|
The following is extracted from SRNSW Colonial Secretary: letters received, special bundles, 1826 - 1934, Municipalities, 4/737.1 Shoalhaven 1859 - 62.
“Legislative Assembly of New South Wales - Mr. Alexander Berry. (Petition in Reference to Proposed Municipality at Shoalhaven) Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be Printed, 21 September, 1859.
“To the Honorable the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, in Parliament Assembled.
“The humble Petition of Alexander Berry, of the North Shore, near Sydney, in the Colony of New South Wales, Esquire, -
“SHEWETH : -
“.....That sometime ago a letter written by the Reverend John Dunmore Lang, Doctor in Divinity, was published in a certain newspaper, called The Illawarra Mercury, in which the writer thereof among other things stated, that the possession by your Petitioner, of the aforesaid lands [In the County of Camden on the Shoalhaven River], and in the manner in which your Petitioner acted as the owner thereof, were prejudicial to the interests of the Public at large; and also stated two remedies, one of which - namely, the removal of your Petitioner from this World - he therein called a remedy in the hand of God, and the other of which he therein alluded to a remedy in the hands of man, which he also therein stated he would more fully explain in a subsequent letter.
“That accordingly the said Reverend John Dunmore Lang wrote and published in the said newspaper, on the twenty-seventh day of December last, another letter, headed ‘The Shoalhaven Incubus and its Remedy,’ in which, among other things, is the following passage : -”
In the passage quoted Lang proposes dredging the north arm of the Crookhaven River to allow large vessels safe access to the Shoalhaven River. The cost would fall upon the property owners but, he asks, in what proportion ? He gives the example of ‘sixpence a pound of the yearly rental.’ He quotes John Jones, the owner of a half acre lot in Nowra ‘which, at Mr. Berry’s standard of value for such property, would be worth five pounds a year, saying nothing of the slab hut I have built upon it, - would be rated at half-a-crown [2s 6d] per annum, - no great amount, surely, for a good workman like myself.’ Lang also quotes ‘Simon Frazer, the proprietor of a thirty-acre farm, valued at a pound an acre of yearly rent, would be rated at fifteen shillings, - a mere nothing compared with the additional cost to which I am subjected to at present, by having to send my kegs of butter - my potatoes and grain - by a small Steamboat to be transhipped into the large one at Greenwell Point.’ Lang puts Berry’s rates at 6d an acre on 90,000 acres as L2,250 per annum, ‘a mere nothing, of course, to Mr. Berry.....’ Lang continues, in his letter,
“In short the Berry Domain is the veritable Shoalhaven Diggings, under the Municipal Corporations Act; and the best of it is, it is all ‘surfacing’ for any Municipality that chooses to pick up the loose gold of the mammoth monopolist. There are no deep sinkings necessary in the case; it is all the simplest process imaginable, - ‘cut and come again’ being the word; and as to quartz crushing, which is necessary on the Adelong and other diggings, and which requires rather expensive machinery, there will be nothing of the kind needed at the Berry Diggings, - the only thing to be crushed there being a miserable earthworm, which can be done by the simplest possible process - the mere vote of the Shoalhaven Municipality.”
Berry then continues his petition and states that in order to carry out Lang’s plan ‘certain persons’ petitioned for a Municipality which “purports to have been signed by one hundred and three householders residing at Nowra, Nowra Hill, Greenhills and Good Dog [Cambewarra].
“That many of the names purporting to be signed to the said Petition are not genuine - that many are those of persons who have signed a Petition against the formation of the said proposed Municipality, and that many others of the said signatures are equally open to valid objections which would appear if a scrutiny was allowed respecting them.”
Berry complains that the petitioners “have disfranchised the bulk of the householders of the District” and sought to include large tracts of his uninhabited land in the boundaries. It was absurd to call all lands north of the river a suburb of Nowra. He sates that 362 inhabitants are against the Municipality. Berry supplied copies of letters he had written objecting to the Municipality.
“That your Petitioner having, as appears by the foregoing correspondence, applied in vain to His Excellency the Governor, and the said Executive Council, for a hearing in support of his objections to the creation of the said proposed Municipality, now appeals for justice to your Honorable House.”
The Legislative Council -
“News South Wales Legislative Council - Nowra and Suburbs (Correspondence Respecting the Proposed Municipality.) - Ordered by the Council to be Printed, 1 February 1860.”
- Copy of the Petition for a Municipality
- Copy of the Gazette Notice for a Municipality
- “MR. H. MOSS to THE COLONIAL SECRETARY, respecting certain Signatures attached to Petition from Nowra for Municipality, 4 April 1859. (This letter at present cannot be traced.)”
- Letter from Alexander Berry to the Governor General dated 8th April 1859. “.....is the result of a scheme concocted by the Rev. Dr. Lang, for the purpose of extorting from me, under color [sic] of the provisions of the Act in question, an enormous amount of taxation.....it will be manifest that the persons who have got up the Petition are attempting to effect an object which is directly opposed to the real meaning and intent of the law which they profess to act upon, in order to carry out their own purposes to my prejudice.....and that it was not the intention of the promoters of the measure [the Municipal Act] that it should be made a handle to oppress individuals like myself by their unprincipled neighbours. I have no objection to the people of Nowra and Greenhills managing their affairs by a Municipality, but I am quite capable of managing mine without one, and without any Government endowment, which I repudiate in toto. I have reared up my establishment, without any assistance from the Government, and my property (very nearly which the whole of which has been purchased) has rather been a tributary appendage to New South Wales than a part of it, and I am desirous that it should continue so as long as I am interested in it; and I am very unwilling to be rendered tributary to the people of Greenhills and Nowra, who have long been a great annoyance to me, as a source of
drunkeness druken drunkenness [sic] and dissipation.” [My emphasis] After this extraordinary statement it is little wonder that Berry did not find a sympathiser in His Excellency ! Lang’s ‘Shoalhaven Incubus’ letter is in this section.
- Letter from Berry to the Colonial Secretary, dated Sydney 5 May 1859 with the original petition, containing 362 names, attached. “LIST of the Names of some of the Persons who have signed the Nowra Municipality Petition who are open to objection.” Berry objected to the following names - John Robertson of Greenhills, a tenant of Berry who actually resides at Broughton’s Creek, signed the counter-petition; Oswald Hitchcock of Greenhills, signed the counter-petition; John Moses Murphy of Greenhills, signed the counter-petition; John Rowen of Greenhills, signed the counter-petition; John Riordan of Good Dog, signed the counter-petition; John Riordan of Good Dog, signed the counter-petition; John Sullivan of the Depot, signed the counter-petition; Mrs. Halcrow of Greenhills, female and not entitled to vote; John Scheidel of Nowra, Unaturalised Foreigner; Henry Kruansturiver of Kaddabister, Unaturalised Foreigner; M.A. Hyam of Nowra Hill, infant under 21 years of age; Owen Newett of Nowra, no right as he is squatting on Government Land; William Owen of Nowra, does not reside in the district; James Coffey of Bolang [Bolong], not known at claimed residence; William Roach of Bolang, not know at claimed residence; Joseph Watts of Nowra, name inserted without leave.
- Counter Petition.
- Letter from Alexander Berry, dated Sydney 26th May 1859, enclosing three additional petitions against the Municipality containing a total of 20 names including “James Graham, Greenhills, farmer.”
- Gazette Notice of the above petitions.
- Petition from Nowra Municipal Committee to Sir William Denison, Governor general of the Australasian Colonies, and the Honorable the Executive Council. “That your Petitioners, having read the Nowra Counter-petition, gazetted on 2nd june, beg that it will not have the effect intended, on the following grounds : - That the said Counter-petition is quite informal, most of the signatures appended thereto of parties not within the area of the proposed Municipality. That siad Counter-petition only contains the names of 45 householders, living within the boundaries of the proposed Municipality of Nowra and Suburbs, consequently there is a great majority in favor of the original Petition, gazetted on 17th March last. That Petitioners most respectfully beg to append a statement signed by the District Constable - the Collector of the Electoral Roll - in reference to the true number of householders on the Counter-petition residing within the proposed Municipality.....Michl. Hyam, Henry Moss, James Graham, James M’Guire, Thomas Dillon, Z. Bice, George Tong [Tory]. (Enclosure 1 in No. 9) I certify there are only forty-five persons’ names in the Counter-petition against the Municipality of Nowra, Nowra Hill, and Good Dog, that are within the limits of the Petition gazetted on 17th March last. BERNARD BROWN.” Enclosure 2 in No. 9 - Letter from H. Moss, Honorary Secretary, Shoalhaven June 25th 1859, to the Rev. J.D. Lang, Sydney, enclosing a petition from the Nowra Municipal Committee requesting Lang to present it to Cowper and ask that “.....Nowra be proclaimed as soon as possible, as the big men here are doing all they can to thwart Nowra. I mentioned to Mr. Garrett that we intended to write to you, and he appeared very pleased at your interesting yourself in this matter, which as we first placed it in your hands, hope you will be good enough to interest yourself to the end.”
- Letter from W. Elyard, Colonial Secretary’s Office, to the Under Secretary fro Lands and Public Works regarding Municipal Boundaries, dated 9th June 1859.
- Letter from James Graham, Greenhills Shoalhaven dated 9th July 1859 to the Colonial Secretary. “I beg to assure you that I never signed such or any Counter-petition, nor did I authorize any person to affix my name to it.....out of the 20 names published [see No. 7], seven (named at foot) reside several miles beyond the stated boundaries of the proposed Nowra Municipality, and have no property whatever within said boundaries.....James Waddington, Barngelly [Baringella], farmer; Joseph Goodwin, Barngelly, farmer; daniel M’Grath, Greenhill Point [Greenwell Point], farmer; Wm. Belsham, Lower Numba; Samuel Breete, Lower Numba; David M’Kee, Back Forest; Henry Thumbey, Greenhill Point.”
- Report from George Barney, Surveyor-General’s Office, to Under Secretary for Lands and Public Works, dated 2nd August 1859. “The boundaries proposed do not appear to be open to material objection.....Again on the west and east, where roads are proposed as the boundaries, probably because they are known and comparatively definite, it does not seem that better boundaries could be found.....”
- Letter from W. Elyard, dated 18th August 1859, to the Under Secretary for Lands and Public Works asking that a survey be made available if necessary.
- Letter from Berry’s solicitors, Johnson and Johnson of 181 Pitt Street Sydney to the Colonial Secretary, dated 30th August 1859. “From the facts stated.....and the time which has since elapsed, we are induced to believe that the Executive Government has arrived at the conclusion that the application.....for the formation of the Municipality in question is one which cannot be granted, but as it is a matter of great importance to mr. berry, we shall feel obliged by being informed on his behalf how the matter at present stands.”
- Letter from W. Elyard, Under Secretary of the Colonial Secretary’s Office, to Messrs. Wm. Ratnell, Michael Hyam and others, dated 31st August 1859, advising the survey to establish the two wards will be done by Mr. Parkinson, surveyor, in the next week.
- Letter from Elyard to Johnson and Johnson, Berry’s solicitors, [see no. 14], dated 2nd September 1859. “.....that the necessary Proclamation constituting the Municipality will be published as soon as the survey.....of the boundaries.....is received....may be expected.....in the course of the next week.”
- Letter from Johnson and Johnson, Berry’s solicitors, to the Colonial Secretary, dated 1st September 1859. Berry has now heard that the Municipality is to be Proclaimed - “.....he is of course not in a position to assume that what he has heard is true; but in order to prevent, as far as in his power, the consummation of what he considers so great an act of injustice to him, he has instructed us to protest.....”
- Letter from Johnson and Johnson, Berry’s solicitors, to the Colonial Secretary, dated 2nd September 1859, which acknowledges receipt of letter in No. 16 of the same date, 2nd September 1859 and calling attention to the letter No. 17. “.....earnestly request that Mr. Berry may be allowed to be fully heard on the subject of his rights before any decision adverse to them is acted upon.”
- Letter from W. Elyard to Johnson and Johnson, Berry’s solicitors, dated 17th September 1859, advising that their previous correspondence of the 1st and 2nd September (No.’s 17 and 18) had been laid before the Executive and the matter is now effectively closed.
- Letter from George Underwood Alley to the Colonial Secretary, dated 12th September 1859, regarding the Municipal Boundaries.
- Memorandum from A.G. M’Lean, dated 19th September 1859, regarding Alley’s letter.
- Letter from the Acting Surveyor-General A.G. M’Lean to the Secretary for Lands and Works, dated 15th September 1859, enclosing a description of the Municipal Boundaries.
- Notice of the Proclamation of the “Municipality of Shoalhaven” n.d.
- Proclamation announcing Mr. John M’Arthur as first Returning Officer of the Municipality, dated 27th September 1859.
- Letter from W. Elyard to John M’Arthur, dated 27th September 1859, advising of his appointment enclosing a copy of the Proclamation, a copy of the Act, ect.
- Letter from Alexander Berry to the Secretary for Lands and Public Works, dated 19th April 1859, seeking a reply to his previous letters.
- Letter from Under Secretary for Lands and Works to Alexander Berry, dated 29th April 1859, advising that the case had been referred to the Surveyor-General.
- Letter from Alexander Berry to the Under Secretary for Lands and Public Works, dated 3rd May 1859, in reply to No. 27. Berry had called at the office of the Surveyor-General where he found that only the Petition had been submitted “without any reference whatsoever to my protest.”
- Letter from the Under Secretary for Lands and Public Works to Alexander Berry, dated 9th May 1859, replying to the letter No. 28. The matter had been referred to the Honorable the Chief Secretary and not the Surveyor-General as was previously, erroneously, stated.
- Letter from the Surveyor-General to Mr. Licensed Surveyor Parkinson, dated 5th August 1859, giving instructions for the survey of the Municipal Boundaries.
- Letter from the Acting Surveyor-General to Parkinson, dated 30th August 1859, advising of a slight change in the Municipal Boundaries.
- Letter from Surveyor Parkinson, Camp Braidwood Road Shoalhaven dated 7th September 1859, to the Surveyor-General. The survey had been delayed by five days of incessant rain but he had forwarded his tracings; “.....I believe it will not be objected to.....I have not described the boundaries in full, but I apprehend that can be done in the office, provided my design is approved.”
- Letter from Alexander Berry to the Acting Surveyor-General, n.d., requesting a copy of the Municipal Boundaries map.
- Letter from the Acting Surveyor-General to Alexander Berry, dated 8th September 1859, advising him that a) The correct chart is not available; b) Boundaries will remain as requested, except at the head of Broughton Mill Creek, where Kiama Municipality takes in some of the land described in the Petition; c) When the boundaries are approved “any respectable Surveyor whom you may employ, or Mr. Langley, who now works privately in this office, will be permitted to make a tracing for you.”
- Letter from the Under Secretary for Lands and Public Works to the Under Secretary, dated 22nd November 1859, forwarding a Plan of Shoalhaven Municipality to lay before the Legislative Assembly.
“New South Wales Legislative Council. Shoalhaven Municipality Petition. Report from the Select Committee on the Shoalhaven Municipality Petition, Together With The Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix. Ordered to be Printed, 11 June 1860.”
“MINUTES No. 45 19 APRIL, 1860
“(2) That such Committee consists of Mr. Alexander, Mr. Douglass, Mr. Merewether, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Prince, Mr. Deas Thomson, Mr. Want, and the mover.” [Mr. Docker]
“MINUTES No. 48 2 MAY, 1860
“(1).....that the Honorable John Fletcher Hargrave be a member of the Select Committee.”
SHOALHAVEN MUNICIPALITY PETITION. REPORT.
- The Committee arrived at the following conclusions.
- Description of the land.
- “.....a proposal was agitated to incorporate the whole of the Electoral or Police District of Shoalhaven into one Municipality. Although at a public meeting of the inhabitants to consider this scheme, a majority appears to have been in favor of it, it was subsequently abandoned from a fear that a counter-petition would be too numerously signed.”
- “A second scheme.....was then proposed. A petition to this effect was prepared, and several signatures were obtained thereto.”
- “At this juncture appeared a remarkable letter.....from Lang.....and so direct their boundaries as to include Mr. Berry’s property, yhey would insure to themselves a very large fund at his expense.....Shortly after.....the scheme.....was abandoned, and a second petition.....purporting to be signed by 103 householders.....published in the Government Gazette of the 15th March, 1859.”
- Deals with Berry’s correspondence and counter-petitions.
- Petition from Nowra Municipal Committee.
- Papers forwarded to the Surveyor-General for determination of the Municipal Boundaries.
- Petitioners informed that Proclamation would be issued after the Boundary survey.
- The survey was delayed in Consequence of George Underwood Alley’s letter.
- A counter-petition praying for the abolition of the Municipality was presented to the Governor General and the Executive, “.....numerously signed, and included the signatures of three of the present Aldermen, one of the auditors, and one hundred and fifty ratepayers.” [My emphasis]
- The Committee then considered Berry’s allegations - 1st. The Municipality was created contrary to the spirit and letter of the Act; 2nd. An attempt, under the guise of law, to perpetrate an enormous fraud and injustice was made against him; 3rd. That the Executive ignored his his applications for a fair hearing.
- With regard to the 1st. allegation mentioned in 12 - “.....it is apparent.....that no intelligible rule of fixing or determining boundary lines has been observed in this instance;.....Now, supposing that Nowra is deemed of sufficient importance to form the nucleus of such an incorporation (which the evidence of the witnesses does not establish, but, on the contrary, disproves.....” The boundaries exclude population areas in the east and west.
- Suggests that deliberate exclusion of the inhabitants north of the Shoalhaven River has occurred. “With regard to this allegation, therefore, your Committee are of opinion that this Municipality has been created in contravention of the spirit of the Act.”
- Looks at the letter of the law and quotes from the second clause of the Act and then “It appears to your Committee that the letter of the Act limits the power of the Executive Government in constituting such a Municipality to cases in which no counter-petition, signed by a greater number of householders, has been presented; and also, as the precise boundaries of any proposed Municipality cannot be accurately known until they have been adopted and Proclaimed by the Government, all persons resident in the immediate locality must be considered entitled to sign a counter-petition.”
- A restatement of the facts concerning the publication of the Petition and Counter-petition in the Government Gazette and states “.....a petition for the formation of a Municipality was signed by 103 householders, while the counter-petitions were signed by 382 householders, your Committee are of opinion that the creation of this Municiplaity was clearly in contravention of the letter of the Act.”
- With regard to to Berry’s 2nd. allegation mentioned in 12 - The committee considered that the various steps taken by the supporters of the Municipality, i.e the different petitions circulated, the publication dates of Lang’s letters and how the boundaries came under attention only after the publication of ‘The Shoalhaven Incubus;’ “.....must be considered as proof of a design on the part of the promoters of the Municipality to reduce to practice the suggestions of the Rev. Dr. Lang; and thus verify the emphatic prediction of that writer, that the Petitioner would become the ‘doomed victim of municipal taxation.’”
- With regard to Berry’s 3rd. allegation mentioned in 12 - “.....his representations against the grievous wrong sought to be inflicted upon him, your Committee regret.....That the conduct of the Executive.....has not been characterised by that careful attention to the rights of the subject, and the general interest of the community, which the public has a right to expect from persons entrusted with such important duties.....the creation of Municipalities is not compulsory.....the matter should be decided according to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants.....But in this case.....presented unusual features.....the undisguised animus towards the Petitioner disclosed in the letters, and the systematic scheme of annoyance and pecuniary injury suggested therein.....where also proof was offered that many of the 103 names to the the petition were apocryphal - 16 of persons not entitled to vote - .....he was left in a state of suspense from April to September - nay in a manner lulled into a false security - .....the evident illegality of creating such a Municipality.....”
- The Committee recommend that an amending Act be introduced in the next session of Parliament, clarifying the definition of Rural Districts; to define and limit districts entitled to petition and counter-petition for incorporation; and “to declare strictly the powers of the Executive in cases where counter-petitions have been presented.”
- The Committee recommended that a Copy of the Report, Evidence and Appendixes, be sent to the Governor General and the Executive Council exposing the grievances of Alexander Berry and grant him the redress to which he appears to be fully entitled.
PROCEEDING OF THE COMMITTEE
Meetings of the Committee -
 Tuesday 24th April, 1860 - Mr. Deas Thomson, C.B.,; Mr. Merewether and Mr. Docker present.
Thursday 26th April, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Deas Thomson, Alexander, Dr. Douglass and Dr. Mitchell present.
Thursday 3rd May, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Merewether, Deas Thomson, Alexander, Dr. Mitchell and Hargrave present. Douglass presents a Petition from Alexander Berry requesting leave to appear before the Committee, accompanied by his Counsel and Attorney. This is granted and Berry appears and gives evidence.
Tuesday 8th May, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Merewether, Dr. Mitchell, Alexander, Hargrave and Deas Thomson present. Also present Alexander Berry, H.K. Francis (Berry’s Counsel), Richard Jones (Berry’s Solicitor). There were no witnesses for the Municipality present and no replies to the correspondence that had been sent to them. Adjourned.
Friday 11th May, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Deas Thomson, Dr. Mitchell, Hargrave and Merewether present. Also presnt Alexander Berry, his Counsel and Solicitor. John Smith and the Clerk of the Executive Council to be called. The Clerk is called and examined. Mr. H.G. Moreton [Morton], Surveyor of Shoalhaven, is called and examined. Mr. John Macdonald, of Shoalhaven, is called and examined.
Wednesday 16th May, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Dr. Mitchell, Deas Thomson, Hargrave, Merewether and Dr. Douglass present. Berry was absent but his Counsel and Solicitor attended. Mr. William Elyard, Principal Under Secretary, is called and examined. Mr. John Smith, of Nowra Shoalhaven, is called and examined. Berry’s Counsel advised that he would call more supporting witnesses from Shoalhaven.
Tuesday 22nd May, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Deas Thomson, Alexander, Hargrave, Merewethere and Dr. Mitchell present. Also present are Alexander Berry, his Counsel and Solicitor. Mr. James Aldcorn, of Shoalhaven, is called and examined. Mr. Oswald Hitchcock, of Shoalhaven, is called and examined. Mr. A.G. M’Lean, acting Surveyor-General, having been summoned is examined.
Wednesday 23rd May, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Deas Thomson, Hargrave, Merewether, Dr. Douglass, and Mr. Mitchell present. Berry was absent but his Counsel and Solicitor attended. A motion was passed that Francis, Berry’s Counsel, should have the right of reply to M’Lean’s evidence taken the previous day.
Friday 25th May, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Hargrave, Alexander, Deas Thomson, and Dr. Mitchell present. Berry is absent but his Counsel and Solicitor attend. The Member for Shoalhaven [John Garrett] had called on Docker saying that Shoalhaven Municipality desired to place a report before the Committee next week. Francis’ reply to the evidence given by M’Lean was postponed.
Friday 1st June, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Hargrave, Dr. Mitchell, Deas Thomson, Alexander and Merewether present. Berry is absent but his Counsel and Solicitor attend. The Chairman ruled that the Petition from Shoalhaven Municipality was in violation of the Standing Orders of the Council and was therefore inadmissable. Presumably the report mentioned by Garrett on the 25th of May. Hargrave, true to his word when he moved to the Upper House to continue to promote the interests of the South Coast people, wanted to adjourn for a week to allow the Shoalhaven Petitioners time to amend their petition or take another course. Deas Thomson amended this, in fact completely changed it to - the Municipality “were informed so long ago as the 3rd ultimo that they were at liberty to appear before the Committee in support of their rights if they saw fit.....if Committee.....be.....adjourned for a week, Parliament will be prorogued.....preclude.....concluding their labors before the close of the Session, it is, expedient.....at once to hear the Counsel for the Petitioner.” The vote was 4 ayes and 1 no; Hargrave. Francis then replied to the evidence taken.
Tuesday 5th June, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Deas Thomson, Alexander, Dr. Mitchell and Merewether present. Berry and his Counsel were absent but his Solicitor attended. The Chairman is to prepare a Draft Report for tomorrow.
Wednesday 6th June, 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Deas Thomson, Dr. Mitchell, Hargrave and Merewether present. The reading of the Draft Report continued and Hargrave took exception to certain points and amendments were made. Copies to be made for the Committee Members.
Monday 11th June 1860 - Docker (Chairman), Deas Thomson, Merewether, Hargrave and Alexander present. The Draft Report having been given to the Members of the Committee to consider its ratification was voted on - 3 ayes and 1 no; Hargrave.
LIST OF WITNESSES
11th May 1860 - Edward Christopher Merewether, Clerk of the Executive Council
Henry Gordon Moreton [Morton]
John Macdonald
16th May 1860 - William Elyard, Principal Under Secretary
Mr. John Smith
22nd May 1860 - James Aldcorn, Esq., J.P.
Oswald Hitchcock
Alexander Grant M’Lean, Esq., Acting Surveyor General
“1860 NEW SOUTH WALES - Legislative Council. Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Shoalhaven Municipality (Petition of the Honorable Alexander Berry.)”
Henry Gordon Moreton [Morton] - He had been in the Shoalhaven District six years, since January 1854. he described Nowra as having 21 houses with approximately 80 inhabitants. 800 people lived to the east of Nowra, of which 400 “would have been voters.” 100 people lived west of Cabbage Tree Creek. Asked about the Municipality he replied “No, I think the majority are opposed to it, after it has been established.....I have ascertained, since I came back to Shoalhaven, that there has been a petition signed by a great number of persons, ratepayers, including three aldermen, the late mayor [Kemp], one of the auditors, and perhaps one hundred and fifty rate-payers, to break up the establishment they put in existence.....The people of the Shoalhaven look upon the whole affair as a complete burlesque upon the spirit of the Act. The officers belonging to the municipal establishment, with exception of one or two, are the most illiterate nearly they could have in the district - even the mayor himself [my emphasis].....It was out of a malicious spirit arising from same hatred towards Mr. Berry, to annoy him. That is the general impression all over the district, among those who are supposed, by long residence and position, to have any judgment in the matter.....The petition was got up in the most private manner it could be.....I believe the name of the person who adopted them [the boundaries] is Henry Moss; he lives at Greenhills, with his brother-in-law, who is a publican there. I think he was the principal person, and he acted with the advice of his friend Dr. Lang. I think they carried it out between them. Dr. Lang laid down the foundation on which they were to work, through his letters, and Moss acted it out.”
John Macdonald - Was a clerk to David Berry and had been resident at Coolangatta for four years. he stated that there were upwards of 1700 people on Berry’s estate and only 40 to 50 people living in Nowra.
John Smith - Was a farmer residing in Nowra, where he had been about six years and was very well acquainted with Berry’s land.
Questioned by Francis (Berry’s Counsel) :
“Who was the person principally active in getting up the scheme ?
Michael Hyams [sic] and Henry Moss.
“Have you ever known Henry Moss by any other name ?
Henry Moses is his name; he is a son of John Moses, of George-street.
“How long has he been in the district ?
About twelve months before me - between seven and eight years
“In what capacity was he there when you first knew him ?
He was a ticket-of-leave holder.”
Questioned by Mr. Docker (Chairman) :
“Under what name ?
Under the name of Henry Moses, as far as I can recollect I think it was John Henry Moses.”
Questioned by Francis (Berry’s Counsel):
“Is there any connection between him and another person you mentioned Michael Hyams [sic] ?
He is his brother-in-law.”
The original proposed Municipality is then brought up by Francis.
“Then it would have been smaller than even the present municipal area south of the river ?
Yes.
“In whose hands did you see that petition ?
In Henry Moss’s.
“Were there any signatures attached to that ?
Three at the time - Michael Hyams [sic], Stephen Callican, and James Callican.
“Will you state shortly what passed between yourself and Moss on the subject of that petition ?
About three weeks after I first saw that petition, he told me he had about 41 names to it, and he asked me if I would sign it; I told him I would not; said he, Mr. Hyams [sic] will give all his land at Nowra Hill in on purpose to take this Parma Estate, and Mr. Berry’s land; he said there would be no tenantry on the Parma Estate except Mr. Dawson to oppose it, and that a counter-petition could not be got up against it, as there were only about 75 electors in the area.....
“Do you remember the appearance of a letter signed by Dr. Lang, called the Shoalhaven Incubus ?
Yes; Mr. Moss read it to me.
“Was the letter subsequent or previous to your seeing this first petition ?
Subsequent.
“When Mr. Moss read you this letter, did he speak of any action to be taken in consequence ?
Yes. he said it was a very good thing, and they would get a good deal of old Berry’s land in; that he could send for Zaccheus Bice, a person who lives at Good Dog, and he would try and get him to get as many signatures as possible to have the municipality at Good Dog, and join as two wards; that Zaccheus Bice, having been living a long time at Good Dog, was well acquainted with Mr. Berry’s estate, and they would get as much of the land as they possibly could, without taking the tenantry in to oppose them.....He told me he would write to Mr. Garrett, to try to influence Dr. Lang to get it forward as quick as possible.
“How long after this Coversation was it that the petition ultimately presented was put in course of signature ?
I think it was ready in about a month.....
“Is it your opinion that the suggestion in that letter of Dr. Lang’s was the cause of the alteration in the plan ?
I am sure it was.
“.....your opinion.....or was it so stated by Mr. Moss ?
It was stated by Mr. Moss to be so.
“Did you ever hear from Moss the result of his communication with Dr. Lang ?
He read several extracts from letters, and said that Dr. Lang would try all he could to get it forward.
“Letters from Dr. Lang ?
Yes.
Questioned by Mr. Hargrave :
“Printed letters ?
No.
Questioned by Francis:
“Did you ever hear the term ‘Shoalhaven Diggings’ applied to the proposed new area ?
Yes, I have often heard him express that.
Questioned by Dr. Mitchell :
“Who ?
Mr. Moss.”
The petition to abolish the Municipality was then introduced which contained approximately 150 signatures, all ratepayers, as well the signatures of William McGrath, Alderman; Donald Munro, Alderman; Zaccheus Bice, Alderman; and Robert Lindsay, Auditor. The abolition petition had not yet been forwarded to the Governor.
Questioned by Mr. Hargrave, as to his motives :
“You stated something about Mr. Moss - you undertook to say he had been a ticket-of-leave holder - has he been there six or seven years ?
Yes.
“Have you had any quarrel with him ?
No.
“Have you any reason to think he is a person of improper character ?
He is not a very proper character.
“What objection have you to him - what have you to say against him - is there any more than a difference of political opinion between you ?
There is this difference, that I would not like to do any business with him, especially if I had not a particular witness with me.
“Does Mr. Henry Moss hold any position in the municipality ?
Yes, alderman. This gentleman was asking as to his character - one time I went into Hyams’ [sic] public-house, and I saw him holding a man’s hand when he was drunk to sign a book. This is why I should not like to have anything to with him without a witness.”
Questioned by Francis :
“The Attorney-General [Hargrave] has been asking you whether you have observed anything in Mr. Moss’ conduct since you have known him, which raised a prejudice in your mind against him ?
At one of his meetings at a public-house, previous to the last election, he was throwing his money about at different places, and he got drunk and went up to a person’s door, and forced himself in.
“When you saw him throwing his money about, with what purpose did you understand him to be so doing ?
To influence the electors.”
It is interesting to note that on the 6th April 1860 John Smith’s tender, of L7, for serving Rates Notices was rejected by the Municipal Council; even though it was the lowest received. Moss, McGuire, McGrath and James Graham, the Mayor voted against its acceptance. Smith gave his evidence to the Select Committe on the 16th May 1860. At the Council Meeting of 18th May 1860 a tender by Smith for roads, two days after giving evidence, WAS accepted. See Council Meetings.
James Aldcorn, J.P. - testified that he had resided at Mayfield for four years. Aldcorn throughout his testimony maintained that the Petition for Nowra and Suburbs was got up before Dr. Lang’s letter was published; in direct contrast with Smith’s claims. he was not examined on the subject of Moss’ character.
Oswald Hitchcock - Testified that he had lived at Greenhills for the last six years but was also in the District previous to this, and stated that he had signed the petition prior to the publication of Dr. Lang’s letter.
Questioned by Francis :
“You have signed only one, and that one was previous to the appearance of the letter ?
Yes....[signed it] At my own house.
“Who brought it ?
That gentleman who was in here this morning [James Aldcorn] and Mr. Moss.
“Mr. Moss and Mr. Aldcorn ?
Yes.”
Hitchcock maintained that that the Petition was for Nowra, not Nowra and Good Dog, and that he had signed previous to Lang’s letter. Questioned by Deas Thomson :
“If it had been contemplated to include any of the land on the north side of the [Shoalhaven] river that is now included in the municipality, would you have signed ?
I have no doubt I would have signed.”
Hitchcock had signed the abolition Petition because the Council was “not working as well as it ought to to be.....had been to several meetings.....squibbling and squabbling, always fighting one with another.....generally seen them getting up almost with their coats off.”
 |
Index to the Names Of Persons who Signed the Petitions and Counter-Petitions.
|
