DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Speech Delivered by Chief Justice Higgins on the Occasion of the 75

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Speech Delivered by Chief Justice Higgins on the Occasion of the 75 Speech delivered by Chief Justice Higgins on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court on Friday 30 January 20091 Chief Minister, Mr Pilkinton, Mr Barnett, Members of the Legislative Assembly, the Judiciary, the Magistracy and the legal profession (not necessarily in that order), staff of the Law Courts, ladies and gentlemen. We gather today to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; an historic occasion and one deserving of commemoration. I am fortunate to share the bench today with many esteemed colleagues: the resident judges of this Court their Honours Justices Gray, Refshauge and Penfold, and my nephew Master Harper, the additional judges of this Court, their Honours Justices Graham, Lander, Spender, Moore and Cowdroy OAM and their Honours Chief Justice French of the High Court and Chief Justice Black AC of the Federal Court. It is also a privilege to have present my predecessor, the Honourable Mr J.A. Miles AO, and former judges of this Court, the Honourable Mr J. Gallop AM QC RDF and the Honourable Mr K. Crispin QC. Also present are former additional judge the Honourable Antony Whitlam QC and former Master Alan Hogan. It is a great pleasure to have their company today to celebrate 75 years of the Court to which they have made a distinguished and lasting contribution. I wish to acknowledge the apologies of those unable to attend this ceremonial sitting: PLEASE SEE ADDENDUM LIST. 1 I would like to acknowledge the research and drafting assistance provided by my Associate, Ms Tamara Tulich. 1 In commemorating the 75th anniversary of this Court, recognition must be given to the history of this land and to its traditional owners. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal People and their continuing custodianship of this country. The Supreme Court has, over the past 75 years, forged a uniquely Territorian legal tradition, and has been the centre of many controversies – both legal and political – that have contributed to the fabric of this Territory and our nation. A cursory examination of the last 75 years reveals the rich history of this Court – of which it is today, no doubt, a product – and its ongoing significance, as it adapts to meet the needs of the community into the 21st century. The history of the Court, as it is inextricably linked to the history of the Territory, dates from the surrender to the Commonwealth of the Yass Canberra district by the Government of New South Wales. That surrender was for the purpose of providing the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth, and was accepted on 1 January 1911.2 From the acquisition of the Territory to the founding of the Supreme Court in 1933, Territory matters were heard in the Queanbeyan Court of Petty Sessions,3 the Cooma Court of Quarter Sessions4 and the High Court of Australia5. This was not a particularly workable arrangement and proved inadequate to meet the needs of the growing Territory population. Indeed, records reflect that the Queanbeyan Court of Petty Sessions sat only 2 Pursuant to the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (Cth) ; see also the Honourable J Miles AO, ‘Justice at the Seat of Government’ (1992) 66 The Australian Law Journal 555 at 555. 3 Woolcock Withycombe, SM, Ethos and Ethics: A History of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory 1933-1993 Canberra: The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, 1993, at 13. 4The Honourable J Miles AO, ‘History of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory’ unpublished at 1. 5 Section 8 of the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (No. 23 of 1909) provided that “the High Court and the Justices thereof shall have, within the Territory, the jurisdiction which immediately before its surrender and acceptance belonged to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Justices thereof”: Pitcher v Federal Capital Commission (1928) 41 CLR 385 per Knox CJ and Powers J at 390. 2 three times a year6 and, when sitting in winter, the Queanbeyan Court House was warmed by a wood fire that the most junior practitioner in attendance had the formidable duty of stoking.7 In the 1920s, calls were made for the establishment of a “complete scheme for the administration of justice inside the Territory” to avoid delay and inconvenience to Territorians.8 In the following decade, on 25 November 1930, the ACT Court of Petty Sessions was established. Three years thereafter, by the enactment of the Seat of Government Supreme Court Act9, the Supreme Court of this Territory was established. It is fitting that the Act was assented to by Sir Isaac Isaacs, Australia’s first Australian born Governor General10. It, in fact, took two attempts to get the Bill passed, the second Bill, introduced in late May 1933, commenced on the first day of the following year. This Act has immense significance for the Territory, not only as the founding document of this Court, but as the reason the Territory is entitled the Australian Capital Territory. The Territory was originally called the Territory for the Seat of Government, but was commonly known as the Federal Capital Territory. The Supreme Court of the Federal Capital Territory was wisely regarded as too long a name to make for a legible court 6 Harris, J ‘The Administration of Justice in the Australian Capital Territory and the History of the ACT Supreme Court from 1933-1963’ National Internship Program 1995; Ms Harris obtained this information from Queanbeyan City Council member Mr Shears who consulted records to obtain this information. 7 Woolcock Withycombe, SM, Ethos and Ethics: A History of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory 1933-1993 Canberra: The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, 1993, at 13. 8 by the Secretary of the Federal Capital Commission to the Secretary of the Department of Home and Territories on 12 December 1925: Australian Archives, Attorney-General’s file A1, 3790 of 1931 extracted in the Honourable J Miles AO, ‘History of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory’, unpublished, at 1-2; This was followed some 8 months later by Robert Garren imploring this as a matter of urgent attention to the Attorney General; a local solicitor, Cyril Davies, also agitated for the establishment of law courts in the Territory – see the Honourable J Miles AO Miles, History of the Supreme Court, unpublished, at 1-3. 9 1933 (Cth) 10 on 9 December 1933; a copy of the original Act is available online at www.foundingdocs.gov.au 3 seal11, so Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was chosen. In 1938, the name of the Territory was formally changed to the “Australian Capital Territory”12. On 25 January 1934, the Honourable Lionel Lukin, a Judge of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy, was appointed as judge of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court first sat on 13 February 1934 at Acton House, which had been Canberra’s first Church of England rectory13. The location was chosen following Sir Walter Burley Griffin’s designation of Acton as “the site for the provisional administration and establishment of the City area”.14 Acton House also housed the Police Station; the police force having been established 7 years earlier15. However, Acton House proved inadequate for the purpose and in 1935 the Court moved to Hotel Acton. Here the Supreme Court sat in the Hotel’s dining room.16 Justice Lukin remained at the helm of the Court until 1943, witnessing the rather nomadic Supreme Court move again, in 1941, to the Patents Building in the suburb of Parkes17. The first matters over which his Honour Justice Lukin presided were two matrimonial cases. In fact, the first 11 cases to come before the Supreme Court related to matrimonial disputes18. In the first two matters, the husband sought, and was granted, an order for restitution of conjugal rights19. His Honour, found that the wives did not want to live 11 Mr B.R. Magquire QC, transcript proceedings of the Ceremonial Sitting on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Supreme Court, Monday, 13 February 1984, at T16. 12 by an amendment to the Seat of Government Acceptance Act. 13 Woolcock Withycombe, SM, Ethos and Ethics: A History of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory 1933- 1993 Canberra: The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, 1993, description under photograph following p28. 14 ACT Supreme Court Building and Precinct, Stage 1: Heritage Assessment, March 1996 at 10. 15 On 27 September 1927: Woolcock Withycombe, SM, Ethos and Ethics: A History of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory 1933-1993 Canberra: The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, 1993, at 13. 16 See Documenting Democrary at www.foundingdoc.gov.au 17 ACT Supreme Court Building and Precinct, Stage 1: Heritage Assessment, March 1996 at 10. 18 The Honourable J Miles AO, ‘History of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory’, unpublished, at 13. 19 See Canberra Times, ‘Orders For Restitution of Conjugal Rights’, 13 February 1934. 4 with their husbands, and made the usual order that the wife return to her husband within 21 days20. Thankfully, such applications are now a matter of history. On 29 August 1934, Justice Lukin heard the first recorded appeal from the Court of Petty Sessions which related to “allegations of illegal gambling activities”.21 For the Crown appeared Sir Robert Garran,22 and for the defence, Mr Clive Evatt. Justice Lukin is remembered as both genial and patient, and as a repository of “good will to all except defaulting bankrupts”.23 Upon his retirement, his Honour had served on the bench of Australian courts for some 33 years24 and provided a venerable archetype of a judicial officer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950
    82 The Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 After the Second World War ended with the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945, a new global conflict between Communist and non-Communist blocs threatened world peace. The Cold War, as it was called, had substantial domestic repercussions in Australia. First, the spectre of Australians who were committed Communists perhaps operating as fifth columnists in support of Communist states abroad haunted many in the Labor, Liberal and Country parties. The Soviet Union had been an ally for most of the war, and was widely understood to have been crucial to the defeat of Nazism, but was now likely to be the main opponent if a new world war broke out. The Communist victory in China in 1949 added to these fears. Second, many on the left feared persecution, as anti-Communist feeling intensified around the world. Such fears were particularly fuelled by the activities of Senator Joe McCarthy in the United States of America. McCarthy’s allegations that Communists had infiltrated to the highest levels of American government gave him great power for a brief period, but he over-reached himself in a series of attacks on servicemen in the US Army in 1954, after which he was censured by the US Senate. Membership of the Communist Party of Australia peaked at around 20,000 during the Second World War, and in 1944 Fred Paterson won the Queensland state seat of Bowen for the party. Although party membership began to decline after the war, many Communists were prominent in trade unions, as well as cultural and literary circles.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright and Use of This Thesis This Thesis Must Be Used in Accordance with the Provisions of the Copyright Act 1968
    COPYRIGHT AND USE OF THIS THESIS This thesis must be used in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction of material protected by copyright may be an infringement of copyright and copyright owners may be entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits an authorized officer of a university library or archives to provide a copy (by communication or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in the library or archives, to a person who satisfies the authorized officer that he or she requires the reproduction for the purposes of research or study. The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work a number of moral rights, specifically the right of attribution, the right against false attribution and the right of integrity. You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you: - fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if you quote sections from the work - attribute this thesis to another author - subject this thesis to derogatory treatment which may prejudice the author’s reputation For further information contact the University’s Copyright Service. sydney.edu.au/copyright Land Rich, Dirt Poor? Aboriginal land rights, policy failure and policy change from the colonial era to the Northern Territory Intervention Diana Perche A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Government and International Relations Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Sydney 2015 Statement of originality This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, the content of this thesis is my own work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limitations of Litigation in Stolen Generations Cases
    RESEARCH DISCUSSION PAPER The Limitations of Litigation in Stolen Generations Cases Chris Cunneen and Julia Grix Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney Law School NUMBER 15 AN AIATSIS RESEARCH DISCUSSION PAPER The Limitations of Litigation in Stolen Generations Cases Chris Cunneen and Julia Grix Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney Law School, 173-175 Phillip St, Sydney Research Discussion Paper # 15 First published in 2004 by the Research Section Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies GPO Box 553 Canberra ACT 2601 AIATSIS Research publications co-ordinator: Graeme K Ward Their views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Tory Strait Islander Studies. Copyright ©AIATSIS Apart from any fear dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA CATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA: Chris Cunneen and Julia Grix The Limitations of Litigation in Stolen Generations Cases ISBN 0 85575 483 4 1. Aboriginal Australians – Children – Government Policy. 2. Aboriginal Australians – Legal status, laws, etc. 3. Aboriginal Australians – Removal. I. Grix, Julia. II. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. III. Title. (Series: Research discussion paper (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies)
    [Show full text]
  • Participants in the Courtroom Counsel, Timings When Counsel Commence and Finish Court Etiquette in the Three Courtrooms
    Portraits of the first 11 Chief Justices are displayed cases involving the interpretation of the Australian Participants in the Courtroom counsel, timings when counsel commence and finish Court Etiquette in the three courtrooms. Photographic portraits of all Constitution, or disputes between states, or between speaking, adjournments and pronouncements by the HIGH COURT Chief Justices and Justices who have sat on the Court the Commonwealth and one or more states. Matters As you enter the courtroom, it may be helpful for you Bench. The Clerk also times the oral presentations in The High Court building is open to the public. We since its inception are displayed along the wall outside raising constitutional questions may involve the to understand the various roles of the people you are special leave applications and controls the counsel request your cooperation in respecting our restrictions Courtroom 1. intervention of some or all of the Attorneys-General for about to see. warning lights on the lectern. When reserved judgments and requirements for visitors. Court Guides are stationed OF AUSTRALIA the Commonwealth, the states and the territories. are delivered, an additional Associate attends in Court around the Public Hall and will advise you of courtroom www.hcourt.gov.au Commemorative Plaques Justices to collect the written judgments from each of the protocol. It is customary, as a matter of respect to the Oral Argument The Justices enter the courtroom through a door to the Justices as they are pronounced and delivers them to Court when it is in session, that you bow on entry into A feature wall at the lower entrance to the building right of the Bench.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court and the Parliament Partners in Law-Making Or Hostile Combatants?*
    The High Court and the Parliament Partners in law-making or hostile combatants?* Michael Coper The question of when a human life begins poses definitional and philosophical puzzles that are as familiar as they are unanswerable. It might surprise you to know that the question of when the High Court of Australia came into existence raises some similar puzzles,1 though they are by contrast generally unfamiliar and not quite so difficult to answer. Interestingly, the High Court tangled with this issue in its very first case, a case called Hannah v Dalgarno,2 argued—by Wise3 on one side and Sly4 on the other—on 6 and 10 November 1903, and decided the next day on a date that now positively reverberates with constitutional significance, 11 November.5 * This paper was presented as a lecture in the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House on 19 September 2003. I am indebted to my colleagues Fiona Wheeler and John Seymour for their comments on an earlier draft. 1 See Tony Blackshield and Francesca Dominello, ‘Constitutional basis of Court’ in Tony Blackshield, Michael Coper and George Williams (eds), The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia, South Melbourne, Vic., Oxford University Press, 2001 (hereafter ‘The Oxford Companion’): 136. 2 (1903) 1 CLR 1; Francesca Dominello, ‘Hannah v Dalgarno’ in The Oxford Companion: 316. 3 Bernhard Ringrose Wise (1858–1916) was the Attorney-General for NSW and had been a framer of the Australian Constitution. 4 Richard Sly (1849–1929) was one of three lawyer brothers (including George, a founder of the firm of Sly and Russell), who all had doctorates in law.
    [Show full text]
  • Children and Young People: the Law and Human Rights (PDF, 199KB)
    Centre for International and Public Law Faculty of Law Australian National University CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE: THE LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS The Hon Alastair Nicholson, AO RFD Chief Justice Family Court of Australia Occasional Paper THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY The Sixteenth SIR RICHARD BLACKBURN LECTURE 14 May 2002 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE: THE LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS Introduction I am greatly honoured to have been invited to present this year’s address commemorating the enormous and wide-ranging contributions to Australian society made by The Honourable Sir Richard Blackburn OBE. I commend the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory for having initiated this important annual event in 1986 and I feel privileged to follow in the footsteps of the eminent speakers who have given the Lecture since Sir Richard himself delivered the first one. Sir Richard graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Adelaide and Oxford University and a Bachelor of Civil Law degree from Oxford University. He was a Rhodes Scholar for South Australia in 1940 and attended Eldon Law School in 1949. Sir Richard served in the Australian Imperial Forces from 1940 to 1945 and rose to the rank of Captain. In 1949 he was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1949 and he was admitted to practice as a solicitor in South Australia in 1951. His Honour served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory from 1966 to 1971 before his appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.
    [Show full text]
  • To Be Called the High Court of Australia on the First Day of the 20Th Century
    . to be called the High Court of Australia On the first day of the 20th century, the Commonwealth of Australia came into existence. This new country had a new Constitution. That document set out the powers of the new Parliament and it allowed for the creation of a new court to oversee the exercise of those powers. “The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia.” The Court commenced operating in 1903 when the Governor-General appointed the Court’s first three members, Sir Samuel Griffith as the Chief Justice, and Sir Edmund Barton and Richard O’Connor as the other Justices. Each of them had been heavily involved in the Constitutional Conventions in the late 19th century. Today, the High Court of Australia sits at the apex of Australia’s justice system. The Court derives its authority directly from the Constitution and has two main functions: first, to interpret the Australian Constitution and, secondly, to sit as the final Court of Appeal on all matters arising in Federal, State and Territory courts. For the first 80 years of its life the Court was without a home of its own. It sat mostly in Sydney and Melbourne. When it travelled to other State capitals, it used the court rooms, offices and libraries of the State Supreme Courts. On 26 May 1980 the High Court building was opened and Australia’s highest Court had a permanent new home. While the Court does most of its public work in Canberra, it still travels and usually sits once a year in each State capital, apart from Sydney and Melbourne, where it sits on several occasions each year.
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of Australia Sydney Registry No S77 of 2016
    • IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA SYDNEY REGISTRY NO S77 OF 2016 BETWEEN: ROBERT JOHN DAY Plaintiff AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL OFFICER FOR AND: THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA First Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Second Defendant SUBMISSIONS OF THE SECOND DEFENDANT Filed on behalf of the Second Defendant by: Date of this document: 12 April 2016 Contact: Simon Daley I Tony Burslem The Australian Government Solicitor 4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT 2600 File ref: 16001387 DX 5678 Canberra Telephone: 02 9581 7490 1 02 6253 7054 Lawyer's E-mail: [email protected] 1 [email protected] Facsimile: 02 9581 7732 1 02 6253 7384 18915894 PART I FORM OF SUBMISSIONS 1. These submissions are in a form suitable for publication on the internet. PART 11 ISSUES 2. These are stated at the commencement of part VI of these submissions. PART Ill SECTION 788 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT 1903 (CTH) 3. Notice pursuant to s 788 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) was given by the plaintiff on 31 March 2016. No further notice is necessary. PART IV FACTS 10 4. The facts are to be set out in the Application Book to be filed on 19 April 2016 (subject to possible issues of relevance). PART V LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 5. See attachment. PART VI ARGUMENT 6. The issues that arise and the argument the Commonwealth seeks to advance in respect of each are as follows: 20 7. The overall effect of the amendments: The key provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ('Electoral Act') as amended by the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 2016 (Cth) ('Amending Act') ('Amended Act') are ss 272(2), 269(1)(b), 239(2) and 210(1)(f)(ii).
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving Deadlocks in the Australian Parliament ISSN 1328-7478
    Department of the INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Parliamentary Library Research Paper No. 9 2000–01 Resolving Deadlocks in the Australian Parliament ISSN 1328-7478 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2000 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2000 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Resolving Deadlocks in the Australian Parliament The Vision in Hindsight: Parliament and the Constitution: Paper No. 9 Vision in Hindsight Vision in Hindsight is a Department of Stage two will involve the selection of the Parliamentary Library (DPL) project eight to ten of the papers for inclusion in for the Centenary of Federation.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Law Reform Commission the Judicial Power of The
    Australian Law Reform Commission Discussion Paper 64 The judicial power of the Commonwealth A review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and related legislation You are invited to make a submission or comment on this Discussion Paper DP 64 December 2000 How to make comments or submissions You are invited to make comments or submissions on the issues raised in this Paper, which should be sent to The Secretary Australian Law Reform Commission Level 10, 131 York Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 (GPO Box 3708 SYDNEY NSW 1044) Phone: (02) 9284 6333 TTY: (02) 9284 6379 Fax: (02) 9284 6363 E-mail: [email protected] ALRC homepage: http://www.alrc.gov.au Closing date: 16 March 2001 It would be helpful if comments addressed specific issues or paragraphs in the Paper. Confidentiality Unless a submission is marked confidential, it will be made available to any person or organisation on request. If you want your submission, or any part of it, to be treated as confidential, please indicate this clearly. A request for access to a submission marked ‘confidential’ will be determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The Commission will include in its final report on this project a list of submissions received in response to this Paper. It may also refer to those submissions in the text of the report and other Commission publications. It may decide to publish them. If you do not want your submission or any part of it to be used in any one of these ways please indicate this clearly. © Commonwealth of Australia 2000 This work is copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Black, White & Gold
    8 New Ground all golden country but very poor Three months after Clark was killed, William Simpson, eight other miners and twenty-two Taupota carriers returned to prospect the ‘likely looking’ country they had seen on the upper Mambare. From ‘Clark’s Fort’, a log hut about 12 miles upstream from Tamata, the miners cut a track south to a point high above the western bank of the Mambare where they built ‘Simpson’s Store’. Using the store as a base, the miners spent five months cutting tracks and testing the creeks feeding the Mambare. They prospected the Chirima, the main tributary coming in from the west, and followed the Mambare beyond the Chirima junction into the lower Yodda Valley. The track from Clark’s Fort to the Chirima junction crossed no land much above 2000 feet, but it was a hard walk with many creek crossings, thick undergrowth and cliffs which had to be climbed with the aid of vines and makeshift ladders. John Green took only thirteen days to travel from Tamata to the junction and back, but at the end he threw away the new boots he had put on at the start. After MacGregor had seen the prospectors’ tracks he wrote that they had carried out ‘by far the most arduous undertaking ever performed by any private exploring party in the colony’. When the miners came down the river in January 1896 they had 46 ounces of gold. The upper Mambare, Simpson reported, was ‘all golden country, but very poor’. Beyond the Chirima junction they had prospected one creek which, they thought, might be profitable.
    [Show full text]
  • METHODIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY Records, 1798-1916 Reels M118
    AUSTRALIAN JOINT COPYING PROJECT METHODIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY Records, 1798-1916 Reels M118-72C, M988-91 Methodist Missionary Society 25 Marylebone Road London NW1 National Library of Australia State Library of New South Wales Filmed: 1958-59, 1967 CONTENTS Page 3 Historical note Reels M118-72C 4 Committee minutes, 1798-1865 5 Minutes and reports of district committees, 1822-62 8 Incoming correspondence, 1812-89 8 Australia, 1812-89 12 Tasmania, 1823-76 13 New Zealand, 1819-82 16 Friendly Islands, 1822-75 17 Fiji, 1835-84 18 Samoa, 1834-70 18 Outgoing correspondence, 1816-67 20 Personal collections 20 James Calvert, 1838-92 24 John Hunt, 1833-68 25 Richard Lyth, 1836-56 26 H. Hanson Turton, 1839-40 26 Nathaniel Turner, 1829 26 Joseph Orton, c. 1832 27 John Bumby, 1836-57 27 John Thomas, 1825-81 30 Candidates’ papers, 1829-56 30 Ships records, 1837-66 35 Property and land, 1831-57 36 Miscellaneous papers 37 Drawings, prints and maps Reels M989-92 38 Letters and journals of missionaries in Fiji, 1833-57 39 Minutes and reports of the Fiji District, 1835-52 2 HISTORICAL NOTE Wesleyan missions overseas began in 1786 when Thomas Coke, one of the closest associates of John Wesley, landed at Antigua in the West Indies. Soon missions were established in every colony in the West Indies. Under Coke’s leadership, missions were also sent to Sierra Leone (1811) and Ceylon (1813). In 1804 the Methodist Conference set up a Standing Committee of Finance and Advice to manage its foreign relations and from 1813 onwards district auxiliaries were formed to support the work of the overseas missions.
    [Show full text]