Convicts & Colonials: Local Government

The debate around whether or not the village of Ipswich should become incorporated into a municipality was heated.  Ipswich had grown from the convict outpost of the 1830s to a township of nearly 3,000 people and 800 domestic structures throughout the 1840s and 1850s.

Municipalities Act 1858

Shortly after the passing of the Municipalities Act 1858 by the New South Wales Government on the 27th October, there were calls for Ipswich to assert itself and become a municipality.

The Act enabled any city, town, hamlet, or rural district to become a municipality, subject to consent by the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of New South Wales Parliament.  Petitions could be submitted to the Governor, if signed by not fewer than fifth householders resident within the city, town, hamlet, or rural district.  The petition needed to state the number of inhabitants of the area.  Unless a counter petition was submitted to the Colonial Secretary within three months and signed by a number greater than the original petition, the Governor could approve municipality and define the limits and boundaries.

December 1858

The North Australian, Ipswich and General Advertiser had been campaigning in the months prior the Act's passing for Ipswich to become a municipality.  Finally, following a meeting held on 8th December 1858, the paper was able to report on a public meeting, held at the Court House, which took 'into consideration the propriety of taking steps to incorporate the town of Ipswich.'  

Charles Chubb spoke at the meeting, indicating his support and noting the benefits of Ipswich becoming a municipality would have to the impending Separation of Queensland from New South Wales (which took place in 1859).  Chubb went on to present a draft of the petition, which included a description of the boundary.  Chubb's draft also called for three wards and a council of nine, made up of a mayor and aldermen (the Act did give the option of calling elected representatives chairman and councillors, however Chubb thought mayor and aldermen would sound better, as 'there would be more honour in the title of mayor in case of his going home to Europe' -- it is unclear if Chubb was nominating himself as a potential mayoral candidate, or if he was speaking in the collective, needless to say laughter was reported after this remark and it would take until 1877 before Chubb would be granted that honourable title).  Mr Gill thought the use of the terms 'Mayor and Aldermen' would 'only render ourselves ridiculous' and that chairman and councillors 'would look more business-like.

Frederick Forbes moved an amendment to the wording of the petion, suggesting that

as no equitable decision of this municipality into wards can be made whereby the inhabitants of each ward will be fairly represented in the municipal council, it is desirable that the councillors be elected by the whole body of the electors within the municipality.

Forbes did not want to see any 'underhanded work carried on, such as the municipal body being made a nice little family party.'

Parties possessing property in different parts of the town were sometimes unduly anxious for the improvement of the localities in which their property was situated.  These things they knew were common, and individual interest was likely to carry too much weight when the money was placed on the estimates.

Forbes hoped that the 'interests of the many would take precedence to those of the few.'

Benjamin Cribb was in agreement and seconded Forbes amendment of starting with one Ward.  Cribb was reported as saying 

there would be more expense in the elections, if divided, and if the town was cut into wards they would not have the choice of men they would have with but one.

Arthur Macalister, who would, in the following decade, become Premier of Queensland, highlighted the benefits of Municipality in the 'power it gave us of taxing ourselves'.  For the first five years, the Treasury guaranteed to give each municipality a sum equal to that raised in local taxation, which would 'put the town into a radical state of repair.'  Macalister was in favour of a multi-ward division, to reduce the risk of aldermen being elected from the one street.

Mr Faircloth [thought to be George Faircloth, original owner of Booval House], suggested a committee be appointed to work on the petition and nominated Dr Challinor, Messrs. Forbes, Cribb, Warry, Macalister, Reeve, and himself, with the committee reporting back to a public meeting early in the new year.  Chubb added the names Couckburn, Kent, Murphy, P. O'Sullivan and his own to the committee. 

January 1859

The second public meeting was held on Wednesday 19th January 1859.  The North Australian, Ipswich and General Advertiser described the meeting as one that

... grievously disappointed all those of our townsmen who honestly desire to improve Ipswich by the introduction of water, gas, sewerage, and other indispensable requisites to health, wealth, and comfort; and, by the introduction of municipal institutions, accustom themselves to the practice of self-government and render them competent for state legislation.

The meeting commenced with the presentation of the committee's report, moved by Faircloth and seconded by Chubb, who pointed out that with 800 houses in the area, averaging £30 per annum, and with rates at 1s. in the pound, £1,200 a could be raised and, when matched by the colonial government, would provide a revenue of £2,400 to go towards improvements in the town.

Mr. J.M. Thompson moved an amendment, claiming that the report did not meet with the appropriation of the meeting, suggesting that meeting be adjourned for six months.  To support his views, Thompson  made allusions to

the past experiment and subsequent failures of municipal institutions in Sydney, where the respectable portion of the community had been disgraced by the bear-garden proceedings of the council.

Gill suggested that 

...the respectable people of Sydney, who had been offended by the disorderly proceedings of the rabble, had neglected their duty by refusing to lend their aid in carrying out municipal government.

Cribb was concerned with the outlay costs that would render necessary heavy rates and, according to The North Australian (who remained in support of the petition), Cribb 'exhibited a very extravagant estimate of the rents of council-chambers and offices, salaries of numerous officers, &c., which he argued were indispensable to corporations, amounting in the aggregate to £1200' -- a charge of which Cribb disputed in a letter to the editor of The Moreton Bay Courier several days later. 

After much debate, the report was not received and the The North Australian was left asking:

... how can we be sincere in our desire to obtain self-government, when we not only reject the boon when it is offered with pecuniary advantages, but show by conduct exhibited in a public meeting that we have not yet acquired the habit of governing our individual selves, or of abstaining from the use of insulting or objectionable language?

(Unfortunately, in summarising the counter petitioners views The North Australian were unable to contain their use of insulting or objectionable language either, follow the link to read the full article, and Cribb's rebuttal here). 

In reviewing the next public meeting on municipality, held Saturday 29th January 1859, The Moreton Bay Courier begun thus:

Anticipating the probability of a repetition of the scenes of the last meeting, the threatre [sic.] was secured, as a more fitting arena for the display of Ipswich eloquence.  The last farce played on these boards was entitled "A Fearful Tragedy in the Seven Dials."  With equal propriety might the farce of Saturday be styled "a fearful comedy in Billingsgate."

Mr Chubb put forward the first resolution of a petition, Mr Cockburn seconded the resolution.  Mr Thompson proposed an amendment, that the petition was premature and that the matter lie over for six months, which was seconded by Walter Gray and supported by Dr Challinor, before he went off on a tangent about water supply, drainage, and the price of earthenware pipes.

Once the meeting had returned to order, Mr Kent, editor of The North Australian responded to comments on his editorials, that were favourable towards municipality:

Apart from all the considerations of gas, water, and drainage, there is one thing we all desire to see carried our, and that is self-government.  Our Brisbane neighbours poke fun at us, and accuse us of taking nobblers.  We must learn to govern ourselves, and school ourselves for government.  There is too much division amongst us!  Much has been said of cliques.  He [Kent] thought it all bosh.

Cribb, who represented the area in the NSW parliament at the time, responded with a reasoned argument:

... the objection I have is very simple.  If we agreed to-night to petition, it could not be gazetted till the middle of February.  We could not get our officers elected before June; then we could not apply to Government for money equal to what we raise till January.  Before that time we shall have Separation.  If we get Separation when we have expended our money, and go to the Sydney Government, they will turn us over and say, we have nothing to do with you.  If you go to your own Government they will say, we can't afford at present to give you what you want.  

The meeting ended with temporary victory for those who opposed the petition.

July 1859

Five months later, in July of 1859, The North Australian hinted at a more favourable political climate, following Separation, and began advocating once more:

Let us put our shoulders to the wheel, and though we failed once let not that dishearten us, but try again.  Our health, wealth, happiness, or disease, poverty, and wretchedness may depend on our action in this matter; and, though in a climate almost intertropical, we have been singularly exempt from contagious diseases and epidemics, we know not the hour when death may come like a thief in the night to remind us, that to be healthy we should endeavour to be so.

October 1859

On Wednesday 26th October, at the Cottage of Content, on East Street, another public meeting was held.  Those present were in favour of taking the next step to incorporate the town of Ipswich.  Another committee was formed, its members being F.A. Forbes, C.F. Chubb, H. Kilner, C. Gorry. W. Hendren, F. Aberdeen, J. Johnson, F. McBay, John Pettigrew, and D. Bethune.  Kilner was appointed chair and Chubb secretary.  Pettigrew suggested the committee be divided into five for the purpose of canvasing the town for signatures to the petition.

The Petition 

Due to the proximity of Separation, the petition requesting municipal self-government appeared in both the New South Wales and Queensland Government Gazettes.  New South Wales on the 17th November 1859 and Queensland on 7th January 1860.  The wording and signatories remained the same.

Colonial Secretary's Office,

Sydney, 16th November, 1859.

MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS.

IPSWICH PETITION.

 

In pursuance of the Act of the Colonial Parliament 22 Victoria, No. 13, His Excellency the Governor General, with the advice of the Executive Council, has directed the publication of the substance and prayer, of a Petition addressed to His Excellency, as hereinafter set forth, signed by ninety-one Inhabitants of the town of Ipswich, praying for the erection of that town into a Municipality.

WILLIAM FORSTER.

 

The Petitioners state that according to the last Census, Ipswich contained a population of nearly three thousand souls.

 

That they are desirous of availing themselves of the powers of Municipal self-government, and of the endowment connected therewith under the Municipalities Act.

 

And the Petitioners prays as follows:--"That your Excellency with the advice of the Executive Council, will be pleased to declare Ipswich, to be a Municipal Town under the name of Ipswich."

The Counter Petition

Colonial Secretary's Office,

Brisbane, 19th January, 1860.

MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS

IPSWICH COUNTER PETITION.

His Excellency the Governor with the advice of the Executive Council, has directed the publication of the substance, as hereinafter set forth, of a Counter Petition to His Excellency presented on the 3rd instant, and purporting to be signed by one hundred and nine inhabitants of the Town of Ipswich, --such Counter Petition being in opposition to a Petition previously presented from the same Town, and published in the New South Wales and Queensland Government Gazettes.

By His Excellency's command,

R.G.W. HERBERT.

The Petitioners refer to the previous petition, and state that the incorporation of the Town of Ipswich at the present conjuncture would be impolitic and injurious to the interests of the inhabitants.  They further express an opinion that it would be much better for the general interests of the town to wait until the Government of Queensland is fairly inaugurated, and the Legislature thereof fully established.