The idea that colonists should able to elect those who governed them had an early genesis in British Western Australia. In 1834, the Legislative Council was to take on new members. Colonists sent a large petition to London which stated that they did not want any more nominated members and that the additional members should be elected.(3) Secretary of State Glenelg dismissed the appeal with the remark that its prayer was ‘unsuited to present state of the Colony.(4) Eight years later, when New South Wales was granted representative government, West Australian colonists again expressed their desire to elect Members of Legislative Council.(5) The Inquirer vigorously supported this cause. By 1848, however, the pro-convict lobby markedly increased their agitation to have convicts sent to Western Australia and it was their campaign, and not election of Legislative Councilors, that ‘… took first place in all discussions in the colony.’(6) The pro-convict lobby was ultimately successful and on 1 June 1850 convicts arrived in the penal colony of Western Australia. Sixty five days later (on 5 August 1850) Queen Victoria gave Royal Assent to An Act for the Better Government of Her Majesty’s Australian Colonies.(7) True to the promise of its title, the Better Government Act provided that representative legislative councils be established in the Port Phillip District (soon to become Victoria), Van Diemen’s Land (soon to be re-named Tasmania), South and Western Australia.(8) The Better Government Act provided that these new legislative councils would replicate the New South Wales Legislative Council’s ratio of two elected councilors for every appointed member. The Imperial government recognised that representative government was a stepping stone to responsible government and so the Better Government Act provided these new legislative councils with the power to modify their own constitutions, subject to Royal Assent, so as to accommodate responsible government.(9) Within six years of the passing of Better Government, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia had been granted responsible government. Queensland was not granted responsible government until 1859, but by this time, Western Australia had not even been granted representative government. Part of the reason for this delay was that the Better Government Act required that two pre-conditions be met before representative government would be granted to Western Australia. These conditions were spelled out in section nine of the Act.
And be it enacted, That [sic] upon the presentation of a Petition signed by not less than One Third in number of the Householders’ of Western Australia, praying that a Legislative Council according to the provisions of the Act be established within such Colony, and that Provision be made for charging upon the Revenues of such Colony all such Part of the Expenses of the Civil Establishment thereof as may have been previously defrayed by Parliamentary Grants, it shall be lawful… to establish a Legislative Council within such a Colony…(10)
Western Australia, in 1850, did not meet either of these pre-conditions. No such petition was presented to Council, or even circulated, in 1850 and being a penal colony, it received a parliamentary grant to employ the extra police and magistrates needed to run the Imperial convict system. Given that the Imperial government provided a way for British West Australians to increase their role in the government of their Colony, it was curious that no petition eventuated. The most likely explanation for such an absence is that most of the colonists in favour of representative government knew of Governor Fitzgerald’s pro-convict transportation stance and surmised – quite correctly as it turned out – that Western Australia’s penal Colony status would deliver the kiss of death to their hopes for representative government. When the convicts did arrive, it was equally likely that supporters of representative government felt that the Colony could not cope without the grant from the Imperial parliament. While the tide of opinion moved this way, not everyone swam with the tide. Legislative Councillor Marshal Waller Clifton took the view that Western Australia could cope without the parliamentary grant. On 11 April 1853, Clifton rose to give notice of his motion.
That in the opinion of this Council the time has now arrived … [when] th[is] Colony should take upon itself [illegible] the 1st January 1854 the whole charge of the establishment… whereby the Colonists will be placed in a position to demand when they see fit to do so an Elective Legislative Council under the provisions of the [Better Government] Act … [.](11)
Clifton’s motion was narrowly defeated, or, as the Minute Book dutifully recorded, ‘The motion was negatived by a majority of 1.’(12) Undeterred Clifton tried again in 1858 with yet another motion to Council.
I am only propounding opinions which I have for years entertained and have mentioned to all Governors who have administered the affairs of this Colony since I have been in it upwards of 17 [sic] years, and have on former occasions submitted to this Council and have never ceased to express in society.(13)
For Clifton, it was the ‘birthright’ of all ‘Englishmen’ to elect those who governed them and the most recent manifestation of this right was the Better Government Act. (14) ‘But’ argued Clifton
… there are paramount objections to it [representative government through the Better Government Act] at present. The large amount of the Convict element in our population and the limited number of persons who could spare time to attend to Legislative duties, and are qualified for their performance ; the danger in a Convict Colony of the popular excitement of elections and the almost certain overthrow of the system of transportation to our shores in my opinion render it inadvisable to entertain the idea for a moment and impossible, if we did, to produce any satisfactory result. But under such circumstances I consider the greater duty rests upon us to endeavour to make the Legislature as at present constituted come as near to a representative one as practicable.(15)
The Colonial Office saw the presence of convicts as a non-issue in relation to the grant of representative government and so it was curious that Clifton should see the convict presence as a substantial difficulty. Nonetheless, Clifton’s motion was a modest one when compared to his April 1853 motion, which, had it succeeded would have empowered the voters to force the implementation of the full provisions of the Better Government Act; that is, a Legislative Council in which the governor no longer presided and in which the elected members would outnumber official and nominated members by two to one.(16) Perhaps with the rejection of his last motion in mind, Clifton sought not the implementation of representative government, but ‘a moderate and common-sense enlargement’ of the non-official members. Clifton’s motion was still too radical for Governor Kennedy who, according to the Gazette, was hostile to it.(17) The Gazette claimed that Kennedy wanted Clifton’s resolutions put all together in the knowledge that no member would vote for every single resolution and so ensure the defeat of all resolutions. (18) To its credit, Council considered Clifton’s resolutions individually, but over half of Clifton’s resolutions were met with stony silence. (19) Arthur Shenton, editor of the Gazette, was dismayed at Clifton’s treatment. In his editorial, Shenton described Governor Kennedy’s treatment of Clifton’s motion as yet another ‘… display of Gubernatorial despotism and ministerial submission.’(20) And that
… we are inclined to believe that if the question had been as to the advisability of the Council being elective by the people, it would have been decided in the affirmative.(21)
Shocked, or emboldened, by Kennedy’s unwillingness to even discuss change, Clifton resigned his seat. In his resignation letter to Governor Kennedy, Clifton wrote of what motivated his recently defeated motion.
…. I am convinced that a judicious yielding to public opinion and the requirements of the community, by a moderate and common-sense enlargement of the popular element in the constitution of the Council, would postpone that demand for a representative Government which I consider would in the present condition of the colony be fraught with evil, but which will unquestionably be clamoured for, if no modifications of the present constitution of the Council be made.(22)
Clifton used ‘fraught with evil’ to direct his readers to the fears he held about representative government being granted in the presence of convicts and there being a lack of gentlemen who were sufficiently wealthy to be able to perform their unpaid duties in the Legislative Council. It must be said, however, that had these problems concerned the Colonial Office they would have withheld the offer of representative government. As we shall see later, the Colonial Office withheld responsible government for the same reasons. Shenton, meanwhile, saturated the Council and its President in as much acidic contempt as he could muster - and he mustered quite a bit.
The Legislative farce still continues. The Governor and a few holders of office, meet now and then in the Council Chamber to play at legislation. …. No non-official member has attended for some time past, and Mr Clifton, the most useful of the lot, has resigned his seat, in disgust, we apprehend, at the double-dodging of the Governor ; and, if report be correct, Mr Clifton is not the only member of the Council whose honesty of purpose has been shocked at what has transpired of His Excellency’s sayings and doings during the last two months. Next week the Governor goes to York and thence to Toodyay, to treat country residents with a few of his fair speeches which mean nothing, or if intended for anything more, it is to conceal his intention to do nothing more than he can help, and not to distress himself in doing that.(23)
On 29 October, Shenton wrote.
… Governor Kennedy, who, whatever his predecessors may have done to raise a spirit of hostility to it [the Legislative Council] in the minds of the community, has alone succeeded in rendering it remarkable as an engine of unconstitutional repression – the arena of all that is false in words and works – the scene which develops his political bad-faith, and the perfecting of the schemes of a crooked policy.(24)
Shenton was not without influence, but the plain fact of the matter was that the grip Kennedy had on the Colony’s legislative process was too strong. If Western Australia was to get representative government, then, it would need a governor who was happy, or at least willing, to effect such a change. Clearly Kennedy was of neither predisposition and so a petition was organised to force his hand.
By late November a petition was being circulated and its prayer was for representative government through the Better Government Act. An unnamed correspondent wrote to Clifton about the petition and asked that if he (Clifton) was unable to support it, could he at least ‘abstain from strenuous opposition to it’. Clifton passed this letter, and his reply, on to Shenton for publication. Clifton replied.
… when the right even to discuss the Constitution of the Council was denied … [I learned that] a dictatorship existed which rendered the very name of Council ridiculous, and its Members objects of scorn. [Thus] I was convinced that the time had arrived when it was folly to refrain from means afforded to us by an Act of the Imperial Parliament [Better Government Act], to extricate ourselves from the degraded position in which we are placed … .(25)
The full petition was published in the Gazette on 19 November 1858. In the editorial of that edition, Shenton praised the petition, its object and dismissed with a deft flick of his pen the objections of those who were concerned about how representative government could be granted while Western Australia received an Imperial parliamentary grant.
… there is no Parliamentary Grant to the colony ; it is true that a certain yearly sum is received from the Imperial Government in aid of expenses incurred in consequence of the existence here of an Imperial Convict Establishment, but that sum is not granted by the Imperial Parliament to the colony, but is a portion of a large amount annually voted to cover the expenses of the Imperial Convict Service in all parts of the Empire, and is distributed as necessary by a Secretary of State, and is also participated in by other colonies possessing a free Legislature, Tasmania for instance … (26)
The petition adopted the same line. The ninth paragraph of the petition expressed the same argument and presented it in the same order as the above, which suggests that Shenton probably had a role in the writing of the petition. Shenton continued to publish supportive editorials for the remainder of 1858. On 17 December, his paper cheerfully reported that a public committee was to be formed to carry the petition through to a successful conclusion.(27) Both Clifton and Shenton were on this committee, but then the entire issue vanished from the pages of the Gazette. What became of the petition is unknown. The committee had four former and serving Councillors within its membership and so it would seem likely that the petition was presented to Council, but the Minutes contain no record of this petition being presented. It was likely, then, that the petition was, for whatever reason, not presented to Council.
By the winter of 1865, it was public knowledge that convict transportation would end in three years. (28) This knowledge created a renewal of interest in representative government.(29) Supporters of representative government organised another petition. The unknown writer was likely to have had the failure of the 1858 petition in mind. Certainly the ten paragraphs of the 1858 petition were, in the 1865 petition, trimmed down to two very practical paragraphs.
The Petition of the undersigned, being more than one-third of the Householders of the said Colony, humbly prayeth---[sic]
That an Ordinance may be passed for establishing in this Colony a Legislative Council according to the provisions recited in the [Better Government] Act… and that provision may be made for charging upon the revenues of the Colony all such part of the expenses of the Civil Establishment thereof as has been heretofore by Parliamentary grants[.](30)
The chief difference, then, between the 1858 and 1865 petitions was that the former had ten-point justification of its prayer for representative government, whereas the latter had a two-paragraph statement, which candidly demanded Colonists be given what the Better Government Act had already given them.
The requirement that the 1865 petition be signed by one-third of the householders of the Colony made the number of signatories crucial to the success of the petition because if it fell below this number the petition would not conform to the Act and would be rendered invalid. Some 150 names were struck off the 1865 petition when it was presented to Council, but even with this reduction the petition still met the requirements of the Act. (31) These 150 names were struck off because they were said to be ‘fictitious, ticket-of-leavers or non-householders’.(32) The removal of these names would probably have been of no historical moment were it not for what happened next. The 1865 petition, which contained 1303 signatures was formally presented to the Legislative Council on 20 June 1865 by Legislative Councillor Lionel Samson.(33) Governor Hampton moved that the petition be considered by a committee, which would evaluate whether the petition was in accordance with the Better Government Act. The committee was to comprise of Colonel John Bruce (Commandant), Frederick Palgrave Barlee (Colonial Secretary), George Frederick Stone (Attorney General) and Lionel Samson. While the four-man committee was comprised of three official members and one non-official member, the committee was more or less evenly divided. Messrs Bruce and Stone were opposed.(34) Messrs Samson and Barlee approved, but Barlee was an official member and he might be directed to support Governor Hampton. The committee sought two extensions of time and reported to Council, on 18 August 1865, that the petition was in accordance with the Act. Governor Hampton put a motion that the petition was consistent with the Act and his motion was carried unanimously.(35) While all this gentlemanly pleasantness was still in the air, Hampton rose to advise the Council that he had been asked by a ‘Non-Official Member’ of Council ‘… as to whether the words “it shall be lawful” in section nine of the [Better Government Act] should be interpreted as imperative or permissive …’.(36) In other words, now that the required petition had been presented and accepted, was the Legislative Council of Western Australia able to exercise any discretion, or was it compelled by the Act to immediately set itself to the attainment of representative government? What a happy coincidence that this question was put by a non-official member. Had it been put by an official member, it would have been seen as an attempt by the official members – of which Governor Hampton was the leader - to negate, or at the very least, delay the prayer of the petitioners. Hampton was never a man to waste an opportunity and he asked his Attorney General to prepare a report. Governor Hampton’s and Attorney General Stone’s families were related by marriage. Stone’s niece, Fanny Annette Stone, married Hampton’s only surviving son, George Essex Hampton.(37) Surprisingly, Stone found a way for his niece’s father-in-law to wriggle out of a difficult situation. Stone reported that ‘it shall be lawful’ was
… compulsory unless the subject matter shows that it must have been intended that the exercise of the power should be discretionary in the person to whom the power is given[.](38)
Stone’s report was dated 22 June 1865.(39) The 1865 petition was presented to Council on 20 June 1865. That is, while Barlee, Bruce, Stone and Samson (in committee) inquired as to whether the petition conformed to the Act, Stone already had his counter move ready. Stone’s report was presented to Council on 18 August 1865, which was fifty nine days after he had written it. It is, therefore, difficult to avoid the conclusion that all of the above was a not very elaborate piece of contrived political theatre for the exclusive dismay of Lionel Samson and Frederick Barlee. Samson, however, was not going to wave the white flag and he moved that the prayer of the petition be complied with. The governor adjourned Council until 2pm. At 2pm, Samson again moved that the prayer of the petition be complied with and Colonial Secretary Barlee seconded the motion, but Richard Wall Hardey moved an amendment, which was
That, in the opinion of this Council, the Constitution of the Legislative Council may be improved to meet the present requirements of this Colony by an addition of two Non. Official Members, and the term of Office of all Non. Official Members limited to three years instead of for life, and further that His Excellency the Governor be requested to recommend such a modification of the present Legislative Council for the favorable [sic] consideration of Her Majesty’s Secretary of State.(40)
Hardey’s amendment was seconded by Colonel Bruce. The amendment was put and Samson was the only Member who voted against it. Colonial Secretary Barlee did as much as he could given his official position and abstained from the vote. Samson probably knew about the relationships of Attorney General Stone and Hardey to Governor Hampton(41), but that knowledge may have made his total defeat all the more difficult to accept because he would have known that he was not given a fair hearing and was opposed by related families who acted in concert to prevent the rupture of a comfortable order of things. Certainly Samson vigorously protested to Secretary of State Cardwell. Samson’s letter, because it was a complaint about the Council itself, had to be forwarded through the Clerk of the Legislative Council, who was Governor Hampton’s son, George Hampton. George Hampton spurned Samson’s letter of protest with the claim that the time for it be forwarded to him had lasped. Governor Hampton, being a gentleman, sought the indulgence of the Council, which duly and unanimously allowed leave for Samson’s letter to be forwarded on to London. On 21 August 1865, Samson penned his protest in which he argued that the Legislative Council had no right to deny what the Imperial government had granted and that if the Council held the power to reject a petition of one-third of all householders, then it held the power to dismiss a petition by three-thirds of all householders.(42) Secretary of State Cardwell did not uphold Samson’s complaint. And so the petition delivered no representative government but did increase the number of non-official members, which was what Councillor Clifton had argued for seven years previously in 1858. However, those keen on representative government might have accepted this amendment in 1858 when Clifton first proposed it, but by 1865, the temper of the times had changed too much and so the agitation continued. When the Colonial Office received Hardey’s amendment, it did what it did best and ‘moved at a leisurely pace.’(43) In the absence of an answer from the Colonial Office, Governor Hampton took it upon himself to permit the informal election of all non-official members, even though it was known that Secretary of State Buckingham had misgivings about elections given the large number of convicts in the Colony.(44) Hampton divided the Colony into six electoral districts, but the voters of Champion Bay refused to participate and elected no one. Governor Hampton repaid their insolence with interest. Hardey stood for the seat of Guildford, but the voters of Guildford were clearly not interested because they only gave him four votes. Hampton then nominated Hardey for Champion Bay and so the voters of Champion Bay got one of the principal architects of the compromise they so despised. (45) The Colonial Office responded, finally, in June 1868 with Secretary of State Buckingham’s approval of Hardey’s amendment.
By June 1868, the last convict ship had left the West Australian shore and supporters of representative government felt, perhaps, that the absence of convict transportation would render their cause inevitable. In July 1869, they presented a petition with 1649 signatories to the Legislative Council.(46) When this second petition arrived, Government House was somewhat unprepared for it. Colonel Bruce was appointed to cover the gap between Governor Hampton’s departure and the arrival of the new governor, Frederick Aloysius Weld. Weld’s appointment and journey was subjected to prolonged delays and so acting governor Bruce was required to act. Bruce did not act because he thought it proper that his successor, Governor Weld, should act on it. Bruce was probably well pleased to be able to extract himself from this difficult situation because he was no friend of representative government. Just over two weeks before the petition arrived, Bruce wrote to Secretary of State Granville and advised that a second petition for representative government was expected to be presented at the next Session of Legislative Council. Bruce wrote that
… the success of such a petition would be a great misfortune, for … [it would a mere stepping stone to] … Responsible Government, this Colony, weak in numbers and resources as compared with its neighbors [sic], might be placed in a position altogether unsuited to its capabilities, the evil effects of which it is difficult to foresee.(47)
Colonel Bruce did not explain how he could not ‘forsee’ these things but somehow knew them to posses ‘evil effects’. The petition did arrive and was presented to the Legislative Council by Councillor Steere, but the reading of it was deferred until Governor Weld was able to preside.
Bruce no doubt hoped that Governor Weld shared his view that the Colony was unready for representative government. Bruce was to be disappointed. Governor Weld arrived in late 1869.(48) Rather than rely on his Legislative Council to feed him with its own opinions as to the state of support for representative government, Weld wanted to measure it himself. So Weld toured the southern and eastern areas of the Colony where he ‘ … found an almost universal sentiment of dissatisfaction prevalent regarding the present form of government …’(49) Weld took the view that it was ‘natural’ for British colonists to seek representative government, although he noted that it was somewhat less than ideal to grant representative government to a Colony with a ‘large convict population’.(50) This less than ideal situation was compounded by the Legislative Council’s negative amendment of the 1865 petition because it put he and the Colonial Office in an impossible position because they could not repeal the Better Government Act and they could not ignore demands for representative government because that very Act promised it. Weld wrote.
Such being the actual position of affairs, your Lordship will permit me respectfully to express my conviction that we have already arrived at that point when it is impossible to retrace steps already taken, and almost equally difficult and dangerous to remain where we are.(51)
The least dangerous direction, for Weld, was forward and so he decided that representative government had to be implemented without delay and that decision put him on a direct collision course with the then current Legislative Council because most Members of that Council did not share Weld’s views on representative government. Weld was either well briefed and/or was an excellent student of the Council’s resistance to representative government. On 23 May 1870 Weld opened Council and in that speech Weld negated every tactic used on the 1865 petition. The 1865 petition was buried in a committee for three months while deliberations were made as to whether the petition conformed to the Better Government Act or not. Weld answered this with his frank statement that ‘This  petition has been presented to the Council as the Act directs …’.(52) In 1865, Attorney General Stone had ruled that the Better Government Act allowed the Council to have discretion. Weld dismissed this with an equally forthright point that
…this Council has no power to deviate in any degree from those provisions [of the Better Government Act]; it must accept or reject them in their entirety.(53)
The consideration of the 1865 petition never got as far as a Bill being drafted. In his speech Weld, announced that he had pre-prepared a Bill so that, should the Council vote to grant the prayer of the 1869 petition, they could immediately begin debate on the Bill to establish representative government. Weld had outmaneuvered Council on three flanks, he then delivered his coup de grace. Weld reminded Councillors that there would be consequences if they should reject the 1869 petition.
Should you, on the other hand, reject it, I shall then take as early an opportunity as possible of making that statement of the general policy I propose to pursue, and of the particular measures I propose to introduce, which, in the former alternative, would be properly reserved for the meeting of the representative of the people under the new Constitution.(54)
Sufficient pressure had been applied. The petition was accepted. The Bill was passed and received Weld’s assent on 1 June 1870.(55)
(2) Eligibility to vote and become Members of Legislative Council was denied to indigenous West Australians, women, un-naturalised foreigners and un-propertied men. The only persons entitled to these privileges were propertied men. This arrangement – with, apparently, no intentional irony – they named representative government.
(3) Enid Russell, (F. M. Robinson and P. W. Nichols eds) A History of the Law in Western Australia and its Development from 1829 to 1979, (Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press ), p.37.
(4) Brian de Garis, ‘The First Legislative Council, 1832-1870’, in David Black (ed.) The House on the Hill: a history of the Parliament of Western Australia, (Perth, Western Australia: Parliament of Western Australia), p.28.
(5) Ibid., p.46.
(6) K. H. Rogers, An Enquiry into the withholding of Self-Government from the colony of Western Australia, Hons, UWA, 1949, p.96.
(7) Hereafter, Better Government Act. Constitutional historians usually refer to this Act as the Australian Constitutions Act (No.2). .
(8) K. Rogers, op. cit., p.1.
(9) William F. P. Hesseltine, The Movements for Self-Government in Western Australia from 1882 to 1890, Hons, UWA n.d., p.22.
(10) K. Rogers, op. cit., p.1. All parentheses are Rogers except the final one.
(11) State Record Office of Western Australia (hereafter SROWA), Minutes of Legislative Council 1845-1870, Cons 311, WAS 1250 item 2, p.236.
(12) Ibid. Clifton’s motion was supported by himself, Councillor Samson and the Collector of Revenue, W. G. Sutherland. All the other four members voted against it, including Clifton’s son, William Pearce Clifton.
(13) Perth Gazette (hereafter, Gazette), 24/9/1858.
(14) Why it was not the right of indigenous persons, women and un-propertied men was not explained.
(15) Gazette, 24/9/1858.
(16) Up to 1870, a governor was also President of the Legislative Council. Non-official members were appointed by the governor from a list of suitably qualified gentlemen who had been pre-approved by the secretary of state. This arrangement enabled the governor to immediately appoint a replacement should a non-official member unexpectedly resign or die in office. Official members held their seats by virtue of their official posts, which automatically granted them a seat in Legislative and Executive Councils. Between 1832 and 1870, these official posts were governor, colonial secretary, commandant, surveyor-general, advocate-general, collector of revenue (only after 1847) and comptroller general of convicts (only after 1852). See David Black and Brian de Garis, Legislative Council of Western Australia: Elections and Electoral Law, 1867-1890, (Perth: Parliament of Western Australia, 1992), p.1; see also Enid Russell, op. cit., pp.36-37.
(17) Gazette, 24/9/1858.
(18) The Minute Book does not substantiate the Gazette’s claim that Kennedy wanted all of Clifton’s resolutions considered together because the entry for that day does not identify the Councillor responsible. The entry simply reads ‘Question put that the Resolutions should be taken seratim.’ See Legislative Council Minutes, op cit., p.377.
(19) Resolutions one, two, three, five and six were not seconded and the seventh was defeated four votes to five. Clifton withdrew the remaining resolutions (i.e., four, eight, nine and ten).
(20) Gazette, 24/9/1858.
(21) Gazette , 24/9/1858.
(22) Shenton published Clifton’s letter of resignation. See Gazette, 29/10/1858.
(23) Gazette, 22/10/1858.
(24) Gazette, 29/10/1858
(25) Gazette, 26/11/1858
(26) Gazette, 19/11/1858.(27) This committee was comprised of the following gentlemen. Francis Lochee (barrister, bank manager, Inquirer editor 1841-46), George Shenton (snr) (merchant, farmer, Perth City Councilor and brother to Arthur Shenton), Robert Mace Habgood (merchant, landowner, bank director, Chairman Perth Chamber of Commerce), Luke Samuel Leake (merchant, bank director, ship owner), Mark Dyett (importer, merchant, Lloyd’s of London agent, ship owner), Arthur Shenton (editor Perth Gazette 1848-1870; brother to George Shenton), Charles Alexander Manning, (merchant, bank director, Consul for France), Wallace Bickley (merchant, exporter and JP), Robert King (merchant, JP, Treasurer Fremantle Chamber of Commerce), John Wall Hardey (farmer, Methodist preacher, MLC ), William Locke Brockman (pastoralist, MLC), Samuel Adams Barker (merchant), Samuel Evans Burges (farmer, pastoralist, JP), Charles Wittenoom (farmer, pastoralist, Secretary York Agricultural Society), Stephen Parker (farmer, pastoralist ), Samuel Pole Phillips (Secretary Toodyay Agricultural Society, MLC), James Drummond (MLC, JP), John Taylor Cooke (pastoralist, foundation member of Toodyay Agricultural Society), Marshal Waller Clifton, (MLC, JP, Fellow Royal Society), Thomas Little (farmer, pastoralist, JP). See Bicentennial Dictionary of Western Australians pre-1829-1888, (Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press, 1988).
(28) Inquirer, 12 July 1865.
(29) Enid Russell, op. cit., p.46.
(30) SROWA, Documents relating to movement for representative government, Cons 137, WAS 1363, Item 1.
(31) Brian de Garis, ‘First … Council’, op. cit., p.33.
(33) Legislative Council Minutes, op. cit., p.462.
(34) In January 1865, Colonel Bruce applied to the Colonial Office for a governorship. Governor Hampton warmly endorsed Bruce’s application as did the Secretary of State for the War Office. Secretary of State Cardwell (Colonial Office) replied that Bruce’s application had great ‘merit’ but that there were very few positions and very many applicants. See SROWA, CO18 Reel 1648, Piece 146, 3 and 11 April and 31 July 1865.
(35) Legislative Council Minutes, op. cit., pp.470, 472.
(36) Ibid., p.472.
(37) See Bicentennial Dictionary of Western Australians pre-1829-1888 (hereafter, BDWA), (Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press, 1988).
(38) Legislative Council Minutes, op. cit., p.472.
(40) Ibid., p.473.
(41) Hardey’s oldest surviving son, Robert Davey Hardey, married Maria Jemima Stone. Governor Hampton’s son, George Essex Hampton, married Fanny Annette Stone. Alfred Hawes Stone was the father of both the Stone women and was therefore father-in-law to both Robert Hardey and George Hampton. Alfred Stone’s brother, George Frederick Stone, was Governor Hampton’s Attorney General. See BDWA.
(42) SROWA, Documents … representative government, op. cit.
(43) Brian de Garis, ‘The First … Council’, op. cit, p.23.
(44) CO18 as cited in Brian de Garis, ‘The First … Council’, op. cit, p.34.
(45) David Black, House to House: the story of Western Australia’s Government and Parliament Houses over 175 years, (Perth, Western Australia: Parliament of Western Australia, 2004), p.32. See also Brian de Garis, ‘The First … Council’, op. cit, p.35
(46) Legislative Council Minutes, op. cit., p.518.
(47) SROWA, Governors’ Despatches to Secretary of State, 1868-1871, Cons 390, WAS 1166, Item 11, p.72.
(48) Weld arrived in Albany on 18 September 1869.
(49) Governor Weld to Secretary of State Granville, dated 1 March 1870, Western Australian Parliament Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Council 1870-71, (hereafter, WAVP)
(52) Legislative Council Minutes, op. cit., p.531.
(55) Ibid., pp.532-538.