. BU LE er aECE ie ee gee EG gg ae ee aEBS Bt BPE EE ee ES ee ge — Be, Seas a ae eee ia BO Fe eee LE LEE LOE STEGER

oe eeeeeoSDEERE Bice.egcome Fe mo eeeeeLEE 3(En SRShebegat SERS #B 4 i Be LF SEE oe OE oe WE Bi, A a ae Pe iSa RIEL Be WE TREES OI BAIR I Seer oh OER. no EETofe* iEEL Ee Ee . CSS SaRS ayIei SIO Le Eee DAES Lo OO OE AU ORS RNS 1Sat CSERERER Se SE (SPPEEE CRSSous eae Sa Me a,

yy fi5 es Gzee fee ihe ces Cees SE RSS Mie RRR LeSoe Lie ee EEE aeLEE DeeSaeed SCE oth SO ssaSige aS Mg x >Bee Sener a LUE ae Led See Be eae aRL 8 Sot ue Se Sn Hy oesWe TS ee:SS La eezsSoe eeeoe Pig See GO Se Lae ee esereeZo Lo GeWORE aa ESSeCRE a IS NES: CEng, ene. ieg GOS ee Slee ae,Soba a Seen SEER SS SEN eS Fr Ber be Sep Uist ante: 4 ee ts SEE ipRnFE: Sea chap RLAA JOB Syste iain Sars eeccareerg aoe USE EESineSSeS ER eg ei re

a ee REL, OBER ere: a SESE PRES Weise ES BeOe ee oe rea pre eg es ete O Vr 1€ Be BsBE Gigs Lip See eeae fogs ee ht, Be eS Seeg CRE aptSg Ben Lg ERE ie ep gs es See, Oe ese RE Le Fate Ra a LA Le BB SSR SeeLEE nae aoe ceeTa at eed EITEEE ESS Petes IS cS SSC Sg a ema. es rata itees aoe CR Ee SeLite ee Cie... Bete TE SS ae ae (eh gle Bar

§E 2LO RE PS ee eee es Br 2—_ lle Fe geesae egce La ae iPOR are eeSEO ee Be Ba EERE ze eh, eer feo ey ee Sa ee Ge aeaUS SOE SSLOE aeeaeat neBe eee Beea ee MEEERSTE Se See iEe aees. SES ee NE UES EE Se ‘cera: oe IEEE sa ipsa. goo ee RS a . fF Ee iEEage is.| eeisi: PS *Big __eeaSHES SBS eg GEE, a ee SEES ee ies 3Lee LE g Begie esLee TITERS nee .aie Berg ES Eeee os CE ey rr ee aeae LL ee Bagh Re ge Ra ; reer Eg ea Le I ee Lp Bata ac ee mR, . See Ie ce ies CELE 2eaeene TRIES IE SI, ae Se eeeeeea

BO te TE, es ED oe: rr. 3 Bo Shy a Se RRR Sie a mee Sa ge eine poracer armenian SESE

ee Lee Boo ues oe ee ee Bs Be SeREL a Se TE eas aTeas ces "gio: heen es, CS ee See aELE Hees. ee ae ee i ee. EEE —— *eS Lae cae ee EES: GR. SE a EE hee eee pe ey ee eee: sce ee eg , yes ee eS 55 SS OE Bc i es eeSe eeIE GS eeEee es ECR ET LS _ SEES 2 re ess Sea aan i ee ea a a ae SET ; a SES Bee ee ee ee ee 3 . EEE ee es ee - Lee {eeegEE. REE PeesSere nena Easranid . ighLee ESS SRE aaa ee ee ee 3 ESE SEES Ee

Ber SP OE Be rath ae gee ae ac. So rs nei: Sete Dementia SSS Se a a oe a i a E Poti teteesetege SS area a ae

& ae je hrs ae 2, Satine SEER [Se a Be ae eee eee Be CRESS Shania gene es Kies SIR. - RI Gee Beapieasr acess seine st SEES GEEerties IEE LEGER z Sage. DEES ees phiiencnaeneee Saad

EES al ;oe Pa :te;gE Lg esa nn TE ga gs ; ra ‘ Bun ee CM SRE gg oom 4ae a :oe + . RE we a ee SE2 PeaBee Tee ES Te ale 4 -— Pe a: Ce ao! .)ee :ae:a Oe eee ee Boo ane ne a of ange” gE eee | eraa ee = ae ,a Ree, SHOEpoe aes 2 ae ae ee 5 Eee Ra SeSOS ERM SEE eee BEE ngSeSeoo Se Ne ee CME Soa eeTEE Ste RE Sgee aa Bg EEG os : aeeaOT she a Se aeRL “oy Bees

TIES neoBEESRSS . Ey BSR ES Senses ee ceetisiae ee aEi: SEC : Jog eee aee Si eee Ce ona a 1 lll: aaa ei... Se a Es SEE EET res YRS Eg aeLs a :.: ss PRES Cnn 2 ATE SS Se Lge ORES See Se pe eeRa ake TSg #feria EES aeaae °! :Lg oS:ae 5OSS LGA ReSEES 2 ES aED A are. Sete. Bewean S MM eee EER PR Se ae ee Een ees eee Toe. Lies ° EES FESES LR ESTEE see,SE Seyees EN .Beer Bl Bo EGE Fe RES ES ee eas TE Lg Reece

ea ates aeee oe aeseaee

zee Beene Sal eaBe 2 RESoe NNER EES,_ See -sf ge -i Sp2ge 2. 2 RIC Bein. aca Seer amen SES mP DO Ta ae See ew es

Re SEE oe. ~

seat SES SS SNR She... ee CECE SEN

ERR RANE ERR SEAS iy e SES GELS Se ONG Se

CO SASS NSAWe ee AON Ca SESE aoa ER= Seeceny SCO eoSS. SN CO Saar BE hk ViSnNE oSANE Ses=e WC CS ae RE 4 & : — ~~ Se SARS SS. XS— SS SRR SONS 2S S Been oes 3 Berea ERS SS SSSR x LS Se BEG SS ee SRS A AE XS LN Re Ss a eae ogg ESShe oe . SES SRE SEN ERS Se SS RENN WEE SEN SAN

ERS BEEN Spe EAS oe Bet Se SN RSS RE SERA

SASSSAS SASS BOR SSRs SSSLe SASSOE ST SR RRS SNe es SE SQN aeSE SEES Oo Rae AS S A~~ SS.SS Sigur ars LSPA SSS [2 eSSEEN —4 SERRA SEE SE ea SnESE Sscae ESE oe Se) See BEES OO ANS eS SE 2 ESS —

SENNeS ~~ WAG a ee Se es Sc AE RRS S. se8 ANA |...STEN SAS. a— SO ave— Loe ooSAS Ao SE|.CNS ae aSES ASTN 4= ER Sie _ SIGS —— a Ae Re = CAN SES SSS BESS Gece Roos ER, SE Eng Sees Ae oe Seer SSE RARE SS

NS oe Se ee ee ESS Ses SEE es —

ESE —eee ©.=ON RU SE SNFANS 8 ROSSSE ee Se Se

eg Ee ee Bis Bg Fae son ; “sg a %;>, ae alA a POS4. * A, ors ak sancetntéeanae, Pe Pea4ae % ,fx o£ Es g: | Ni afWig 4 | £oo 7 whe a }nee&a PE: Pe Ge sa§gy,

_: Ji ae ti,of7? eox[> ifBites ae ; ik se % “> esa:. ae :p.-% fhig. eePPa |iPee, ®, Le a2 Se -°% Zotaenes *pS Ys, ‘4: esAy va, ora F »©.eae i.* m gee £7, 5$2.43 .5. a _ee* sain! 2ot wm gees. beat. ey ehae il ee | ae MV i . .% Se pee: 2 £4 ee beg fe . . e + foe as ¥ . a. Pees ye Se ; £é Gi fo aie:oeaie my =££GEE: aosBe Pity )-249 ret Se QEie we ©Fak: .:t#t ADE fo ie EB OF ee. Os2eg Be, Jipa ig ca ot tSS , Gee Koava: beok oyiFoe 7ae \: bm: Soe cout: ayPa AL TS Sag a? xnh!5Ff:i4 BMF afe.geieee eo “PdLe am: Afegi tee nie. Bice 4wey‘aaa Se < pre F Barre. ae 44 ne 45* act 9 F % 374 3% a t od iy ‘ , % co Py SS lee $f;4 oe je . = appa We:fe ae e Se 4 be :io

beeieasWar A ih en KS. , “Se* FO °°eeLEW ae Liggimi OOS: OO” fe Pg a. SRE . riAE 3} fi,tM Ae $4%> ys LES AE, ay a2Fh ip REE OT oe ee ey: Le|* at, ierfye, ‘¥ :ccs-5Ee Pe . ogBe * |teee a:Sees eet ‘ ca fA ee‘ aAn Wy ave eR -_ gabiiacaiecmannr aie es icine MeN feiin PR ie 0 ag tee ieee etsThee “pe omar 6,ee ee ;Pe 3s a¥Se: Ge 3 Oe Sageore ws . 4BsWes BY A5sig a& i gig oe OT tated anes ain 7 4a Se rane Se S$. 0g 4S 2 a OES 1, Serer 3 24 Bees See L acs . sas OER & Se i By ee tee. 2. jig a oe 4 ne. Seg, wees? 5&5 * Gales Sooners eS a Tae Sk ae Soa . - (a iam sa wey e a a * a. ak as ‘ae he “9h ag ts a Ma en Astay JShet ESSo ee Betas ce2°ae wed Foes : hor OT Be2_ ate paneer he PR cs onsrccaenitmattat Se OO a OE: oafey NeSEES ieFe #5,ee eg et. * $e eee oe. atoe Cee oeae apr. Fi : Se . Be PR gan gitiee, gS, pa Fors ou ee esearch itailataa ie, t Mite OB Pes ae ee “uj er. > : ee mannan et ) - 5 ie pi concer Sie Fs pee Ee — f: 4 ie ewe on oe ee tee ae =% oe ag?

= & ee roe ee all 4Boe ne SOR, So ae DayNg... idee ogte. ¥3)Zara rt BATE f SF he ee | iteeeAY fsa’7

: a. yO he SSE byJLAL LF alien “dette, §2 ol Zz Le oa aof Saget tansein Mee’oe tz, ieee ton; Ses agh Es BeEA se$s$:sf ere-. eh BM F i - Ly ; aemy ms sg ga aigae Pmm: ais:aa taobE: oe i Se ¢# eg & 1AA - ere: gs y§a- 2a wen. Fs .Seas a : Papen ee aS R23 “i aSS ey ‘ Mego. on, CO (i-ree 3SSeGe © wt, B: _ ane Te LES aomn a eee 2 wes fava smeretel Westies Oe oy ; hn SS a Yes a a et gg Les °F; ae oe: ‘ Cae on IH Fy OO. A Ry lan % be. ee {LE so 7s Pgstgs fo . “ay I. 7 Fee” gga ond Pn $e ay ae EO eae Ae cc: See emma : iL eae rz

ya ee Ps HE cabeundid resiree sna aS 7-2. § #8 £ ee

_ wom i)|=m | glia oh =eee ia it Craters. agDios OEsre Syme gtd Mg: A onthe, 0io. eA, Ea Ee poomige oP teiure VE| one rk | “eo sae Clgiat et an ee Oe i~~:ee oe 2 ee”. “MS Rnratwecs.. oe 2. + £4 Ps Jaren gamer Tans Me x ere & saage Gee “tess VIL. 1 PF SD hes . mm ifs Ges" i a ame oak 9 “¥ ef ae & a Se ae Bets a i oT es er a. ee ee Salle yoke 2h :ptSRBAR 2 Ye : Ages HOE BBR ES Co me 3 he| he. ieee ee. ae fo ieee, fxr sean Gee ik: ae ne Sal Os SS CS3Rediciag. Coe ale 9: aiets rst BS? Sod. an+3tee, te a esse LE" |3>Po 7 ell as ioe, . ~er, eee GeBing ae‘ Lng — :cES Es gle “ Fp eesWe SOEs ofoFafae BF eee's peme Sh Be2 ;“ad ; oan: *- awhgenittetglepe aeee ooena al PFGe eeenoone ° 166

The End of the Golden Age It did not last—the gold rushes sealed off the pastoral age and the survivors invested the early years with an Arcadian simplicity; they experienced the feelings of a displaced patriciate, with the difference that they had briefly possessed a handful of the distinctions without ever enjoying the substance of an aristocratic position. For some of them the life of exile was beginning. As a descendant wrote: ‘In the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere there was no abiding city’.®° It is a fair question to ask what the gentlemen and their families contributed to Port Phillip. The critics then and later could point to the snobbery, ostentation and sharp practices of some of the gentlemen, and could accuse them of importing certain habits and customs from the old world better left there. They could dismiss the gentlemen as effete, irrelevant or anachronistic. Observers of society, both then and now, while acknowledging the truth of some of these charges, could point to their worthwhile contributions to the new settlement. Without doubt the great achievement of the gentlemen and their families, as a group, was to introduce the civilized standards of British society to Port Phillip—to maintain decent manners and educated tastes during a difficult period, when it was too easy to dismiss such notions and habits as fribble luxuries (not to be compared with the serious business of making a quick fortune and working hard). In the minds of the best of the gentlemen, manners, standards and tastes were not a mere icing on the cake, to be savoured in the future when time permitted. They were part of the cake itself —a reminder of all that was

best in life, a justification for present indignities and privations, and an earnest for the future. If one accepts that gentlemen regarded these things as necessities, then their appearance in a primitive settlement ceases to be merely amusing and becomes natural and inevitable. To outsiders, radicals, respectable colonists and plain folk, such habits and tastes might not be considered necessary. They had different standards and priorities. Many were influenced by a Calvinist or Nonconformist

upbringing, and as Westgarth pointed out, they were utilitarian in outlook. Often such attitudes were one step removed from philistinism. The differences between the two parties were ancient and unbridgeable. The battle has been fought under many standards throughout the centuries, between the aesthete and the ascetic, the Catholic and the Calvinist, the Royalist and the Parliamentarian, the High and the Low Church. While it is useless to convert or persuade opponents, those with a sympathetic or open mind will recognize the work of the gentlemen in upholding civilized standards. As a class, it 167

Port Phillip Gentlemen was their prime achievement, and one which some contemporaries acknowledged.®!

Westgarth, always generous and tolerant, paid tribute to their role in

all his studies of the colony, and not least in his last work, Personal Recollections. The young settlers of good family might have been high-spirited but ‘they infused into the somewhat rough social scene the charm of high culture and manners’. Westgarth cites Stawell, Barry, Foster, Sladen, Rusden, Campbell, Macknight and Irvine, and his opinion is the more valuable coming from a liberal opponent of conservative society and its political beliefs .®?

Another outsider, Alexander Sutherland, made the point more strongly in his obituary of Mrs McCrae in 1890: It was largely due to the influence of such women as Mrs. McCrae that ideas of refinement and principles of taste were kept alive during the ‘dark ages’ of our colonial history.*

As a group the gentlemen contributed in other ways. They helped to settle Port Phillip, to build Melbourne. They poured money into the District; they led the fight for separation from New South Wales; for the first years at least, they dominated public life. With their varied backgrounds and often eccentric behaviour they gave colour and diversity to colonial life, as Westgarth admitted. Examining the gentlemen individually, it is surprising to find the number of men and women who did more than merely enrich them-

selves at the colony’s expense. It would be tedious to supply an exhaustive list, but a few gifted survivors deserve recognition. Whatever his political faults, La Trobe improved the life of Melbourne with

his planning of the Botanic Gardens (and what better symbol of a ‘useless’ necessity of beauty than the Gardens, which remain one of the

few objects of distinction in Melbourne). Redmond Barry, trapped forever in the popular imagination as the judge who dared to condemn a ‘noble outlaw’, became chairman of the trustees of the State Library, first Chancellor of the University, and a man in the forefront of every

cultural movement in the colony. William Stawell served Victoria honourably and fathered a family which distinguished itself in many public fields. The achievements of Georgiana McCrae hardly need to be mentioned again—one can only regret that family influence prevented her from pursuing her artistic career professionally. And as a story-teller and memorialist, Rolf Boldrewood enriched the literary life of the nineteenth century, giving pleasure to a considerable public. While the contribution of the gentlemen colonists was not inconsid168

The End of the Golden Age erable, especially in intangible terms, it has largely been overlooked and the gentlemen have been neglected. As many disappeared, the survivors sheltered in the enclave, increasingly ignored by a colony which had been overwhelmed by the gold rushes and transformed by the decades of boom. The Scottish squatters of the Western District took over the public leadership of society and purposefully established themselves in their bluestone houses on the volcanic plains as a “colonial landed gentry’, while in Melbourne they and the new rich of the city built heavy palaces in the Italian manner. The gentle enclave found itself wedged between the rich of the town and the rich of the country, in a situation which, if somewhat dimly, recalled the predicament of the French Legitimists, overshadowed in the eyes of others by the rich of the Empire and of the Republic. There can be little doubt that the enclave would have sunk into an undeserved obscurity, remembered only by the piety of descendants, had it not been for the novels of Martin Boyd. Now, an age which has begun to doubt the inevitability of progress and to question the absolute rightness of material success can afford to speculate that the gentlemen colonists, even in failure and despite certain absurdities, brought some of the worthier aspects of English culture to Port Phillip; that Georgiana McCrae, Redmond Barry, E. M. Curr, Rolf Boldrewood and others enriched the colony in ways that the Scottish pastoralists, for all their solid qualities and achievements, were incapable of doing; and that if the contribution of these men and women did not have a more lasting effect upon the colony as a whole, the reason 1s largely to be found in the changing ambitions and tastes of the succeeding generations, and not in any fundamental weakness of those civilized standards the gentlemen strove to maintain.

169

APPENDIX1 Gentlemen by Birth Gentlemen colonists from titled, landed or armigerous families

This list, which does not pretend to be exhaustive, also includes those colonists from families which had lost their estates or those from families which had become extinct in the senior or the titled line. Women of gentle birth in their own right are included as are men of gentle descent by the female line. Gentlemen who were military officers stationed in Melbourne are included if they entered into the social life of the settlement. Sons of high officials are also listed.

Wherever possible the fate, success or failure of the colonists is indicated. Exhaustive references have not been provided but are restricted to an important genealogical authority for information about the family, and the more accessible

sources for the personal life. These last are chiefly drawn from B&K, the Kenyon cards and other biographical collections in the La Trobe Library, T&S and ADB. None of them should be accepted as totally accurate. Those colonists

whose claims to gentle blood have not been proven will be found listed in Appendix III. a Beckett, William. Fourth Resident Judge and first Chief Justice. Son of William

a Beckett, solicitor, and grandson of the Rev. Thomas Beckett, later a Beckett-Turner. The Becketts of Littleton and Penleigh, Wiltshire, had entered their arms at the Visitation; because of a missing marriage licence the a Beckett branch were granted differenced arms by the College of Arms in 1888. Sir William a Beckett, member of the Melbourne Club 1852-57, knight bachelor, 1853, returned to England where he died in 1869. His family came back to Australia and later inherited Penleigh when the senior line of the English family died without male issue. (ADB, vol. 1; BCG, vol. 1, p. 145; Mowle) a Beckett, Thomas Turner. Solicitor, politiaan. Brother of Sir William. Arrived 1851, before gold was discovered. Melbourne Club, 1855. His branch remained in Victoria. His eldest son was Sir Thomas a Beckett, Acting Chief Justice. (ADB, vol. 3) Airey, George Sherbrooke. Squatter, Commissioner of Crown Lands. Son of Lieut.-General Sir George Airey and his wife, the Hon. Catherine Talbot, dau. of the Baroness Talbot de Malahide, suo jure. The Airey family was on the ascendant in the nineteenth century and G. S. Airey’s brother was created

a peer. Through his mother Airey was related to the Irish Ascendancy. Airey’s cousins, the Talbots (q.v.), had squatting interest in PP and VDL, and his partner, W. L. Ker, married into the Irish cousinage (see Mrs W.L. Ker). Airey was vice-president of the Melbourne Club in 1843. It is not clear what 171

Port Phillip Gentlemen happened to him after 1850; according to B&K he held Killingworth until 1883. By 1870, a supernumerary member of the club. (B&K; BCG, vol. 2, p. 501, where, however, the PP branch is not mentioned) Airey, John Moore Cole. Squatter and MLC (Sydney). Son of Lieut.-General Sir George Airey. Melbourne Club, 1845. He did not die in 1853 (pace B&cK)

but left the colony later for Portugal, where he received the title, Visconde de Airey, and d.s.p. (BFR; BCG, vol. 2, p. 501; T&S) Aplin, Christopher D’Oyley Hale. Squatter, civil servant. Son of Colonel Aplin and supposed to be a nephew of the Rajah of Sarawak. Almost certainly a descendant of Benjamin Aplin of Bodicote House, M.P., by his wife Susan-

nah, dau. of Christopher D’Oyley of Banbury, sister and co-heiress of Christopher D’Oyley of Hampton Court, Middlesex. He gave up squatting, became a civil servant with the Victorian Geological Survey, went to Queensland, where he was a pastoralist, a surveyor, civil servant and magistrate. Died in Queensland, 23 September 1875. (B&K; BLG, 17th edn, Alexander (formerly Aplin) of Woodlands; OMM, pp. 30, 50-1) Aplin, Henry. Squatter, miner. Son of Colonel Aplin. Called by Rolf Boldrewood Dyson Aplin; in the Edinburgh address there is a Dyson Aplin, presumably it is the same man. He gave up squatting, went to Queensland, where he became a miner. (OMM, p.30, and sources above) Arden, George. Newspaper proprietor, editor, journalist. Son of Samuel Arden, major, EICS, and grandson of the Rev. John Arden of Longcrofts,

Warwickshire, the heir male of the ancient house of Arden, the earliest surviving Saxon family. George Arden was a foundation member of the Melbourne Club 1838 and expelled in 1839; he became bankrupt and died penniless and an alcoholic in 1854. (B. Commoners, vol. 1, p. 636; BLG, 1847-50, vol. 2, p. 21; BCG, vol. 2, p. 533; Shirley, p. 233; ADB, vol. 1) Arden, Samuel. Squatter. ‘Son of Samuel Arden, and formerly a lieutenant in the EICS. He died unm.; nothing is known of his life in the colony. (B&K and sources above) Arden, Alfred. Squatter. Son of Samuel Arden. He married and stayed in the colony, dying in 1892. (BCG, vol. 2, p. 533; B&K & sources above) Hunter-Arundell, Godolphin. Son of W. F. Hunter (later Hunter-Arundell) of Barjarg, by his wife Jane, dau. and eventually co-heiress of Francis St

Aubyn, by his wife Jane, co-heiress of the Arundells of Tolverne and Truthall. One of the three Hunter branches (q.v.) to settle in PP. They are not recorded in the confused pedigree in Henderson (1941). Godolphin Hunter, blackballed from the Melbourne Club, returned home and died young and unm. in 1847. (BLG, 11th edn; Hunter Papers: J. A. C. Hunter to Evan Hunter, 7 May 1842) Arundell, William Francis. Squatter. Son of W. F. Hunter of Barjarg. He returned to Scotland and inherited Barjarg, dying unm. (B&K & sources cited above) Baker, Charles James. Barrister. Son of Sir Frederick Baker, Chief Magistrate of Bow Street. Admitted to the Port Phillip Bar, but did not practice. His wife died and he returned home, where he wrote a useful work on Melbourne. (Mrs McCrae, p. 65; Graham Papers: Outward letters, 1842; PPH, 15 April 1842) 172

Appendix 1 Baillie, James Dennistoun. Squatter. Son of Sir William Baillie, 1st Bart of Polkemmet. Baillie went bankrupt, eventually returned to Scotland, where he died unmarried. (B. Peerage; BCG, vol. 1, p. 152) Baillie, Thomas. Squatter. Son of Sir William Baillie, 1st Bart. He stayed in Victoria; his son inherited the baronetcy in 1890. Melbourne Club, 1847. (B. Peerage; BCG, vol. 1, p. 152) Balbirnie, Robert Anstruther. Landowner. Son of George Balbirnie, representative of the Balbirnies of Fife (estates forfeited after 1715), and his wife Margaret, dau. of John Vance of Coagh, and sister and co-heiress of George Washington Vance. Assumed name and arms of Balbirnie-Vance, 14 De-

cember 1854. He went home a rich man, returned on a visit and died in Victoria in 1855 (BGA, s.v., Vance; J. B. Cooper, History of Prahran, Melbourne, 1924, pp. 35-7; Kenyon; B&K)

Barnewall, John Aylmer. Squatter. Son of Bartholomew Barnewall and grandnephew of Sir Robert Barnewall, 8th Bart. He stayed in Victoria and his son inherited the baronetcy in 1909. (B. Peerage; B&K)

Barry, Redmond. Barrister. Later judge of the Supreme Court and public figure. Son of Henry Barry of Ballyclough, the M‘Adam Barry. Barry, who never marnied, stayed in the colony to become one of the most distinguished of the survivors of the pastoral period. He was knighted in 1860 (KB) and 1877 (KCMG). He left illegitimate issue. Melbourne Club, 1840. (ADB, vol. 3; BLG, 1847, pp. 59-60) Lynch-Blosse, Edward. Army officer. 3rd son of Sir Robert Lynch-Blosse, 8th Bart. He was stationed in Melbourne with his regiment and took part in the social life of the township. (B. Peerage; Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 693; PPG, 6 May 1846) Bolden, Reverend John Satterthwaite. C. of E. clergyman, landowner. 2nd son of John Bolden of Hyning and his wife Mary, dau. of John Satterthwaite of Rigmaden Hall. J. S. Bolden, who did not pursue clerical duties in PP, was president of the Melbourne Club in 1847. He went home in the mid1850s. (BLG, 1847, p. 115; Garden, p. 92; ADB, vol. 1) Bolden, Lemuel. Squatter. 3rd son of John Bolden of Hyning. Member of the Melbourne Club 1840. He stayed in Victoria and looked after his brother’s property. (Garden, p. 92) Bolden, Armyne. 7th son of John Bolden of Hyning. He was vice-president of

the Melbourne Club and a noted cattle breeder; m. Anna Maria, dau. of James Raymond of Sydney (see Appendix II). He died in Melbourne a young man, in 1843, after which the Bolden stations were sold. Bolden, Sandford (or Sanford). Squatter. 8th son of John Bolden of Hyning. He died in Melbourne a young man, in April 1843, unm. after which the

Bolden stations were sold. He was a member of the Melbourne Club from 1840. (Sources cited above; PPG, 26 April 1843) Brady, George. Occupation unknown. Son of Sir Nicholas Brady, twice Lord Mayor of Dublin, and nephew of the Rt Hon. Maziere Brady, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Brady was convicted of an offence, imprisoned and returned to Ireland with the help of the Crown Prosecutor, James Croke. (B. Peerage; Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 370; PPH, 28 January 1847) Brewster, Edward Jones. Barrister, later MLC. Nephew of the Rt Hon. Ab173

Port Phillip Gentlemen raham Brewster, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. He was chairman of Quarter Sessions, resigned this position and left Melbourne for Sydney, where he represented PP in the Legislative Council. Later returned to England, where he became a clergyman. (Forde, 28ft; T&S)

Bunbury, Richard Hanmer. Civil officer, squatter. Son of Sir Henry Bunbury, 7th Bart, by his first wife, Louisa, grand-dau. of the 1st Lord Holland. A member of the Melbourne Club (1844), Bunbury died in Melbourne in 1857 and his family returned to England. (B. Peerage, B&¢K; Mrs McCrae: see index)

Byerley, F. J. School teacher. Son of the late Sir John Byerley of Farmhill, Gloucester, and Lady Byerley (see Mrs G. A. Gilbert). He immigrated to Melbourne with his mother and stepfather and taught at the Port Phillip Academical Institute. (Kirby, pp. 81, 104; see under Gilbert) Byerley, Emma. Daughter of the late Sir John Byerley. She died in Melbourne in 1842, aged 17. (PPH, 11 February 1842)

de Castella, Paul. Squatter and vigneron. Son of Jean Francois de Castella, member of the Patriciate Council of Fribourg, knight of the Red Eagle of Prussia. Paul de Castella and his family stayed in Victoria, while his elder brother, Charles Hubert de Castella, returned to Switzerland. Paul de Castella m. Elizabeth, dau. of Lieut.-Colonel Joseph Anderson (see Appendix III). Melbourne Club, 1852. (BCG, vol. 2, p. 770; ADB, vol. 4) Chomley, Mrs Francis. Dau. of Richard Griffith, M.P., and his second wife, Mary, dau. of the Rt Hon. Walter Hussey Burgh and widow of the Rev. Francis Chomley. A member of the Irish cousinage, she arrived in 1849 with her seven sons to join her brother Charles Griffith (q.v.) and her sister, Mrs W.P. Greene (q.v.). Her children, who became squatters and civil officers, fall outside the scope of this work. She and her family remained in Victoria where she died in 1868. (Henderson (1941), p. 143; for other sources see under Griffith) Cockburn, Ousely. Squatter. Grandson of Archibald Cockburn of Cockpen,

Baron of the Exchequer and nephew of Lord Cockburn, the Scottish law lord. He and his brothers were squatters between 1839 and 1850. It is not clear what happened to them after that date. (BLG, 17th edn, Cockburn, late of Cockpen, for a brief tree which only deals with Lord Cockburn’s branch; B&K)

Cockburn, William Kennedy. Squatter. Brother of Ousely. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. He appears to have left PP in 1843 on the same ship as Judge Willis; whether for good is not clear. Cockburn, Henry. Brother of Ousely. His later fate is not known, though he

held runs until 1850. (Hunter Papers, 10 July 1843; B&K, and sources quoted above)

Crauford, Robert. Squatter and superintendent for Benjamin Boyd. Son of — Crauford of Ardmillan and brother of Lord Ardmillan, a Scottish law lord. Crauford lost his money and became manager for Boyd in the Western District. According to B&K he died in August 1848. (BLG, 4th edn, where, however, the junior issue is not listed; B&kK; OMM, pp. 51-2) Cuningham, Alexander Fairlie. Squatter. 3rd son of William Cuningham who 174

Appendix 1 was grandson of Sir William Cuningham, 5th Bart. Member of the Melbourne Club 1845; he died unm. 24 March 1897, the place of his death so far unknown. (B. Peerage; B&K) Cuningham, Hastings. Squatter. 4th son of William Cuningham. A member

of the Melbourne Club 1847, president in 1874; he stayed in the colony marrying Agnes, dau. of Edward Curr (see Appendix III). His son inherited the baronetcy in 1910 and changed the spelling of the name in 1912. A younger brother married in 1864 the dau. of B. A. Cuninghame (q.v.). (B. Peerage; B&K)

Cuninghame, Archibald. Barrister, with squatting interests. Son of John Cuninghame of Caddell and Thorntoun. A member of the Melbourne Club (1840) he went to London in 1846 to represent the colonists in the campaign for Separation and did not return to the colony; he succeeded to his father’s estates and died unm. in 1856. (B. Commoners, vol. 2. p. 526; BLG, 1847 and 1863, p. 322)

Cuninghame, John. Squatter. 2nd son of John Cuninghame of Caddell. A shadowy figure, he was confused with his brother by Judge Willis when he made his celebrated attack about the entire stallion. (See Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 72.) He appears to have returned to Scotland where he inherited the estate

of a cousin. He-died unm. in 1882. (BLG, 17th edn, Wrey formerly of Thorntoun; PPG, 10 February 1841)

Cuninghame, Boyd Alexander. Squatter. 4th son of John Cuninghame of Craigend by his second wife, Margaret, dau. of Sir William Cuninghame, Bart, of Robertland. He appears to have stayed in the colony. His daughters made bnilliant matches. (BLG, 4th edn, B&K) Dalrymple, Stair Elphinstone. Overlander. 6th son of Sir Robert Dalrymple-

Horn-Dalrymple, 1st Bart. He came overland with Henry Gisborne in 1839, but does not appear to have stayed in PP; one of those who passed through. He died unm. in 1840 aged 25. (His younger brother, George Kinnaird Dalrymple, was Colonial Secretary of Queensland). (B. Peerage; Gisborne Papers, 12 September 1839) Dana, Henry Edward Pulteney. Civil officer with squatting interests. Son of the Rev. Edmund Dana, vicar of Wroxeter, and his wife, the Hon. Helen Kinnaird, dau. of the 6th Lord Kinnaird. Dana, Commander of the Native Police, a member of the Melbourne Club (1843), died at the clubhouse in 1852. (B. Peerage, for Kinnaird; Henderson (1936), p. 237, for Dana, though the facts presented there are confusing; Sadleir, p. 293; LVP, p. 438) Dana, William A. P. Civil officer. Son of the Rev. Edmund Dana. Dana died in 1866. (Sources cited; Henderson (1936), p. 23; Sadleir, p. 295; Kenyon)

Donnithorne, James. Bengal Civil Service. Squatter. 2nd son of Nicholas Donnithorne, of St Ayres, Warden of the Stanneries to the Prince of Wales. A member of the Melbourne Club, 1843, Donnithorne died in Sydney in 1852 leaving a family. (BLG, 4th edn, 1863, vol. 1, p. 381; B&K; Kenyon) Drysdale, Anne. Squatter. Dau. of William Drysdale, of Pitteuchar, Fife, and sister of Sir William Drysdale, of Pitteuchar, City Treasurer of Edinburgh. Miss Drysdale was one of the few women to set up as a squatter and perhaps the only one to emigrate by herself; she seems to have been a remarkable woman. She died unmarried in 1853. (CCP, vol. 2, pp. 448-9; B&K) 175

Port Phillip Gentlemen Erskine, James Augustus (later Hon.). Commissariat (DACG). 4th son of Hon. Henry Erskine and a grandson of the 7th Earl of Mar. His 3rd brother inherited as 12th Earl of Kellie and claimed the Earldom of Mar (thus giving rise to the famous Mar case which lasted for so many years and ended with

the recognition of two earldoms of the same name). Erskine served with volunteers in the Carlist wars, was a member of the Melbourne Club and a steward of the Quarterly Assemblies. He was given a patent of precedence as the son of an earl in 1866 and died in 1885 leaving issue which stayed in Melbourne for another generation at least. (B. Peerage, Mar and Kellie; Kenyon) Ferrers, Compton Gerard. Squatter. 4th son of Edward Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton by his wife, Lady Harriet Townshend, dau. and co-heiress of the 2nd Marquess Townshend. His father was heir male of the great AngloNorman house of Ferrers, which had been granted the earldom of Derby by Stephen, and his mother was the heir of line of the same house. Ferrers, a member of the Melbourne Club (1846), held runs until 1871 and died unm.

in 1888 in London. (B. Commoners, vol. 3, p. 127; B. Peerage (under Townshend); B&K) Firebrace, William. Retired army officer, squatter. Son of William Firebrace of Demerara. President of the Legislative Council of Demerara. Firebrace died in England in 1856; his family stayed in Victoria for at least one generation

and then most returned to England. One branch of the family held a baronetcy (1698-1759). (BLG, 17th edn; GEC Complete Baronetage; B&K; Kenyon) Foster, William. Squatter. Eldest son of the Rt Hon. John Foster, Baron of the Exchequer, and his wife, the Hon. Letitia Vesey-Fitzgerald, dau. of the Rt Hon. James Fitzgerald by his wife, the 1st Baroness Fitzgerald and Vesey.

He returned to Ireland after inheriting the estates of his uncle, Lord Fitzgerald, in 1843. (B. Peerage: Masserene, Foster, Bart; BCG, vol. 1, p. 55) Foster, John. Squatter Politician. 2nd son of the Rt Hon. John Foster. After a public life, Foster left the colony for good in 1857. (Sources cited above; ADB, vol. 4; LVP, 337) Fowler, Henry. Squatter. Son of John Fowler of Wadsley Hall, nr Sheffield.

Another family on the social ascendant during the nineteenth century. Henry Fowler, a member of the Melbourne Club, 1838, was wounded duning the bushranging episode, died unm. 1854. (BLG, 5th edn, Fowler of Braemore; B&K; Kenyon) Fowler, Charles. Squatter. Son of John Fowler of Wadsley Hall. Fowler, a member of the Melbourne Club, 1839, m. Fanny, dau. of Nathaniel Creswick of Sheffield (died in Australia) and by her had issue. (BLG, 5th edn; B&K; Kenyon) French, Acheson. Civil officer, squatter. 6th son of Robert French of Monivea Castle and his wife, dau. of Sir Luctus O’Brien of Dromoland, Bart. French

died in Melbourne in 1870, having m. Anna, dau. of John Watton (see Appendix IID) and left issue, part of which remained in Victoria. (BLG, 4th edn, 1863; B. Peerage, 1937: Foreign titles, Castelthomond) Gilbert, Mrs George. Translator, school teacher. Widow of Sir John Byerley of Farmhill, Gloucester; m. en secondes noces G. A. Gilbert and emigrated 176

Appendix 1 with him and her children by her first husband. She translated Lamartine’s Travels in the East. One of the more exotic of the early colonists. She ran a school in Melbourne. (Cotton, vol. 2, p. 39; 3, p. 27; PPP, 28 July 1842) Gisborne, Henry Fysche. Civil officer. 3rd son of Thomas Gisborne of Yoxall, M.P. A Commissioner of Crown Lands, he enjoyed bad health and died, on leave of absence, en route to England, in 1841, unm. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. (BLG, vol. 1, 1847, p. 470; BCG, 2, p. 448) Godfrey, Henry. Squatter. 2nd son of John Race Godfrey, Lieut.-Colonel, Madras Native Infantry. Descended from Thomas Godfrey of Hodiford,

though the line is not traced step by step and Henderson hurries over intervening generations. Godfrey m. Mary, dau. of Rev. William Polwhele (see BLG, 17th edn, Polwhele of Polwhele) and returned to England where he died in 1882, leaving a manager in charge of his property. One of his sons settled in New Zealand. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1857. (BLG, 17th edn, Godfrey-Faussett, and Henderson (1936), p. 347) Godfrey, Frederick Race. Squatter, politician, civil officer. 4th son of J. R. Godfrey. He remained in the colony, and died in 1910, leaving issue. Melbourne Club, 1856. (Sources cited above and ADB, vol. 4)

Gordon, George. EICS, visitor to Melbourne. Son of John Gordon of Cairnbulg (a natural son of the Earl of Aberdeen) by his wife Catherine, dau.

of Sir William Forbes, 5th Bart. Gordon cut his throat in Melbourne in 1841. (BLG, 1847, vol. 1, p. 481; Mrs McCrae, p. 53; PPP, 13 and 16 December 1841)

Graham, James. Merchant. Son of James Moore Graham and his wife Jane,

grand-dau. of Robert Ievers of Castle Ievers. Graham, who m. Mary Cobham (Appendix III), stayed in the colony and was one of the few early merchants to survive the depression. (ADB, 4; Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 23; Graham Papers, University of Melbourne) Greene, William Pomeroy. Landowner and squatter. Son of William Greene,

EICS, and his wife Mary Yorke (claimed to be a relation of Lord Hardwicke); m. Anne, dau. of Richard Griffith, M.P. (see Griffith). William Greene emigrated with his wife and family and died in PP in 1845. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1843, (BCG, vol. 1, p. 41; and see under Griffith) Greig, William. Settler. Grandson(?) of William Greig of Gayfield Place. Greig was an unsuccessful settler who returned home leaving debts for which his

cousin, the 9th Lord Rollo, found himself standing surety. (B. Peerage, Rollo; Graham Papers, 1 February 1842, 17 December 1842) Gniffith, Charles. Squatter. Son of Richard Griffith, M.P., by his second wife, Mary, dau. of the Rt Hon. Walter Hussey Burgh of Donore, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, by his wife Anne, dau. of Thomas Burgh of Bert. Griffith, a

prominent squatter, died without leaving issue, but descendants of his brother remained in the colony. His elder brother was Sir Richard Griffith, 1st Bart. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1842. (B. Peerage, 22nd edn, 1860; Henderson (1941); ADB, vol. 4) Hamilton, Thomas Ferrier. Squatter. Son of John Hamilton of Westport and his wife, the Hon. Georgina Vereker, dau. of 2nd Viscount Gort. Hamilton, cousin of T. C. Riddell (q.v.), m. Elizabeth, dau. of Sydney Stephen (Appendix III) and remained in the colony and died at St Kilda in 1905. Member 177

Port Philip Gentlemen of the Melbourne Club, 1840. (ADB, 4; BCG, vol. 1, p. 248; BLG, 1952, see Hamilton-Campbell of Netherplace)

Hunter, John. Squatter. Son of Andrew Hunter of Bonnietoun and Doonholm, and his wife Helen, dau. of John Campbell of Ormidale. John Hunter was the partner in the firm of Hunter and Watson, the PP representatives of the Marquess of Ailsa’s company, which crashed during the 1842 depression, leading to the Chancery case which was contested all the way to the

Privy Council. John Hunter went bankrupt. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. (BLG, 1847, vol. 1, p. 620; 1863, vol. 1, p. 749; Kenyon; the account in B&K is inaccurate)

Hunter, Campbell. Squatter. Son of Andrew Hunter of Bonnietoun and Doonholm. Brother of John Hunter, Campbell Hunter died in Melbourne in 1846. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1840. (Sources cited above) Hunter, Alexander Maclean. Squatter. Son of Alexander Hunter and his wife Mania, dau. of Alexander Maclean of Coll, nephew of Andrew Hunter of Bonnietoun. Alexander Hunter the elder was a principal in the Marquess of Ailsa’s company. A. M. Hunter was a squatter and explorer in various parts of PP; he later settled in South Africa and then returned to Victoria. He died at sea in 1892 on his way back from Scotland. (BLG, 1847, vol. 1, p. 620; BLG, 1863, vol. 1, p. 749; ADB, vol. 1; Henderson (1941); Hunter Papers) Hunter, John. Squatter. Son of Alexander Hunter and his wife Maria, dau. of Alexander Maclean of Coll. John Hunter (known as Jack the Devil to distinguish him from his cousin, John (Howqua) Hunter, a notable and daring horseman, left Port Phillip for South America and died at Buenos Aires in 1868. (Sources cited under A. M. Hunter; Fetherstonhaugh, op.cit, pp. 34-5, 122-3)

Hunter, James Arthur Carr. Squatter. Son of Alexander Hunter and his wife, Maria, dau. of Alexander Maclean of Coll. James Hunter led a migratory life like his brother; he went to South Australia and then to Fiji, to Scotland and back to Victoria, where he died in 1889. (Kenyon; sources cited above) Hunter, William Morrison. Squatter. 2nd son of James Hunter of Hafton. The identity of this man has been pieced together from B&K, BLG and the Hunter Papers. The clue is provided in B&K under the entry Kingara-ra-

creek. Hunter m. in 1854 Catherine Helen Campbell, dau. of the 4th Campbell of Ormidale; she succeeded in 1874. W. M. Hunter died in 1859.

Member of the Melbourne Club, 1845. (BLG, 17th edn, Warrand of Ormidale; Hunter Papers; B&K) Hunter. For other members of this family see Appendix III. Hunter-Arundell. See Arundel. Huon de Keriliau (or Kerrilleau: the spelling varies greatly), Aime Augustus. Squatter. Son of Gabriel Louis Marie Huon de Keriliau. For a brief account of this interesting family see Woelmont de Brumagne and Carnegie. He and his brothers held leases on both sides of the Murray and intermarried with many of the leading pastoral families of the Riverina. Aime Huon (the family discontinued the use of the full name) eventually moved into NSW; the family continued to live in the colonies. (Baron Woelmont de Brumagne, La Noblesse Frangaise Subsistante, Paris, 1928, vol. 1, part 1, p. 232; Carnegie,

op.cit., pp. 20-48; B&K) 178

Appendix 1 Huon de Keriliau (or Kerrilleau), Paul. Squatter. Son of Gabriel Louis Marie Huon de Keriliau. For remarks on this family see under the preceding entry. (Sources cited above) Huon de Keriliau (or Kerrilleau), Elizabeth. Daughter of Gabriel Louis Marie Huon de Keniliau, m. William Mitchell, squatter. Mrs Mitchell left a large family which became one of the chief pastoral families of Northern Victoria. (Sources cited above; Carnegie, passim) levers, William. Son of Lancelot Ievers and nephew of George Ievers of Mount Ievers, Clare. levers, who belonged to the Catholic branch of this family (see James Graham for mention of the Protestant branch) stayed in the colony. (BLG of I., 1958) Irvine, James Hamilton. Squatter. 2nd son of Alexander Irvine of Schivas and his wife Margaret, dau. of James Hamilton, grandson of Alexander Irvine of

Drum. Irvine, a leading squatter, was in partnership with Campbell & Macknight. He held Dunmore with Macknight until 1876 and was still alive in 1884. (BLG, 1847, vol. 1; B&K; OMM, p. 194) Kellett, Henry de Castres. Innkeeper. Son of Henry de Castres Kellett, whose elder brother was Sir Richard Kellett, 1st Bart (created 1801). Kellett, who

took no part in society, was heir presumptive to his brother by special remainder, and his own son inherited the baronetcy in 1886. The family remained in Australia. Henry Kellett died at Kew in 1884. (B. Peerage; B&K; Kenyon) Kellett, William Augustus. Son of Henry de Castres Kellett, and brother of the above. He stayed in the colony and died at Hawthorn in 1883. (Sources cited above)

Kemmis, Arthur. Merchant. 2nd son of Thomas Kemmis of Shaen Castle. Kemmis was a landowner, magistrate and squatter; he died in 1842, aged 36, having m. Aphrasia, dau. of James Raymond, Postmaster General, Sydney

(Appendix III). His estate was put into receivership in 1843. The family stayed in the colonies. (BLG, 1858 edn; Mowle; Kenyon) Kennedy, Hon. (later Lord) Gilbert. Squatter. 5th son of the Earl of Cassilis and grandson of the 1st Marquess of Ailsa. Kennedy was connected with his grandfather’s company and was badly affected by its collapse. He returned

home. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. (B. Peerage, Ailsa; Kenyon)

Ker, Mrs W. L., nee Anna Maria Hussey De Burgh. Dau. of Walter Hussey De Burgh of Dromkeen. One of the Irish cousinage, she m. in 1850 the squatter William Ker, a partner of George Airey. (B.L.G. of I., 1958) La Trobe, Mrs Charles Joseph. Sophie, dau. of Frederic Auguste de Montmollin and his wife, Rose de Meuron; m. Charles Joseph La Trobe (see Appendix III). She enjoyed indifferent health and went home to die in 1854. (Gross, p. 7) Learmonth ( later Livingstone-Learmonth) Thomas. Squatter. Son of Thomas Learmonth (later Livingstone-Learmonth) of VDL and later of Parkhall, Stirling, which he inherited in 1861. The Learmonths were heirs in the female line of Livingstone of Parkhall, whose estate they inherited early in the nineteenth century. The complicated devolution of Parkhall is indicated in BLG. Thomas Learmonth returned to Scotland and inherited Parkhall 179

Port Phillip Gentlemen from his father in the late 1860s. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1841. (BLG, 1952; Kenyon; B&K; LVP, p. 92)

Learmonth, Somerville. Squatter. 3rd son of Thomas Learmonth (later Livingstone-Learmonth) of VDL and later of Parkhall, Stirling. Learmonth, like his brother, left PP and went to live in England. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1841. (Kenyon; B&K) Liardet, Wilbraham Frederick Evelyn. Hotelkeeper, postman, etc. Son of Wilbraham Liardet and his wife Phillippa, widow of Major Houghton, dau. of Charles Evelyn and sister of Sir John Evelyn, 4th Bart (extinct 1848). Liardet

was a florid example of the gentlemen living (cheerfully) on the edge of society; a man of culture and attainments surviving precariously, squatting with his family on the beach at Sandridge, regarded with suspicion by the newspapers; an eccentric with a remarkable number of similarities to W. A. C. a Beckett and his fictional counterpart, Austin Langton. Liardet went bankrupt, travelled to New Zealand and back to England. His family remained in the colony. (G.E.C. Complete Baronetage; Liardet Papers, La Trobe Library and RHSV) Macartney, Hussey Burgh. Clergyman of the Church of England. 2nd son of Sir John Macartney 1st Bart. by his second wife, Catherine, dau. of the Rt

Hon. Walter Hussey Burgh. Macartney, one of the Irish cousinage (see Foster, Greene, Griffith, Chomley) stayed in the colony. (B. Peerage; BCG, vol. 3, p. 474)

McCrae, Mrs Andrew, nee Georgiana Huntley Gordon. Artist and diarist. Illegitimate daughter of the 5th Duke of Gordon (The Cock o’ the North), by Jane, dau. of Ralph Graham of Rockmoor. Married her kinsman, Andrew Murison (or Morison) McCrae (q.v.). The first artist in the District to write of her life in the colonies as an exile. She died in Hawthorn in 1890 without ever going back to Scotland. Part of her journal was published by her grandson. (ADB, vol. 2; B. Peerage, Huntley; George McCrae, Arthur’s Seat, Melbourne, c.1961) McCrae, Alexander. Soldier, civil officer. Son of William Gordon McCrae of Westbrook and his wife, Margaret Morison. Alexander McCrae, who had married beneath him and was for this reason at odds with his family, was in financial distress during his early years in the colony. He remained in Victoria, where he died in 1871 leaving issue. (Pedigree, National Trust (Victoria); Mrs McCrae, passim) McCrae, Andrew Murison. Solicitor (W. S.). Son of William Gordon McCrae

of Westbrook. Married to Georgiana Huntley Gordon; often in financial distress, he was by turn solicitor, squatter and civil officer. Apart from one visit to Scotland he remained in the colony where he died in 1874. (ADB, 2; Mrs McCrae, passim) McCrae, Farquhar. Doctor, squatter and magistrate. Son of William Gordon McCrae of Westbrook. The first of his family to arrive in PP (he brought his

widowed mother with him), he left for Sydney in 1843-44 in financial distress and died there in 1850 leaving issue. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. (Mrs McCrae, passim) McCrae, Mary. Dau. of W. G. McCrae of Westbrook; the widow of Francis Cobham (see Appendix III). Mrs Cobham, who emigrated to the colonies 180

Appendix 1 with her family, is strangely not listed with those members of the family who came to Australia. (Sources cited under Cobham, Appendix III) McCrae, Thomas Anne. Dau. of W. G. McCrae of Westbrook. The second wife of Captain George Ward Cole, rtd, merchant, clubman and leader of society. (Mrs McCrae, passim) McCrae, Margaret. Daughter of W. G. McCrae of Westbrook. Married David John Thomas (see Appendix III) Macdonell of Glengarry, Aeneas Ranaldson Macdonell, 16th of Glengarry. Squatter. Eldest son of Alasdair Macdonell, 15th of Glengarry and his wife

Rebecca, dau. of Sir William Forbes of Pitsligo, Bart. Glengarry, who emigrated with his family and servants, considered bringing out his clansmen to settle in Australasia. After spending some time in Gippsland, having arrived in Melbourne in 1840, he returned home in 1842. One of the most exotic of all the gentlemen colonists. (BLG, 1847, vol. 2, p. 798; B&K; Kenyon) Mackenzie, Alastair. Civil officer (Deputy Sheriff). Son of General John Mackenzie, and his wife Lilian, dau. of Alexander Chisholm of Chisholm, and

grandson of Sir Alexander Mackenzie, 3rd Bart. Mackenzie became the Colonial Treasurer after Separation and died in 1852. His son returned to England. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1845. (B. Peerage, Mackenzie of Gairloch; Kenyon)

Mackenzie Roderick. Squatter. 5th son of Sir Hector Mackenzie, 4th Bart. Mackenzie, of Flowerdale station, died in 1849. (B. Peerage, Mackenzie of Gairloch; Kenyon) Mackenzie, Farquhar. Squatter. 2nd son of Kenneth Mackenzie by his wife Flora, dau. of Farquhar M‘Rae, and grandson of Sir Alexander Mackenzie,

3rd Bart. He m. Patty, dau. of John Murchison of Kerrisdale. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1838. (B. Peerage; B&K; Kenyon) Mackenzie, William. Squatter. 2nd son of Sir Hector Mackenzie of Gairloch, 4th Bart. Mackenzie, who was first chairman of the P. and A. Society, died unm. in 1858. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. (B. Peerage; B&K; Kenyon)

Macleod, John Norman. Squatter. 3rd son of Donald Macleod of Talisker (which he sold) by his wife Catherine, 3rd dau. of Alastair Maclean, 14th of Coll. He stayed in the colony, entered public life and died in 1886. (BLG, 16th edn, 1939; Henderson (1936); LVP, p. 146) Macleod, Hugh Laurence. Squatter. 4th son of Donald Macleod of Talisker. He held leases in NSW and PP and died at Geelong in 1899. (Sources above)

McNeill, Edmund. A cousin of the McNeill of Barra. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1844; his identity among the McNeill family has not yet been

established. He returned to Ireland. (BLG, 1894 edn; OMM, op.cit., pp.166-73; Stawell, p. 89) Mercer, George. Squatter. 2nd son of George Mercer of Gorthy and one of the principal members of the Port Phillip Association and later of the Derwent Company. George Mercer was one of the early gentlemen squatters in PP; he eventually returned to Scotland where he died unm. in 1884. (BLG, 17th edn, Mercer of Huntingtower; LVP, 141ff ADB, vol. 2) Mercer, John Henry. Squatter. 4th son of George Mercer of Gorthy. With his 181

Port Phillip Gentlemen brother, a pioneer colonist; he later entered public life, and after inheriting Gorthy, returned to Scotland where he died in 1891. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1842. (Sources cited above) Mercer, William Drummond. Squatter. 2nd son of William Mercer of Pot-

terhill, by his wife Barbara, dau. of Robert Forbes of Gask. With his cousins, a pioneer squatter who likewise entered public life. He inherited Huntingtower and returned to Scotland. (Sources cited above) de Meuron, Adolphe. Squatter. Nephew of Mrs C. J. La Trobe. He stayed in the colony only for a few years before returning in the 1850s. (B&K) Meyrick, Henry Howard. Squatter. 2nd son of the Rev. Edward Meyrick. He emigrated to PP with his cousins and was an unsuccessful squatter in Western Port and Gippsland until his death by drowning at the age of 25 in 1847. (BLG, 1952, Meyrick of Corchester; Meyrick, passim) Meyrick, Maurice. Squatter. 5th son of the Rev. Arthur Meyrick, descendant of Meurig ap Llewellyn of Bodorgan, Esquire of the Body to Henry VII. Meyrick, a failed squatter, went back to England and entered the church. (B. Commoners, vol. 3, p. 631, for senior branch; BLG, 17th edn, for full tree; Meyrick, p. 239; B&K) Meyrick, Alfred. Squatter. 6th son of the Rev. Arthur Meyrick. Another failed squatter, he went back to England, but returned to the colonies and became Sheriff of Ararat. (BLG, 17th edn; B&K; Meyrick, pp. 238-9) Mundy, Alfred Miller. Squatter, overlander. 4th son of Edward Miller Mundy

of Shipley Hall. A. M. Mundy, a foundation member of the Melbourne Club, overlanded to Adelaide where he became Colonial Secretary, and later inherited Shipley. (B. Commoners, vol. 1, p. 25; BLG, 1847, vol. 2, p. 899)

Mundy, Fitzherbert Miller. Squatter. 6th son of Edward Miller Mundy of Shipley Hall. Mundy died of drink in Melbourne in 1847. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1838. (Sources cited above; B&K; PPP, 2 March 1847) Murray, Hon. James Erskine. Barrister. 4th son of the 7th Lord Elibank by his

second wife, Catherine, dau. of James Steuart. Erskine Murray, m. to Isabella, only dau. and heiress of James Erskine of Aberdona (of the Earls of

Rosslyn), appears to have adopted her name. Overwhelmed by debts, he bolted from the colony and was killed by headhunters off the coast of Borneo during a trading expedition in 1844; his family later returned to England. (See Appendix I, Erskine.) (B. Peerage, under Elibank; PPH, 19 and 30 July 1844; PPP, 26 August 1844)

Murray, Hon. Robert Dundas. Barrister, author. 6th son of the 7th Lord Elibank. Murray visited PP and decided to settle; he returned to Scotland to arrange his affairs but (presumably with the onset of the depression and his brother’s behaviour) did not come back to Melbourne. He wrote one of the first books solely devoted to Port Phillip. (B. Peerage; Dod’s Peerage, 1848) Parry-Okeden, David. Squatter. 2nd son of David Okeden Parry Okeden of More Critchell by his first wife, Mary Harris. (He m. secondly Lady Harriet

Capel, dau. of the 4th Earl of Essex.) He was a squatter in the Monaro district, then an early settler in Gippsland; finally the family moved to Queensland. He m. Rosalie, dau. of Thomas Dutton (see Appendix III, Dutton). (BLG, 1894; B&K; Perry, pp. 1-30) Pearson, William. Squatter. Eldest son of Hugh Pearson and grandson of 182

Appendix 1 William Pearson, last of Kippenross (sold 1778-81) by his wife Jane, dau. of Sir James Campbell of Aberuchill, 4th Bart. Pearson was a successful squatter who built up a large estate in Gippsland and stayed in Victoria. (BCG, vol. 1, pp. 391-400 has a long tree; B&K; T&S; ADB, vol. 5) Phillpotts, Octavius. Squatter. Son of Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter, and his wife Martha, dau. of William Surtees of Seatonburn. Phillpotts remained a squatter until 1864 at least. (BLG, 1847, vol. 2, p. 1040; B&K) Powlett, Frederick Armand. Squatter, civil officer. Son of Rev. Mr Powlett, supposedly a descendant of the last Duke of Bolton. Powlett left the land and became a civil officer and politician; he was a foundation member of the Melbourne Club, president in 1845. He died in Melbourne in 1865. (ADB, vol. 2; Kenyon) Beauchamp-Proctor, —— ?. Son of Sir William Proctor-Beauchamp, Bart. His identity has not been established, beyond the mention in Mollison and Lady Stawell’s memoirs; after his proposal of marriage was rejected, he sold

up and went home; he may be the same man as Robert Beauchamp the squatter (see B&K); Mollison refers to him as Mr Beauchamp, the son of a Norfolk baronet. (Lady Stawell, p. 74; Mollison Papers: A. F. Mollison to

his father, 4 March 1850) ; Rawson, Samuel. Squatter. 5th son of William Rawson of Haugh End. Vani-

ous members of the Rawson family settled in the colonies of Australia; they were a family on the ascendant, first being recorded in the 4th edn of BLG. (BLG, 4th edn; BCG, vol. 2, p. 425; Gunson, 27ff, p. 40)

Riddell, John Carre. Squatter. Son of Thomas Riddell of Camieston and great-great-grandson of Sir Walter Riddell, 4th Bart. Riddell, president of the Melbourne Club in 1852, remained in the colony and became a promi-

nent man in public life; he was the cousin and brother-in-law of T. F. Hamilton (q.v.), having married Mary Stephen (see Appendix III). (B. Peerage; Mowle,; ADB, vol. 6; T&S) Ryan, Charles. Squatter. Son of Henry Ryan of Kilfera by his wife, Ellis Agar Hartley, who BCG (Corrigenda) claims was the daughter of the Countess of Brandon by George IV; in the body of the book she is described as the

god-daughter of the Countess. Charles Ryan, m. Marian, eldest dau. of John Cotton (see Appendix III); he remained in the Colony. Melbourne Club, 1859. (BCG, vol. 1, p. 191 & Corrigenda; B. Peerage under Clifden (for Brandon); GEC is no help; Maie Casey, p. 97) St John, George Frederick Berkeley. Civil officer. Son of General Frederick St John by his second wife, the Hon. Arabella Craven, dau. of the 6th Lord Craven. St John, who was a member of the Melbourne Club and Police Magistrate of Melbourne, was charged by Fawkner with corruption, sued for libel and drew the case, whereupon he left the colony with his family in 1849. (B. Peerage, under Bolingbroke; Garryowen, vol. 1, pp. 100-04; PPH, 18 July and 9 November 1848) Selby, George William Henry. Merchant squatter. Son of William Selby of

Belford, by his wife, Mary Eliza Lonsdale (not known if she were any relation to Captain Lonsdale). Selby and his family remained in Port Phillip. (BLG, 17th edn, Selby of Shotton (the senior branches seem to have had a higher position in society); B&K; Selby, p. 129) 183

Port Phillip Gentlemen Sherard, Charles Wale. Squatter. 2nd son of the Rev. Robert Sherard, descended from the third son of the 1st Lord Sherard (cr.1627) and in remain-

der to that title, though not to the earldom of Harborough (cr. 1719, ext. 1859). Sherard was at Western Port 1841-43 and was later a warden on the goldfields. His family stayed in the colony. He m. Isabella, dau. of P. W. Welsh. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1858. The third son of this marriage, Robert Castel Sherard, inherited the original title in 1924, becoming the 12th and last Lord Sherard. At his death in 1931, s.p., the barony became extinct. (B. Peerage, 1937 edn; LVP, 1st edn, pp. 36-7; Kenyon) Sladen, (Sir) Charles. Solicitor, squatter, politician. 2nd son of John Sladen of Ripple Court, by his wife Etheldred, eldest dau. and co-heiress of Kingsman

Baskett St Barbe. Sladen, a member of the Melbourne (Club (1850) was vice-president in 1866; and became a prominent politician and premier of Victoria in 1868. (BLG, 1858 edn; ADB, vol. 6) Stapylton, Granville William Chetwynd. Civil officer. 2nd son of the Hon. Granville Chetwynd (later Chetwynd Stapleton), son of the 4th Viscount Chetwynd. Stapylton, an early surveyor in Melbourne, was killed by the blacks in the Moreton Bay district, dying unm. 1840. (B. Peerage, under Chetwynd; Kenyon) Stawell, (Sir) William Foster. Barrister, judge and politician. 2nd son of Jonas Stawell of Old Court by his wife Ayna, dau. of William Foster, Bishop of

Clogher (see Foster in this appendix). His family was a branch of the Stawells of Crobeg, cadets of Stawell of Kilbrittain. Stawell belonged to the Irish cousinage and m. his cousin, Mary Greene (q.v.). He was a member of

the Melbourne Club 1843, and president in 1859; he became the second Chief Justice in succession to a Beckett (q.v.) and after his retirement went to Europe, where he died in Naples in 1889. His family remained in Victoria.

(BLG of I., 1912; BCG, vol. 1, p. 42; Henderson, 1941; ADB, vol. 6)

Seton-Steuart, Colin Reginald. Squatter. 3rd son of Sir Reginald SetonSteuart, 2nd Bart of Staffa and Allanton (formerly Reginald Macdonald, 4th son of Colin Macdonald of Boisdale). Seton-Steuart, an unsuccessful squat-

ter and a bankrupt, drowned unm. in 1845. (BLG, 17th edn, Maxwell Macdonald of Largie; B&K; PPP, 28 July 1845)

von Stieglitz, John Lewis. Squatter. 3rd son of Baron von Stieglitz of Gortalowny House, Co. Tyrone, and wife Charlotte, dau. of John Atkinson of Crowhill. This German family emigrated first to Ireland (1805) then to VDL, where some of the baron’s six sons stayed and left families. J. L. von Stieglitz held squatting interests from 1838-58 and eventually returned to Tyrone, where he died in 1868. (BCG, vol. 1, p. 383; B&K) von Stieglitz, Robert William. Squatter. 5th son of Baron von Stieglitz. He was a squatter in the Wimmera and Western District 1838-53 and later returned to Tyrone where he died in 1876. (Sources cited above) von Stieglitz, Charles Augustus. Squatter. 6th son of Baron von Stieglitz. He held squatting runs between 1840-57 and went back to Ireland ‘having realised a considerable fortune’ and bought Knockbarragh Park, Co. Down,

where he died in 1885. He m. Sophia, 4th dau. of J. W. Belcher (see Appendix III). (Sources cited above) von Stieglitz, Elizabeth Caroline. Daughter of Baron von Stieglitz, m. 1824 184

Appendix 1 Francis Atkinson, a squatter (see B&K). She appears to have held his lease after his death, though the accounts in B&K and BLG about the last years of Atkinson are confusing. (Sources cited above) von Stieglitz, Charlotte. Daughter of Baron von Stieglitz; m. J. A. Cowie, a squatter, who held runs in conjunction with David Stead (see Appendix III

under Belcher) and his brothers-in-law, John and Robert von Stieglitz. (Sources cited above)

Sturt, Evelyn Pitfield Shirley. Squatter, avil officer. 9th son of Thomas Lennox Napier Sturt (and younger brother of Charles Sturt). The senior line of the family received the barony of Alington in 1876. Sturt was one of many unsuccessful squatters who became a government officer; he was president of the Melbourne Club in 1853; he m. Mary, dau. of Canon Grylls; he died s.p. in 1885. (BLG, 1847, p. 1326; BCG, vol. 2, p. 444; B. Peerage, Alington;

LVP, p. 363; OMM, p. 47-8) Synnot, George. Squatter. 3rd son of Walter Synnot of VDL and grandson of Sir Walter Synnot of Ballymoyer. He was a squatter who eventually returned to die in England in 1871. (BLG of I., 1958; BLG, vol. 2, p. 1346; B&K) Synnot, Marcus. Squatter. 4th son of Walter Synnot of VDL. He died in 1858, s.p. (Sources cited above; Kenyon) Synnot, Albert. Squatter. 5th son of Walter Synnot of VDL. He died in 1871, s.p. (Sources cited above) Synnot , Monckton. Squatter. 6th son of Walter Synnot of VDL. He m. Annie

Wedge Lawrence of Formosa, VDL, grand-daughter of Edward Davey Wedge of Werribee, PP. (Sources cited above; Kenyon) Synnot, Jane Elizabeth. Eldest daughter of Walter Synnot of VDL. She m. Thomas Manifold of Purrumbeet in 1838 and died in Melbourne in 1912, leaving issue. (Henderson (1936), p. 20) Synnot, Catherine. 3rd daughter of Walter Synnot of VDL. She m. Francis McCrae Cobham (see Appendix III).

Talbot, Richard Gilbert (Hon. after 1849). Squatter. 3rd son of 3rd Lord Talbot de Malahide, nephew of Hon. William Talbot (q.v.) and cousin of G. S. Airey (q.v.). A squatter, he appears to have returned to England. (B.

Peerage; B&K; Kenyon)

Talbot, Hon. William. Landowner at Malahide in VDL; squatter in PP (nonresident). He visited PP, is mentioned in Griffith’s diary and died s.p. in 1845. (B. Peerage; B&K; Griffith, Diary, 3 and 4 November 1840) Verner, William. Landowner, civil officer. Son of —— Verner, and nephew of Sir William Verner, Bart. A prominent man in Melbourne society and the first president of the Melbourne Club (1840 and 1841); he appears to have returned home eventually. (B. Peerage; Garden, p. 34; Kenyon) Vignoles, Francis Durell. Soldier. 3rd son of Charles Vignoles of Cornahir, Dean of Ossory and collateral descendant of the Huguenot Earl of Ligonier. Vignoles while stationed in Melbourne took an active part in Melbourne life and was a member of the Melbourne Club. According to Garryowen, by the 1880s he was living in Queensland. (BLG, 5th edn, 1871; Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 778) Wheeler, Arthur. Squatter. Son of William Wheeler of The Rocks, Co. Kil185

Port Phillip Gentlemen kenny (whose brother was Sir Jonah Wheeler-Cuffe, 1st Bart (cr.1799). Wheeler stayed on in Victoria, m. his cousin and died in 1893. (B. Peerage, 1937 edn (title extinct 1934) for senior line; B&K) Wheeler, John. Squatter. Son of William Wheeler of The Rocks. Wheeler’s subsequent career is not at present known. (Sources cited above; Kenyon) Wheeler, Henry. Squatter. Son of William Wheeler of The Rocks. Wheeler held a station until at least 1867. From papers in the possession of a descendant it would seem that the entries in B&K are inaccurate. (Sources cited above) Wickham, Francis Dawe. Solicitor. 2nd son of James Wickham by his wife, Mariann, only child of Hill Dawe. Wickham, who had first settled in VDL,

crossed to PP, where he and his wife took a leading part in Melbourne society; he joined the Melbourne Club in 1844. He seems to have returned to England. (BLG, 1847, vol. 2) Willis, John Walpole. ist Resident Judge of Port Phillip. Son of Captain William Willis and his wife Mary, dau. and heiress of Robert Hamilton Smith of Lismore, Co. Down. Willis m. first, Lady Mary Lyon, dau. of the 11th Earl

of Strathmore, and second (after a divorce), Anna, dau. and heiress of Colonel Thomas Bund of Wick Episcopi. He returned to England after his dismissal from office in June 1843. (BLG, 1894 edn; B. Peerage, under Strathmore; ADB, vol. 2) Wilsone, David Henry. Squatter and physician. Son of Charles Wilsone, surgeon and a descendant of Robert Wilsone, Secretary to Anne of Denmark, Queen of James VI. His family were minor gentry who had owned estates; his grandfather, William Wilsone of Sands and Kirkton, was a Jacobite, Episcopalian and a Non-Juror. Wilsone was a partner with the squatter John

Campbell (of Otter?); sick and unsuccessful, he retired to Melbourne to practise; he died there unm. in 1841 and his estate was later placed in the Insolvency Court. (C. H. H. Wilsone, Account of the Wilsone family, Singapore, n.d.; B&K; Wilsone Papers, La Trobe Library) Winter, George. Barrister and squatter. 1st son of Samuel Pratt Winter and his wife, dau. and co-heiress of Trevor Bomford, and grandson of Samuel Winter of Agher. Winter, who m. Elizabeth, dau. of James Cox of Clarendon, left Victoria for Fiji, where he died in 1879. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1845. (BLG 1858 edn; BCG, vol. 2, p. 792; B&K; Kenyon) Winter, Samuel Pratt. Squatter. 2nd son of Samuel Pratt Winter. Winter of Murndal was that rarest of colonists, an aesthete, dandy, member of the Irish Ascendancy and an eighteenth century agnostic (cf. Acheson French). He died at Macedon unm. in 1878. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1850. (Sources cited above and Kiddle, pp. 36, 78; Griffith, Diary) Winter, Trevor. Squatter. 3rd son of Samuel Pratt Winter. He remained in the colony and died unm. in 1885 at Murndal. (Sources cited above) Winter, Arbella. Elder dau. of Samuel Pratt Winter. She m. in VDL Ceal Pybus Cooke of Lake Condah, son of William Cooke of Cheltenham and late of the Madras Civil Service and grandson of William Cooke of Church Hill, Walthamstow, Essex, a director of the Bank of England. Their second son was heir to his uncle, Samuel Pratt Winter of Murndal. They would seem to be armigerous. (Sources cited above; Kiddle, passim) 186

Appendix 1 Winter, Benjamin Pratt. Squatter. 5th son of John Pratt Winter, and cousin of the Winters of Murndal (q.v.). According to B&K he was a partner with his cousins. He died in Australia in December 1844, unm. Kenyon gives his death as 1 December 1844 and states that he held Norbury on the Wannon River. (BLG, p. 1858; BCG, vol. 2, p. 792; B&K; Kenyon) Winter, Mrs John. Second dau. of John Irving of Bonshaw. Janet Irving m. John Winter in 1826; they emigrated to Port Phillip in 1842 and she died in 1846 leaving issue. Her second son adopted the name and arms of WinterIrving in 1889 and became a leading grazier. (BLG, vol. 1, p. 155; B&K) Yaldwyn, William Henry. Landowner and squatter. Eldest son and successor to Richard Yaldwyn of Blackdown, Sussex. Yaldwyn was most unusual in being an English landowner who emigrated to the colonies with his family and sister-in-law, who m. James Simpson. He left Victoria for NSW and Queensland, where he entered public life. (BLG, 1847, vol. 3; B&K; D. B. Waterson, A Biographical Register of the Queensland Parliament, 1860-1929, Canberra, 1972)

Yuille, William Cross. Squatter. Son of Robert Yuille, 5th son of George Yuille of Darleith, Dumbartonshire. Prominent pastoralist and racehorse owner, Yuille remained in the colony where he established his family. He m. Mary, daughter of J. O. Denny, an early Melbourne merchant and a relation of Charles Kingsley. (Henderson (1941), p. 121; BGA)

187

APPENDIX II Gentlemen in Society Gentlemen by profession, commission and upbringing, prominent in society and noted by contemporaries

This list—by no means complete—includes members of the Melbourne Club; clergymen of the Church of England; barristers; graduates of Oxford, Cambridge, Trinity College, Dublin, the Scottish and European universities; officers of the army and navy; civil and military officers of the East India Company

and sons of such men. Undoubtedly certain colonists who did not attract public attention (especially squatters who did not often visit Melbourne) have been overlooked; while others possibly have slipped in who might not have

been judged quite gentlemen by their contemporaries. Citations of sources have been limited to a minimum for reasons of space, as have biographical details, which in the case of clubmen are to be found in McNicoll. Details of squatters are given in Billis and Kenyon. Anderson, Joseph (see App. III) Archdall (see App. III) . Armytage, George (see App. III) and family Arthur, Henry, Charles and Fortescue (see App. III

Atkins, John. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1841. Partner with Charles Ryan (q.v-)

Bacchus, William Henry, and son, William Henry junior (see App. III) Baker, Charles (see App. J) Balbirnie, Robert (see App. I) Balcombe, Alexander (see App. III) Barker, Edward. Squatter, barrister, civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1840. (ADB, 3) Barker, John. Surgeon, squatter. Melbourne Club, 1841. (ADB, 3) Barker, William. Squatter, doctor. Melbourne Club, 1845. (ADB, 3) Bawtree, Samuel. Merchant. Melbourne Club, 1847. Baxter, Andrew. Lieut. 50th Regt (rtd). Squatter. (ADB, 1) Baxter, Mrs Andrew. Author; ‘a fine horse-woman, and passionately fond of her dumb favourites’. (OMM, pp. 200, 205; ADB, 1, under Dawbin)

Baxter, Benjamin. Captain (rtd) 50th Regt. Melbourne Club (founding member). Squatter, civil servant; ‘a smart gay good looking fellow more at home in the Clubroom etc. than in the Post Office hole’. (Garryowen, vol 1, p. 57)

Bell, Edward. Squatter, civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1840. (McCrae) Bell, William Montgomerie. Merchant, mayor of Melbourne, politician. Melbourne Club, 1848. (ADB, 1) 188

Appendix II Bennett, Henry. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1850. Bernard, William Dallas (see App. III) Beveridge, Andrew. Squatter, M.A.; speared by the blacks in 1846 (PPH, 3 September 1846) Birch, Cecil. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1844. Black, George (see App. III) Black, Niel. Squatter. Port Phillip Club; Melbourne Club, 1845. Black, Thomas. Doctor; ‘a physician of high professional and social status’. Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 325 Blackney, Charles Hugh (see App. III) Blamyre, Charles. Soldier, 99th Regt. Steward for the 1844 and 1845 Birthday Balls.

Braim, T. H. Schoolmaster, clergyman. B.A. (Cantab.). Bnckwood, William. Schoolmaster, clergyman. B.A., Oxon., also at Cambridge. (Cotton, vol. 2, pp. 6, 7, 23, 29) Briggs, Robert. Captain, 4th Kings Own Regt (rtd). Squatter. Brown (later Browne), Sylvester John (see App. III) Browne, Richard Henry. Speculator, landowner. Melbourne Club, 1839. ‘Slight, vivacious, soigne in dress and uniformly courteous . . .. (OMM, pp. 158-9)

Browne, Thomas Alexander (see App. III) Buchanan, Charles. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1841. Steward, 1845 Ball. (PPH, 7 January 1845)

Buchanan, John. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1843; ‘a handsome, spirited young Scot’, OMM, pp. 117-18. Buckley, W. Mark. Melbourne Club, 1841. Budd, Richard Hale. Squatter, schoolmaster. M.A. (Cantab.). (Pohlman) Burchett, Charles. Squatter; ‘a humourist of the first water, and delighted in by all his numerous friends’. (OMM, pp. 124-5) Burchett, Frederick. Squatter; ‘a well-read man, and a fair scholar . . .. (OMM, p. 80 and passim)

Burchett, Henry. Squatter. OMM, pp. 25-6. Burke, Robert Bartlett. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. Byron, Cecil. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. (PPP, 6 Apmnl 1847; MMH, 19 March 1849)

Cameron, Donald. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1845. Cameron, James. 13th Light Dragoons (rtd). Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1845. (B&K)

Campbell, Alexander. Squatter (brother of Colin C.). Campbell, Colin. Squatter, civil servant, politician, newspaper editor, writer and finally clergyman. B.A. (Cantab.). (ADB, vol. 3) Campbell, Daniel Stodhart. Merchant, politician. Melbourne Club, 1839; m. Catherine, dau. of James Smith of Melbourne. (T&S) Campbell, J. D. L. (see App. II) Campbell, J. H. (see App. IID Campbell, William (see App. III) Campbell, William Henry. Surgeon (brother of D. S. Campbell). Melbourne Club, 1848; m. Sarah, dau. of the Rev. J. C. Grylls (q.v.). 189

Port Phillip Gentlemen Carey, John. Merchant, auctioneer. Melbourne Club, 1839. Carr, J. Stanley. German army officer. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1850; ‘a genial and polished person . . . a courtier, a man of the world’. (OMM, pp. 96, 129-31)

Carrington, Horatio Nelson. Solicitor. Melbourne Club, 1839 (expelled); ‘noted demi-rep’. (PPP 5 October 1843) Cassell, James Horatio Nelson. Civil servant, politician. (T&S) Cavenagh, George. Newspaper proprietor. Melbourne Club, 1840. (ADB, vol. 1) Chamberlain, Robert. Lieutenant, 31st Regt. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. One of the five gentlemen volunteers. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 351) Cheyne, Alexander McKenzie. Doctor, squatter. Melbourne Club, 1847; m. Eliza, dau. of John Cotton (q.v.). Clarke, Robert Nalder. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1849. Clerk, Robert (see App. III) Cobb, John Thomas. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. (PPG, 21 September 1839)

Cobham, Francis (see App. III) Coldham, John. Squatter; ‘a real old English squire’. (Fetherstonhaugh, pp. 146-7; OMM, p. 96)

Cole, George Ward. Captain, R.N. (rtd). Merchant, politidan. Melbourne Club, 1840; m. (2) Thomas Anne, sister of the McCrae brothers (q.v.). (ADB, vol. 1)

Cooke, Cecil Pybus. Squatter; m. Arbella Winter, sister of the Winter brothers. (BCG, vol. 2, p. 793)

Cotter, Barry. Doctor, druggist. Melbourne Club, 1838; m. Inez Seville Fitzgerald, supposedly the granddaughter of an as yet unidentified Irish peer. (Age, 13 October 1934)

Cotton, John and Edward (see App. II) Cox, John. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1841; ‘a worthy scion of a family which has furnished, perhaps, more pattern country gentlemen to Australia than any other’; m. his cousin, Frances, dau. of William Cox of Hobartville. His sisters all married prominent colonists: Agnes m. Robert Clerk; Mary m. C. L. J. de Villiers; Jane m. Claud Farie (see App. III); Elizabeth m. George Winter (see App. I); Anne m. George Bostock (B&K). (Mowle, 5th edn; OMM, p. 25) Croke, James. Barrister, official. Melbourne Club, 1844. B.A.(TCD). (T&S) Curdie, Daniel. Doctor, squatter. Secretary of the Subscription Assemblies. Curlewis, George Campbell. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1845. Curr, Edward and E. M. (see App. III) Cussen, Patrick. Doctor. Founding member, Melbourne Club. Dalgety, Frederick Gonnerman. Merchant. Melbourne Club, 1846. (ADB, 3) Darke, William Wedge. Civil servant. Founding member, Melbourne Club.

Davidson, Alexander. Major, HEICS. Landowner, eccentric. His dau. Caroline m. Colonel Acland Anderson, son of Lieut.-Colonel Joseph Anderson (see App. III). (Argus, 20 October 1856) Dawson, James. Squatter, amateur anthropologist. (OMM) Eagle, Chichester Aston. Squatter; one of his sisters m. Edward Walpole (see 190

Appendix II App. II), while his cousin m., John Gardiner. (Henderson (1937), p. 299) Ebden, Charles (see App. Ill) Eddington, John (see App. III) Elliott, William. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. Elms, George Wyndham. Squatter. ‘A gentleman in every sense of the word’ (Fetherstonhaugh, p. 106); m. Jessie Beveridge, ‘the belle of the Glenelg’ (ibid., p. 134). Farie, Claud (see App. II) Fenwick, Fairfax. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1843. Fenwick, Nicholas Alexander. Civil servant. Brother of above. Melbourne Club, 1841. Miss Drysdale called him and his sister ‘very proud . . . well bred’ (CCP, vol. 2, p. 168). Flower, Horace (see App. III) Fowler, Charles (see App. I) Fowler, Henry (see App. I) Fyans, Foster. Captain, 4th Kings Own Regt. Civil servant. (ADB, vol. 1) Gellibrand, Joseph Tice. One of the founders of Port Phillip and, with Hesse, the first gentleman to lose his life in the new settlement. (ADB, vol. 1) Goldsmith, Henry Adolphus. Squatter, politician. Melbourne Club, 1843. See Fyans’ favourable remarks. (LVP, p. 185; T&S) Gore, Harry. Merchant, squatter. Melbourne Club, 1849.

Gottreux, Henry. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1851. “Tall and soldierlylooking, with a big moustache, he had a bluff, German-baron sort of air.’ (OMM, pp. 126-8) Gottreux, William. Squatter. (OMM, p. 97) Gourlay, Oliver. One of the five gentlemen volunteers. (Fetherstonhaugh, p. 33; PPH, 2 January 1844; PPP, 25 January 1844; Kenyon) Gray, John. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1838. Green, John. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. Griffin, Frederick Sealy. Squatter, philanthropist. Melbourne Club, 1842. Grimes, Edward. Squatter, civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1842. (T&S)

Gurner, Henry Field. Lawyer, civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1844; m. Augusta, dau. of Edward Curr (see App. II). Grylls, Rev. John Couch. Clergyman, C. of E. Of his five daughters, Sarah married W. H. Campbell (q.v.), and Mary married Evelyn Sturt (App. J). Haines, William Clarke. Squatter, politician. Melbourne Club, 1845. (ADB) Hall, Charles Browning. Squatter, civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1847. (LVP, p. 268) Hamilton, George. Overlander. Founding member, Melbourne Club. Did not settle in Port Phillip. Hardy, William. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1841. Hawdon, John (see App. III) Hawdon, Joseph (see App. III) Henty, Edward (see App. III) Henty, Stephen (see App. III) Heriot, Elliot. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. (Henderson (1936), p. 343) Hesse, George. Died in the bush with Gellibrand (q.v.); one of the founders of Port Phillip. 191

Port Phillip Gentlemen Highett, William. Merchant, squatter. Melbourne Club, 1838. (ADB, vol. 4) Hill, James Dovet. One of the Waterford school, ‘of good family’. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 773; Batey, 105-07) Hobson, Edmund. Doctor; ‘universally beloved’, PPH, 4 March 1848. (ADB)

Hodgson, John. Merchant. Melbourne Club, 1854. Wife one of the patronesses of the ball, PPG, 6 April 1839. (T&S) Hogue, Arthur. Merchant. Melbourne Club, 1839. Holloway, Joseph. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1842. Home, Rodham (see App. III) Howard, Charles (see App. II) Hughes, Charles. Squatter. Hughes, Henry Kent. Squatter. Brother of above. Hutton, Charles. Captain, HEICS. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1838. Married Margaret, daughter of James Smith of Melbourne. Jamieson, Archibald. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. Brother of Hugh and Thomas Bushby Jamieson (qq.v.). Jamieson, Hugh. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. (See above) Jamieson, Robert. Squatter, merchant. Melbourne Club, 1839. Jamieson, Thomas Bushby. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. (See above) Jeftcott, William. Resident Judge (in succession to Willis). Melbourne Club, 1844. (ADB, vol. 2) Jeffreys, Arthur. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. Graham Papers. (Unclear if he is brother to those of the same name below.) Jeffreys, Edward William. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1846. Brother to Henry Charles and Frederick Herbert. Jeffreys, Frederick Herbert. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1846. Jeffreys, Henry Charles. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1846.

Jennings, Daniel. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. ‘A country squire and gentlernan is Mr. Jennings.’ (Pohlman, 18 May 1841) Johnstone, Alexander. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1845. Jones, Lloyd. Squatter. One of the Goulburn mob. (See Anderson, App. III) Jones, Bowen. Squatter. Brother of above. Kelsall, Lieut.-Colonel Roger. Squatter. Royal Engineers. Kenny, Lieut.-Colonel Eyre Evans. 86th Regt. (rtd). Landowner. Ker, William Leyden. Squatter. Married Anna Maria, dau. of Walter Hussey

de Burgh (a cousin of Griffith, Chomley, etc.). (Fetherstonhaugh, pp. 89.90)

Kerr, John Hunter. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1854. Kilgour, James. Squatter, doctor. Melbourne Club, 1840; Sec., Private Assemblies, 1842. (de) Labilliere (see App. II) La Trobe, Charles Joseph (see App. III)

Langhorne, Alfred. Merchant, squatter. Melbourne Club, 1843. Nephew of Captain Lonsdale. His wife, nee Sarah August, was one of the beauties of the

settlement. His brother and partner, William, m. Eliza, dau. of W. J. Belcher (see App. III) Le Souef (see App. III) Lonsdale, Captain William. Melbourne Club (first meeting, but did not join 192

Appendix II until 1851). Civil servant and later Colonial Secretary. Married Martha Smythe, sister of George and Henry Smythe (qq.v.). Loughnan, Henry. Squatter. (Mowle, B&K) Loughnan, John. Squatter, Indian officer (10th Bengal Cavalry). (Mowle) Lyon, Charles Hugh. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1846. Married Juliet, daughter of Lieut.-Colonel Joseph Anderson (see App. Il). M‘Arthur, James. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1838. McCrae (see App. III) McFarlane, Duncan. Squatter. Melbourne Club, founding member. Mackinnon, Charles Farquhar. Squatter. ‘Kind as a woman’; member of the Mount Gambier mob. (OMM, pp. 15-152) Macknight, Charles (see App. III)

McLachlan, Archibald. Accountant, squatter. Port Phillip Club, and Melbourne Club, 1844. Manning, James. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. Married Mary, daughter of Major Firebrace (see App. I) Martin, Frederick. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1842. Martin, Robert. Doctor, squatter, landowner. Melbourne Club, 1840; (for his wife, see App. III) Maunsell, Edward Eyre (see App. III) Meek, William. Solicitor. Melbourne Club, founding member and first Hon.

Secretary. Secretary for the Birthday Ball, 1841. First solicitor in Melbourne. “A thorough type of the old English gentleman.’ (Strode, vol. 1, p. 16)

Merewether, Francis. Civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1841. (ADB, vol. 5) Mitchell, William Fancourt. Squatter, politician, civil servant (later knighted). Melbourne Club, 1843. (ADB, vol. 5) Mollison, Alexander Fullerton. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. (ADB, vol. 2)

Mollison, William Thomas. Squatter. Brother of the above. Melbourne Club, 1840. (ADB, 2) Montgomerie, W. James. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1845. Montgomery, James. Solicitor. Melbourne Club, 1840. (Mrs McCrae, passim) Moor, Henry. Solicitor. Mayor of Melbourne (twice). Melbourne Club, 1848. (ADB, vol. 2) Moore, James (see App. III) Murdoch, Robert. Squatter. Melbourne Club, founding member. Murdoch, Thomas. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840.

Murphy, Francs. Doctor, squatter, politician (later knighted). Melbourne Club, 1848. (ADB, vol. 5)

Newman, Charles. Major (rtd). Landowner; ‘lived in oriental splendor in Heidelberg’.

Newsome, George. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1850. Nicholson, Mark. Squatter, politician. Cousin of the Cobhams (q.v.) and married Elizabeth Cobham. (Mrs McCrae, p. 52, etc.; ADB, vol. 5) Ogilby, Robert Edwin. Squatter. Friend of the Greenes. (Stawell, 74, 88). One of the stewards of the 1845 Ball. (PPH, 16 March 1848) Outhwaite, Robert. Squatter. His sister, Emma, was first wife of Joseph Haw193

Port Phillip Gentlemen don (q.v.), and he married Blanche, daughter of James Clerk of VDL by his wife, Agatha, daughter of John Cox. (Joseph Foster, Our Noble and Gentle Families of Royal Descent, London, 1885, pp. 283-6)

Palmer, James Frederick. Physician, politidan, mayor of Melbourne. (later knighted). Melbourne Club, 1844. (ADB, vol. 5) Panton, Joseph Anderson. Civil servant. Cousin of the Andersons (see App. IIT). Melbourne Club, 1853. (BCG, 2, p. 473; ADB, vol. 5) Perry, Charles. Bishop of Melbourne. Melbourne Club, 1849. (ADB, vol. 5) Pinnock, James Denham. Civil servant. “The once well-known Mr. J. D. Pinnock was also one of the fashionable “swells” that abided here [i.e., Fitzroy], Garryowen, vol. 1, pp. 26, 123-5) Piper, William. Squatter, civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1843. Playne, George. Doctor, squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. Secretary, 1844-48; ‘a gentleman of talent, respectability and position’ (PPH, 2 November 1848); ‘a fashionable club J.P. and M.D.’ (Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 288) Pohlman, Robert Williams. Barrister, politician. Melbourne Club, 1852. (ADB, vol. 5; and Mrs McCrae, p. 90, for a feline sketch) Pyke, Thomas Henry. Squatter, huntsman. (LVP, pp. 114-16) Rankin, Arthur. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1841. Raymond (see App. III) Reid, James. Captain. Squatter. (Meyrick, pp. 163, 169) Riley, James. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. (BCG, vol. 1, p. 9) Rodger, George. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1845. Ross, James Hunter. Solicitor. Melbourne Club, 1846. (T&S) Rucker, W. F. Merchant. Melbourne Club, 1839 (expelled). See chapter V. Russell, Robert. Civil servant. Melbourne Club, founding member. Married Margaret, daughter of James Smith of Melbourne. Rutledge, William. Squatter, merchant, landowner, politidan. Melbourne Club, 1841. (ADB, vol. 2) Ryan, Charles (see App. I) Ryrie, Donald. Squatter. Melbourne Club, founding member. (Mowle; OMM)

Ryrie, James. Squatter. Melbourne Club, founding member. Brother of

Donald and William. Ryrie, William. Squatter. Melbourne Club, founding member. (OMM) Scott, Edward. Squatter. Melbourne Club, founding member. Sewell, Edward. Soliator. Melbourne Club, 1841; ‘a dandified solicitor’ (Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 70) Shaw, George. Melbourne Club, 1848. (Garryowen) Simpson, James. Civil servant. One of the earliest settlers and magistrates in PP. Police Magistrate, Melbourne, 1840-41; ‘he enjoys the confidence of the entire community’ (PPG, 12 January 1839). Melbourne Club, 1839. President, 1842. Married Caroline Bowles, sister-in-law of William Yaldwyn (see App. I) (ADB, vol. 2). ‘Always in the first social position’, Westgarth. Personal Recollections, pp. 72-3.

Smith, Francis Grey (see App. III) Smith, Henry Arthur. Melbourne Club, 1849. Smith, Jones Agnew. Merchant. Melbourne Club, 1841. 194

Appendix II Smith, J. F. Hamilton. Captain, 28th Regt. Stationed at Melbourne. Perhaps a relation of Judge Willis, whose mother was a Hamilton Smith. (PPH, 25 September 1840; PPP, 4 January 1841) Smith, William E. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1845.

Smyth, George Brunswick. Captain, 80th Regt, (rtd). Melbourne Club, founding member. Married Constantia, daughter of Thomas Alexander of the Isle of France; brother-in-law of Captain Sylvester Brown (see App. IID); relation of Charles Forrest (see App. III). Smythe, George Douglas. Civil servant, squatter. Married Miss Welsh, sister

of P. W. Welsh (q.v.). Smythe, Henry Wilson Hutchinson. Civil servant. Melbourne Club, founding member. Married Jessie Allan of Allanvale, VDL, sister of Mrs P. W. Welsh (q.v.)

Smythe, Martha. Sister of George and Henry; married to Captain Lonsdale (q.v.) Snodgrass, Peter (see App. IID) Sprot, Alexander (see App. III) Steele, W. Melbourne Club, 1839. Stephen (see App. III) Stevens, John Whitehill. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. ‘A very nice gentlemanly young man’ (Graham, 20 June 1840). Templeton, John. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1838. (Henderson, 1941)

Therry, Roger (see App. II) Thomas (see App. II) Thomson, Alexander. Doctor, pastoralist, one of the founders of Port Phillip

and radical politician. (ADB, vol 1) °

Thomson, Adam Compton. Clergyman, C. of E., Melbourne. Thomson, Alfred Taddy. Squatter, civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1847. Partner of Stevens (q.v.). (LVP, pp. 325-6) Thomson, James. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840. One of the five gentlemen volunteers. (T&S) Thomson, John, younger. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1846. Thomson, William Campbell. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1845. Thornloe, Thomas. Squatter, civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1839. Townsend, Thomas Scott. Civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1840. Tulloh, Robert (see App. III) Tyers, Charles James. Civil servant. Melbourne Club, 1843. (ADB, 2) Tyssen, Henry (see App. II) Unett, James Robinson. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. Walpole, Edward (see App. IID Walsh (see App. III)

Watson, Henry. Doctor. Melbourne Club, 1841. Watson, James. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1839. Partner with John Hunter, representing the Marquess of Ailsa and the Scottish investors. Watson, Sydney Grandison (see App. III) Watton, John (see App. III) Wedge, Charles. Civil servant, squatter. Melbourne Club, 1838. Connection of the Darke, Synnot, Lawrence families. 195

Port Phillip Gentlemen Wedge, Richard. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1838. Brother of above. Welsh, Patrictus William. Merchant. Melbourne Club, 1838. One of its first

Trustees. Married Margaret, daughter of George Allan of VDL (See Lonsdale, Smythe entries); his daughter, Isabella, married Charles Sherard (App. J) Westby, Edmund (see App. III)

White, Edward Riggs. Squatter, civil servant. Melbourne Club, founding member.

White, Henry John. Colonel (rtd). Squatter. Melbourne Club, founding

member. Willis, Edward. Merchant and squatter. Melbourne Club, 1844. Wilson, James. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1844. Wood (see App. III) Woolley, John Maude. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1840.

Woolley, Thomas. Merchant, squatter. Melbourne Club, 1841. Brother of above.

Wright, W. H. (see App. III) Wright, William. Squatter. Melbourne Club, 1850.

196

APPENDIX II Colonists Claiming Gentle Birth A list of colonists whose claims to gentle birth have not been fully established. Those who were members of good society are also listed in Appendix II

This list includes colonists who have made general or unsubstantiated claims to

gentle birth; men for whom such claims have been made by descendants or others; men whose origins suggest an as yet unproven gentle descent; those whose associations and friendship with gentlemen of birth suggest a similar background (the case with Irish Protestants); men whose families were on the social ascendant; cases of unproven identity; and men with names which suggest either aristocratic birth or pretensions. The list is by no means exhaustive. Anderson, Joseph. Army officer, landowner and squatter. Son of James Anderson of Rispond (? of a landed family). He and his brother, Lieut.-General John Anderson, had squatting interests in partnership. He m. Mary, only

dau. of Colonel Alexander Campbell, and had issue: William m. to Caroline, dau. of Major Alexander Davidson; Fairlie m. to Lloyd Jones of Avenel; Elizabeth m. to Paul de Castella (q.v.); Juliet m. to Charles Hugh Lyon of Ballanee. J. A. Panton was a cousin (see BCG, vol. 2, p. 476) of Joseph Anderson. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1850. (Anderson, pas-

sim; ADB, vol. 1; B&K) Archdale or Archdall. An Irish Ascendancy family which had representatives in the colony after, and possibly before, 1850. Thomas Hewans Archdale, second son of the Reverend William Archdale by Louise, dau. of Captain Thomas Hewans. (BLG of I., 1958 edn). It is not clear if he came out before 1850 (Electoral Roll, 1856/7); his fourth brother Mervyn William Archdale may be the same as the squatter Mervyn Archdale (B&K), who died before 1853 (LVP, p. 268); M. W. F. Archdale was at the levee in 1841. (PPG, 27

October 1841); H. G. Archdale was a partner of C. P. Cooke (Bassett, op.cit., pp. 451-2); H. T. H. Archdale arr. ?1841, died 1900 (Kenyon); there was a letter awaiting T. W. Archdale (PPH, 10 February 1846).

Armytage, George. Landowner in VDL and squatter in PP. Eldest son of George Armytage. In BCG the tree begins (as do many in that work) with his grandfather, Stephen Armytage; Henderson makes Stephen Armytage a descendant of Sir Francis Armytage of Kirklees, ist Bart (cr. 1641, extinct 1737). As the senior line of the Armytages became extinct, this does not seem possible. He emigrated as a young man first to VDL and then to PP where he founded one of the most prominent grazing families of Victoria. (BCG, vol. 1, p. 230; Henderson (1936 and 1941); B&K) Armytage, Thomas. Squatter. Eldest son of George Armytage, cited above. He died of a chill in Port Phillip in 1842, unm. aged 22. (Sources cited above) 197

Port Phillip Gentlemen Armytage, George. Squatter. 2nd son of George Armytage. He and his remaining brothers and sisters married into a number of squatting families, for details of which see Henderson (1936); LVP, p. 171. Arthur, Henry. Squatter. Nephew of Lieut.-Colonel George Arthur, Lieut.Governor of VDL. One of the original members of the Port Phillip Association. Member of the Melbourne Club; insolvent 1843; returned to VDL where he died in 1848. (B. Peerage, for senior line; B&K; Kenyon)

Arthur, Charles. Squatter. Nephew of the Lieut.-Governor and brother of Henry Arthur. He returned to VDL where he died in 1884. (Kenyon) Arthur, Fortescue. Squatter. Brother? of Charles and Henry Arthur. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1840. (McNicoll; Kenyon) Ashhurst, Henry George. Merchant? Possibly idenufiable with Henry George

Ashhurst, 4th son of W. H. Ashhurst of Waterstock. The Port Phillip Ashhurst went bankrupt in 1845. He had squatting interests. (BLG, 5th edn 1871; B&K; PPH, 11 March 1845) Aylwood, —— . Squatter. Nothing known of his parentage. Partner of Augustine Barton (q.v.). A high-minded alcoholic who was lost in the bush for five days and found, naked but alive, sitting on a log (Griffith diary, 10 March 1840). (Included here because as a partner of Barton it is possible he was a gentleman by birth, partners often though not always coming from the same background.) Bacchus, William Henry. Squatter. Son of William Bacchus, a member of a pottery-making family on the social rise in the nineteenth century. W. H. Bacchus was a small landowner and an army officer. He emigrated to PP where he took a leading part in society, being a foundation member of the Melbourne Club. He died in 1849 leaving a family which remained in the colony. (Osborn, passim; B&K) Bacchus, William Henry, younger. Squatter. Son of Captain William Henry Bacchus and his wife, Eliza Arthur. He was an unsuccessful squatter who,

like his father, was a foundation member of the Melbourne Club and a prominent hunting man. (Sources cited above) Balcombe, Alexander Beatson. Squatter. Son of William Balcombe and his wife, Jane Cranstoun. He and his family stayed in Australia; something of a claim was made for William Balcombe being the bastard son of George IV by Mrs Fitzherbert, but this has been contested. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1857. (B&K; Hugh McCrae’s annotated copy of Georgiana’s Journal, p. 187 (Mitchell Library), has his version of the Balcombe origins) Barlow, Edward. Youngest son of Captain John Barlow of Bushy Park, Co. Roscommon, and Rosmilan Park, Co. Galway. Barlow m. Jane, eldest dau. of William Lilburne, a Melbourne merchant. It is not clear if he stayed in Melbourne and he is not mentioned in B&K or in Kenyon cards. (PPH, 22 January 1846)

Barton, Augustine. Squatter. Possibly the same man as Augustine Barton (1814-74), son of Dunbar Barton of Rochestown. The squatter Barton was an old friend of Charles Griffith (of the Irish Ascendancy). His fate after 1844

is not known. (B&K; Griffith, Diary, 8 December 1840; BLG of I., 1958, Barton of Waterfoot) Beers, Philip Grove. Regular army officer, stationed in Melbourne (80th regt). 198

Appendix III According to Garryowen he was a cadet of a distinguished Northern Irish

family. He died in Melbourne in 1842. (Kenyon; Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 692) Belcher, Joseph William. Solicitor. His family seems to have made some vague

claim to descent from Belcher of Guilsborough. His son-in-law, Charles Williams the auctioneer, emigrated first and gradually all the family came out. It was numerous and included: William Redmond. Clerk of the Bench. (Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 98) Charles. He committed suicide in 1839 because his family would not let him marry Miss Batman. (William Locke letter, 7 December 1839, RHSV Library) George Frederick. Treasury Clerk Joseph Henry. Attorney, squatter, later politician (see T&S) Anna m. Charles Williams Elizabeth m. William Langhorne, merchant (Lonsdale’s nephew) Mary m. David Stead, squatter and partner with the von Stieglitzes Sophie m. Charles von Stieglitz (see Appendix I) Susan m. Francis Grey Smith (see Appendix III) Marcella m. Robert von Stieglitz (see Appendix 1) (C. F. Belcher, Genealogical Notes Relating to William Belcher of Kells (17301798) and His Descendants)

Bernard, William Dallas. Squatter, author, doctor. Son of Peter Bernard, surgeon, of a Huguenot family on the ascendant. Bernard, a member of the Melbourne Club (1841), led a varied life, travelled and wrote; he was an M.A. (Oxon.); left the colony and became private secretary to the governor of Ceylon, 1848-51. His wife appears to have been one of the Mercers of Huntingtower. His family was later recorded in BLG. (BLG, Bernard of Snakemoor; B&K) von Bibra, Frederick. (Included here on the strength of the particle). (PPP, 14 November 1839; Kenyon) Black, George. Squatter. Son of Captain George Black of Law Grove, Perth. As a young man, Black sold his estate and emigrated to Australia. Henderson suggests that the family was old and landed but gives no particulars. The Blacks stayed in Victoria. (Henderson (1936), p. 40; B&K) Blackney, Charles Hugh. Squatter. Son of Walter Blackney, M.P., radical member for Carlow. According to Griffith, he was a relation of the Talbots. A member of the Melbourne Club (1841), he was a partner with Charles Airey (q.v.). It is not clear what happened to him after the dissolution of the partnership. (B&K; Griffith, Diary, 6 November 1840) Brodie, George Sinclair. Auctioneer and squatter. Supposed to be related on the maternal side to Sir John Sinclair, M.P. for Caithness. (B&K; Batey, Recollections, p. 25; B. Peerage, Sinclair of Ulster (where Helen Sinclair, cousin to Sir John Sinclair 1st Bart, M.P., m. David Brodie of Hopeville. It is possible that this may provide the link.) Brodie, Richard Sinclair. Squatter. Brother of G. S. Brodie. (Batey, p. 25; Kenyon) Brown, (later Browne), Sylvester John. Retired sailor, landowner and squatter. His son, T. A. Browne, who changed the spelling of the name claimed 199

Port Phillip Gentlemen descent from one of the Thirteen Tribes of Galway. For his life and fate see ch. VII and sources quoted therein.

' Browne, Thomas Alexander. Squatter, writer. Son of S. J. Brown and his wife, Eliza Angell Alexander. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1854. (See chs IV and VII) Cameron, —— . Overseer. Son of Cameron of Ferinish (of the minor gentry?).

He is mentioned briefly by J. D. Lang as overseer for Dennistoun Bros. (Phillipsland, pp. 175-7)

Cameron, ——. Son of Cameron of Cluny (?of minor gentry; perhaps the same man that Lang met?). Recorded in passing by Niel Black. (Black, Journal, 24 January 1840) Campbell of Otter. It has been difficult to decide finally which of the many Campbells in PP did bear this shadowy territorial title. Wherever cited it has been in the Scottish manner (i.e., Otter, without Christian or surname). It

seems most likely that Campbell of Otter is to be identified with John

Campbell, partner of D. H. Wilsone (see Appendix I). The original Campbells of Ottir or Otter were extinct and the representatives of the most recent branch of Campbell of Otter were Campbell of Ormidale. It is not clear what happened to John Campbell after the death of Wilsone. (Wilsone Papers, Letters, 14 October 1839, 25 and 26 June 1840; Redmond Barry, Book of Cases, vol. 1, p. 412; BLG, 5th edn, 1871, Campbell of Ormidale) Campbell, Archibald Macarthur. Squatter. Son of Neil Campbell of Mull, and grandson of Donald Campbell of Cornaig, a cadet of Campbell of Barbreck.

Campbell, who was possibly connected with the Macleods of Talisker, remained in Port Phillip and founded a pastoral family. According to Henderson, his eldest brother, Colin, also a squatter in Port Phillip did well and returned to Scotland in 1852, buying back Cornaig. (Henderson, 1936, p. 93; LVP, p. 347) Campbell, Dalmahoy. Squatter, auctioneer. Son of Campbell of Lochend, according to B&K.

Campbell, James David Lyon. Landowner. So far I have not been able to discover his parentage, but from Mrs McCrae’s comments he was a man accustomed to move in aristocratic circles. A nich young man with a young

family, he was one of the few gentlemen of leisure in the District (it is a mystery why he emigrated); he died young in 1844 and his family returned home. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1843. (Mrs McCrae, pp. 81, 141-2; Mrs J. D. L. Campbell returning home, PPH, 20 November 1845) Campbell, James Henry. Squatter. 4th son of John Campbell of Kilberry? He m. in 1844 Mary Anne Thomas (see Appendix III) and was possibly the son of John Campbell, 8th of Kilberry, whose younger children are not listed by name. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1838. (BLG, 17th edn, Campbell of Kilberry; B&K; Mrs McCrae, pp. 183, 189)

Campbell, John. Squatter. Son of Duncan Campbell of Feuer, a cadet of Campbell of Lochnell. An early squatter in Port Phillip, Campbell died in 1883 in Gippsland leaving issue which remained in the colony. (Henderson (1936), p. 185) Campbell, William. Younger son of Campbell of Dunmore? The tree in BLG does not name junior issue. A partner with Irvine and Macknight, he came 200

Appendix III out with Mrs McCrae. He boasted of a marriage connection with the Prince de Polignac. In the Annuaire de la Pairie et de la Noblesse de la France for 1845 there is a brief note under Polignac that the brother of the then Duc married

a Campbell but it gives no details about her parentage. Campbell returned

home. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1841. (BLG, 17th edn, Fraser Campbell of Dunmore; B&K; Mrs McCrae, p. 10) Carey, Lucius. Squatter. Noted on the strength of his names which might link him with the Irish Careys. (B&K) Clerk, Robert. 2nd son of Robert Clerk of Westholme who was descended from Clerk of Pennycuick. He was the protege and secretary of the Hon. Wiliam Talbot and with him visited Port Phillip; he seems to have stayed in VDL, married the sister of John Cox of Warrnambool and was father-inlaw of Robert Outhwaite (q.v.), giving him marriage links with Winter, Farie, Hawdon. It is not clear if he is to be identified with Robert Clerk listed in B&K. (Gnffith, Diary, 3 November 1840; Mrs McCrae, p. 51; BLG, 5th edn, 1871)

Clutterbuck, S. H. Occupation unknown. Appears to have been a relation of Lewis Clutterbuck of Newark Park, though his initials (if correct) do not tally with any in the published pedigree. (Diary, 1 March 1850; BLG, 17th edn, Clutterbuck of Hornby Castle) Cobham, Francis. Squatter. Son of the late Francis Cobham and his wife, Mary McCrae (App. I). He and his family emigrated to NSW and then to PP. They claimed descent from the Cobhams late of Cobham Hall. He married into the Ascendancy, to Catherine, dau. of Walter Synnot (App. J); his sister Elizabeth m. the squatter Mark Nicholson, a cousin of Dr Cobham (see Mrs McCrae, p. 52); his sister Mary m. James Graham (App. 1). (BCG, vol. 1, p. 247; B&K; Mrs McCrae, passim)

Cole, Nicholas. Squatter. Son of Nicholas Cole, R.N. The Coles were a distinguished naval family and landowners in Devon. A disjointed tree beginning with Coel, a descendant of Caractacus, is provided by Henderson. The family remained in Victoria as pastoralists. (Henderson (1936), p. 317)

Conolly, James Mayne. Solicitor. A claim made by a descendant that he was a member of the family of Conolly of Castletown has not been proved. Conran, Lewis Charles. Regular army officer. Captain, 11th Regiment. Son of Captain James Conran. Conran m. Catherine only child of Thomas Wills of Heidelberg; his family was on the social ascendant and is listed in the 17th

edn of BLG. It appears to be his wife whom Boldrewood mentions as a victim of melancholic madness. (BLG, 17th edn; Henderson (1936), p. 264; OMM,, p. 161) Cotton, John. Squatter. Son of William Cotton and his wife, Catherine, dau. of the Reverend William Savery. The family was on the social ascendant in

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, though the eldest son, William (who stayed in England), feared that it was sinking. Cotton, an amateur of writing, ornithology, natural history and art, was a classic case of an unsuccessful squatter: despite failure and an early death in 1849, he left behind a family who married well. Of his daughters, Marian m. Charles Ryan (q.v.), Charlotte m. Peter Snodgrass (q.v.), Eliza m. A. M. Cheyne and Caroline 201

Port Phillip Gentlemen m. A. A. Le Souef (q.v.). (Henderson (1941), which seeks to link them with the Cottons of Combermere; ADB, vol. 1; Letters, op.cit; Letters of Wilham Cotton, La Trobe Library) Cotton, Edward. Squatter, civil officer. 4th son of William Cotton. He made an unsuitable marriage to a Frenchwoman whom his brother William refused to receive into the house. He was a failed squatter who ended in the civil service. There is a note in Cotton’s Letters that he died ‘in tragic circumstances’ in 1860. (Correspondence, passim; Letters of William Cotton)

Craig, George Napier. Squatter. According to his brother-in-law, Charles Thomas, he came of ‘a good Scotch family’; one of his sisters married General Sir George Napier. Craig and his brother were in partnership. He marnied Sarah Thomas (App. III). (Thomas, Memories; B&K) Curr, Edward. Landowner, squatter, controversialist and politician. Son of John Curr. Curr m. Elizabeth, grand-daughter of Richard Micklethwaite of Ardsley; one of the handful of Catholic gentlemen in the District; despite his religion two of his daughters married into Protestant families. He died in 1850. (ADB, vol. 1; B&K; BLG, 17th edn, Micklethwaite of Ardsley) Curr, Edward Micklethwaite. Squatter and author. Eldest son of Edward Curr. Curr was a literate squatter who travelled in Europe during which time his family sold up their big squatting interests. After working in other colonies, he ended as a civil servant in Victoria. (Memoranda; Recollections;

ADB, vol. 3) Dalgety, Frederick Gonnerman. Merchant. Son of Lieut. Alexander Dalgety. A successful woolmerchant, Dalgety went to England, led the life of a landed gentleman; eventually his descendants entered the ranks of the gentry, one of a number of Australian families on the social ascendant who negotiated the passage with success. (BCG, vol. 2, p. 484; ADB, vol. 3; BLG, 17th edn) de Little, Henry. Squatter. Sori of John de Little of Dublin. This family claims descent from the de Littles of Ouster and from the de Petitts (a Huguenot

family). Henry de Little and his brother Joseph both founded pastoral families. (Henderson (1936), p. 273)

Dutton, Hannibal. Squatter. Son of Thomas Dutton. A descent has been claimed from the Sherborne Duttons but this has not been proved. His sister Rosalie m. David Parry Okeden (Appendix I). (B&K; Perry, pp. 1-30) Dutton, William Hampden. Squatter, newspaper proprietor. 2nd son of F. H. H. Dutton, paternally Mendes, who adopted his grandmother’s family name. From the confused account in BCG it would appear that the Mendes family were Spanish Jews long settled in England. They claimed descent from Dutton of Dutton, Cheshire, and adopted their arms. William Dutton was an unsuccessful squatter who went insolvent and took his partner to law; he died in 1849. (BCG, vol. 2, p. 530; B&K)

Ebden, Charles Hotson. Squatter, politician. 2nd son of J. B. Ebden of Capetown. Another family on the social rise. Ebden, after a distinguished and colourful career, died in Melbourne in 1867. His family went to England where they eventually entered the ranks of the landed gentry. (BLG, 17th edn, Penn, formerly Ebden; ADB, vol. 1) Eddington, John. Army officer, squatter. Son of Captain George Eddington 202

Appendix II] by his first wife, Susan, dau. of Captain Graham. Claims of antiquity for the family are made in BCG and repeated by Henderson. Eddington’s family stayed in the colony, where he died in 1873. (BCG, vol. 1, p. 269; Henderson (1936), p. 222; B&K) Edgar, David. Squatter. Son of John Edgar of Dumfriesshire. An early squatter, he died in 1894 leaving a family of pastoralists. An unconnected tree, beginning with Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld, is printed in Henderson. (Henderson (1936), p. 265) Fairbairn, George. Squatter. Son of John Fairbairn. In BCG it is claimed that he belonged to the family of Fairbairn, Bart, but this is not demonstrated. Fairbairn founded a squatting dynasty which survived the century. (BCG, vol. 2, p. 676) Farie, Claud. Squatter, public servant. 3rd son of James Farie of Farme. Farie was an unsuccessful squatter who earned a rebuke from Niel Black for his interest in frivolities. His father’s family later found its way into BLG. A

member of the Melbourne Club, 1843. (BCG, vol. 2, p. 785; BLG, 17th edn)

Flower, Horace. Merchant and pastoralist. Son of John Flower, ‘landed proprietor’ of Norfolk, and his wife, Martha Wickham, who claimed descent from William of Wykeham collaterally. Flower, educated at Rugby and Trinity College, Cambridge, had extensive pastoral interests and died leaving issue which remained in the colony. (Henderson (1941), p. 247) Forrest, Charles. Army officer rtd. Son of Lieut.-Colonel William Forrest and his wife, dau. of General William St Leger (supposed to have been a member of the Doneraile family). Forrest, who m. Augusta Alexander (evidently a relation of T. A. Browne), appears to have stayed in the colony. (B. Peerage: Doneraile; Cooper, History of Prahran, pp. 14-17, 88-9) Fyans, Foster. Civil officer. Supposed to have come of an armigerous family. (ADB, vol. 1) Hamilton, Robert. Squatter. 6th son of Archibald Hamilton. One of a family party which settled in Port Phillip in 1839, he claimed descent from Andrew Hamilton of Westbourne (c.1589). He died in the colony leaving a family of pastoralists. (Henderson (1941), p. 337; Mrs Kirkland, Life in the Bush, By a Lady, Chambers Miscellany, 1845) Hawdon, John. Squatter. Son of John Hawdon of Walkerfield, Durham. A respectably long lineage is claimed for him in BCG but is not spelt out.

Hawdon, a member of the Melbourne Club, 1840, and an overlander, returned to NSW. (BCG, vol. 1, p. 373; B&K) Hawdon, Joseph. Explorer, squatter and landowner. 4th son of John Hawdon of Walkerfield. One of the first three overlanders, he was an early member of the Melbourne Club, 1838. Hawdon spent the years 1851-56 in England and later settled in New Zealand. His first wife was Emma Outhwaite, dau. of W. Outhwaite of Grenbury and sister of Robert Outhwaite (q.v.).'(BCG, vol. 1, p. 373; B&K: ADB, vol. 1; DNB of New Zealand) Hawdon, John, younger. Son of John Hawdon of NSW and PP. He was killed on his father’s run in 1849. (Sources cited above) Henty, Edward. The first settler in Port Phillip. 6th son of Thomas Henty of West Tarring, Sussex, banker and farmer. The first man to settle in PP, at 203

Port Phillip Gentlemen Portland (preceded only by whaling men who used various parts of PP as a

base). Henty was a member of a family which stood at the edge of the gentry in England—substantial farmers with a tree going back to 1670. He was a member of the Melbourne Club and died in Melbourne in 1878. The senior line stayed in England where arms were ‘established’ by it during the nineteenth century—it rose in England as the other branches rose in the colonies. (BCG, vol. 1, pp. 1-4; Marnie Bassett, The Hentys) Henty, Stephen George. Merchant. 7th son of Thomas Henty. The leading man in Portland and a member of the Melbourne Club. His wife, nee Jane Pace, was the first woman to settle permanently in Port Phillip. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1840. (Sources cited above) Henty, John. Squatter. 8th son of Thomas Henty. The only one of the Hentys not to be a success, John Henty eventually went back to Western Australia where he died about 1868. (Bassett, p. 530) Henty, Francis. Squatter, Merino Downs. 9th son of Thomas Henty, and the

first to join his brother Edward. Like Edward, Francis ran his famous property in the style and manner of a traditional English gentleman-farmer. By the mid-nineteenth century this was already an anachronism and the property suffered. (Sources cited above)

Home, Rodham. Squatter? Probably descended from Rodham Home, a member of the family of Home of Bassendean. Home, a friend of the Hunters, left PP intending to try his fortunes in India. He eventually died in

Tasmania in 1894. (BLG, 5th edn, Home of Bassendean; Launceston Examiner, 24 December 1894)

Howard, Charles. DACG. Son of Charles Howard, who according to Henderson was the son of Lady Caroline Howard, of the Earls of Suffolk — a curious and unsatisfactory claim, suggesting a natural descent. He retired from the Commissariat and settled in Melbourne. (B. Peerage, Suffolk & Berkshire; Henderson (1941), p. 138; Kenyon) Howitt, Godfrey. Doctor. 7th son of Thomas Howitt, of a prominent Quaker family, on the social rise in the nineteenth century. The family eventually entered BLG. Howitt stayed in the colony leaving a family here. (BLG, 17th edn; Mrs McCrae, passim; Henderson (1941) ) Howitt, Richard. Poet, writer and farmer. 6th son of Thomas Howitt. An unsuccessful farmer in the Yarra valley, Howitt returned to England and wrote a work on PP. (Richard Howitt, op.cit.; DNB; sources cited above) Hunter, W. F. Squatter. He may be identified with William Francis Hunter, 3rd son of Andrew Hunter of Doonholm and brother of John and Campbell Hunter (see Appendix I) de Labilliere, Charles. Squatter. Son of Peter de Labilliere who came out with his son and died in PP in 1847; the descendant of a family in the Huguenot noblesse. A squatter who sold up in 1859 and returned to England where he died in 1870. His son, Francis de Labilliere, wrote a history of Victoria (q.v.). (BCG, vol. 2, p. 418; B&K) La Trobe, Charles Joseph. Superintendent of Port Phillip, later Lieutenant Governor of Victoria. Son of the Reverend Christian La Trobe and his wife, Hannah Sims. The La Trobes were descended from Henri Boneval de la Trobe, who left France after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. (Gross, 204

Appendix III op.cit., ADB, vol. 2; Jacques Petitpierre, La Patrie Neuchateloise, vol. 4, Neuchatel, 1955)

Le Souef, William. 4th son of Jeremiah Le Souef, supposed to be of an old Huguenot family. Henderson traces the lineage back to 1497. He was an Assistant Protector of the Aboriginals. Died in Melbourne in 1862 leaving issue which remained in the colony. (Henderson (1941), p. 366.) Le Souef, Charles Henry. Civil officer, merchant. 2nd son of William Le Souef. Member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. (For details of his life, see Henderson.) Le Souef, Dudley Charles. Civil officer. 3rd son of William Le Souef. He served in the civil service 1840-47, then returned to England. His family came back to Australia. Le Souef, Albert. Squatter, zoologist. Son of William Le Souef. He married Caroline, 4th dau. of John Cotton of Doogallook and died in Melbourne in 1902 leaving issue which became prominent in the zoological field.

M‘Arthur, Mrs Peter. According to Henderson, she was a sister of Lord Kintore. However this is not apparent from the tree printed in B. Peerage. (Henderson (1941), p. 137; B. Peerage, Kintore) Macknight, Charles Hamilton. Squatter. 5th son of Dr Thomas Macknight,

D.D., and his wife (and cousin), Christian Crawfurd of Cartsburn. Macknight came of an ecclesiastical family, one branch of which entered the ranks of the Scottish landed gentry (see Macknight-Crawfurd of Cartsburn and Lauriston, BLG, 6th edn) by marriage to an heiress. He was a prominent squatter and stayed in the colony. (Henderson (1941); B&K)

Martin, Mrs Robert. Daughter of Robert Gear by his wife nee de Guzman. Married Robert Martin, squatter and doctor. Her mother was supposed to have been a kinswoman of the Empress Eugenie; she was also descended from the Suffolk family, Meadows of Witnesham (see BLG). She left, among other issue, Robert who m. Mary Graham (App. I) and Lucy who m. Captain J. T. Boyd, the grandfather of Martin Boyd. (Boyd Papers, copy La Trobe Library) Maunsell, Edward Eyre. Squatter. May be identified with Edward Eyre Maunsell who belonged to the family of Maunsell of Limerick, though there is no proof beyond the name and the fact that Charles Griffith seems to have known him. (BLG, 6th edn, 1882; B&K; Griffith, 13 January 1841)

Montgomery, William. Squatter. Son of Hugh Montgomery, Manor Cunningham, Strabane. Henderson describes him as a member of an old Northern Ireland family. Montgomery was one of the leading squatters in Gippsland, a cattle breeder and sportsman. His family remained in Victoria. (Henderson (1936), p. 464) Moore, James. Squatter. Son of George Moore, M.P. for Dublin. He appears

to have been a member of the Irish Ascendancy and was a partner with Charles Griffith (Appendix I); he m. Harriet, dau. of Dr John Watton (Appendix III) , so becoming a brother-in-law of Acheson French (Appendix I). He was a member of the Melbourne Club. (Osborn, p. 79; Stawell, p. 57; B&K) O’Donovan, Daniel Wellesley. Melbourne eccentric. Claimed to be a ‘third cousin’ to the Great Duke. (PPP, 7 March 1843) 205

Port Phillip Gentlemen Quinn, James Allen. Nephew of Sir John Franks of Dublin. (PPH, 27 May 1847)

Raymond, Samuel. Barrister. Son of James Raymond, Postmaster General of NSW, and his wife Aphrasia, 3rd dau. of Lieut.-Colonel William Odell, a lord of the Treasury and M.P. for Limerick. Raymond, Deputy Sheriff in PP, left Melbourne after a brief period in office. His sister was m. to Arthur Kemmis (Appendix I). He was a member of the Melbourne Club. (ADB, vol. 2; PPH, 14 September 1848) Raymond, William Odell. Squatter. Son of James Raymond. Raymond was one of the leading squatters in Gippsland. (LVP, p. 239; B&K) Rowe, John Pearson. Squatter, doctor. One of the few Catholic gentlemen colonists, Rowe claimed descent from Sir Thomas More. His family stayed in the colony. (Ancestor, June 1971; B&K) Scott, William. Settler. Formerly of Milltown Lodge, Convoy, Co. Donegal. (PPH, 4 February 1845) Scott, William Henry. Squatter. Supposed to be a nephew of Sir Walter Scott, 1st Bart, though an examination of Sir Walter Scott’s lineage does not bear this out. (BLG, 6th edn; B&K) Skene, William. Squatter. Son of Thomas Skene, of Blackdog, Aberdeen. This family claims descent from the second son of Alexander Skene, ninth of Skene. William Skene founded a pastoral family in Victoria. (Henderson (1936), p. 546) Skinner, Mrs J. A. Daughter of Lieut.-Colonel William Forrest and his wife, dau. of General William St Leger (see Forrest, Appendix III) Smith, Francis Grey. Son of Rev. John Jennings Smith. The Rev. J. J. Smith

was reputed to be a child of Mrs Fitzherbert by George IV, though this claim has never been satisfactorily made out. F. G. Smith m. Susannah, dau. of J. W. Belcher (Appendix III). His family remained in the colony. (Belcher (for claim); BCG, vol. 2, p. 494) Snodgrass, Peter. Squatter. Son of Lieut.-Colonel Kenneth Snodgrass, sometime Administrator of NSW. Like many Scottish settlers, from an ecclesiastical background. Descent from some Scottish families, the Mackenzies, the

Douglases, etc. is claimed in the Herald. Snodgrass m. Charlotte Cotton (Appendix III) and died in the colony. He was an early member of the Melbourne Club, 1839. (ADB, vol. 2 (for Kenneth Snodgrass); PPH, 10 September 1841) Sprot, Alexander. Squatter. Son of Alexander Sprot of Garnkirk. He appears to have been the son of a minor landowner; engaged in a controversial court

case with Foster Fyans (q.v.) and went home near bankrupt. He was a member of the Melbourne Club. (CCP, vol. 3, p. 176; CCP, vol. 4, p. 27; B&K) Stephen, Sidney. Barrister. Eldest son of Sidney Stephen, Acting Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, and grandson of John Stephen, Acting Chief Justice of NSW. The Stephens were a prominent and brilliant legal and literary family on the social rise in the nineteenth century. Stephen had a tempestuous career as a barrister in Port Phillip. (BCG, vol. 1, p. 42;

Mowle; B. Peerage (for senior branch); Governor’s Dispatches, vol. 49, 1845, section J.) 206

Appendix III Stephen, Mary Anne. Eldest dau. of Sidney Stephen, Acting Chief Justice of New Zealand. She m. John Carre Riddell, squatter (Appendix 1) Stephen, Elizabeth. 2nd daughter of Sidney Stephen, Acting Chief Justice of New Zealand. She m. T. F. Hamilton (Appendix I) Stephen, John. Son of John Stephen, Acting Chief Justice of NSW. He took a prominent part in Melbourne life and died in 1854 leaving issue. (Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 314) Therry, Roger. 3rd Resident Judge. Yr son of John Therry of Castle Therry and his wife, Jane, eldest sister of Lieut.-General Sir H. Keating, KCB, anda relation of Edmund Burke. Therry, who held important legal positions in Sydney and Melbourne, left the colony in 1846 when he was succeeded by a Beckett. (Therry op.cit., 2nd edn, has a full account of his background; ADB, 2) Thomas, David John. Doctor. Son of William Thomas of Llanybethland (the spelling varies). Minor Welsh gentry? Thomas m. Margaret McCrae (Appendix I). A member of the Melbourne Club, 1839, he died in Melbourne in 1871 leaving issue. (Charles Thomas, Memonies; Kenyon; Mrs McCrae, passim)

Thomas, Charles. Squatter. Son of William Thomas of Llanybethland. An unsuccessful squatter who wrote an interesting memoir for his family and died in 1898. (Charles Thomas. Memories; Kenyon) Thomas, Mary Anne. Daughter of William Thomas of Llanybethland. Married J. H. Campbell (Appendix III) in 1843. (Kenyon; Mrs McCrae) Thomas, Sarah. Daughter of William Thomas of Llanybethland. Married George Napier Craig (Appendix III) in 1849. (Kenyon) Tulloh, Robert William. Squatter. Son of —— Tulloh of Kenzie Castle. It is not known what happened to him after 1841. (Hunter Papers; B&K) Tyssen, Henry. Solicitor. Son of Samuel Tyssen of Narborough Hall, Norfolk. A rising family in the nineteenth century. Tyssen was in partnership with Charles Sladen (see Appendix I) but died unm. in 1842. (BLG, 17th edn; PPG, 9 March 1842) Walpole, Edward Atkyns. Squatter. Son of Captain Blayney Walpole, 33rd Regt, Lieutenant Governor of Sierra Leone. Walpole, a squatter, went bankrupt and returned to VDL where he died in 1889. (B&K; Kenyon) Walsh, Mrs W. H. Widow of Captain William Hamilton Walsh, who accord-

ing to various reports in the newspapers was descended from the Hon. Claudius Hamilton of Beltrim Castle, Co. Tyrone. The matter is very confused. Mrs Walsh brought out her seven children; her husband had made Gipps a trustee of his estate, to the Governor’s surpnise. (B. Peerage, Enniskil-

len & Abercorn; Hamilton of Woodbrook, Bart (ext); Gipps/La Trobe Correspondence, 31 January, 20 September, 27 August 1842; PPH, 27 June 1843; MMH, 20 March 1849; Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 56) Watton, John. Squatter, doctor. Claimed descent from General Ludlow. His family made good matches, his daughter Anna m. Acheson French (Appendix I) and Harriet m. James Moore (Appendix III). (Selby, p. 131; B&K; Fetherstonhaugh, pp. 74, 114) Were, Jonathan Binns. Merchant. Son of Nicholas Were and his wife Frances Binns. It is difficult to know whether to place him in Appendix I or III. His 207

Port Phillip Gentlemen family were landowners in Devon and Somerset (especially his greatgrandfather). However, after appearing in B. Commoners, the family was dropped from the first and subsequent editions of BLG. It is hard to escape the conclusion that they were an ascendant family who gained the capricious attention of the Burkes and then lost it. Were was prominent in the commercial and public life of the colony, where he died in 1885. (B. Commoners, vol. 4, p. 140; Henderson (1936); ADB, vol. 2) Were, George. Merchant. Son of Nicholas Were. He was in partnership with his brother, both in mercantile and squatting ventures. (Sources cited above; B&K)

Westby, Edmund Wnght. Merchant. A descent from one of the Westby families in the landed gentry is claimed, but this has not been established. Westby was one of the few Catholic colonists in PP and a member of the Melbourne Club. He returned to London where he died in 1876. (McNicoll, membership list; B&K; Kenyon) Willams, Mrs Edward Eyre. Daughter of the Reverend Charles Gibson, by his wife, cousin to the Earl of Fife. Married Edward Eyre Williams, barrister and later judge of the Supreme Court and knight (1878); he went back to England where he died in 1879. Her family returned to Australia. (BCG, vol. 1, p. 179) Williamson, ——. Visitor, speculator? Brother of Sir Hedworth Williamson, Bart. He appears to have been the representative of a company with NSW and possibly PP interests. He may also be the same man as G. Williamson, partner with R. G. Talbot, since he had Ascendancy links. (B. Peerage; Griffith, Diary, 14 November 1840) Wood, W. D. G. Squatter. Son of Captain William Wood of VDL and his wife, nee Mlle Marie Hyacinthe de Gouges. Kenyon has a romantic account of Mrs Wood’s aristocratic origins and life during the Terror. It is not clear what happened to W.D.G. Wood after the 1840s. (Kenyon cuttings, vol.1, 82-83; B&K) Wood, John. Squatter. Son of Captain William Wood of VDL. Wood, like his brother, was a prominent sportsman and was a party in the case Vignoles v. Wood.. He died in Sydney in 1849. (B&K; sources cited above) Wnight, W. H. Civil officer. Son of Colonel/Charles Wright and Harriet, nee Frere. Wright, a goldfield’s commissioner, was supposed to have been the nephew of Lord Castlemaine and to have named the town for his uncle. There is no indication of any relationship in the Castlemaine pedigree. He died in the colony in 1877. (ADB, vol. 6; B. Peerage, Castlemaine)

208

APPENDIX IV Club Members Office bearers and committee men of the Melbourne Club, members of the Port Phillip Turf Club and members of the Port Phillip Club

MELBOURNE CLUB

President Vice-President

1840 William Verner Armyne Bolden 1841 William Verner Armyne Bolden 1842 James Simpson Frederick Powlett 1843 Frederick Powlett George Airey 1844 Redmond Barry J. D. Lyon Campbell 1845 Frederick Powlett Redmond Barry 1846 Redmond Barry William Verner 1847 Reverend J. S. Bolden Alastair Mackenzie

1848 Alastair Mackenzie Edward Grimes

1849 W. F. Stawell W. C. Haines 1850 Charles Ebden J. H. Ross Committee Men, 1840-1850

George Airey T. F. Hamilton James Simpson Charles Baines Joseph Hawdon J. A. Smith Edward Barker William Highett Wiliam Stawell Redmond Barry Rodham Home J. W. Stevens

Edward Bell John Hunter Evelyn Sturt

Reverend John Bolden Charles Hutton William Verner

E. J. Brewster Hugh Jamieson Edward Willis

R. H. Bunbury Alastair Mackenzie W.H. Yaldwyn —— Campbell Robert Martin William Campbell William Meek

Captain George Cole George Mercer

Archibald Cuninghame A. F. Mollison

Henry Dana James Montgomerie Charles Ebden Henry Moor

Claud Farie George Playne

Nicholas Fenwick Frederick Powlett

James Graham Samuel Raymond Charles Griffith J. C. Riddell

Edward Grimes J. H. Ross W. C. Haines William Rynie 209

Port Phillip Gentlemen

PORT PHILLIP TURF CLUB A complete list of members does not survive; the following are the names of those known to have joined at the first meeting. William Verner (chairman of the committee) F. A. Powlett G. B. Smyth J[oseph?] Hawdon

C.H. Ebden

J. D. Lyon Campbell Hugh Jamieson (acting treasurer) Redmond Barry (acting secretary) William Meek? (meeting held at his office)

PORT PHILLIP CLUB A tentative list of members of the Port Phillip Club and those connected with it, based mainly on newspaper reports.

Provisional Committee: Others present at inaugural meeting:

Reverend James Clow J. O. Denny (later a member)

Thomas Wills J.P. Peter Ferrie

J. B. Were, J.P. (treasurer) — Bailey

Richard O’Cock (later secretary) —— Stodhart Skene Craig (ex DACG)

Charles Howard (DACG) Later Members: — Webb (R. S. Webb?) Archibald M‘Lachlan

Captain Roach D. C. Simson A. M. McCrae Niel Black

James Montgomery J. D. Bailliee

Dr Wilkie — Orr D. McArthur [D. G. or D. C. Robert Jamieson McArthur?] J. M. Darlot

William Langhorne John Hunter Patterson

— Deane [Robt Deane, O’Cock’s Robert Stewart partner? ]

Alfred Woolley

210

APPENDIX V Magistrates and Committees

A list of the first magistrates and of colonists who made up the committees of social, philanthropic, cultural and commercial bodies. It is noticeable that certain names recur and these could be said to constitute the elite which Kerr so often attacked. For club committees see Appendix IV. Magistrates for 1841

Charles Joseph La Trobe, Farquhar McCrae

Superintendent G. D. Mercer

Edward Brown Addis E. S. Parker, Assistant Protector of

George Airey Aborigines

James Blair F. A. Powlett C.C.L. E. J. Brewster, Chairman of the A. H. W. Rankin

Quarter Sessions G. A. Robinson, Chief Protector of

J. D. L. Campbell Aborigines

W. H. Mutton Lieut. F. B. Russell, Commander,

Thon. ‘dwards, Assistant Mounted Police Protector of Aborigines William Ryrie

Nicholas Alexander Fenwick C. W. Sievwright,

Andrew Forlonge Assistant Protector of Aborigines

Foster Fyans James Simpson, Police Magistrate

John Hawdon John Thomson

Edward Henty Thomas Thornloe Stephen Henty William Verner Arthur Kemmis James Webster William Le Souef, Assistant Protector J. B. Were of Aborigines Thomas Wills William Lonsdale W.H. Yaldwyn

Robert Martin

Committee to Welcome Lady Franklin

Captain William Lonsdale, James Simpson, William Yaldwyn, Rev. J. C. Grylls, Rev. James Forbes, Rev. William Waterfield and Rev. James Clow. (PPG, 13 April 1839) This committee was unusual for the large number of clergymen. Bank of Australasia: Local board of directors

James Simpson, R. H. Browne, W. H. Yaldwyn. (PPP, 5 September 1839) 211

Port Phillip Gentlemen The earliest cricket club

Frederick Armand Powlett, Robert Russell, Alfred Mundy, Fitzherbert Mundy, George Brunswick Smyth, —— Smith, Donald McArthur, Peter Snodgrass, William Ryrie, —— Highett, —— Williams, William Meek, —— Jamieson, —— Webster, [W.G.?] Sams, —— Brock, W. H. Bacchus, —— Allen, —— Pitman, [Isaac?] Hind. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 734) Smith may be Captain Hamilton Smith; Highett either William or John; Williams perhaps Charles Williams. Melbourne Fire and Marine Insurance

R. H. Browne, S. J. Brown, James Clow, John Gardiner, Arthur Hogue, Charles Howard, D.C. McArthur. W. F. A. Rucker, James Simpson, Robert Saunders Webb, P. W. Welsh, W. H. Yaldwyn. (PPG, 13 April 1839) Melbourne and Port Phillip Bank

D.S. Campbell, Skene Craig, Charles Ebden, Arthur Hogue, F. A. Powlett, G. B. Smyth, P. W. Welsh, Charles Williams, Thomas Wills, W. H. Yaldwyn. (PPP, 1 July 1839) Congratulatory Address to La Trobe

Captain William Lonsdale, P. W. Welsh, Farquhar McCrae. (PPP, 5 September 1839) Port Phillip Bank directors

Farquhar McCrae, D. S. Campbell, Charles Williams, Thomas Wills, Skene Craig, P. W. Welsh, F. A. Powlett, Charles Howard, Alexander Thomson, Foster Fyans, elected directors. (PPP, 2 December 1839) Complimentary Address to Lonsdale

Thomas Wills, William Yaldwyn, W. F. A. Rucker, P. W. Welsh, Edward Brewster, Farquhar McCrae, D. S. Campbell, James Smith (hon. sec.). (PPP, 3 February 1840) Pastoral and Agricultural Society of Australia Felix

Colonel White, Major Mercer, Rev. James Clow, Captain M‘Lachlan, Captain Smyth, Benjamin Baxter, Captain Brown, Charles Williams, W. F. A. Rucker, [D.S.?] Campbell, Dr Alexander Thomson, Thomas Arnold, Joseph Hawdon, R. H. Browne, James Simpson, J. D. Hunter, Armand Powlett, [William?] Ryne, J. D. Baillie, P. W. Welsh, [John?] Aitken. (PPP, 13 January 1840)

Letter of Thanks to the Reverend J. C. Grylls

Farquhar McCrae, D. C. McArthur, E. J. Brewster, [James?] Smith, James Simpson, Charles Howard, Captain William Lonsdale, Robert Deane. (PPP, 10 February 1840) 212

Appendix V Proprietary College

W.H. Yaldwyn, Sylvester Brown, G. B. Smyth (secretary), J. D. Lyon Campbell, P. W. Welsh, James Simpson, E. J. Brewster, Charles Howard, Skene Craig, R. H. Browne. (PPP, 16 July 1840) Congratulatory Address to Her Majesty upon her Marriage

W.H. Yaldwin, Joseph Hawdon, Arthur Kemmis, J. Barrow, William Meek, D. S. Campbell, J. O. Denny, J. B. Were, James Simpson, Robert Deane, — Montefiore. (PPP, 23 July 1840) A catholic group of Melbourne colonists. Port Phillip Bank

Benjamin Baxter, Arthur Kemmis, George Langhorne, Armyne Bolden, John Gardiner, Charles Howard, T. Arnold, John Carey, P. W. Welsh, Farquhar McCrae, Alexander Thomson, D. S. Campbell, —— Hunter, [Andrew?] McCrae. (PPP, 13 April 1840) Regatta Committee for November 1840

W.H. Yaldwyn, James Simpson, Charles Ebden, P. W. Welsh, Captain Ward Cole, Henry Fowler, William Verner, Captain Buckley, William Ryrie, Ben-

jamin Baxter, Redmond Barry, James Graham (hon. sec.). (PPH, 24 November 1840) Provisional Municipal Officers of the Incorporated Town of Melbourne

Mayor: Captain Lonsdale Aldermen: F. G. B. St John, J. D. Pinnock, Samuel Raymond, Robert Hoddle, Archibald Cuninghame, J. S. Griffin, G. S. Airey, W. B. Wilmot, Patrick Cussen, R. S. Webb, Redmond Barry, R. H. Bunbury Town Clerk: H. F. Gurner (PPH, 30 August 1842) Compare the first elected members of the Melbourne Council: John Orr, Henry William Mortimer, J. P. Fawkner, Andrew Russell, D. S. Campbell, George James, George Beaver, Henry Condell, John Dickson, J. T. Smith, John Patterson, William Kerr—their occupations are listed in Garryowen, vol. 1, pp. 263-4. Of these men only one, D. S. Campbell, was a member of the Melbourne Club.

213

APPENDIX VI Duels, Challenges, Horsewhippings and Courts of Honour

1839

F. D. Vignoles v. John Wood. Court case for libel. (PPP, 17 April 1839; PPG, 18 May 1839)

Barry Cotter v. George Arden. The first duel to be fought in Melbourne. (PPP, 3 June 1839) 1840

Peter Snodgrass v. William Ryrie. (Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 776-8) A burlesque affair of honour is reported in the PPP, 20 January 1840. Arthur Hogue v. W. F. A. Rucker. Challenge. (Willis Papers; see Chapter V) Court of honour to judge the conduct of W. F. A. Rucker (see Chapter V) Arthur Hogue v. H. N. Carrington. Challenge, counter-challenge, horsewhipping, court case for assault (see Chapter V) 1841

George Norris v. J. D. Hill. Duel. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 779; Batey, pp. 105-7)

A barrister v. a newspaper editor. Challenge reported in PPP, 26 Apnil 1841. A horsewhipping, reported in PPG, 27 February 1841. Sullivan’s half-challenge to the secretary of the Birthday Ball committee (see Chapter VI) Report of duels after the races in PPP, 17 April 1841. Challenge the night of the Birthday Ball. (PPP, 27 May 1841)

D.Mc — v. S —. Duel. (PPH, 6 July 1841) Peter Snodgrass v. Redmond Barry. Duel. (PPP, 19 August 1841) Oliver Gourlay v. James Gordon. Challenge. (PPG, 15 December 1841; PPP, 16 December 1841) 1842

Peter Snodgrass v. George Brunswick Smyth. Challenge, court of honour. (Minutes, Melbourne Club. See Chapter V) Edward Barker v. Maurice Meyrick. Duel. (Meyrick letters, 5 February 1845) William O’Neil v. Thomas Cunninghame. Challenge. (PPP, 7 and 11 April 1842)

F. A. Powlett v. Arthur Hogue. Duel. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 780) Report of a duel between the editors of the Times and the Patriot in PPH, 11 November 1842. 214

Appendix VI , Skene Craig v. A. A. Broadfoot. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 780) J. D. L. Campbell v. Edward Curr. A court of honour over the cook-maid episode (see Chapter III) 1843

Hon. Gilbert Kennedy v. George Demoulin. Mock duel. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 780)

[Henry Kent?] Hughes v. W. F. Arundell. Mock duel at Devil’s River. (Hunter Papers Log, 21 July 1843, pp 51-2; PPP, 23 March 1843) Osborne (of the Portland Mercury) v. Hayden (storekeeper). Duel, interrupted by the police. (PPP, 31 July 1843) John Stephen v. Adam Murray. Challenge. (PPP, 11 September 1843) John Foster v. Farquhar McCrae. Challenge, two courts of honour, horsewhipping (see Chapter V) 1844

Arthur Huffington v. George Faithfull. Challenge, court case (see Chapter V) The Quarry case. J. B. Quarry v. Edward Hodgson. Challenge (see Chapter V)

R. W. Sutton v. Dr E. B. Adams. Assault case, horsewhipping (PPP, 27 and 28 June 1844); Adams refused to fight on the grounds that Sutton was not a gentleman. (PPP, 1 July 1844) Foster Fyans v. Alexander Sprot. Fyans declared his willingness to give Sprot satisfaction. (PPP, 11 July 1844) Duel in Portland district between a government officer and a private settler. The settler was reported to have received a wound in the shoulder. (PPP, 6 June 1844)

R. D. Chamberlain fought a duel, which may be the same one as above (see PPP, 13 January 1845) 1845

A medical man v. a bachelor ironmonger. Challenge. Challenger bound over; the quarrel over a woman somewhat celebrated in the history of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land. (PPP, 10 January 1845) J. H. Ross v. James Croke. Challenge. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 781) George Playne v. Edward Curr. Challenge (see Chapter V) Davis horsewhips George Cavenagh. (PPG, 1 March 1845) Learmonth v. R. D. Chamberlain. Duel. Chamberlain’s second in six months; ‘As usual there was no blood spilt upon the occasion’. (PPP, 13 January 1845)

Frederick Gnffin v. —— Synnot (about 1845). (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 782-3) William Dana v. Gideon Manton. Horsewhipping. ‘A regular horsewhipping affair between two gentlemen.’ (PPH, 10 June 1845) 1846

Edmund McNeill v. J. F. L. Foster. Challenge. (PPG, 4 February 1846) The case involving Fenwick, W. H. Bacchus (younger), Langhorne and Holloway. (PPP, 26 March 1846; Osborn, p. 27) 215

Port Phillip Gentlemen Hon. Gilbert Kennedy v. C——. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 783) Alexander Sprot v. William Campbell. (PPP, 4, 18 and 21 July 1846) Court of honour between Henry Moore and Captain Sylvester Brown. (PPP, 10 July 1846)

Affair of honour in Melbourne. (PPH, 29 and 30 June 1846) 1847

Lachlan M‘Alister v. John Loughnan. Challenge. (PPH, 25 March; PPP, 26 February; PPP, 10 March 1847) A horsewhipping. (PPH, 2 March 1847) Mr S —— v. Mr A ——. Challenge. (PPH, Supp., 8 April 1847) 1848

Barrett v. Leadbitter. (PPH, 4 January 1848) E. L. Lee v. Dr Adams. Horsewhipping. (PPH, 20 July 1848) 1849

Dr F —— v. Dr T[homas]. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 784; Mrs McCrae, p. 85) 1850

— Purcell v. John Allan of the Pyrennees. (Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 784)

216

APPENDIX VII A Select List of Insolvents, 1843-1846

T. B. Alexander J. P. Fawkner Gildon Manton George Arden William Forlonge Francis Nodin

Henry Arthur Henry Foot John Roach J. D. Baillie G. A. Gilbert W. F. A. Rucker

Benjamin Baxter John Hunter Peter Snodgrass Anthony Beale George Hyde C.R. J. Seton Stewart J. W. Belcher Arthur Kemmis D. C. Simson William Redmond Belcher William Kerr D. J. Thomas

D. S. Campbell Edward Langhorne George Urquhart H. N. Carrington George Langhorne Edward White John Moffat Chisholm William Langhorne — Henry John White

J. M. Conolly W. F. E. Liardet Alfred Woolley

John Carfrae N.R. Macleod Edward Woolley J. M. Darlot William Meek John Woolley Robert Deane J. A. Manton P. W. Welsh Henry Dendy Charles Manton James Watson William Hampton Dutton James McArthur

217

APPENDIX ViII_ Necrology

This is not a complete list, but gives the date of death of some of the leading colonists who were gentlemen by birth or by repute, their wives and older children. Younger children are not listed. Leading colonists who died in their prime in the early 1850s are also listed.

Mrs G. S. Airey November 1843 Mrs Joseph Hawdon 1854

Henry Allan of Allandale 1847 George Hesse 1837 Mervyn Archdale before 1853 J. D. Hill 1852?

George Arden 1854 Edmund Hobson 1848 Thomas Armytage 1842 John Howard 1840

Henry Arthur 1848 in VDL Campbell Hunter 1846

Godolphin Arundell 1847 George Hyde 1844

F. M. Atkinson 18550 George Imlay 1847 Capt. William Henry Bacchus 1849 Arthur Kemmis 1842

Mrs C. J. Baker 1842 E. L. Lee 1848

Armyne Bolden 1843 Farquhar McCrae 1850

Sandford George Bolden 1843 Mrs W. G. McCrae 1840

H. B. Bowerman 184? Mrs Lachlan Mackinnon 1849 Wiliam Bowman 1848 William Meek 1850 Benjamin Boyd 1851 Mrs William Meek 184? Emma Byerley 1842 Henry Howard Meyrick 1846 J.D. L. Campbell 1844 Capt. Thomas Minton 1842 H. N. Carrington 1845 Christopher Minton 1847

Luke Ward Cole 1846 Dr Mitchell 1840

John Cotton 1849 Fitzherbert Mundy 1847

G. C. Curlewis 1847 The Hon. James Murray 1843

Edward Curr 1850 Mrs John Postlethwaite 1843 Wm. Talbot Curr 1846 James Ryrie 1840 S. E. Dalrymple 1840 Edward Sewell 1846

H. E. P. Dana 1852 G. B. Smyth 1845

John Donnithorne 1852 H. W. H. Smythe 1853

W.H. Dutton 1849 Mrs Colonel Snodgrass 1845 J. T. Gellibrand 1837 C.R. J. Seton Steuart 1845 H. F. Gisborne 1841 Henry Tyssen 1542 George Bolton Eagle 1846 G. W. C. Stapylton 1840

G. W. A. Gordon 1841 Mrs George Urquhart 1841 Oliver Gourlay 1843-44 Colonel Henry John White 1845

W. P. Greene 1845 John Wood 1849

Richard Greene 1850

218

ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations are used in the Notes and in Appendixes I-VII. Short titles only are given here; for full titles of works see the Bibliography.

ADB Australian Dictionary of Biography B&K Billis and Kenyon, Pastoral Pioneers of Port Phillip

BCG Burke’s Colonial Gentry BFR Burke’s Family Records BGA Burke’s General Armory BLG Burke’s Landed Gentry B. Commoners Burke’s Commoners

BLG of I. Burke’s Landed Gentry of Ireland

B. Peerage Burke’s Peerage

CCP Clyde Company Papers

DACG Deputy Assistant Commissary General DNB Dictionary of National Biography GEC George Edward Cokayne, Complete Peerage HEICS Honourable East India Company Service Henderson (1936) Alexander Henderson, Pioneer Families of Victoria and the Riverina

Henderson (1941) Alexander Henderson, Australian Families, vol. 1

HRA Historical Records of Australia Kenyon Kenyon cards, La Trobe Library LVP Letters from Victorian Pioneers OMM Rolf Boldrewood (T. A. Browne), Old Melbourne Memories

MMH Melbourne Morning Herald

PP Port Phillip

PPG Port Phillip Gazette PPH Port Phillip Herald PPP Port Phillip Patriot PRO Public Records Office RHSV Royal Historical Socety of Victoria TCD Trinity College, Dublin

T&S Thomson and Serle, Biographical Register of the Victorian Parliament

VDL Van Diemen’s Land

219

NOTES

I: A MOST UNFORTUNATE SET OF COLONISTS ' Hugh McCrae (ed.), Georgiana’s Journal; Melbourne 1841-1865, 2nd edn, Sydney, 1966, p. 43. 2 Thomas McCombie, Arabin, or the Adventures of a Colonist in New South Wales, London, 1845, p. 103. 3 ADB, 2. 4 Isaac Batey, Reminiscences, RHSV, p. 165. > A general history of the Gazette is to be found in Garryowen (Edmund Finn), The Chronicles of Early Melbourne, 2 vols, Melbourne, 1888, vol. 2, pp. 825-6, 831-2; Arden in ADB, vol. 1; Greeves, ADB, vol. 4; McCombie, ADB, vol. 5.

5 Fawkner’s account of the Patriot and its aims, see PPP, 15 May 1845. Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 826-8, 832-3. Biographies of Fawkner and Kerr, ADB, vol. 4; of Boursiquot, Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 845, and Bibliography File, La Trobe Library. 7 Biography of Cavenagh in ADB, vol. 1; family background of Dutton in BCG, vol. 2, p. 530; Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 828-30, 833-4. 8 Sir J. B. Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Colonial Gentry , 2

vols, 1891 and 1895. The families are: a Beckett, Arden, Armytage, Baillie, Brodribb, de Castella, Cox, Curdie, Dalgety, Eddington, Greene, Hamilton, Henty, Highett, King, de Labilliere, Livingstone-Learmonth, Mackinnon, Officer, Panton, Pearson, Rutledge, Ryan and Williams. The following Port Phillip men are to found in entries from other colonies: Airey, Dutton, Foster, Gisborne, Hawdon, Macartney, Manning, Stephen, von Stieglitz, Sturt, Ryne and Winter. ®P.C. Mowle, A Genealogical History of Pioneer Families of Australia, 5th edn,

edited by L. M. Mowle, Adelaide, 1978. The families are a Beckett, Arthur, Cox, Faithfull, Hamilton, Henty, Kemmis, King, Loughnan, Manifold, Officer, Riddell, Robertson, Ryrie, Stephen, Wettenhall and Wilkie. 10 G. E. Mackay in C. E. Sayers (ed.), Letters from Victorian Pioneers, 2nd edn, Melbourne, 1969, p. 213.

11 One such harsh judgement will be found in R. V. Billis and A. S. Kenyon, Pastures New, Melbourne, 1974 (reprint), pp. 94-5. 12 Martin Boyd, Day of My Delight, Melbourne, 1965, p. 6. 13 ibid., pp. 8-15; and in his earlier autobiography, A Single Flame, London, 1939, pp. 4-5; Genealogies of Boyd and allied families (copy, La Trobe Library); Isaac Selby, Old Pioneers’ Memorial History of Melbourne, Melbourne, 1924, pp. 310-11. 220

Notes ‘4 Boyd’s romanticism, Day of My Delight, p. 33; Jacobitism, ibid., pp. 3,

35; the philistine materialism of Melbourne in Martin Mills (Boyd), The Montforts, London, 1928, pp. 113, 318; for W. A. C. a Beckett, see ADB, vol. 3, and A Single Flame, pp. 4, 6, 13; Margaret Kiddle, Men of Yesterday, Melbourne, 1963, p. 36. *® (George Hamilton), Experiences of a Colonist Forty Years Ago & A Journal from Port Phillip to South Australia in 1839, by An Old Hand. Adelaide, 1879, p. 5.

6 William Westgarth to Mrs Westgarth, 24 December 1840, copy, RHSV. '7 Lady Stawell, My Recollections, London, 1911, p. 196. 18 Sir Henry Bunbury to Ellice, contained in a letter of Sir George Gipps to La Trobe, 23 April 1841, La Trobe Papers, La Trobe Library. "9 Lady Stawell, pp. 11, 18. 2° David Waugh, Three Years’ Practical Experience of a Settler in New South Wales, 6th edn, Edinburgh, 1838, pp. v-vi. 21 (John Pattison), New South Wales: Its Past, Present and Future... , Lon-

don, 1849, pp. 11, 48; PPP, 18 May 1840. 22 For an introduction to the meaning and usage of the gentleman, see Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edn, Cambridge, 1910, vol. x1, pp. 604-6; The Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 4; Sir Anthony Wagner, English Genealogy, Oxford, 1972, pp. 113-36; Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York, 1942,

23 PPG, 6 July 1839. [1908.

vol. iv, s.v. gentleman; A. Smythe Palmer, The Ideal of a Gentleman, London,

24 PPH, 21 June 1844. 25 G. T. Lloyd, Thirty-three Years in Tasmania and Victoria, London, 1862, pp. 444-9. *6 Titles inherited by colonial branches were the Irish barony of Sherard and the baronetcies of Baillie, Barnewall, Fairlie-Cuninghame and Kellett. 27 PPG, 27 October 1838. 28 ADB, vol. 6. 2° The Montforts, p. 86.

II: MANNERS AND MORALS * Captain M‘Lachlan on weather in Mrs McCrae, p. 53; ‘Quel climat!’, ibid., p. 126; ibid., p. 80. * Sickness from inferior water, PPG, 17 March 1841; dysentery, PPP, 26 October 1840, especially during hot season, PPG, 22 March 1842; ‘Infantile cholera and dysentery are just now decimating the young children’, Mrs McCrae, p. 78; swamp fever, Mrs McCrae, p. 116; low fever, Mrs McCrae, p. 92.

> Gentleman’s park: Waterfield, Diary, 21 May 1838; Griffith, Diary, 1 and

5 November 1840; Niel Black, Journal, 20, 21 December 1839; Rolf Boldrewood, My Autobiography, Mitchell Library, p. 38. * Robert Russell, Letter, November 1836. Russell Papers, La Trobe Library; Hamilton, pp. 8, 14. © Joseph Hawdon, The Journal of a Journey from New South Wales to Adelaide

Performed in 1838, Melbourne, 1952 (reprint), p. 46. 221

Port Phillip Gentlemen ® Waterfield, Diary, 27 March 1839. ” Richard Howitt, Impressions of Australia Felix During Four Years Residence in

that Colony, London, 1845, p. 87; Chirnside in LVP, p. 336. 8 Hamilton, p. 11; Charles Baker, Sydney and Melbourne. . ., London, 1845, p. 64; Niel Black, Journal, 9 April 1840; John Cotton to William Scholey, November 1849, Cotton Letters, La Trobe Library; Lady Stawell, p. 78.

’ The atmosphere of an unreformed public school is also noted by Niel Gunson in The Good Country , Melbourne, 1968, p. 40; Edward Micklethwaite Curr, Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, 1841-1851, facsimile edn, Adelaide, 1968, p. 7; Howitt, pp. 104-5; Baker, p. 12; Robert Russell, 2 January 1836, Russell Papers; Sturt in LVP, p. 365.

' Curr, pp. 9-19; Mrs J. A. Macdonald, Old tme reminiscences of the early days of Melbourne, RHSV; Niel Black, Journal, 3 December 1839. ** Gniffith, Diary, 31 October 1840; James Graham, letter to his mother, 12 July 1839, typescript copy, Mrs K. T. Towl. '2 A few of the nicknames: Gobemouche (George Cavenagh); the literary Blacksmith (Cooper); the Nabob (Major Davidson); Dolly Goldsmith; Montefeetio (J. D. Hill); Jack the Devil (J. A. C. Hunter); Howqua (John Hunter); Old Pills (Dr W. K. Jamieson); Long McNeill; Happy Jack john Murchison); the Bishop (Octavius Phillpotts); Gentleman Pyke; Nosey Walpole, Brindled James (James Watson); see Thomas Strode, Annals and Reminiscences of Bygone Days, vol. 1, p. 105, copy, La Trobe Library. 13 Griffith, Diary, 1 November 1840; 21 February 1841. 14 Griffith, Diary, 9 December 1840 (Dr Clutterbuck); 10 November 1840 (musical evening); 14 January 1841 (cricket); 12 January 1841 (regatta); 1 January 1841 (New Year); 21 November 1840 (Glengarry). *° Gniffith, Diary, 8 December 1840. *® PPG, 28 January 1845. J. A. C. Hunter, Log, 24 August (1842), p. 21, Hunter Papers, La Trobe Library. ‘7 James Clutterbuck, Port Phillip in 1849, London, 1850, p. 71.

"8 Robert Russell, Letters, 17 November 1838; Henry Meyrick to Mrs Meyrick, 17 April 1847; Sturt in LVP, p. 374; Niel Black, Journal, 26 October 1839.

"9 Black, Journal, 6 and 17 November 1839. *° Black, Journal, 3 December 1839. *) Black, Journal, 7 December 1839; 4 January 1840; 8 January 1840. 22 Curr, pp. 40-3; Henry Meyrick to Susan Meyrick, 20 November 1845; Niel Black, Journal, 20 December 1839; Gnffith, Diary, 21 November 1840, 7 May 1841. 23 See Appendixes I, III, and introduction to App. I; adv. for wife in PPG, 28 August 1839. 24 Gniffith, Diary, 31 October, 23 November 1840. 25 Arden in PPG, 5 May 1841; Black, Journal, 17 November 1839. 26 Griffith, Diary, 12 November 1840. 27 PPG, 5 June, 28 May 1839; PPH, 25 January 1842; PPP, 6 October 1842; PPP, 27 March 1843; PPG, 31 January 1844; Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 768-74. 28 Baker, pp. 45-50; Murray, pp. 40-1; William Westgarth, Australia Felix .. ., Edinburgh, 1848, p. 282; Garryowen, vol. 1, pp. 406-9; PPH, 3 May, 6 222

Notes May 1842; PPP, 2 May, 5 May, 9 May 1842; assault by Gourlay, PPG, 5 March 1842; Garryowen, p. 1, 396. 29 Strode, vol. 2, p. 57. 30 For Arthur and Headlam, see Batey, pp. 164-5; LVP, p. 165. Among the many allusions to brothels in the newspapers were: PPP, 17 April, 27 May, 8 July 1839; Mother Scott and Mrs Jamieson, PPH, 14 March 1848. Crim. con. PPG, 9 November, PPH, 24 September 1844. 31. PPH, 22 Apmil 1842; PPH, 27 February 1845; PPP, 8 July 1839. 32 Prize fighting; blackguard exhibition: PPP, 16 July 1843; PPH, 25 July 1843; thirty-five rounds in fifty-four minutes, PPG, 3 April 1844.

$3 James Graham to his mother, 12 July 1839; Henry Gisborne to his mother, 12 September 1839; see also Westgarth, Australia Felix, p. 283.

34 Victoria, Chief Secretary, Outward Correspondence, vol. a (PRO). Lonsdale to Colonial Secretary, (5) October 1838; Batey, pp. 159, 88; drunkenness and brawling, PPG, 5 January 1839, 29 May 1839. 35 Ladies on the Bench, PPP, 3 August 1843; Beating the bounds, MMH, 9 February 1849; Richmond races, PPH, 20 April 1848; Mutes, PPH, 19 December 1848. 36 PPP, 9 March 1840; PPP, 13 March 1839. 37 Henry Meyrick to his mother, 27 September 1845, Meyrick Papers. 38 Griffith, Diary, 1 February 1841. 39 Curr, pp.7-8; Griffith, 1 February 1841; Cuthbert Fetherstonhaugh, After Many Days, Sydney, 1917, pp. 62, 94-5; Historic Homesteads of Australia, vol. 1,

North Melbourne, 1969, pp. 132-9. 40 PPP, 30 January 1839; Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 457; Westgarth, Personal Recollections of Early Melbourne, Melbourne, 1888, pp. 95-8; ADB, vol. 1. 41 See Appendix IV; Westgarth, Australia Felix, p. 285.

42 Gentlemen squatters, PPP, 20 January 1845; gentlemen bushrangers, PPH, 10 September 1841; a gentleman player in the Conrad Knowles theatrical company, PPG, 10 April 1844; bush gentleman, PPG, 11 September 1845; gentlemen convicts, ‘a class of persons which for obvious reasons it 1s more difficult to manage . . .’, Historical Records of Australia, 1st series, vol. xx, p. 357; J. A. C. Hunter, quoted in Bendleby’s article on Pioneering History, no. 11, Australasian, 22 August 1925, p. 450. 44 James Graham to Mrs Graham, 12 July 1839, copy in the possession of

Mrs K. T. Towl. *5 Gipps to La Trobe, 15 May 1841. La Trobe Papers, La Trobe Library.

46 Gipps to La Trobe, 23 April 1841; 28 November 1839 (Strzelecki). 47 Gniffith, Diary, 13 January 1841. 48 Samuel Raymond in PPH, 9 May 1843; Edward Curr, PPH, 13 June 1843; Charles Ebden, PPH, 23 September 1843; Condell, 23 September 1843. 49 PPH, 11 February 1842; PPH, 29 April 1842; PPH, 23 March 1842; PPH, 2 May 1843; quote in PPP, 14 March 1842 (similar in PPP, 24 June 1839). °° Robert Pohlman, Diary, 23 February 1841, RHSV. °1 S$. H. Clutterbuck, Diary, 17 September 1850, RHSV. °2 Mrs McCrae, pp. 103-4. °3 Hugh McCrae’s annotated copy of Georgiana’s Journal, p. 187 (Mitchell Library), has his version of the Balcombe origins. 223

Port Phillip Gentlemen 54 PPP, 10 June 1841; PPG, 30 October 1841 issued the same threat. 55 PPP, 6 June 1844; defended in the PPH, 7 June 1844; an usher not a school teacher, PPP, 17 June 1844. PPP, 13 June 1844 (verse). 56 Kerr’s comments repeated in the PPH, 13 January 1843; Curtis Candler, Diary, p. 55, La Trobe Library. 57 PPH, 25 and 27 February 1845; PPG, 1 March 1845. °8 PPG, 11 December’ 1839. 58 Convict past, PPG, 16 March and 22 November 1842; also charges by John Stephen, PPG, 26 November 1842, 2 February 1843; the she-goat, PPG, 5 October 1839; Mrs McCrae, p. 52; Curr, pp. 150-1. 6° Westgarth, Australia Felix, p. 282. 6! ibid., p. 280; Brodribb (see ADB, vol. 3, under W. A. Brodnbb), Austin (see Kiddle, pp. 25, 279) and Wills (see ADB, vol. 2, under H. S. Wills). 62 The Montforts, p. 113. Batey, Reminiscences, p. 23. 68 Mrs McCrae, pp. 10-11; Robert Pohlman, Diary, p. 5. 64 Waterfield, Diary, 26 June 1839; Mrs McCrae, p. 81. 65 Henry Gisborne to Mrs Gisborne, 10 October 1839, Mitchell Library. 66 Henry Meyrick to Mrs Meyrick, 12 May 1840; to Anne Meyrick, 16 May 1841, Meyrick Papers; Niel Black, Journal, 30 September, 22 and 26 October 1839, 4 March 1840.

67 Griffith Diary (for period 31 October—9 December 1840); 1 and 3 November, 4 and 5 November, 17 November, 3 November (Airey). 68 ibid., 6 November (Verner), 6 November (for Barry), 16 November 1840 (Meek’s dinner).

69 ibid., 21 November (Barton), 9 November 1840 (Melbourne Club).

Ii: THE PALE OF FASHION 1 Murray, p. 48; PPG, 26 January 1839, for Port Phillip as a triumph of

private enterprise. .

2 Alan Gross. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Melbourne, 1956; ADB, vol. 1; PPP, 29 August 1839.

3 Gross, pp. 2-8. * Quoted in Mrs McCrae, p. 163. ®> PPG, 26 January, 1 May 1839; PPP, 1 May 1839; Gross, p. 9. 6 PPG, 9 October 1839; Charles Burchett, Letters, 4 October 1839, RHSV; Waterfield, Diary, 4 and 7 October 1839; Hoddle in PPG, 31 July 1841. ™ PPP, 9 October 1839. 8 Pohlman, Diary, 19 December 1840, 29 January 1841. 9 ibid., 21 October, 24 December 1840. 10 ibid., 19 December 1840. ‘1 Mrs McCrae, pp. 19, 28, 43, 121, 209. ‘2 ibid., p. 206. 13° Appendix I and II; for Captain McCrae see Mrs McCrae, pp. 34, 138. 14 Mrs McCrae, p. 30. 15 Roger Therry, Reminiscences of Thirty Years’ Residence in New South Wales

and Victoria, London, 1863, pp. 54-9; Robert Russell, Papers, La Trobe Library. Russell to his family, 17 November 1838, May 1839, 15 July 1839. 224

Notes *6 Robert Russell, 15 July 1839; Hoddle in PPG, 31 July 1841. ‘7 ADB, 1 (see Hoddle); varieties of experience, Griffith, Present State, pp. 44, 56, 59; Westgarth, Australia Felix, p. 285; for anti-military remarks, see PPP, 15 July 1839, PPG, 15 September 1841. 18 Baker, p. 195. 19 Chirnside in LVP, p. 337. 20 “A Visitor’, in PPG , 29 December 1839; anti-South Australian comments in PPG, 6 Apmil 1839; PPP, 30 March 1840, 14 and 18 January 1841. 21 Clyde Company Papers: 1821-1850, (ed.) P. L. Brown, London, 1941-59, vol. 2, p. 339. 22 William Westgarth to Mrs Westgarth, 24 December 1840, copy, RHSV. 23 Mrs McCrae, p. %6.

*4 J. H. Kerr, p. 75; R. D. Murray, p. 39; David Wilsone to George Wilsone, n.d. (18412), Wilsone Papers, La Trobe Library. 25 Baker, p. 28; Lloyd, p. 444. 6 Griffith, Diary, 21 November 1840-12 January 1841. 27 Griffith, Present State, preface; pp. 84-5. 28 ibid., pp. 74-5. 29 Ronald McNicoll, The Early Years of the Melbourne Club, Melbourne, 1976; Ernest Scott, Historical Memoir of the Melbourne Club, Melbourne, 1936,

p. 3; Kiddle, pp. 78-9. 3° Robert Russell to his family, 17 November 1838. 31 Robert Russell to his family, 15 July 1839; A. F. Mollison to Jane Mollison, 26 December 1839, Mollison Papers, La Trobe Library. 32, PPG, 2 March 1839. 33 Waterfield, Diary, 4 January 1839. 34 J. A. C. Hunter to Evan Hunter, 13 January 1841, Hunter Papers, La Trobe Library; Lyon Campbell and Mrs Campbell having a ‘down’ on the Hunter family, see Alexander Hunter to Mrs Hunter, 19 January 1842, p. 7; same page for his opinion of Farquhar McCrae. 35 PPP, 9 December 1839; McNicoll, p. 55. 36 Henry Gisborne to his mother, 12 September 1839, Mitchell Library. 387 Arden attacked Lonsdale in PPG, 15 May 1839; E. J. Brewster, 25 May;

William Rucker, 6 July; Cotter, 12 June; Farquhar McCrae, 14 and 18 September; Welsh, 18 September 1839; the duel is in PPP, 3 June 1839; the card quarrel, between D. J. Thomas (McCrae’s brother-in-law) and J. T. Cobb, is in PPG, 21 September 1839; and Arden’s expulsion is in PPP, 16 September 1839.

38 PPG, 26 October 1839. 39 PPP, 18 January, 26 and 29 April 1841; 21 and 25 April, 13 June 1842; 28 September 1843; Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 768-71. The Waterford school had its name from the Marquess of Waterford, a Regency buck notorious for his wild behaviour and pugilistic tastes. 49 Dorothy Marshall, English People in the Eighteenth Century , London, 1956, pp. 130-1, 258. Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, ch. 3; Northanger Abbey, chs 2-6 and passim.

41 PPH, 29 June, 16 July, 17 September 1841. * Murray, p. 38; PPG, 23 July 1842. 225

Port Phillip Gentlemen 43 PPG, 23 October 1841; Mrs McCrae, p. 48; PPP, 1 November 1841 (extraordinary issue). 44 Baker, p. 30.

45 PPG, 5 April 1842. The stewards during the 1842 assemblies were St John, George Airey, Archibald Cuninghame, William Ryrie, James Graham, Hugh Jamieson, J. A. Erskine and Redmond Barry, PPG, 28 May 1842; PPH, 6 August 1842. 46 Biographies of Curr are in ADB, vol. 1; and in E. M. Curr, Memoranda Concerning Our Family, copy La Trobe Library, unpaged; 20 August 1842; PPP, 8 and 22 September 1842; PPH, 13 September 1842. 47 PPH, 13 September 1842. 48 PPH, 14 March, 26 May, 23 June, 30 June, 11 and 15 August, 27 October 1843. Griffith, Present State, p. 74. 49 PPH, 7 April, 14 May, 2 June, 11 August 1846; PPP, 13 June 1846; for the verse see PPP, 19 January 1847. 5° John Dunmore Lang, Phillipsland . . ., Edinburgh, 1847, p. 78; for 1838 races see: Strode, vol. 1, p. 100; Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 711-14. The stewards were W. D. G. Wood and Henry Arthur. 1839 meeting: PPG, 2 March 1839; PPP, 13 March 1839; Garryowen, vol. 2, pp.715-16. 1840 meeting: PPP, 5 March 1840. The stormy meeting is reported in PPP, 8 October 1840; PPH, 9 October 1840. °! The meeting is reported in PPH, 24 November 1840; PPP, 26 November 1840. The committee comprised William Verner (chairman), G. B. Smyth, Frederick Powlett, Joseph Hawdon, J. D. Lyon Campbell and Hugh Jamieson. The stewards were Verner, Hawdon and Smyth. All the men were Overlanders; the Vandiemonians who had run the earlier meetings had been displaced. A list of members will be found in Appendix IV. More particulars on the club in PPH, 15 December 1840; PPP, 19 December 1840. 52 Arden in PPG, 24 February, 27 March, 31 March and 14 April 1841. 53 PPG, 14 April 1841 and PPP, 17 April 1841: In the Ladies’ Purse (gentle-

men riders only) the horse belonging to the sporting butcher M‘Nall was ridden by the squatter Willoughby. 54 The stewards were James Purves, James Brown, J. B. Kirk, with J. B. Quarry as secretary, PPP, 9 February 1843. Club’s obituary, PPH, 24 March 1843; post-portem, MMH, 30 March 1849. 55 PPG, 28 May 1842; PPH, 7 June 1842, PPG, 4 June 1842; PPP, 2 and 6 June 1842; PPH, 30 August 1842, PPH, 6 September 1842. °6 The following men headed the districts: 1st, Major St John; 2nd, Captain Read; 3rd, Mr Atkins; 4th, Mr Snodgrass; 5th, Mr Hunter; 6th, Major Firebrace; 7th, Captain M‘Lachlan; 8th, Captain Bunbury; 9th, Mr E. Bell; 10th, Mr Farie; 11th, Mr Murray; 12th, Mr Fenwick, PPG, 4 June 1842; the black issue, PPP, 6 June 1842; Gipps to La Trobe, 12 June 1842, 13 June 1842, 18 June 1842, La Trobe Papers. °7 Mrs McCrae, pp. 7-8. °8 Lady Stawell, p. 22. ©? La Trobe’s land in: James Graham to Donaldson, 12 June 1840, Graham Papers, Archives, University of Melbourne; Lang, pp. 83-6; Mrs McCrae, pp. 58-9; OMM, pp. 157-63. 226

Notes 6° James Graham to Arthur Jeffreys, 4 September 1843, Graham Papers, Archives, University of Melbourne. 61 Mrs McCrae, pp. 54-5.

62 Curr, Memoranda, unpaged. He and two brothers were sent there in 1829; PPH, 17 July, 14 August 1840; Correspondence of John Cotton, Victorian Pioneer, 1842-49, edited by George Mackanness, Sydney, 1953, vol. 2, pp. 6-7.

63 PPH, 9 September 1839; PPH, 27 May 1845 (slumberous conditions); Strode, vol. 2, p. 7; John Waugh, Reminiscences, 1907, RHSV, pp. 14-15; McNicoll, p. 55. 64 Amateur theatre, PPG, 5, 23 and 27 April 1842; Amateur Quadrille Band, PPH, 24 November 1840; Garryowen, vol. 1, 451ff reading circle, PPH, 14 January 1845; Toxophile Club, PPP, 29 October 1840; Picnics, PPG, 2 March 1839; elegant fete, PPP, 10 February 1839; Balls: PPP , 27 March 1839; Bachelors’ Ball, PPP, 16 January 1840; Mrs Welsh’s ball in Curr, p. 15 and Strode, vol. 2, p. 21. 65 PPH, 27 December 1844. 66 John Woodward, A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign, London, 1892 (1969 reprint), pp. 6-8; Charles R. Dodd, A Manual of Dignities, Privileges and Precedence, London, 1843, pp. 247-52. 67 Strode, vol. 1, p. 74; PPP, 6 July 1843. 68 PPP, 22 August 1839, editorial attacking the fondness for titles in official lists, J.P.’s etc.; and PPP, 6 July 1843; ‘Veritas’, PPG, 9 March 1844. 69 F, M. L. Thompson, English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century, London, 1963, pp. 110-11; Bertram Osborne, Justices of the Peace, 1361-1848, Shaftesbury, 1960, pp. 164-5. 70 Lonsdale to Colonial Secretary, 13 March 1837. Chief Secretary, Letters Outward, vol. A., PRO, Melbourne; McCombie, Arabin, p. 59; Gipps to La Trobe, 27 February 1841, La Trobe Papers. 71 Gipps to La Trobe, 18 April 1845; 1 March 1840; 19 June 1841, La Trobe Papers. 72 Gipps to La Trobe, 19 June 1841; Gipps asks La Trobe’s opinion of Peter

Snodgrass, 15 August 1840; of Dr Martin, 15 October 1840; of Thomas Thornloe, 30 May 1842; of Edward Curr, 15 July 1843; of von Stieglitz, 12 March 1844 — Gipps wanted to make sure that von Stieglitz was British born; disputes over town magistracies, 14 January 1843, 11 February 1843, La Trobe Papers.

73 Fondness for titles in PPP, 22 August 1839; attacks on magistrates in PPH, 16 May 1842; PPP, 1 February 1844; PPH, 9 January 1845; PPH, 17 March 1846 (a letter from ‘Junius’ which suggested that many of the magistrates could do little more than read and write); MMH, 27 June 1849. ™ Curr, pp. 40445.

> Strode, vol. 1, p. 74; PPP, 15 October 1846. 76 Gipps on Captain Fyans in La Trobe Papers. Gipps-La Trobe Correspondence, 17 June 1843, 16 May 1844, 5 February 1846; Fyans on Gipps in Foster Fyans, Reminiscences, La Trobe Library, pp. 427, 431 and 476; Gipps’ opinion of the Crown Commissioners as a group is in the Gipps-La Trobe Correspondence, 20 March 1846. 77 Baker, pp. 74-5; Howitt, pp. 136-7; Curr, pp. 115-19, 342-6. 227

Port Phillip Gentlemen 78 Gipps to La Trobe, 5 June 1841; 23 April 1841; 30 May 1841. 79 Mrs McCrae, pp. 135-6. 8° ibid., p. 183. 81 Earl Jowitt (ed.), The Dictionary of English Law, London, 1959; PPH, 7 December 1848; Boursiquot’s case in PPH, 21 January 1847, PPP, 27 January

82 PPP, 27 January 1847. [1847. 83 ibid.

84 Gipps to La Trobe, n.d. (September? 1842); PPP, 1 January 1844; for disputes in Sydney see HRA Ist series, xix, pp. 340, 561, 707; xx, p. 87; xxi, p. 299.

85 Pohlman, Diary, 24 August 1846; PPH, 21 January 1840 (Hoddle v. Gisborne).

IV: THE GENTLEMAN SQUATTER 1 Types of squatters: see Clutterbuck, p. 87; Murray, p. 240; Griffith, pp. 44, 56; D. L. Waugh, pp. v-vi; Thomas McCombie, Australian Sketches, 1st series, Melbourne, 1847, pp. 1-2. * “The sinews of the colony’, Clutterbuck, p. 86; (G. S. Lang), Land and Labour in Australia . . ., Melbourne, 1846, pp. 178-9 (superiority of Australian over American squatters); Westgarth, Victoria, Late Australia Felix, Edinburgh, 1853, p. 89 (superiority of respectable Port Phillip squatters to counterparts in NSW); Griffith, Present State, pp. 90-1 (lack of rights and servile tenure). 3 Historical Records of Australia, 1st series, xxi, p. 130.

4 Kiddle, pp. 42-3. * PPG, 5 June 1839 (cursed squats); unsuitability of VDL men as magistrates in Marnie Bassett, The Hentys: an Australian Colonial Tapestry, 2nd edn, Melbourne, 1955, p. 447; ADB, vol. 1; Sprot v. Fyans , see CCP, vol. 3, p. 176; vol. 4, p. 27; PPP, 11 July 1844 (Fyans ready to lay aside his office to fight a duel); PPP, 10 June 1847. 5 LVP, pp. 185-6.

’ ibid., pp. 186-7. 8 Isaac Batey to Evan Hunter, 4 May 1917, Hunter Papers, La Trobe Library; James Kirby, Old Times in the Bush of Australia, Ballarat, 21895, p. 153, for

squatters who started as servants; Batey, Reminiscences, pp. 70, 167. 9 Murray, pp. 238-9, 39-40; (J. H. Kerr), Glimpses of Life in Victoria by A Resident, Edinburgh, 1872, p. 95; Howitt, p. 150. 10 Lloyd, pp. 444-9. 11 R. V. Billis & A. S. Kenyon, Pastoral Pioneers of Port Phillip, 2nd edn, Melbourne, 1974. 12 Kiddle, p. 518, note 21, and p. 47: Niel Black, see Kiddle, passim, and ADB, vol. 1. 13, See list of members in McNicoll and Appendix I; Thomas Chirnside in LVP, p. 337. 14 Kiddle, p. 47. 15 PPG, 23 February 1842; Gnffith, pp. 91, 84-5.

16 Clutterbuck, p. 71; the bully McClure in The Montforts, pp. 49-50; Wentworth McLeish in A Difficult Young Man, Melbourne, 1965, pp. 178, 180. 228

Notes 'T PPH, 16 June 1843; PPH, 21 February 1843. 18 Kemble in PPH, 2 April 1844; PPP, 6 July 1843. *9 Cuninghame in PPP, 25 March 1844; PPH, 12 June 1845. 20 PPH, 4 December 1845. 21 Meyrick, p. 185; Bell in LVP, p. 287; Griffith, pp. 84-5. 22 Murray, p. 182; PPP, 31 August 1843. 23 Murray, p. 238; (Thomas Walker), A Month in the Bush in Australia. . ., London, 1838, p. 35. 24 Niel Black Journal, 10 December 1839, 1 and 26 January 1840; Mrs Kirkland in Hugh Anderson, Flowers of the Field: History of Riponshire, Melbourne, 1969, p. 20; W. A. Brodribb, Recollections of an Australian Squatter; or Leaves from My Journal Since 1835, Sydney, 1883, p. 44. 25 Baker, pp. 77 (piggish squatters); pp. 82-3 (the footman); p. 89 (contrast between two households); pp. 76 and 90 (wine). 76 Robert Russell, 25 July 1846, Russell Papers, La Trobe Library.

27 Black considered married men were more moral because they were stable, Journal, 7 December 1839; J. D. Lang, pp. 120, 180. 28 Westgarth, Victoria, Late Australia Felix, pp. 344-5. 29 McCombie, Australian Sketches, 1st series, pp. 2-4, 7-13, 14-15. 30 Fawkner in PPH, 28 April 1846; ‘Justitia’ in PPH, 15 May 1846. 51 Griffith, Present State, p. 59; Curr, p. 370; E. M. Curr, Frivolities, Melbourne, 1868; Boldrewood, Old Melbourne Memories, pp. 50-1. 32 See ADB, vol. 4, for Fetherstonhaugh. 33 Curr, p. 299. 34 Curr, p. 420. 35 McCombie, Arabin, and ADB, vol. 5. He has a lengthy footnote on Mt Macedon and quotes Howitt, pp. 77-8; and again p. 178. 36 Arabin, p. 26, on materialism of colonial society; relations with society p. 103; on squatters pp. 57-61, 110-11,130. 387 Arabin, p. 103, the legacy and its effects.

38 Arabin, chapters, vi, vii, xvi, xviii, on Willis, his melancholia and bandit-like appearance.

39 PPG, 17 February 1841 (cruel joke played on Henry Fowler); PPP, 5 December 1844, 7 March 1845 (Thomas Newman’s ‘fortune’); PPH , 25 March 1845 (Mr Jennings ‘bilked of a splendid fortune’). 40 Arabin, pp. 148-55 (Captain Thomson). *1 For biography of Kingsley, see S. M. Ellis, Henry Kingsley, 1830-1876: Towards a Vindication, London, 1931, and R. J. Barnes, Henry Kingsley and Colonial Fiction, Melbourne, 1971; for literary criticisms of the novel, see Miller and Macartney, pp. 409-10; Green, pp. 207-8; for a particularly critical comment, see Coral Lansbury, Arcady in Australia, Melbourne, 1970, pp. 118-21. *2 For William Mitchell, see OMM, pp. 148-50; Barnes, p. 23; for Sturt and Kingsley, see Barnes, pp. 7-8. 43 John Sadleir, Recollections of a Victorian Police Officer, Melbourne, 1913, p. 293; Geoffry Hamlyn, ch. xxxiv; the native police were commanded by Dana’s elder brother, H. E. P. Dana (see Appendix I); William Pery succeeded as Lord

Glentworth in February 1844 and 2nd Earl of Limerick in December 1844, PPH, 26 October (Supp.) 1844, 21 January, 11 April 1845. 229

Port Phillip Gentlemen 44 Lansbury on his dishonesty in not writing about failure, pp. 118-21. *° See Appendix I for genealogical details; Harry Perry, A Son of Australia, Brisbane, 1928, pp. 1-36; Henry Haygarth, Recollections of Bush Life in Australia, London, 1848. 46 Perry, p. 37. 7 Geoffry Hamlyn, ch. xii, p. 93, for Frank Maberley, the athlete-parson; the ex-convict, ch. xx, p. 166; Cecil Mayford, ch. xxii, p. 184; Sam Buckley, etc. ch. xxii and ch. xxii, p. 197; whereas Charles Hawker ‘seemed as though he had come from a lower grade in society’ and did not speak or behave as a gentleman, ch. xxiii, p. 197; the bastard son, ch. xxxii, p. 316 and ch. xxxvi, p. 364.

48 ibid., ch. xx, p. 168 for Harding; Major James Buckley, ch. iii; ‘Half Devonshire’ leaving, in ch. xvii, titled Exodus; Hamlyn and Stockbridge are squires, ch. iv, p. 18; Sam Buckley a gentleman and Christian, ch. xxii, p. 181. 49 ibid., ch. xliv, pp. 438-9. (The grammar is Kingsley’s.) °° ibid., ch. xlvui; Fetherstonhaugh, p. 42. *! For a biography of Boldrewood, see last chapter of this essay and ADB, vol. 3; his relations with Henry Kingsley are discussed in OMM, p. xv. °2 Rolf Boldrewood, A Colonial Reformer, 2nd edn, London, 1891, p. 406.

3 ibid., pp. 406 and 464 (the decision to return and live permanently in New South Wales).

°4 ibid., p. 407. |

°° Rolf Boldrewood, The Sydney-Side Saxon, London, 1893, especially ch. 12.

°6 ibid., pp. 159-60, 165. 57 ibid., p. 161.

8 ibid., pp. 108, 172 (broken down gentlemen); their fall attributed to drink, p. 174; topsy-turveydom, the ordinary man changing places with the gentleman, p. 181. °° A Colonial Reformer, p. 21, gentleman who plucks newcomers; out of luck gentlemen, pp. 54-5, 85, 281 (Brian de Bracy who grew vegetables). 8° Rolf Boldrewood, Babes in the Bush, London, 1900. A tentative key to the characters is offered here; the actual people are named in brackets. The Effinghams [the Browne family]; Parson Rocker [?Rev. Joseph Docker]; Fred Chur-

bett of the She-Oaks [Fred Burchett of The Gums]; William Argyll of Ben-

mohr [William Campbell of Dunmore]; Charles Hamilton of Benmohr [Charles Hamilton Macknight of Dunmore]; the D’Oyley brothers, one of whom is called Dryson [Charles and Henry D’Oyley Aplin; Henry is often referred to as Dyson]; Carl Hotson, ‘the Count’ of Carlsruhe [Charles Hotson Ebden of Carlsruhe station]; Alick, Jimmy and Jack Gambier [A. McL., J. A. C. and Jack Hunter, who at one time had a station at Mount Gambier]; Will Machell of Langemilli [William Mitchell of Langiwilli]; Herman Bottrell [Henry Gottreux]; ‘Dolly’ Goldkind [Adolphus Goldsmith}; Bob Ardmillan [Robert Crauford, brother of Lord Ardmillan]; Bernard Wharton [?Compton Gerard Ferrers]; St Maur [?Evelyn Sturt}; Mr Kinghart, brother of the famous clergyman [Henry Kingsley]. 61 Babes in the Bush, p. 333.

62 J. A. C. Hunter to his father, 15 November 1840, Hunter Papers. 230

Notes 63 For the Hunters see OMM, pp. 77-8, 147; Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 774; Fetherstonhaugh, pp. 34-7; the Cabbage Patch affair, PPP, 9 August 1841, PPG, 7 August 1841; J. H. Kerr, p. 63. 64 For the Goulburn mob see Garryowen, vol. 2, 769ff; Curr, pp. 112-15; and Cotton, vol, 2, pp. 26, 33; vol. 3, pp. 9, 17. 65 For the Dunmore mob see OMM, pp. 31-3, 39, 80. 66 Mt Gambier mob in OMM, pp. 147-53. 67 The gentlemen of the Wannon in OMM, p. 96; the gentlemen of the Mornington Peninsula in Howitt, p. 142; the gentlemen of Gippsland, see Perry, p. 52. 688 Strode, vol. 1, p. 105, vol. 2, pp. 2-3; Garryowen, vol. 2 pp. 733-4; Kiddle, p. 86; first Melbourne meet, PPG, 28 August 1839 and Strode, vol. 2, pp. 5-6; second meet, PPG, 7 September 1839; Port Phillip Subscription Pack, PPP, 10 February 1843.

69 For Ferrers, see the long account in PPP, 29 April 1847; for Pyke see LVP, pp. 114-15. 70 Fyans in LVP, p. 186; Corio Hounds, PPH, 10 and 14 June 1844; Port Fairy meeting for fox-hunting, PPG, 29 January 1845; Mount Rouse Hunt, PPG, 25 January 1845; Mr Pyke’s hounds, PPH, 29 May 1845; Mrs Baxter, pp. 85, 105; Mr Calvert’s pack, PPH, 1 July 1847; Mt Mercer subscription

pack, PPP, 1 March 1847; Portland Hunt Club in N. F. Learmonth, The Portland Bay Settlement, Portland, 1934, p. 216; The Narrative of George Russell of Golf Hill, with Russelliana and Selected Papers, (ed.) P. L. Brown, London, 1955,

pp. 243-7, has a contemporary summary of hunting.

V: A QUESTION OF HONOUR 1 Robert Baldick, The Duel, London, 1965; a fatal duel in the U.S. was reported in PPH, 26 July 1844. 2 W.L. Burn, The Age of Equipoise: A study of the Mid-Victorian Generation ,

London, 1968, pp. 257-60. . 3 Articles of War amended, PPP, 25 July 1844; essay on duelling reprinted from the Spectator in PPH, 21 January 1844; further article in PPH, 8 March 1844; Robert Blake, Disraeli, London, 1967, p. 169; G. D. Painter, Marcel Proust, London, 1959, vol. 1, pp. 209-10. * General articles on duelling in the colonies will be found in: J. Henniker Heaton, Australian Dictionary of Dates and Men of the Time, Sydney, 1879, addenda, pp. 88-9; Australian Encyclopaedia, (ed.) A. H. Jose and others, Sydney, 1927, vol. 1, p. 338; Australian Encyclopaedia, (ed.) A. Chisholm, Syd-

ney, 1958, vol. 3, pp. 301-4; for Port Phillip see Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 774-84; the duel in W.A. is in The Hentys, p. 243. * Courts of honour, see Appendix VI; litigiousness and hostility to lawyers, see J. D. Lang, p. 100 (on the Batman estate); PPP, 23 March 1843, 23 May 1843, 13 January 1845, 2 June 1847; Baker, p. 33. ® A list of duels and challenges is in Appendix VI. ” Waterfield Diary, 30 May 1839; PPP, 3 June 1839; Hugh McCrae in Mrs McCrae, p. 31. 231

Port Phillip Gentlemen 8 Howitt, p. 148; Henry Meyrick to Jane Meyrick, 3 February 1846, Meyrick Papers, La Trobe Library; Gunson, p. 40; Hugh McCrae in Mrs McCrae, p. 128; Meyrick, p. 169. 9 Strode, vol. 2, p. 139. 10 Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 780-1 (and rest of chapter); J. A. C. Hunter, Log, 8 February (1842), p. 51; Gunson, pp. 40-1. 11 Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 775-8. 12 ibid., vol. 2, pp. 779-80. 13 ibid., vol. 2, p. 780. 14 J. H. Kerr, pp. 81-7. 15 PPP, 7 & 11 April 1842. 16 Reprinted in PPH, 24 August 1848. 17 PPP, 17 April 1839. 18 John Walpole Willis, Papers, Book 20, pp. 91ff, RHSV; garbled report in the Australian, 24 October 1840. 19 Willis, ibid. 20 Willis, ibid. 21 McNicholl, pp. 28-9.

22 Melbourne Club, Minutes, copy La Trobe Library. The committee members were James Simpson (president), F. A. Powlett, Samuel Raymond, A. F. Mollison, Robert Martin, Charles Ebden (hon. sec.), Archibald Cuningham, William Verner and J. C. Riddell; PPP, 23 May 1842. 23 Melbourne Club, Minutes; McNicoll, p. 29. 24 Smyth: quarrel with Judge Willis, PPP, 9 January 1843; left colony in

1844, PPH, 12 January 1844; died at Lewisham in March 1845, PPH, 21 August 1845. *° Kiddle, pp. 251-6 (ignored in ADB, vol. 2.)

26 Arden in PPG, 14 and 18 September 1839; A. M. L. Hunter to his mother, Log, 19 January 1842, p. 7. Hunter Papers, La Trobe Library. 27 PPH, 5 December 1843; PPP, 7 December 1843. 28 PPP, 18 December 1843; PPH, 19 December 1843. 29 PPP, 22 April 1844; PPH, 23 April 1844; PPG, 20 Apnil 1844; Mrs McCrae, p. 134. 30 PPG, 20 April 1844 (for some reason the Patriot did not publish Barry’s speech).

31 PPG, 20 April 1844. 32 Gipps to La Trobe, 6 January 1844, La Trobe Papers; PPP, 20 April 1844; the Bland affair, PPH, 14 Apmil 1846. 33 PPP, 18 April 1844 (Faithfull’s letter); PPP, 20 June 1844 (trial). 34 PPP, 20 June 1844. 35 Mrs McCrae, pp. 11, 80. 36 Mrs McCrae, p. 90; PPH, 10 September; PPG, 11 September; PPP, 12 September 1844; Mrs McCrae, pp. 151-2. 37 PPP, 12 and 16 September; PPH, 10 and 13 September; PPG, 11 September 1844. 38 PPP, ibid.; PPH, 13 and 17 September; PPG, 11 and 14 September 1844. 39 PPH, 29 October 1844. 40 PPP, 31 October; PPH, 1 November 1844. 232

Notes 41 PPG, 2 November; PPP, 4 and 7 November; PPH, 5 and 8 November; PPG, 9 November 1844. 42 Quarry’s duel in William Rawson to Samuel Rawson, 25 December 1846, quoted in Gunson, p. 40; Hugh McCrae in Mrs McCrae, p. 152; for Quarry, Kenyon Cards, La Trobe Library. 43° PPH, 27 March; PPP, 28 March 1845. #4 Curr in PPH, extraordinary issue, 28 March 1845. *5 ‘Caustic’ in PPP, 2 April 1845. 46 Curr in PPH, 3 April 1845. 47 PPG, 5 April 1845.

VI: BLOOD, MERIT ...OR MONEY? 1 PPH, 23 July 1847. 2 PPG, 19 May 1841. 3 Samuel Bennett, History of Australian Discovery and Civilization, Sydney, 1869, pp. 626-9. 4 PPH, 7 September 1846

5 T. A. Browne (Rolf Boldrewood), My Autobiography, pp. 69-70, Mitchell Library. ® PPP, 20 January 1840. * PPP, 11 November 1839; PPP, 11 March 1841. 8 PPP, 26 November 1840. ® See Chapter III, notes 50-4. 10 PPH, 4 December 1840; postponed, PPH, 9 April 1841; new ball, PPH, 13 April 1841. 11 PPG, 24 April 1841; PPP, 26 April 1841. 12 PPP, 3 May 1841; cf. ‘Veritas’ in PPP, 26 November 1840. 13 PPP, 3 May 1841. 14 Murray, pp. 37-9; Hugh McCrae in Mrs McCrae, p. 47; Scott, p. 13. © PPG, 5 May 1841. 16 PPP, 6 May 1841. 17 ibid. 18 PPH, 7 May 1841. 19 PPG, 8 May 1841. 20 PPP, 10 May 1841.

21 Mrs McCrae, pp. 34, 134, 137-8; William Cotton, Letters, 21 and 27 August, 12 December 1849, La Trobe Library. 22 PPG, 8 May 1841; PPP, 10 May 1841. 23 PPH, 14 May 1841; PPP, 24 May 1841; PPH, 26 October 1841. 24 PPP, 17 and 20 May 1841; PPH, 18 and 21 May 1841. 25 PPP, 17 May 1841. 26 ibid. 27 Clutterbuck, pp. 64-5. 28 McCombie, Arabin, p. 108.

29 For Urquhart, see PPH, 21 May, PPP, 20 and 24 May 1841; for Langhorne see PPH, 21 May 1841; for Conolly, see PPP, 24 May 1841. 30 PPP, 24 and 27 May 1841; PPG, 26 May 1841. 233

Port Phillip Gentlemen 3! Postponement, PPH, 1 June 1841; preparations, PPP, 7 June, PPG, 5 June 1841; descriptions, PPH, 11 June, PPP, 10 June 1841; the broken window, PPP, 10 and 14 June 1841.

32 Gipps to La Trobe, 24 July, 4 August, 16 September 1841. La Trobe Papers; PPP, 11 October 1841. 33 PPP, 14 and 18 October 1841; James Graham to John Hay, 26 October 1841. Graham Papers; Mrs McCrae, pp. 47-50; PPH, 26 and 29 October, PPP, 28 October 1841. 34 PPP, 29 October 1841. 35 PPG, 30 October 1841. 36 PPH, 2 November 1841; The Melbourne Extraordinary , 1 November 1841. 37 PPG, 9 July 1842.

38 A list of members is in Appendix VIII.

- 39 Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 662; Scott, p. 39; PPP, 9 December 1839. 40 PPH, 25 and 28 August 1840; PPP, 3 September 1840; McNicoll, pp. 19-21

41 PPH, 28 August 1840. 42 PPG, 2 April 1842; Mrs McCrae, p. 43. 43° PPH, 27 and 30 July, 10 September 1841. 44 Winding up, PPH, 7 March 1843; PPH, 27 January 1844; Mrs McCrae, p. 124; Scott, p. 37; McNicoll, p. 32; Garryowen, vol. 2, p. 662. 4° Pro-Fawkner: Samuel Sidney, Three Colonies, Auburn, 1854, pp. 201-2; William Kelly, Life in Victoria. . ., London, 1859, vol. 1, p. vu; anti-Fawkner: Turner, vol. 1, pp. 97, 129; Curr, pp. 350-1; Batey, p. 83.

46 Hepburn and Bell in LVP, pp. 163, 291; Charles Bonney, Autobiographical Notes, RHSV. 47 Strode, vol. 1, pp. 66-7, 138-44; vol. 2, pp. 46-7. 48 Niel Black, Journal, 4 April 1840. 49 Bassett, pp. 447, 482-3. °° Lloyd, p. 333. °t H. G.Turner, A History of the Colony of Victoria from Its Discovery to Its Absorption into the Commonwealth of Australia, 2 vols, London, 1904, vol. 1, pp. 96-7, 174, 101.

52 ibid., vol. 1, pp. 175-6. °3_ A handful of citations can only skim the surface of this rich if malign source of contention: Garryowen, vol. 1, pp. 333-7; vol. 2, ch. L; PPH, 10 February 1843; PPP, 27 April, 11 June 1843; nots of 1846: PPH, 14, 21 and

54 PPP, 14 November 1844. [July 1846.

55 PPP, 25 November 1844. 56 PPP, 12 December 1844. °7 Charles Burchett, 27 July 1839. Burchett Papers, RHSV.

58 Robertson in LVP, pp. 154-69; Malcolm in Selby, p. 305; Aitken in LVP, pp. 47-50; Fisher in LVP, pp. 36-47; the Afflecks in LVP, pp. 292, 297; Bon in LVP, p. 296; Lang, pp. 90, 99, 100, 101.

°° Curr, pp. 383-4. 6° OMM, pp. 115-16. 8! Niel Black, Journal, 24 January 1840. 62 J. H. Kerr, p. 8. 234

Notes 63 PPH, 10 and 17 November 1840; PPP, 26 November 1840; PPH, 27 November 1840; PPH, 1 December 1840; PPP, 3 December 1840; PPP, 30 November 1840. 64 PPP, 2 December 1841; PPH, 3 December 1841; society formed: PPG, 8 December 1841; PPH, 3 December 1844; PPP, 2 December 1844. 65 PPP, 2 December 1844. 66 Lang, pp. 175-6, 295. 67 Niel Black, Journal, 2 February 1840; 26 January and 8 March 1840. 68 PPP, 7 February 1845. 69 Niel Black, Journal, 4 and 13 Apnil 1840.

VII: THE END OF THE GOLDEN AGE 1 Brief biographies of Judge Willis in the Dictionary of National Biography;

ADB, vol. 2; Heaton; see also Jillian Raven, John Walpole Willis, Thesis, Department of History, A.N.U.; Garryowen, vol. 1, pp. 65-82; Governor’s Despatches 1845, vol. 49 (Mitchell Library) traverses in the greatest detail the

official case against Willis, under eighteen headings, and contains as well lengthy defences from the Judge. The other major repository 1s the Gipps-La Trobe Correspondence. 2 Garryowen, vol. 1, p. 91; Baker, ch. vii; J. D. Lang, pp. 35, 59, 76-7. 3 Black, Journal, 13 December 1839, 24 January 1840; and ch. II, notes 18-21 of present work; James Graham to Donaldson, 16 March 1841, Graham

* Governor’s Despatches, vol. 49, pp. 2344-5. [Papers.

® La Trobe to Colonial Secretary. Copies of two letters, 24 October 1842. La Trobe Papers; Governor’s Despatches, vol. 49, pp. 1975-95; La Trobe to Gipps, copies, 8 April 1843, 29 May 1843, La Trobe Papers. The loan to the Patriot, Governor’s Despatches, vol. 49. pp. 2071-152. S PPH, 28 April 1843; temperamental weaknesses, see Garryowen, vol. 1, pp. 65-82; Gipps lists the formidable roll-call of opponents in his despatch to Lord Stanley, Transcripts of Missing Despatches, no. 114, 19 July 1843, pp. 1703-11, Mitchell Library; Clutterbuck, p. 65. 7 James Graham to John Hay, 18 November 1843, Graham Papers. 8 PPG, 25 December 1844; PPP, 20 January 1845; for Langhornes, see James Graham to Arthur Jeffreys, 3 August 1842, Graham Papers; for Murray, see Governor’s Despatches, vol. 49, pp. 2240, 2288, 2318, and Mrs Acland Anderson, Reminiscences, RHSV. 9 PPH, 30 July, 10 September 1841. 10 PPP, 13 June 1842; 27 October 1842; 23 March 1843; PPG, 29 October 1842; PPP, 23 September 1843; PPH, 19 April, 3 May 1844; PPP, 6 May 1844; PPG, 25 December 1844; PPP, 17 February 1845. 11 Governor’s Despatches, vol. 49, pp. 977, 999-1011; PPH, 6 February 1844; PPP, 8 February 1844. 12 PPP, 16 and 21 March 1844. 13 PPH, 23 April 1844. 14 Mrs McCrae, pp. 111-12, 114, 143. 15 PPG, 16 February 1848; Cotton, vol. 3, p. 12; Garryowen, vol. 1, pp. 126-7; Lord Robert Cecil’s Goldfields Diary, 2nd edn, (ed.) Sir Ernest Scott, 235

Port Phillip Gentlemen Melbourne, 1945, p. 18; Westgarth, Personal Recollections, p. 118; Turner, vol. 1, p. 269; Henry Moor’s criticism and the case for the defence is given in A. de Q. Robin, Charles Perry, Bishop of Melbourne, Nedlands, 1967, p. 46. 16 Batey, p. 109; Curr, Appendix III; Fitzroy, see MMH, 19 March 1849.

'7 Lady Stawell, p. 85; for an entertaining summary of this complex prejudice see Cyril Connolly, Enemies of Promise, Harmondsworth, 1961, p. 169. 18 Mrs McCrae, p. 209. '9 Lady Stawell, p. 127; PPH, 2 September 1845; Clutterbuck, p. 67.

20 Argus, 15 February 1848; PPH, 29 February, 9 and 14 March 1848; second libel: Argus, 10 March 1848; PPH, 21 and 28 March, 18 April, 15. August 1848. 21 See list of insolvents in Appendix VII. 22 James Graham to Donaldson, 26 September 1842, Graham Papers. 23 Robert Russell to his family, 30 March 1843, Russell Papers. 24 PPG, 30 March 1844, for Mr Justice Jeffcott’s judgement; Robertson 1n LVP, pp. 157-8.

25 McNicoll, pp. 28-38; Society of St George in Garryowen, vol. 2, pp. 655-7.

26 A. M. Hunter to Mrs Hunter, 19 July 1842, Hunter Papers; James Graham to James M‘Arthur, 6 April 1843, Graham Papers; Mrs McCrae, pp. 92-3.

27 James Graham to Donaldson, 16 March 1842, Graham Papers; CCP, vol. 4, p. 27; Howitt, pp. 106, 109, 113; Henry Meyrick to Mrs Meyrick, 17 April 1847.

28 D.H. Wilsone to George Wilsone, 11 December 1839, Wilsone Papers (pre-depression, but the desperate intent holds true); Henry Meyrick to Jane Meyrick, 3 February 1846. Meyrick Papers. 29 Mrs McCrae, pp. 82, 88, 89, 132.

30 The Hunters and friends considered India: A. M. L. Hunter to Mrs

Hunter, n.d. (1843?); Log, 21 July 1842, Hunter Papers. 31 See necrology, Appendix VIII for Gellibrand and Hesse, also PPH, 12 July 1844; LVP, p. 94; McCombie, History, pp. 47-50; Turner, vol. 1, pp. 160-3; George Russell, Narrative, pp. 121-5. 32 PPH, 19 and 30 July 1844; PPP, 26 August 1844; Melbourne Weekly Chronicle, 9 November 1844. 33 PPP, 22 and 25 January 1844; Melbourne Weekly Chronicle, 20 January and 24 February 1844. 34 Boldrewood, Old Melbourne Memories, pp. 107-8; R. V. Billis and A. S. Kenyon, Pastures New, Melbourne (1974 reprint), pp. 140-3.

35 Henry Meyrick to Mrs Meyrick, 2 August 1846, Meyrick Papers; Meyrick pp. 175, 205-6, 229-34. 36 PPH, 28 January 1845; PPP, 15 February 1848. 37 McNicoll, pp. 95-6; Kenyon Cards, La Trobe Library. 38 McNicoll, pp. 34-5. 39 Lang, pp. 76-7.

40 Niel Black, Journal, 26 October, 5 December, 6 November, 19 December 1839. A. F. Mollison to Jane Mollison, 26 January 1845 (an appropriate date); Niel Black, Journal, 27 November, 8 December 1839. 236

Notes 41 PPP, 4 August 1847. 42 PPH, 9 September 1845; Kiddle, p. 151; PPP, 19 December 1845; PPH, 23 September (and Supplement) 1845; E. M. Curr, Memoranda. 48 PPH, 23 September (and Supp.) 1845; Kiddle, title page. 44 PPH, 9 August 1842; Lady Stawell, p. 85; ibid., pp. 11, 36, 67, 90. 45 T. A. Browne (Rolf Boldrewood), Our Family Chronicle and My Autobiography, Mitchell Library, OMM; Lady Stawell, pp. 42, 79-80. 46 My Autobiography, p. 32. 47 Strode, vol. 1, pp. 41-2; Brown v. Alexander, PPH, 14 July 1843; T. B. Alexander, insolvent, PPP, 20 November 1843; paid twenty shillings in the

pound (one of the rare men to do so), PPG, 11 January 1845. Court of Honour, PPP, 10 July 1846; Pohlman Diary, 23 June 1846; PPH, 22 and 24 June 1847; PPP, 21, 26, 28 June 1847; My Autobiography. 48 Strode, vol. 1, pp. 41-2; Our Family Chronicle, p. 8; ADB, vol. 3 (for change of spelling of name); arms in A. C. Fox-Davies, Armorial Families , 7th edn, London, 1929; Browne’s sister quoted in T. A. Browne to Evan Hunter, 20 August 1909, Hunter Papers. 49 My Autobiography, p. 72. °° Our Family Chronicle, pp. 1-11. *! My Autobiography, pp. 52-4, 35, 63; OMM, pp. xi-xu; My Autobiography, p. 76. 52 My Autobiography, p. 77. 53 ibid., 77ff; ADB, vol. 3, for his later life. 54 Fyans in LVP, p. 196; Faithful in LVP, p. 222; Mollison in LVP, p. 259. 55> Curr, pp. 450-1.

6 OMM, p. 205. °7 Hamilton, p. 81; Sturt in LVP, p. 365. 58 OMM, p. 205; Curr, p. 206; Lady Stawell, p. 78. °9 Lady Stawell, p. 80-1. 69 Martin Boyd, The Cardboard Crown, London, 1952, p. 253. 61 William Westgarth, Victoria, Late Australia Felix, Edinburgh, 1853, p. 359. 62 Westgarth, Personal Recollections, pp. 109-11.

63 Quoted in ADB, vol. 2.

237

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I: MANUSCRIPTS Barry, Sir Redmond. Cases, Books and Precedents. 2 vols.(Supreme Court of Victoria, Library). Although legal in character these occasionally yield information on the actions and relationships of the early colonists.

——. Papers. (La Trobe Library). Most of these date from the post-1850 period.

Batey, Isaac. Reminiscences; written in 1910 at Drouin. (Royal Historical Society Library). By far the richest source of social history of any length, written with a candour not to be found in most of the surviving private material.

—— . Letter to Evan Hunter. 4 May 1917. (La Trobe Library). Contains his classification of the squatting classes.

Black, Niel. Journal 1839-40. (J. N. Black Esq., on loan to the La Trobe Library). A rich and all too brief diary of life in Sydney and Port Phillip which reveals in the most candid fashion the workings of the Calvinist mind; in addition, the comments on society are acute. Boldrewood, Rolf (T. A. Browne). Our Family Chronicle. Written in January

1889. (Mitchell Library). Much of this was dictated by his mother, the widow of Captain Sylvester Brown. ——. My Autobiography. (Mitchell Library). As with the preceding, this chronicles the rise, fall and reinstatement of a colonial family, the whole informed by a morbid recognition of the workings of fate and chance. Burchett Letters. Written by Charles, Henry & Frederick Burchett. (RHSV Library). Intelligent and literate letters, from gentlemen squatters to their English relations, which do not take the pretensions of colonial society too seriously.

Clutterbuck, S. H. Diary, written in 1850. (RHSV Library). This one letter contains some useful comments on Melbourne life and society. Cotton Letters. (Microfilm copy, La Trobe Library). Mainly correspondence of William Cotton in England to his brothers, John and Edward, in Port Phillip. These provide a background to the published Cotton letters and a commentary on William Cotton’s fear that his family was sliding into social decline.

Curr, Edward Micklethwaite. Memoranda concerning the history of my family. (Copy, La Trobe Library). Wnitten for his children, it contains much information on the Curr family and its vicissitudes. While part of it is a rough draft of his Recollections, the family material was largely left out of the published work, as was the religious aspect—Curr’s Catholicism, evident in the MS, is entirely absent from the book and he achieves a distinction denied 238

Bibliography to all his contemporaries, religious or atheist, of forebearing to invoke the Deity. French, Acheson. Letters (Copies, in the possession of Mrs E. Rennie). Mainly of an official nature; the useful ones date from the 1850s and reveal the aristocratic and rationalist mind of a member of the Irish Ascendancy and convey an atmosphere of the eighteenth century. Fyans, Foster. Reminiscences. (Copy La Trobe Library). Only the last section of this long MS. is relevant to the Port Phillip period, but it is informed with a number of characteristically testy and forthnght comments. Gisborne, Henry Fysche. Letters, 1839-40. (Mitchell Library). Three spnghtly letters about Melbourne society —it is a pity he did not live longer. Graham, James. Letter, 12 July 1839 (Copy, Mrs K. T. Towl). His first letter

to his family after his arrival, a long and most informative account of Melbourne life and society.

——. Papers. (Archives, University of Melbourne). Outward Correspondence. Business letters, from one of the few merchants who weathered the depression, which give an indication of the financial entanglements of the time and contain a surprising amount of personal detail. Graham acted as agent for many leading colonists including La Trobe. Griffith, Charles. Diary, 1840-41. (Copies, Michael Loader, Esq. and the La Trobe Library). An all too brief journal by one of the Irish cousinage, full of Ascendancy criticism of Melbourne society and town life. The exigencies of squatting forced him to give up keeping it. Hunter Papers. (La Trobe Library). Letters and logs of various members of the Hunter family (the sons of Alexander Hunter); lively, informative and wnitten in a sprightly manner. Very useful as a study of the Goulburn mob and as a picture of the gentlemen hearties. La Trobe Papers. Gipps-La Trobe Correspondence. (Copy, La Trobe Library). Confusingly named since the bulk of these letters were from Gipps to La Trobe. Fortunately, drafts of some of La Trobe’s letters survive. La Trobe Diary. (Copy, RHSV Library). Almost entirely a record of official engagements.

Liardet Papers. (La Trobe Library). MSS. of W. F. E. Liardet’s proposed history of Port Phillip—disorganized, diffuse and repetitious, but nonetheless containing valuable tidbits. Liardet Papers. (RHSV Library). Later papers of the Liardet family, principally composed by his daughter, Josephine Macdonald. The picture of Liardet

which emerges is remarkably similar to that of Austin Langton in The Cardbord Crown.

Locke, William. Two letters, 1839. (Copy, RHSV Library). These contain useful soaal comments by a man who later became a leading Melbourne merchant (though never in society). Macknight, Charles Hamilton. Diary. (La Trobe Library). Almost totally concerned with pastoral matters, therefore not germane to this essay, though the manifestations of Calvinism are interesting. Melbourne Club. Minutes, 1842. (Copy, La Trobe Library). Meyrick, Henry Howard. Letters, 1840-47. (La Trobe Library). A valuable series of letters written by a gentleman squatter who failed and died young. 239

Port Phillip Gentlemen Mollison, Alexander Fullerton. Letters. (Copies, La Trobe Library). Informative correspondence from a gentleman squatter —a solid, cautious man who succeeded.

Moor, Henry. Letter Book. (Law Institute of Victoria). Business correspondence of a prominent and successful solicitor which provides some information about the financial and social relations of many Melbourne colonists. Outhwaite, Robert. Diary of a voyage, 1848. (Richard Outhwaite Esq.). One of many written in this genre—useful in this case because he travelled out with Perry and Macartney. Pohlman, Robert Williams. Diary, 1840-41, 1846. (RHSV). A strange diary written by a prim barrister—the other years of the decade have since been deposited in the La Trobe Library. Riley, James. Two letters, 1838-39. (Copies, RHSV). Useful letters from a priggish young man, a squatter from the middle ranks of English society. Russell, Robert. Papers. (La Trobe Library). Letters to his family which deal with the growth of society and the depression. Strode, Thomas. Annals and Reminiscences of Bygone Days. (National Library of Australia). These, written in about 1868 by the co-founder of the Port

Phillip Gazette, are surprisingly outspoken about some of the earliest colonists, although much of the memoir is taken straight from the early issues of the PPG. Thomas, Charles. Memories. (Copy in the possession of Neil Robertson Esq.). Written for his wife and child in old age, these recollections of a gentleman squatter show a great similarity to the writings of Curr and Browne. Waugh, John. Reminiscences. 1909. (RHSV Library). An Orangeman’s memoirs of Melbourne in the 1840s which contains interesting snippets. Waterfield, Reverend William. Diary 1839-40. (Copy, RHSV). An account of an Independent clergyman which bears all the marks of a dissenter’s conscience; an unsympathetic but informative view of Melbourne society and

its vanities.

Westgarth, William. Letter, 24 December 1840. (Copy, RHSV Library). A good letter to his mother by the most perceptive observer of Port Phillip and Victorian society. Wilsone, James Henry. Letters, 1839-41. (La Trobe Library). Very valuable letters from a failed and sick gentleman squatter which contain some of the clearest illustrations of the tribulations suffered by gentlemen colonists; writ-

ten by a Scottish Tory.

II: OFFICIAL SOURCES Victoria. Chief Secretary’s Department. Outward letters of Captain William Lonsdale, Administrator of Port Phillip. Volume A. 1836-39. (PRO, Melbourne). —— . Letters of Charles Joseph La Trobe, Superintendent of Port Phillip to the

Colonial Secretary, Sydney. Outward Correspondence, 1839 onwards. (PRO, Melbourne). Historical Records of Australia. First series. Vols xvili-xxi. 240

Bibliography II: NEWSPAPERS Port Phillip Gazette, 1838 onwards. Port Phillip Patriot, 1839 onwards. Port Phillip Herald, 1840-48. Melbourne Morning Herald (formerly Port Phillip Herald), 1849 onwards. Melbourne Weekly Chronicle, 1844.

IV: CONTEMPORARY PUBLISHED SOURCES Including not only works published before 1850, but those published by pioneer colonists after that date. Arden, George. Latest Information with Regard to Australia Felix ... 1st edn, Melbourne, 1840. 2nd edn, Melbourne, 1841. Anderson, Joseph. Recollections of a Peninsular Veteran. London, 1913. Baker, Charles James. Sydney and Melbourne; With Remarks of the Present State and Future Prospects of New South Wales . . . London, 1845. (Baxter, Mrs Andrew). Memories of the Past, by a Lady in Australia. Melbourne, 1873. Brodribb, W. A. Recollections of an Australian Squatter; or Leaves from My Journal

since 1835. Sydney, 1883. Brown, P. L. (ed.). Clyde Company Papers, vols i-iv., 1821-50. London 1941—— (ed.). The Narrative of George Russell of Golf Hill. London, 1935. [59. Browne, Thomas Alexander (Rolf Boldrewood). Old Melbourne Memories. 2nd edn with introduction and notes by C. F. Sayers. Melbourne, 1969. Clutterbuck, James Bennett. Port Phillip in 1849. London, 1850. Cotton, John. Correspondence of John Cotton, Victorian Pioneer, 1842-49, ed. George Mackanness. Sydney, 1953. Curr, Edward Micklethwaite. Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, 1841-1851. Melbourne, 1883. Facsimile edn, Adelaide, 1968. Finn, Edmund (Garryowen). Chronicles of Early Melbourne 1835-1852: Historical, Anecdotal and Personal. 2 vols. Melbourne, 1888. Griffith, Charles James. Present State and Prospects of the Port Phillip District of New South Wales. Dublin, 1845. (Hamilton, George). Experiences of a Colonist Forty Years Ago & A Journal from Port Phillip to South Australia in 1839 by an Old Hand. Adelaide, 1879.

Hawdon, Joseph. The Journal of a Journey from New South Wales to Adelaide Performed in 1838. Reprint, Melbourne, 1952. Haydon, George. Five Years’ Experience in Australia Felix .. . London, 1846. Haygarth, H. W. Recollections of Bush Life in Australia During a Residence of Eight Years in the Interior. London, 1848. Howitt, Richard. Impressions of Australia Felix During Four Years Residence in that

Colony. London, 1845. [1872. (Kerr, John Hunter). Glimpses of Life in Victoria, by a Resident. Edinburgh,

Kirby, James. Old Times in the Bush of Australia: Trials and Experiences of Early Bush Life in Victoria During the Forties. Ballarat, (1895?).

(Kirkland, Mrs). Life in the Bush, by A Lady. Chambers miscellany, 1845; reprinted in Hugh Anderson, Flowers of the Field, Melbourne, 1969. 241

Port Phillip Gentlemen (Lang, Gideon Scott). Land and Labour in Australia: Their Past, Present and Future Connection and Management by a Port Phillip Squatter. Melbourne, 1846.

Lang, John Dunmore. Phillipsland ... Edinburgh, 1847. Lloyd, George Thomas. Thirty-three Years in Tasmania and Victoria .. . London, 1862. McCombie, Thomas. Arabin or the Adventures of a Colonist in New South Wales.

London, 1845. ——. Australian Sketches. 1st series. Melbourne, 1847. ——. The History of the Colony of Victoria from its Settlement to the Death of Sir Charles Hotham. Melbourne, 1858. McCrae, Georgiana. Georgiana’s Journal, Melbourne 1841-65. Edited by Hugh McCrae. 2nd edn Sydney, 1966. Meyrick, Frederick James. Life in the Bush, 1840-1847: A Memoir of Henry Howard Meyrick. London, 1939. Murray, Robert Dundas. A Summer at Port Phillip. Edinburgh, 1843. (Pattison, John). New South Wales: Its Past, Present and Future Conditions, by a Resident of Twelve Years’ Experience. London, 1849. Perry, Richard. Contributions to an Amateur Magazine in Prose and Verse. London, 1857.

Russell, Andrew. A Tour Through the Australian Colonies. 2nd. edn. Glasgow, 1839.

Stawell, Mary. My Recollections. London, 1911. Therry, Roger. Reminiscences of Thirty Years’ Residence in New South Wales and Victoria. London, 1863. Waugh, David. Three Years’ Practical Experience of a Settler in New South Wales.

6th edn, Edinburgh, 1838. Westgarth, William. Australia Felix, or a Historical and Descriptive Account of the

Settlement of Port Phillip . . . Edinburgh, 1848. — Personal Recollections of Early Melbourne Melbourne, 1888. —— Victoria, Late Australia Felix, Edinburgh, 1853.

V: LATER WORKS Later nineteenth century and twentieth century works, excluding books on gentility, for which see section VI of this bibliography. Australian Dictionary of Biography, vols 1-5 edited by Douglas Pike and others. Melbourne, 1966-74. Anderson, Hugh. Flowers of the Field: a History of Ripon Shire. Melbourne, 1969.

Baldick, Robert. The Duel. London, 1965. Barnes. John. Henry Kingsley and Colonial Fiction. Melbourne, 1971. Bassett, Marnie. The Hentys: an Australian Colonial Tapestry. 2nd edn. Melbourne, 1955. Bennett, Samuel. A History of Australian Discovery and Civilisation. Sydney, 1869.

Billis, R. V. & Kenyon A. S. Pastoral Pioneers of Port Phillip. 2nd edn. Melbourne, 1974. —. Pastures New. 2nd edn. Melbourne, 1974. 242

Bibliography Boldrewood, Rolf (T. A. Browne). Babes in the Bush. London, 1900. —. A Colonial Reformer. London, 1891. —. A Sydney-Side Saxon. London, 1893. Boyd, Martin. The Montforts. 1st edn. London, 1928. Rev. edn, Adelaide, 1963. (Martin Mills). —. The Cardboard Crown. Melbourne, 1972 reprint. ——. Day of My Delight. Melbourne, 1965. —. A Difficult Young Man. Melbourne, 1972 reprint. ——. Lucinda Brayford. Melbourne, 1948. ——. A Single Flame. London, 1939. Bnggs, Asa & John Saville (ed.). Essays in Labour History. London, 1967. Burn, W. L. The Age of Equipoise: A Study of the Mid-Victorian Generation. London, 1968. Casey, Maie. An Australian Story, 1837-1907. Melbourne, 1965 reprint. Carnegie, Margaret. Friday Mount. Melbourne, 1973.

Clark, C. M. H. A History of Australia. vol. 3. Melbourne, 1974. Crawford, R. M. An Australian Perspective. Melbourne, 1960. Cooper, J. B. The History of Prahran. Rev. edn, Melbourne, 1924. Ellis, S. M. Henry Kingsley, 1830-1876: towards a Vindication. London, 1931. Fetherstonhaugh, Cuthbert. After Many Days. Sydney, 1917. Garden, Donald. Heidelberg: the Land and Its People, 1838-1900. Melbourne, 1972. Goodman, G. The Church in Victoria during the Episcopate of the Rt. Rev. Charles

Perry. Melbourne, 1892. Greene, H. M. A History of Australian Literature. 2 vols. Sydney, 1966. Gross, Alan. Charles Joseph La Trobe. Melbourne, 1956. Gunson, Niel. The Good Country. Cranbourne Shire. Melbourne, 1956. Heaton, J. H. Australian Dictionary of Dates and Men of the Times. Sydney, 1879.

Jowett, Earl (ed.). The Dictionary of English Law. London, 1959. Kiddle, Margaret. Men of Yesterday. A Social History of the Western District of Victoria, 1834-1890. Melbourne, 1963 reprint. Kingsley, Henry. The Recollections of Geoffry Hamlyn. Melbourne, 1970 reprint. Labilliere. F. P. Early History of the Colony of Victoria. 2 vols. London, 1878. Lansbury, Coral. Arcady in Australia. Melbourne, 1970. Learmonth, N. F. The Portland Bay Settlement; being the History of Portland, Victoria, from 1800 to 1851. Portland, 1934. McNicoll, Ronald. The Early Years of the Melbourne Club. Melbourne, 1976. Massary, Isabel (Mrs Ramsay-Laye). Social Life and Manners in Australia; Being the Notes of Eight Years’ Experience by a Resident. London, 1861.

Miller, E. Morris. Australian Literature. 2 vols. Melbourne, 1940. Mundy, Godfrey. Our Antipodes. 3 vols. London, 1852. Nadel, George. Australia’s Colonial Culture. Melbourne, 1957. Neale, R. S. Class and Ideology in the Nineteenth Century. London, 1972. Osborn, Betty. The Bacchus Story. Bacchus Marsh, 1973(?). Osborne, Bertram. Justices of the Peace, 1361-1848. Shaftesbury, 1960. Perkin, Harold. The Origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880. London, 1969 (1972 reprint). Perry, Harry S. A Son of Australia. Brisbane, 1928. 243

Port Phillip Gentlemen Playne, J. W. The Plenty. A Centenary History of the Whittlesea Shire. Kilmore, 1975.

Robin, A. de Q. Charles Perry, Bishop of Melbourne: the Challenge of a Colonial Episcopate, 1847-78. Nedlands, 1967. Roe, Michael. Quest for Authority in Eastern Australia, 1835-1851. Melbourne,

Ronald, H. B. Hounds are Running. Kilmore, 1970. [1965. Rusden, G. W. History of Australia. 3 vols. London, 1883. Sadleir, John. Recollections of a Victorian Police Officer. Melbourne, 1913. Scott, Ernest. Historical Memoir of the Melbourne Club. Melbourne, 1936. ——. (ed.) Lord Robert Cecil’s Goldfields Diary. 2nd edn. Melbourne, 1945. Selby, Isaac. Old Pioneers’ Memorial History of Melbourne. Melbourne, 1924. Serle, Geoffrey. The Golden Age; A History of the Colony of Victoria, 1851-1861.

Melbourne, 1968 reprint. Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth, 1968. (1974 reprint). Thompson, F. M. L. English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century. London, 1963.

Thomson, Kathleen & Geoffrey Serle. A Biographical Register of the Victorian Parliament 1851-1900. Canberra, 1972. Tumer, H. G. A History of the Colony of Victoria from its Discovery to its Absorption into the Commonwealth of Australia. 2 vols. London, 1904. Uhl, Jean. Call Back Yesterday. Kilmore, 1972.

VI: WORKS ON THE ENGLISH GENTLEMAN AND ALLIED SUBJECTS Bolton, G. C. “The Idea of a Colonial Gentry’. Historical Studies, Australia and New Zealand, 13 (1968), pp. 307-28. Burke, Ashworth. Family Records. London, 1897. Burke, John. A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland enjoying Territorial Possessions or High Official Rank. 3 vols.

London, 1833-7. Burke, John & Burke, Sir John Bernard. A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland. 1st edn. 3 vols. London, 1843-49. (Subsequent editions were: 2nd, 1850-53; 3rd, 1858; 4th, 1862-63;

4th ed., rev. 1868; 5th, 1871; 5th edn & supp. 1875; 6th, 1879; 6th edn & supp. 1882; 7th, 1886; 8th, 1894; and later editions, of which the one most used in this essay is the 17th edn, 1952.) Burke, Sir John Bernard. A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Ireland. London, 1952. ——. A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Colonial Gentry. 2 vols. London, 1891 and 1895. ——. A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage.

London (published annually). ——. The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales . . . London, 2nd edn, 1844 (1969 reprint). Burnett, George. Popular Genealogists, or the Art of Pedigree-Making. Edinburgh, 1865.

244

Bibliography (Cokayne, George Edward). Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom extant, extinct or dormant, by GEC; revised and enlarged by Vicary Gibbs and others. 14 vols. London, 1910-59. ——. The Complete Baronetage. 5 vols. London, 1900-06. Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. New York, 1942. vol. iv, s.v. gentleman. Freeman, Edward. ‘Pedigrees and Pedigree Making’. Contemporary Review, pp. xxx, 11-41. Henderson, Alexander. Pioneer Families of Victoria and the Riverina. Melbourne, 1936.

——. Australian Families. vol. 1. Melbourne, 1941. Mowle, P. C. A Genealogical History of Pioneer Families of Australia. 4th edn.

Sydney, 1948 (1969 reprint). 5th edn, edited by L. M. Mowle. Adelaide, 1978.

Nicolson, Harold. Good Behaviour, being a Study of Certain Types of Civility. London, 1955. Palmer, A. Smythe. The Ideal of a Gentleman. London, 1908. Round, J. H. Studies in Peerage and Family History. London, 1907. —. Peerage and Pedigree. 2 vols. London, 1910 (1971 reprint). Shirley, Evelyn. The Noble and Gentlemen of England, or Notes Touching the Arms

and Descent of Ancient Knightly and Gentle Houses of England ... 3rd edn. London, 1866. Sitwell, Sir Francis, Bart. “The English Gentleman’. Ancestor, 1, pp. 58-103. Wagner, Sir Anthony. English Genealogy. London, 1960. Woodward, John. A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign. London, 1892 (1969 reprint).

VI: THESES McGowan, R. M. A Study of Social Life and Conditions in early Melbourne prior to Separation, 1836-1851. M.A. Thesis, University of Melbourne, 1951.

de Serville, P. H. Huege. Gentlemen Colonists and Good Society in Victoria before 1850. M.A. Thesis, University of Melbourne, 1976.

245

INDEX

a Beckett, T. T., 171 Armytage family, 86

a Beckett, Sir William, 26, 171 Armytage, George, 197

a Beckett, W. A. C., 27, 180 Armytage, George, 198 Aboriginal Protectors, 78, 145 Armytage, Thomas, 197, 218

aborigines, 13, 36, 93 Arthur, Charles, 188, 198

Abraham, 135 Arthur, Fortescue, 188, 198

Adams, E. B., 215, 216 Arthur, Henry, 43, 188, 198, 217, 218

Addis, E. B., 211 Arundell, G. Hunter-, 64, 88, 172,218

Adelaide, 61 Arundell, W. F., 172

adultery, 43, 118-21, 133 Ashhurst, H. G., 198

Affleck family, 146 Atkins, John, 188

Ailsa, Marquess of, 65, 156 Atkinson, F. M., 218 Airey, G. S., 54, 115, 171-2, 209,211, Atkinson, Francis, 185

213 Atkinson, Mrs Francis, 184-5

Airey, J. M. C., 172 Austin family, 52, 86, 143 Aitken, John, 146, 149 Aylwood, 198 Alexander, T. B., 163, 217 Allan, Henry, 218 Babes in the Bush, 102-4 Allan, John, 216 Bacchus, Capt W. H., 160, 188, 198 Anderson family, 41 Bacchus, W. H., 160, 188, 198 Anderson, Lt-Col. Joseph, 73, 188, Baillie, J. D., 173, 217

197 Baillie, Thomas, 173 ‘Anti-Humbug’, 144-5 Baker, Charles, 36, 62,68, 78, 90, 172 Aplin, C. D’O., 93, 172 Balbirnie, R. A., 51, 173

Aplin, Henry, 172 Balcombe family, 50

Arabin, 15, 25, 77, 93 Balcombe, A. B., 198

Archdale family, 197 bankruptcies, 150-1, 156-7

Archdale, Mervyn, 197, 218 Barker, Edward, 108-9, 188

Arden, Alfred, 172 Barker, John, 188

Arden, George, 19, 30, 41,47,48,51, Barker, William, 188 56, 64, 65-6, 71-2, 108, 114, 128, Barlow, Edward, 198 129, 130-1, 137-8, 139, 147, 160, Barnes, C., 117

172, 214, 217, 218 Barnewall, J. A., 173 Arden, Samuel, 172 _ Barrett, 216 ‘aristocracy’, 62, 88, 92, 125-8, 134-5, Barry, Redmond, 49, 54, 58, 66, 75,

137, 160 81, 109-10, 116, 156, 168, 173, 209,

armorial bearings, 23, 30, 75, 91 210, 213 246

Index

Barton, Augustine, 39, 198 Bostock, George, 190

Batey, Isaac, 18, 84 Bourke, Sir Richard, 51 Batman, John, 149, 143 Boursiquot, G. D., 21, 69-70, 78, 80 Bawtree, Samuel, 188 Bowerman, H. B., 218 Baxter, Andrew, 188 Bowman, William, 117, 118 Baxter, Mrs A., 93, 105, 188 Boyd family, 27

Baxter, Benjamin, 58, 160, 188, 212 Boyd, Capt J. T., 26

Beale, Anthony, 217 Boyd, Martin, 14, 26, 34, 52, 87, 163

beards, 89 Boyd, T. E., 157

Beauchamp, Robert, 90, 183 Brady, George, 173

Beaver, George, 213 Braim, T. H., 189 Beers, P. G., 198-9 Brewster, E. J., 173-4 Belcher, Charles, 199 Brickwood, William, 74, 117, 189 Belcher, G. F., 199 Bnggs, Robert, 189 Belcher, J. H., 199 Broadfoot, A. A., 110, 215

Belcher, J. W., 199 Brock, 212

Belcher, W. R., 199, 217 Brodie, G. S., 199 Bell, Edward, 79, 141, 146, 188,209 Brodie, R. S., 53, 199

Bell, W. M., 188 Brodribb family, 52

Bennett, Henry, 189 Brodnbb, W. A., 90, 93

Bernard, W. D., 189, 199 brothels, 43, 156 Beveridge, Andrew, 189 Brown, James, 38, 104 Bibra, Frederick von, 199 Brown, Joseph, 38

‘Big Drum’, 50 Brown, ‘Jupiter’, 38

Billis and Kenyon, 85 Brown, S. J., 38, 163-5, 189, 199-200,

Birch, Cecil, 189 212

Birthday Ball (1841), 67, 129-36 Browne, R.H., 38, 111, 189, 211, 212,

Black, George, 189, 199 213

Black, Niel, 18, 35, 37, 39-49, 86,90, Browne, Rose, 100 139, 141-2, 146, 148-9, 151, 160-2, Browne, T. A., see Rolf Boldrewood

189, 210 Buchanan, Charles, 189

Black, Thomas, 189 Buchanan, John, 189

blackball, 64-65, 71-2, 129 Buckley, Captain, 58 Blackney, C. H., 189, 199 Buckley, W. M., 189

Blair, James, 211 Budd, R. H., 189

Blamyre, Charles, 189 Bunbury, Sir H. E., 28-9 Bland, William, 117 Bunbury, R. H., 28, 79, 174

Blosse, Edward Lynch-, 172 Burchett, Charles, 56-7, 145, 189 Bolden, Armyne, 159, 173, 209, 218 Burchett, Frederick, 146, 189

Bolden, Rev. J. S., 74, 173, 209 Burchett, Henry, 189

Bolden, Lemuel, 173 Burke, Sir J. B., 23 Bolden, Sandford, 159, 173, 218 Burke, R. B., 189 Boldrewood, Rolf (T. A. Browne), Burn, W. L., 106

14, 18, 25, 35, 45, 54, 93,97, 100-4, Byerley, Lady, see Mrs G. A. Gilbert

127, 146, 163-6, 189, 200 Byerley, Emma, 174

Bon, John, 146 Byerley, F. J., 174

Bonney, Charles, 36, 141 Byron, Lord, 36, 89, 95 boom years, 37, 39, 75, 150 Byron, Ceal, 189 247

Port Phillip Gentlemen

‘Caledonian’, 147 Cobb, J. T., 190 Cameron, 200 Cobham, F.McC., 190, 201

Calvinism, 24, 28, 86, 148, 167 Cobham, Mrs Francis, 59, 180

Cameron, Donald, 189 Cobham, Mrs F. McC., 185, 201

Cameron, Henry, 119 Cockburn, Henry, 174 Cameron, James, 189 Cockburn, Ousely, 174 Campbell of Otter, 200 Cockburn, W. K., 174

Campbell, Alexander, 189 Cole, G. W., 58, 74, 113, 117, 136,

Campbell, A. M., 200 181, 190

Campbell, Colin, 189 Cole, Mrs G. W., 59, 74, 181 Campbell, Dalmahoy, 200 Cole, L. W., 218 Campbell, D. S., 111, 189, 213 Cole, Nicholas, 201

Campbell, J. D. Lyon, 64, 66, 68-9, Colonial Gentry , 23-4 115, 128, 130, 136, 189, 200, 210, ‘colonial’, 39

211, 215, 218 colonial promotion, 32, 47

Campbell, Mrs J. D. L., 49-50, 53 companies, 58, 212-13

Campbell, J. H., 189, 200 A Colonial Reformer, 101-2 Campbell, Mrs J. H., 207 Commissioners of Crown Lands, 78,

Campbell, John, 200 88

Campbell, William, 168, 189, 200-1 | Condell, Henry, 48, 51, 62, 118

Campbell, W. H., 189 Conolly, J. M., 135, 201 Candler, Dr Curtis, 51 Conran, L. C., 201

Carey, John, 190 convict taint, 51-3

Carey, Lucius, 201 Cooke, C. P., 186, 190 Carfrae, John, 119 Cooke, Mrs C. P., 186, 190 Carr, Capt J. S., 190 Cooke, S. W., 46 Carrington, H.N., 111-12, 152,190 Cormack, George, 112 Cashmore, 157 Cotter, Dr Barry, 65, 105, 108, 190 Castella, Paul de, 174 Cotter, Mrs Barry, 190 Catholics, 42, 148, 155 Cotton family, 41

‘Caustic’, 122-3 Cotton, Edward, 132

Cavenagh, George, 21-2, 80, 131-2, Cotton, John, 36-7, 74, 114

190 Cowie, J. A., 185 Chamberlain, Robert, 42, 109, 190 Cowie, Mrs J. A., 185 Chesterfield, Lord, 30 Cowper, Charles, 111 Cheyne, A. McK., 190, 201 Cox, John, 190

Chirnside family, 86 Craig, G. N., 202

Chirnside, Thomas, 61, 86 Craig, Mrs G. N., 202, 207 Chisholm, J. M., 217 Craig, Skene, 110, 163, 210, 212, 213,

Chomley, Mrs Francs, 174 215 Clarke, R. N., 190 Croke, James, 65, 190 Church of England, 74-5, 155 Crauford, Robert, 174

Clerk, Robert, 54, 190, 201 Cuningham, A. F., 175

climate, 35, 42 Cuningham, Hastings, 174-5 clothes, 89 Cuninghame, Archibald, 75, 83, 88, Clow, Rev. James, 137, 210 115, 125, 175

Clutterbuck, DrJ. B., 38,87, 135,153 Cuninghame, B. A., 175

Clutterbuck, S. H., 49, 201 Cuninghame, John, 175 248

Index Cunninghame, Thomas, 110, 214 Edgar, David, 203

Curdie, Dr Daniel, 190 Edwards, Thomas, 211 Curlewis, G. C., 190, 218 Elliott, William, 191

Curr family, 41, 73 Elms, G. W., 191

Curr, Edward, 48, 52, 68-9, 115, the English, 42, 61, 145 121-4, 143, 151, 155, 159, 161-2, English characteristics, 13-15, 41, 44-5

165, 190, 202, 215, 218 Erskine, J. A., 69, 176 Curr, E. M., 26, 37, 52, 74, 78-9, esquire, 75-6, 77

93-4, 146, 165, 190, 202 Evans, George, 84

Curr, W. T., 218 exclusion, 128-37, 147 Cussen, Dr Patrick, 160, 190 ‘Cynthia’, 129-30 Fairbairn family, 86 Fairbairn, George, 203

Dalgety, F. G., 190, 202 ‘Fair Play’, 144

Dalrymple, S. E., 44, 175, 218 Faithfull, George, 117, 165, 215

Dana, H. E. P., 175, 218 Farie, Claud, 79, 191, 203, 209 Dana, W. A. P., 98, 175 Fawkner, J. P., 21, 47, 50, 51-2, 66,

dandies, 45, 62 92, 108, 128, 131, 132, 140, 141, Darke W. W., 160, 190 142-3 Darlot, J. M., 139, 153, 210, 217 Fenwick, Fairfax, 191

Davidson, Alexander, 73, 190 Fenwick, N.A., 191, 209

Davis, Peter, 51 Ferrers, C. G., 65, 105, 155, 176

Dawson, James, 93, 190 Ferrie, Peter, 210 Deane, Robert, 210, 213 Fetherstonhaugh, Cuthbert, 93 death, 158-60, 218 Firebrace, William, 72, 115, 117, 176

de Little, Henry, 202 Fisher, David, 146 the Den, 66, 110 Fitzroy, Sir Charles, 105, 155 Dendy, Henry, 217 Flower, Horace, 203 Denny, J. O., 210, 213 Foot, H. B., 217 Demoulin, George, 215 Fitzgerald, Lord, 114, 116

depression (1842), 150-8 Forbes, Rev. James, 75, 211 Devil’s River mob, 104 Forlonge, Andrew, 211 Dickens, Charles, 41, 45, 52 Forlonge, William, 217

Dickson, John, 213 Forrest, Charles, 115, 203

Digby, Kenelm, 57 Foster, J. F. L., 39, 114-17, 168, 176,

Donnithorne, James, 175 215

Drysdale, Miss Anne, 61-2, 175 Foster, William, 114, 176

drunkenness, 44, 102 Fowler, Charles, 176

duelling, 106-124, 214-16 Fowler, Henry, 42, 58, 66, 176 Dunmore mob, 91, 104, 164 freedom, 36, 89, 92-3, 166 Dutton, Hannibal, 98, 202 French, Acheson, 48, 176 Dutton, W. H., 21-2, 139, 153, 202 Fyans, Foster, 78, 83-4, 86, 105, 141-2, 158, 165, 191, 203, 211, 212,

Eagle, C. A., 190-1 215

Eagle, G. B., 218 Ebden, C. H., 46, 48, 58, 62, 76, 89, | Gardiner, John, 141, 191, 212

91, 115, 191, 202 Garryowen (Edmund Finn), 21, 22,

Eddington, John, 191, 202-3 104, 109, 110, 138, 140, 150 249

Port Phillip Gentlemen Gellibrand, J. T., 42, 158, 191 Haines, W. C., 191, 209 gentlemen: broken down, 84; and Hall, C. B., 191 caste, 90, 92; colonial, 39, 47-8; de- | Hamilton, George, 28, 36, 93, 160, finitions, 23, 29-32, 34, 83, 84, 111, 166, 191 154; and failure, 15, 24-5, 31,87,92, Hamilton, Robert, 203 95-6, 102, 157-60; and rank, 47-53, Hamilton, T. F., 177-8 81, 107-8; rowdies, 41-2, 64, 66 Hamilton, Mrs T. F., 207

‘gentry’, 23, 74, 82, 88 Hardy, William, 191

‘gents’, 38 Hastings, Lady Flora, 157

Geoffry Hamlyn, 25, 97-100 Hawdon, John, 191, 203, 211 Geoghegan, Fr Patrick, 54,65,75,155 = Hawdon, John, 203

Gilbert, G. A., 177 Hawdon, Joseph, 36, 93, 110, 111, Gilbert, Mrs G. A., 174, 176-7 141, 191, 203, 209, 210, 212, 213 Gipps, Sir George, 18, 48, 50, 68, 72, | Hawdon, Mrs Joseph, 218

77, 79, 81, 83, 117, 136,152 Haygarth, Henry, 98

Gipps, Lady, 77 Headlam, J. S., 43, 44

Gisborne, H. F., 44, 53, 65, 177 Henderson, Alexander, 24, 146

Godfrey, F. R., 177 Henty, Edward, 191, 203-4, 211

Godfrey, Henry, 177 Henty, Franas, 204 Goggs, George, 153 Henty, John, 142, 204

gold rushes, 16, 18, 23, 165-6 Henty, Stephen, 191, 204, 211

Goldsmith, H. A., 84, 88, 115, 191 Hepburn, John, 140

Gordon, 5th Duke of, 17, 58 Heriot, Elliot, 191

Gordon, George, 177 Hesse, George, 42, 158, 191 Gordon, James, 48, 214 Highett, John, 212

Gore, Harry, 191 Highett, William, 192, 209, 212 Gottreux, Henry, 191 Hill, J. D., 192, 214 Gottreux, William, 191 Hobson, Edmund, 218 Goulburn mob, 104 Hoddle, Robert, 57, 60, 213 Gourlay, Oliver, 42, 159, 191 Hodgson, Edward, 119-20 Graham, James, 38, 44, 47, 58, 74, | Hodgson, John, 19, 73 151, 153, 156, 157-8, 177, 209, 213. Hodgson, Mrs John, 75

Gray, John, 191 Hogue, Arthur, 109, 111-12, 192, 212

Green, John, 191 Holland, Lord, 28

Greene, Richard, 163, 218 Holloway, Joseph, 192 Greene, W. P., 29, 73, 162,177, 218 Home, Rodham, 192, 204, 209

Greene, Mrs W. P., 166, 177 honour, 14, 33, 104-24

Greeves, A. F. A., 21 Howard, Charles, 204, 212, 213

Greig, William, 177 Howard, John, 218 Gniffin, F. S., 191 Howitt, Godfrey, 75, 204

Griffith, Charles, 17, 38-9, 40-1, 45, | Howitt, Richard, 37, 79, 85, 109, 158,

53-4, 62-3, 69, 87, 93, 177, 209 204

Grimes, Edward, 191 Huffington, Dr, 117-18

Grylls family, 41 Hughes, Charles, 192

Grylls, Rev. J. C., 185, 189, 191 Hughes, H. K., 192, 215

Gunson, Dr Niel, 107 Hull, William, 154 Gurner, H. F., 191 Hunter family, 97, 103, 105, 158

Hunter, A. M., 64, 66, 114, 157, 178

250

Index Hunter, Campbell, 65, 178, 218 Kemmis, Arthur, 136, 179, 211, 213,

Hunter, J. A. C., 39, 103, 178 217, 218

Hunter, John (Howqua), 65, 128,136, Kennedy, Hon. Gilbert, 65, 66, 84,

147, 178, 209, 217 109, 179, 215 Hunter, John, 178 Kenny, E. E., 192 Hunter, W. C., 44 Ker, W. L., 192

Hunter, W. F., 205 Ker, Mrs W. L., 179, 192 hunting, 104-5 Kerr, J. H., 62, 85, 93, 110, 146, 192

Huntly Castle, 53, 62 Kerr, William, 21,51, 66, 72, 77, 128,

Huon de Keriliau, A. A., 178 130-7, 143-4, 151, 152, 153, 156 Huon de Keriliau, Paul, 179 Kiddle, Margaret, 23, 27, 63, 83, 85-6,

Hutton, Charles, 192, 209 87, 161-2

Hyde, George, 217, 218 Kilgour, James, 72, 192 Kingsley, Henry, 14, 25, 97-100

levers, William, 177 Kirkland, Mrs, 90 Imlay, George, 218

India, 35, 43, 155 Labilliere, Charles de, 192, 204

inner circle, 54, 56-7, 58-60, 66 labourers, 40-1

the Irish, 22, 42, 143-5 Laidlaw, Mrs, 164

Irish Ascendancy, 26, 31, 38, 41,53-4, Landed Gentry, 24, 99

61, 93, 114, 143, 145, 154, 155 landscape, 35-6

Insh cousinage, 17, 26, 192 Lang, Rev. J. D., 71, 91, 143, 146,

Irvine, J. H., 168, 179 148, 160

Irving, Washington, 56 Langhorne, Alfred, 192 Langhorne, Edward, 217

Jackson, James, 73, 117 Langhorne, George, 135, 153, 217 Jackson, William, 84 Langhorne, William, 153, 192, 199,

Jamicson, Archibald, 192 217

Jamieson, Hugh, 128, 192, 209,210 Langhorne, Mrs William, 199

Jamieson, Robert, 180, 192 Lansbury, Dr Coral, 98 Jamieson, Robert, 210 La Trobe, Charles Joseph, 18, 22, 38,

Jamieson, T. B., 192 42, 47, 50, 53, 55-8, 63, 68, 72, 73,

Jeftcott, William, 116, 153-4, 157 76-7, 81, 13445, 144-5, 151-2, 156,

Jeffreys, Arthur, 192 165-6, 168, 192, 204, 211 Jeffreys, E. W., 192 La Trobe, Mrs C. J., 13,56, 57-8, 179 Jeffreys, F. H., 192 Learmonth, Somerville, 105, 180 Jeffreys, H. C., 192 Learmonth, Thomas, 179 Jennings, Daniel, 192 Lee, E. L., 145, 218 Johnstone, Alexander, 192 Le Souef, Albert, 205

Jones, Lloyd, 192 Le Souef, C. H., 205 Jones, Bowen, 192 Le Souef, D. C., 205 ‘Justitia’, 92 Le Souef, William, 13, 205, 211 Le Souef, Mrs William, 13

Kean, Charles, 148 letters of introduction, 39, 53 Kellett, H. de C., 179 Liardet, W. F. E., 38, 75, 180

Kellett, W. A., 179 Limerick, Earl of, 98

Kelsall, Roger, 192 Lloyd, G. T., 31, 62, 85, 142

Kemble, 88 Locke, William, 117 251

Port Phillip Gentlemen Lonsdale, William, 13, 44, 76, 151-2, M‘Vine, Mrs W. V., 118

153, 160, 192-3, 211, 212, 213 magistrates, 76-9, 121 Lonsdale, Mrs William, 49, 55,195 Malcolm, James, 146

Loughnan, Henry, 193 Manifold, 143

Loughnan, John, 193, 216 Manifold, Mrs Thomas, 185

Lyon, C. H., 193 Manning, James, 193

Manton, Frederick, 153

M‘Alister, Lachlan, 216 Manton, Gideon, 215

McArthur family, 86 Martin, Frederick, 193

McArthur, D.C., 212 Martin, Robert, 26, 113, 193, 209

McArthur, D.G., 210, 212 Martin, Mrs Robert, 26, 205 M‘Arthur, James, 130, 193 materialism, 27

M‘Arthur, Peter, 117 Maunsell, E. E., 193, 205

M‘Arthur, Mrs Peter, 205 Meek, William, 54, 65, 66, 71, 132-3, Macartney, Rev. H. B., 155, 180 193, 209, 211, 213, 218 McCombie, Thomas, 15, 21, 24,31, Meek, Mrs W., 218

77, 91-2, 94-7, 102, 135, 160 melancholia, 95-6

McCrae family, 41, 59, 73 Melbourne Club, 14, 19, 22, 43, 54,

McCrae Alexander, 59, 79, 132, 180 57, 58, 59, 63-6, 86, 111, 112-14, McCrae, A. M., 17, 59, 74, 79, 120, 121, 135, 137-40, 157, 160, 209

157, 180, 210 Men of Yesterday, 23

McCrae, Mrs A. M., 13, 17, 33, 35, Mercer, George, 181 49-50, 52, 53, 58, 59, 62, 68, 73,74, Mercer, J. H., 105, 181-2

118, 155, 157, 168, 180° Mercer, W. D., 182

McCrae, Farquhar, 38, 59, 64, 67, merchants, 65, 156 114-17, 128, 180, 211,212,213,215, | Merewether, Francis, 193

218 meritocracy, 132-5 McCrae, Hugh, 50, 130 Meuron, Adolphe de, 182 McCrae, Mrs W. G., 218 Meyrick, Alfred, 159, 182

147, 181 182, 218

Macdonell of Glengarry, A. R., 39, Meyrick, H. H., 39, 40, 45, 53, 159,

McFarlane, Duncan, 193 Meyrick, Maurice, 108-9, 182, 214

McKellar family, 86 Mildenhall, Annie, 43

Mackenzie, Alastair, 75, 181, 209 military men, 60

Mackenzie, Farquhar, 181 Mills, John 26 Mackenzie, Roderick, 181 Minton, Christopher, 218 Mackenzie, William, 128, 181 Minton, Thomas, 218

Mackinnon, C. F., 193 mistresses, 43

Mackinnon, Mrs Lachlan, 218 Mitchell, William, 97 Macknight, C. H., 168, 193, 205 Mitchell, Mrs W., 179

M‘Lachlan, Captain, 212 Mitchell, W. F., 193

M'‘Lachlan, Archibald, 193, 210 the mobs, 103-4

Macleod, H. L., 181 Mollison, A. F., 64, 161, 193 Macleod, J. N., 181 Mollison, W. T., 165, 193 McMillan, John, 146 money-making, 28, 39-40, 60, 91, McNeill, Edmund, 181 105, 108, 145, 160 McNicoll, R. R., 63 The Montforts , 26, 34, 53 M'Vitie, W. V., 118 Montgomerie, W. J., 193 252

Index

Montgomery, James, 193 Patterson, J. H., 210

Montgomery, William, 193 Pearson, William, 182 Montgomery, William, 205 Penn, G. R., 118-19 Moor, Henry, 119, 156, 163,193,209 Pepys, Samuel, 18

Moore, James, 53-54, 193, 205 ‘Peripateticus’, 133-5 morality (commercial), 39-40, 151-3. Perry, Rev. Dr Charles, 155

Mount Gambier mob, 104 Perry, Mrs C., 155

Mowle, P. C., 24 Pery, William, 98

Mundy, A. M., 160, 182 Phillpotts, Octavius, 183 Mundy, F. M., 159, 182 Pinnock, J. D., 81, 194

Murchison family, 41 Piper, William, 194

Murdoch, Robert, 193 placing, 53

Murdoch, Thomas, 193 Playne, George, 115, 121-3, 194, 209,

Murndal, 27 215

Murphy, Francis, 193 Pohlman, R. W., 18, 49, 53, 57, 81,

Murray family, 86, 143 118, 194

Murray, Hon. J. E., 72, 147,151,153, Port Phillip Club, 55, 58, 59, 86, 137-

159, 182, 218 40, 153, 157, 210 130, 182 Port Phillip Herald, 21-2

Murray, Hon R. D., 62, 67, 73, 85, Port Phillip Gazette, 19-21 Port Phillip Patriot, 21

Newman, Charles, 193 Port Phillip Proprietary College, 74 Newsome, George, 193 Portland Mercury , 88 Nicholson, Mark, 193 Postlethwaite, Mrs J., 218

nicknames, 222 Powlett, F. A., 72, 78, 109, 160, 183,

Nodin, Francis, 217 209, 211, 212, 214 Norris, George, 214 precedence, 55, 81 Presbyterians, 75

O’Cock, Richard, 210 pnizefighting, 44

O’Donovan, D. W., 205 Beauchamp-Proctor, 183

Officer family, 86 prostitutes, 43

Ogilby, R. E., 193 Proust, Marcel, 107

Okeden, David Parry-, 98-9, 182 Purcell, 216

Okeden, Mrs D. Parry-, 98-9 Pyke, T. H., 105, 194 Old Melbourne Memories, 101

O’Neil, William, 110, 214 quarrelsomeness, 42-3, 68 Orangemen, 21, 42, 68, 75, 143 Quarry, J. B., 118-20, 215 origins, 21, 49-52, 117, 134, 137, Quarry, Mrs J. B., 118-21

197-208 Quarterly Assemblies, 15, 55, 66-70,

Orr, John, 73 157

Outhwaite, Robert, 193-4 Quinn, J. A., 206 overlanders, 42, 140-3

overstraiters, 42, 140-3 radicals, 21, 68, 143-4, 150, 161 Rankin, A. H. W., 194, 211

Palmer, J. F., 194 Rawson, Samuel, 183

Panton, J. A., 194 Raymond, Samuel, 48, 113, 117, 154,

Parker, E. S., 211 194, 206, 209

patronage, 76, 79, 158 Raymond, W. O., 206 253

Port Phillip Gentlemen

Read, G. F., 88 Scott, William, 206

89 Selby, G. W., 183

Regency characteristics, 16,42,43,44, Scott, W. H., 206

Reid, Captain, 158 Selby, Isaac, 146

respectability, 15, 22, 29, 30, 32-3,34, servants, 40 42,58, 67, 127, 130-6, 137-40, 144 Sewell, Edward, 194, 218

Richardson, H. H., 14, 25 Shaw, George, 194

Riddell, J. C., 121, 136, 183, 209 Sherard, C. W., 184

Riddell, Mrs J. C., 207 Sievwright, C. W., 211 Riley, James, 194 Simpson, James, 58, 67, 113, 115, 130,

Roach, Captain, 210 133, 194, 209, 211, 212, 213 Roadknight, 143 Simson, D. C., 139, 153, 210, 217

Robertson, John, 146, 157 Skene, William, 206 Robinson, G. A., 145, 211 Skinner, Mrs J. A., 206

Rodger, George, 194 Sladen, Charles, 168, 184 Romanticism, 21, 25, 35, 89, 92, 93, Smith family, 41

159 Smith, F. Grey, 194, 206

Romilly, Colonel F., 107 Smith, Mrs F. G., 199

Ross, J. H., 194 Smith, H. A., 194 Rowe, 76 Smith, James, 189, 192, 194, 212 Rowe, J. P., 206 Smith, J. F. H., 195 Royal Hotel, 37 Smith, J. P., 21 Rucker, W. F. A., 19, 30, 47, 65,111, Smith, J. T., 213

194, 212, 214, 217 Smith, J. A., 194, 209

Rusden, G. W., 168 Smith, W. E., 195 Russell family, 86 Smyth, G. B., 74, 112-14, 160, 163, Russeli, F. B., 211 195, 210, 212, 214, 218 Russell, George, 158 Smythe, G. D., 59, 195

Russell, Robert, 18, 37, 39, 59-60, Smythe, Mrs G. D., 59

63-4, 65, 90, 156, 160, 194 Smythe, H. W. H., 160, 195, 218

Rutledge, William, 194 Snodgrass, Lt-Colonel K., 56, 206 Ryan, Charles, 194, 206 Snodgrass, Mrs Kenneth, 218

Ryrie, Donald, 194 Snodgrass, Peter, 66, 79, 109-10, Ryne, James, 160, 194 112-14, 128, 147, 154, 195, 206 214, Ryrie, William, 58, 109, 115, 128, 147, 217

194, 211, 212, 213 Society of St George, 157 ‘Socrates’, 144

Sabbath observance, 148-9 Sons of Scotia, 128, 147

St Dominic, 26 Special juries, 80

St Francis’ Church, 43 speculators, 37, 96 St John, G. F. B., 67, 72, 73, 112,130, Splatt, F., 117

183 Sprot, Alexander, 158, 195, 206

St Kilda, 27 squatters, 32, 64, 82-105

the Scots, 27, 39, 41,42, 43,60,61,96, Stapylton, G. W., 44, 184, 206

104, 114, 143-9,159 Stawell, Sir W. F., 28, 156, 168, 184,

Scott, Edward, 160, 194 209

Scott, Sir Ernest, 63, 130, 138, 140 Stawell, Lady, 18-19, 26, 163, 166,

Scott, Sir Walter, 27, 36, 95 184 254

Index

Steele, W., 195 Turner, H. G., 142-3

Stephen, John, 137, 207 Tyers, C. J., 195 Stephen, Sidney, 206 Tyssen, Henry, 195, 207, 218 Steuart, C. R. Seton-, 184, 217, 218

Stevens, J. W., 195, 209 Unett, J. R., 195 Stewart, Robert, 210 Urquhart, George, 135, 217 Stleghtz, C. A. von, 184 Urquhart, Mrs George, 218 Stieglitz, Mrs C. A. von, 199

Stieglitz, J. L. von, 184 ‘Veritas’, 128-9

Stieglitz, R. W. von, 184 Verner, William, 41, 48, 58, 66, 68-9, Stieglitz, Mrs R. W. von, 199 71, 72, 113-14, 130, 136, 185, 209,

Stodhart, 210 210, 211, 213

Strode, Thomas, 19, 76, 104, 141, Vignoles, F. D., 54, 111, 185, 214 163-4

Strzelecki, P. E., 48 W—t, Mrs, 49-50 Sturt, E. P.S., 97, 104, 166,185,209 Walker, Thomas, 89

success, 145-6 Walker, William, 163

suicide, 159-60, 177, 199 Walpole, E. A., 153, 195, 207

Sullivan, George, 132-5 Walsh, Mrs W.H., 195, 207

Sutherland, Alexander, 168 Waterfield, Rev. William, 18, 36, 53,

Sutton, R. W., 215 57, 64, 211 Swanston, 143 Waterford school, 66

The Sydney-Side Saxon, 102 Watson and Hunter, 146, 156-7

Sydney society, 39-40, 60-1, 160-1 Watson, Henry, 195

Synnot, Albert, 185 Watson, James, 195, 217 Synnot, George, 185 Watton, John, 195

Synnot, Marcus, 185 Waugh, John 75

Synnot, Monckton, 185 Webb, R. S., 212, 213 Webster, James, 211

Talbot, R. G., 54, 185 Wedge, Charles, 195

Talbot, Hon. William, 53-4, 185 Wedge, Richard, 195

Templeton, John, 195 Welsh, P. W., 58,59, 65, 75, 147, 153, Therry, Roger, 59, 195, 207 156, 196, 212, 213, 217

Thomas, David, 59, 109-10, 207 Welsh, Mrs P. W., 75

Thomas, Mrs David, 59, 181 Were, George, 208 Thomson, Rev. A. C., 75, 155,195 Were, J. B., 117, 138, 207-8, 210, 211

Thomson, A. T., 195 Westby, E. W., 65, 75, 195, 208

Thomson, Alexander, 77, 195 Western District, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33, Thomson, James, 42, 113, 195 63, 85-7, 127, 141-3, 162

Thomson, John, 195, 211 Westgarth, William, 19, 33, 46, 52,

Thomson, W. C., 195 62, 69, 91, 167-8

Thornloe, Thomas, 195, 211 Wheeler, Arthur, 185-6

Toorak, 27 Wheeler, Henry, 154, 186

Townsend, T. S., 195 Wheeler, John, 186 Toxophile Club, 75 White, E. R., 154, 160, 195, 217

Trollope, Anthony, 97, 107 White, H. J., 54, 160, 196, 218

Tulloh, R. W., 195, 207 Wickham, F. D., 186 Turf Club, 55, 69-72, 129, 157 Wilkie, D. E., 210 255

Port Phillip Gentlemen Williams, Charles, 199, 212 Winter, Mrs John, 187 Williams, Mrs Charles, 199 Winter, S. P., 45, 46, 186 Williams, E. E., 114-15, 161, 208 Winter, Trevor, 186

Williams, Mrs E. E., 208 women, 41, 43, 59

Williamson, 208 Wood, John, 111, 113, 208, 214, 218

Willis, Edward, 196, 209 Wood, W. D. G., 208

Willis, J. W., 18, 21, 44, 49, 74, 112, | Woolley, Alfred, 210, 217

150-4, 186 Woolley, Edward, 217

Willmett, John, 118-19 Woolley, J. M., 112, 196, 217

Wills family, 52 Woolley, Thomas, 196

Wills, Thomas, 52, 74, 137, 162,210, Wnght, W. H., 196, 208

212 Wnght, William, 196

Wilson, James, 196

Wilsone, D. H., 62, 158, 186 Yaldwyn, W. H., 58, 160, 187, 209,

Winter family, 27, 39, 91 211, 212, 213

Winter, B. P., 187 yeomanry, 72

Winter, George, 186 Yuille, W. C., 187

256