He married Margaret Maria Riley at Mulgoa (near Penrith) in 1860.
Their children included:
- ROSE CHRISTIANA ANGELL - born 1862 at Port Fairy (then known as Belfast, Vic) (VIC BDM 2998/1863); died Toorak, 1935, aged 79 (VIC BDM 6878/1935).
- EVERARD - born 1864 at Penrith (NSW BDM 13327/1864); died 1926.
- HERBERT R - born 1866 at Wagga Wagga (NSW BDM 15679/1866); died aged 11 days.
- EMMA M - born 1867 at Wagga Wagga (NSW BDM 17067/1867)
- GERALD M - born 1869 at Wagga Wagga (NSW BDM 18915/1869)
- THOMAS VALENTINE - born 1870 at Concord (NSW BDM 4862/1870); died 1909 (VIC BDM 11855/1909).
- ELIZABETH CORIENTIA - born 1870 at Concord (NSW BDM 4863/1870)
- EMILY LOUISA - born 1874 at Gulgong (NSW BDM 14683/1874)
- VERA M - born 1878 at Gulgong (NSW BDM 17062/1878)
Thomas Alexander Browne died 11 March 1915. Margaret died two years later in 1917.
FAMILY NOTICES
FAMILY NOTICES
- 1862 - BROWN—June 17th, at the Mere, Port Fairy, the wife of T. A. Brown, Esq., of a daughter.
- 1864 - BROWN—January 28th, at Glenmore, Mulgoa, the wife of T. A. Brown, Esq., of a son.
- 1866 - On the 20th instant [January], at Bundidgera, near Wagga Wagga, the wife of T. A. BROWNE, Esq., of a son;
Death: On the 31st instant [January], at Bundidjerie, the infant Son of T. A. BROWNE, ESQ., J.P.
BROWNE—February 1st, at Bundidgera, near Wagga Wagga, the infant son of T. A. Browne, Esq.
- 1867 - BROWNE—August 4th, Bundidjeree, Murrumbidgee River, the wife of T. A. Browne, Esq., of a daughter.
- 1869 - On the 12th instant [March], at Bundidgeree, the wife of T. A. BROWNE, Esq., J.P., of a son.
- 1870 - BROWNE—October 4, at Ashfield, the wife of T. A. Browne, Esq., of twins—a son and daughter
- 1874 - On February 24, at Guntawang Cottage, near Gulgong, the wife of T. A. Browne, P.M., of a daughter.
_______________________
Thomas Alexander Browne, under his pen-name of Rolf Boldrewood, is best known for his novel Robbery Under Arms. Another of his books, The Miner's Right, is remarkable for an intriguing literary coincidence: it was a documentary-styled work, written from personal experience and drawing on the events of the Gulgong Goldfield and - most astonishingly - co-inciding with the photographic work of Beaufoy Merlin, now represented in the Gulgong's Holtermann Museum.
Before he wrote novels, however, Thomas Alexander Browne had a long and fulfilling career. In 1871 he was appointed ‘Gold Commissioner’ and Police Magistrate on the Gulgong goldfields, following the sudden passing of his predecessor in that office—a comparatively young and popular official by the name of Arthur Hannibal Macarthur.
Before he wrote novels, however, Thomas Alexander Browne had a long and fulfilling career. In 1871 he was appointed ‘Gold Commissioner’ and Police Magistrate on the Gulgong goldfields, following the sudden passing of his predecessor in that office—a comparatively young and popular official by the name of Arthur Hannibal Macarthur.
The author: T.A. Browne (Rolf Boldrewood)
on the verandah of the Court House in the Police Compound, Gulgong
Source: SLNSW
NEWS ITEMS
1871 - THE NEW POLICE MAGISTRATE
Yesterday a telegram was received from Sydney, informing us that Mr. Browne JP, formerly a squatter of Narrandera, has been appointed Police Magistrate and Gold Commissioner for Gulgong, also we believe C.P.S. As we do not know who the ‘lucky’ man is, we cannot say whether he is competent or not, but we enter our emphatic protest against the Police magistrate of this gold field being C.P.S and Mining Registrar. He cannot perform satisfactorily to himself or the public, the heavy duties of these four offices.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 8, 8 April 1871
Mr. Browne, who has been appointed to the responsible position of P.M. for the goldfield, is expected here tomorrow, and will likely enter upon his duties early in the ensuring week. We hear he has had some experience in an official capacity in the Victoria goldfields, which, if true, he will find of some little service to him in administering the gold-fields act and regulations of this colony. Mr. Johnson, Gold Commissioner, who has been doing duty since Mr. Macarthur’s death, purports leaving Wednesday next and we deem it our duty to bear testimony to the courteque, efficient and impartial manner in which he has discharged the onerous duties of his many offices here. We have at various times written rather strongly on his interpretations of the regu-lations relating to frontage, but we are not ashamed to say that we did so, under the wrong impression that Mr. Johnson was in full possession of the facts of the case as we were. Hence the cause of our “going in” at public officers amenable to criticism and debarred from reply-ing, no matter how misrepresented we hold that it is a journalists duty to make amende honourable. We have refrained from doing so until the eve of Mr. Johnson departure for reasons easily understood.
We hope his successor will be as successful in administering the laws and maintaining the dignity of this position.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 9, 15 April 1871
1871 - THE NEW POLICE MAGISTRATE
Mr. Thomas Alexander Browne, the newly appointed P.M., Gold Commissioner, Clerk of Petty Sessions, Mining Registrar &s, for the Gulgong goldfield - population 4,000 - arrived here on Sunday evening and commenced duty on Monday.
We were in error in our last issue in stating that this gentleman had official experience on the Victoria goldfields, and while in admitting in every way Mr. Browne’s qualifications for his manifold duties, we think that a frontage goldfield like Gulgong should have been favoured with the appointment of an experienced officer to rule over the destinies of the miners, as no matter how apt and energetic an inexperienced man may be in learning his Gold Commissioner’s duty, he cannot give that satisfaction so necessary to repress the litigation's that rapidly spring up when the regulations are not firmly administered. We feel that Mr. Browne will endeavour to act justly, but [man, especially in gold mining] is so prone to err.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 10, 22 April 1871
MINING REPORT
The long expected change for the better has come at last, and the confidence of those who despite existing telegrams of new rushes, and depressing letters to Sydney papers, neither founded on fact, have steadily believed in the future of Gulgong, has proved to be well placed.
On Thursday it became generally known that the prospectors on the Happy Valley line had struck payable gold. On that day they made their report to Commissioner Browne, that at the depth of 185 ft. they had struck payable gold, which yielded 1 dwt. 10 grs. to the dish, or about 2 ozs. to the load. The cheering news spread like wild fire, and the crowds wended their way to the happy land, and offers of 60 pounds were made for 1/6th share in claims adjacent to the prospectors. This lead is a well defined gutter situated to the east of the Black Lead and must of necessity junction with it. On Friday still more cheering news was spread that No. 10-S on the Coming Event Lead had struck rich gold. The report made to the Commissioner of the yield of 7 dwts. 7 grs. to the dish. No. 11-S, on the same lead has hoisted the flag on Monday last with a prospect of about 16 dwts. to the load with 2 ft. washed dirt.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 11, 29 April 1871
1871 - [GOLD COMMISSIONER]
Departure of Mr. Johnson – Gold Commissioner.
Mr Johnson, who arrived here upon the death of Mr. Macarthur, left on Wednesday afternoon. The newly appointed Commissioner and PM is Mr T.A. Browne.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 11, 29 April 1871
Pursuant to advertisement, a meeting of the members of the Church of England and all others interested was held in the Protestant Church, near the Camp Reserve, on Monday evening last, to consider the best means of enlarging the Church and of arranging for more frequent services. Owing to the steady rain that fell continuously throughout the evening, the attendance was not numerous.
T.A. Browne, Esq. P.M., was voted to the chair, and in a few appropriate remarks pointed out the necessity for an effort being made without delay to render the Church building adequate for the want of the goldfield, and if possible obtain the services of a Resident Minister.
The Reverend J. Gunther moved - "That this meeting being fully impressed with the urgent necessity that exists for the immediate erection of a Church on Gulgong, adequate to the wants of the goldfield, does hereby pledge itself to use its best endeavours to raise funds for the extension of the existing building sufficient to meet the requirements of worshippers."
The resolution was seconded by Mr Robinson, and carried unanimously.
Mr T.F. DeCourcy Browne moved "That the present arrangements for the holding of divine Service on Gulgong are defective by reason of the services not being sufficiently frequent, this meeting therefore requests that the Reverend J. Gunther, the incumbent of Mudgee, will, without delay, communicate with the Lord Bishop of the Diocese, requesting him to appoint a clergyman. If possible, to the charge of the goldfield, if not, to locate a Catechist, so as to enable divine service to be held at least once in it each Sunday."...
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 13, 13 May 1871
1871 - Letters to the Editor
Sir - I have a genuine grievance, the matter I complain of is, the serious loss of time all have suffered to their business to transact at the office of the Mining Registrar. I have spent the greater part of two days this week shepherding the ‘little window’ through which this lucky official receives the half crowns and shillings, in order that I might add my might to his takings. All my weary hours of waiting have not enabled me to transact my business, and hundreds more like me are in a fix. If the Registrar will take upon himself the duties of Police Magistrate, Gold Commissioner, Clerk of Petty Session and Registrar of Small Debts Court, he should make an effort to perform the many duties of this extraordinary plurality of offices with a moderate de-gree of efficiency. The time of a miner is to him mon-ey, and I think it is bad enough to pay an extortionate fee for a useless registration without having to spend two days waiting to see the official to whom I pay the fee. If Mr. Browne is not ‘strong enough’ for the place he should try and secure the services of even an intelli-gent lad to represent him during his absence. The office of Registrar and Commissioner should not be held by one man; the gross impropriety of the amalgamation is exhibited almost every day in the Police Court in the hearing of mining cases; but as one officer does hold the two billets, let him earn his fee in a manner that will not cause such serious loss of time to the miner.
I am Sir etc.
REFORM
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 17, 10 June 1871
1871 - To the Editor - THE FRONTAGE SYSTEM ON GULGONG.
Sir,- Knowing that the "Guardian" is ever ready to assist the miner, either in ventilating a grievance or exposing official incompetence, I venture to trespass upon your columns for space to allow me to ventilate the muddle that now exists on the Black Lead owing to the manner in which the code of frontage by-laws have been administered. I arrived on Gulgong shortly after the discovery of the Black Lead, and as I have watched its development closely, and being also well acquainted with the wording of the frontage system in Victoria, I maybe allowed to say, that I am not ignorant of the subject I intend to deal with in this letter. While no other lead was found to be running through the parallels of the frontage claims of the Black Lead, the disputes on the lead were confined to mere boundary squabbles inseparable from the frontage system, and these disputes, owing to the very loose manner in which the frontage rules have been administered, have been carried into the Supreme Court for final settlement. Now that two clearly defined leads are found to exist instead of one, a promising difficulty for the lawyers to fatten on, has arisen; and as I am the victim of the ignorance and inexperience of Commissioner Browne in dealing with the right of ownership to each lead, I shall try to explain his blunders in the hope that if he reads the "Guardian", he will make an effort to study and fully grasp the right way of dealing with frontage disputes.
It is, I presumed and admitted by all who are not blinded by prejudice, that there are two leads within the parallels of the Black Lead claims ie. the Black Lead & the Happy Valley Lead. On these lines claims have been registered up a high number, but on the Black Lead the owners have to shepherd or work, while on the Happy Valley the Commissioner has, what he calls "exempted" the claim holders from either working or shepherding. Now as the regulations are as much for the guidance and information of the miner as the Commissioner, I cannot find one line that enables the Commissioner to exempt any person from shepherding his claim; is it true that Reg. No.15 does enable a miner whose claim is unworkable, to have it registered as held in reserve, but as both Commissioners Browne and Johnson, and the Court of Appeal both in Mudgee and in Gulgong, has decided that shepherding a claim is not working it. Mr Browne's half-crown "certificates of idleness" (as Mr Macarthur well named them) cannot therefore be of the slightest value as a protective, and if of no value why did the Mining Registrar take possession of our half-crowns? One of the effects of these half-crown titles has been that the Black Lead men have in many cases become registered for the Happy Valley, and exempt from shepherding the latter lead. If any new arrivals in search of a claim attempts to occupied the Happy Valley legally according the regulations, the half-crown title is flaunted in their faces. They see the Commissioner, and he, poor man, becomes fairly bothered when trying to argue the validity of his scrap of paper. It is a notorious fact that men who are registered for the Happy Valley and exempted, and working golden holes at the Three Mile End or the Black Lead. Is this law, is it justice, is it common sense, that men who have wearily journeyed from Queensland, New Zealand, and other distant localities, are to be debarred from legitimately occupying a claim by such illegal acts? It may be said, "occupy the claim and dispute it". But miners who claim the protection of the law should not be compelled to contest the illegal act of a Commissioner who should know the law, and if he does not, he has no business to hold the office. Mr Browne has said "that the existence of the Happy Valley lead has not yet been proved" then if so, why does he register claims upon it, and if he registers upon it, where is his power to exempt the registered holders, or their representatives from shepherding as required under the regulations?
Again Mr Browne says, "that no party can sink within the parallels of a frontage claim until it blocks off." Will he state where the regulations say so. If I am registered for a second lead running through the parallels of the first lead, he cannot lawfully prohibit me from working my claim for the second lead. Look at the result of this illegal ruling on the Black Lead. Claims which are registered for the Black Lead, have sunk upon and are working the Happy Valley Lead, thus depriving the lawful holders of the latter lead of their just right, and compelling them to go to law to enforce their title. This litigation could have been avoided if the claim-holders on each lead had been confined to their own lead, instead of allowing one the privilege of running at large and choosing which lead he shall condescend to occupy, and even then, by collusion try to deprive the registered holder of the second lead, contrary to all law and justice. I have thus endeavoured to point out the grave blunders of Mr. Commissioner Browne, in his administration of the frontage regulations; it may be that the has committed them with the best intentions to act justly and impartial to all, but the practical effect of his mistake has been to create doubt, dissatisfaction, litigation, wasted time, and gross monopoly, simply because the will not administer the regulations as they are, with ordinary firmness and discretion. His vacillation has created a muddle that will cause much costly litigation, all of which would have been avoided. Pleading the serious nature of my subject, and its importance to my fellow miners, as my excuse for asking the insertion of this letter,
I am, Sir, A. VICTIM.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 19, 24 June 1871
1871 - Gulgong Hospital Meeting.
A public meeting was held on Tuesday evening last, in Cogden’s Theatre, to consider taking the necessary steps to erect a public hospital on the goldfields. About 250 persons were present, P.M. Mr. T. A. Browne, was voted into the chair, and having explained the object of the meeting, hoped that some practical method would be devised to relieve the sick and suffering on the goldfield. It was a matter that should excite the warmest sympathies of all classes, and he felt sure, that if properly managed, the establishment of a hospital could be effected. Cheers all round...
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 20, 1 July 1871
1871 - The new Commissioners Office
We notify for general information that Mr. Commissioner Browne has moved into his new office, which is located on the Camp Reserve, to the west of the Police Barracks. The building is of weather-board, 24 feet long by 12 feet wide, with a skillion and fire place. When suitably furnished with tables, shelves etc., it will prove a great boon to the public, who with great patience have endured for some time the ‘little window’ at Selff’s Hotel’. It cost a paltry £60, 2 deputation’s of M.P.’s, and 13 foolscap pages from 3 Gold Commissioners, and 4 pages from the Guardian. How many will it require to obtain a court house we wonder?
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 20, 1 July 1871
1871 - Tea Meeting
At the Church of England, O’Neill Bros. of Queen Street catered. T.A. Browne Esq. P.M., was in the chair. Addresses given by Rev. J. Gunther, Rev. T. B. Tress of Mudgee, Mr. Pickering, resident catechist at Gulgong and Mr. De Courcy Browne.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 21, 8 July 1871
1871 - Early Closing Movement
A public meeting was held at Rossiter’s Hotel last Tuesday evening to initiate a movement, object is the closing of all business places at eight o’clock every evening except Saturday. T. A. Browne P.M. presided, and gave his warm approval to the movement. which would be productive of benefit to all concerned, by enabling them to have leisure for mental recreation...
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 23, 22 July 1871
1871 - [EDITORIAL]
... We do not feel any pleasure in having a "go in" and Mr Commissioner Browne. On the contrary, nothing but a strict sense of duty compels us at any time to criticize his decisions. His duties are too onerous for any but an experienced officer, processing a decisive character to satisfactorily discharge, and if Mr Browne would be less yielding, and adhere strictly to the letter of the law, he would find that such disputes as that of No. 9 North Happy Valley would never occur; and that no such evidence should be given on oath, as was given by the witness Murphy, when describing the obstruction of the crowd, "The Commissioner said he could give me no assistance."
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 26, 12 August 18711871 - Correspondence - The Commissioners Decisions
To the Editor of the Guardian
Sir - As the Guardian has ever been ready to expose any defects either in the Mining Regulations or the mode in which they are administered, I ask room to lay before my fellow miners the inconsistency and incapacity of Mr. Browne, the Gold Commissioner in charge of the goldfield, whose eccentric decisions has not only been productive of loss to the miners, but has created a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction such as has not been seen on the goldfields since 1861.
I do not desire to occupy any of your valuable space in defining what in my opinion are the requisites for a Gold Commissioner; but whatever they may be, it is certain that Mr. Browne does not possess any of them, nor, apparently, has he any idea of what they are. It is certain that to be utterly destitute of firmness, devoid of consistency, and ignorant of the regulations are not any of the points for a good Commissioner. In your leader of last week you said ‘that this goldfield required the best man that ever held the office of Gold Commissioner in this colony.’ I and thousands of miners on the Gulgong goldfield echo the words, as heartily and earnestly as we say that Mr. Browne is not that man.
As Mr. Browne was, on his arrival here, new to the duties of a goldfield, in every sense, it was hoped by many who liked his amiable manner, that a few month’s experience would set him on the right track, but these hopes have been disregarded long ago, as he is, if anything, worse than when he first arrived. As his decisions are of so extraordinary a character, it may not be out of place to briefly point out their peculiarities, as showing how ‘miners are governed.’ As a proof of his ignorance and indecision, I will point out his mode of dealing with the Black Swan Lead: When the lead was first opened, it was put upon the ‘block’, next day he came and put it on the ‘frontage,’ and a few days after he turned it again into the ‘block.’ The endless confusion and discontent these eccentricities created will not to be readily for-gotten; but the climax was performed the other day, when he ‘swung the base line’ a la Warburton, and the South end of Black Lead [and, by-the-bye, under the same legal advice], and disposed a number of block-claim holders who had been in possession of their claims for weeks, depriving them of the ground they morally and legally were entitled to.
Again, a few day ago he gave a decision on the ownership of some spare ground between Nos. 14 and 15 N Black Lead, by which the ‘jumpers’ were put in possession. Next day he visits the claim, orders the men to stop working, and most wonderful of all, orders authority neither warranted by law, facts, or common sense. The spare ground men and No. 16N flatly refused to move, and it will be an instructive lesson to watch if he will dare to enforce his order. The spare ground men cannot appeal against his order as they could if made in an ordinary encroachment or trespass case, or his decision in their favour was his decision on the case heard by him, and his order to ‘move up’ is not justified by the Regulations, either directly or indirectly. Again, he will give a written order for a party to cease working their claim pending the hearing of a dispute. The stopped party rushes to his office, tell their tale, and he rescinds the order. The party who first obtained the order remonstrates with him, which results in the order being re-issued, and probably both parties kept waiting for weeks before their paltry dispute is heard.
To such a pitch has his vacillation now rose that there is a general distrust in his capacity to administer the Mining Regulations on this goldfield in a way calculated to inspire confidence or respect. It may be that the manifold duties appertaining to the best of profitable appointments that he hold does prevent him giving that attention to the miner that is necessary; but, Sir, those duties cannot be put forward as an excuse for his want of knowledge of the Mining Regulations, which he should know by heart, and the points of which he should be thoroughly conversant with.
It is evident to the most ignorant miner who visits his office that there is a screw loose somewhere. As miners, we want the Regulations fairly and consistently administered, by an official capable of forming an opinion on them himself, without first consulting either a lawyer or a lawyer’s clerk. We want a man of firmness, discretion. intelligence and experience to rule over us, and, as we have not that man, I call on all my fellow miners to back up the Guardian in its able efforts to improve the position of the miner, and obtain at any sacrifice a much needed change in the administration of the laws on this important goldfield.
I am, Sir, TOMMY DODD
[The letters of ‘Reform’, ‘Blocker’, and ‘Standard’ are similar to this, but more exaggerated, and cannot be inserted for want of space]—Ed. G.G.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 28, 26 August 1871
1871 - EDITORIAL
One of the most successful reformers of the present century has placed upon record his opinion that, in order for the people to obtain redress for any legitimate grievance, they must agitate persistently, until their end is obtained. One of the benefits of this kind of agitation, we often have been witness, and as we are believers in its efficacy, we, at the risk of being deemed bores, again revert to the existing unsatisfactory mining regulations, in the hope that the miners will arouse themselves, and demand, as a right, what hitherto they have asked as a favour, namely, that they shall be gov-erned with some little degree of justness and impartiality.
The case of the title to the block claim of No.9 North Happy Valley lead, which occupied this week, the undivided attention of the justices sitting in the Court of Appeal for nearly two days, affords "another illustration" of the defective mining legislation now in force for the management of this goldfield – defective, not only in principle but, also in practice. It will be remembered that the ownership of this block was decided by Mr Commissioner Browne by the usual plan of "shaking in the hat," which, though a rough-and-ready way of deciding the dispute, yet was not to be condemned by reason of its illegality and unjustness to those who felt that they had a strong case for proving ownership. Of course, as might very naturally be expected, men who had no legal claim to be considered owners of the claim gained the prize by the lottery, and, an appeal been entered against them, the case was heard as before stated, and three out of the four ousted from the claim, but in a way that proved as unsatisfactory as the lottery, by reason of the justices deciding on the conflicting evidence that, "as one of a party of four men who had intended to mark of the claim had been proved to put in a corner peg first, and the other three man who put in the remaining corner pegs, did not belong to one party, the marking was void, and the claim was given to the party of the man who put in the first corner peg." While fully recognising the difficulty of sifting through the mass of conflicting evidence given before the justices, which was rendered more involved by the verbosity of the advocate for the parties. We cannot uphold this decision in the case, for it is opposed to all law and common sense. It may not be generally known that it has been laid down in the Supreme Court, by Judge Hargraves, on an application for a prohibition against an order made by the Orange bench, on a complaint under the 14th section of the Goldfields Act, for an encouragement, that "the actual occupation of a claim must be by pegging it out." Now, if three out of the four men who had now been adjudged the claim did not prove that they had first pegged out the claim, how could the claim be taken from the respondents, who were the then lawful hold-ers. It is perfectly absurd to say, that because one man of a party of 4 put in one peg that the title to the whole claim was thus settled. It has been repeatedly decided by the judges of the Court of Mines, in Victo-ria that in the absence of any special legislation to the contrary, the man who first pegs of a claim is the own-er thereof, for it must be born in mind that there is a wide distinction between being co-partners and co-owners in a mining claim; for a miner may be co-owner in a claim without being a co-owner with the remaining shareholders. It is this essential difference in title and liability that guided the mining Judges of Victoria in laying down the rule as to ownership that we have quoted. It is a ruling, founded on common sense, and in accordance with mining customs, for in the scramble that usually occurs on a new rush at pegging-out claims, it is, as a rule, physically impossible, that is only 4 men who had previously agreed to peg out a claim, can get all the pegs in first. Any miner of experience - outside the Mudgee district - will corroborate this statement, and more, will bear us out when we say, that it often has occurred that when only one or two of the party has succeeded in pegging-off first, the remainder of the party has obtained shares in other claims. Thus, the four men were co-partners as amongst themselves, but only co-owners in the claim in which each owned a share.
The ruling that we have referred to is acted upon by every warden of goldfields in Victoria, and if followed consistently on this field, it would save much time, money, and litigation. It may be difficult sometimes to find out who did put in the pegs first; but with a little patience, firmness, and "style," it is comparatively easy to sift the claims of rival applicants, and, in nine cases out of ten, arrive at a correct decision. We have seen the matter repeatedly solved where the point at issue was surrounded by greater difficulties for a just solution than any dispute that has yet arisen on this goldfield. Firmness and consistency, coupled with a scrupulous adherence to the provisions of the regulations, will enable any officer entrusted with the responsible duty of administering law on a goldfield to solve satisfactorily any dispute he may be called upon to adjudicate. Miners quickly appreciate administrative ability - they admire it and respect it - as its possession is an absolute necessity to enable them to follow their arduous occupation in peace, and with profit to themselves. Miners fail to underestimate the necessity of being compelled to spend their hard-earned gold in law expenses, simply by reason of a feeble administration of the law. They may, in fact, do, submit to it quickly for awhile, but when aroused by a strong sense of the injustice they suffer, they make themselves heard in a way that very often creates a sensation. Let us earnestly hope that no sensational effort will mark the history of this goldfield.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 28, 26 August 1871
1871 - Sale of Land in Gulgong
It is advertised in the Government Gazette that on Monday the 25th, 48 town allotments will be sold, as follows; the small allotments at the back of Queen Street between Selff’s and Naughton’s Hotels. The allotments behind those facing Herbert Street on both side of the road from Tarrant’s Hotel to Hall, the Bootmaker and from the AJS Bank to the Albion Hotel; also the allotment adjoining Saunders’ Hotel. The occupants of these allotments should take instant steps to have them withdrawn from sale, otherwise they may be sold over their heads. The Progress Committee has brought the matter to the notice of Commissioner Browne who has promised to have the lots withdrawn.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 28, 2 September 1871
1871 - Tenders for the Erection of a Court House
Plan and Specifications to be seen at the Commissioner’s Office.
Signed T.A. Browne. PM, September 12, 1871.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 31, 16 September 1871
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 31, 16 September 1871
1871 - EDITORIAL
One of the paragraphs in the petition recently presented to the Governor by the Member for the Western Goldfields from the miners of this goldfield, contained a request that a second Police Magistrate should be appointed, in order to divide the heavy duties now performed - or rather expected to be - by Mr. Commissioner Browne, so as to allow the mining disputes being promptly heard. We entirely concur with the request that additional assistance should be at once given to Mr. Browne, but do not concur in the idea that a second Police Magistrate should be appointed.
The bewildering absurdity of expecting that any man, no matter how able and experienced and administrator he may be, can efficiently discharge the onerous duties of a Police Magistrate, Clerk of Petty Sessions, and Mining Registrar on a goldfield containing a population of about 9,000, and which gold-field is worked under a bastard frontage system, is one of those official puzzles peculiar to responsible government in New South Wales, where influence and not capacity governs the exercise of official patronage. The late lamented Mr. Macarthur was sent here without any provision being made for a house in which to transact business, without office forms, in fact, utterly unprepared. He was furnished with a copy of the Goldfields Act, and Regulations and told "to do his best to keep things quiet". To do so, he sacrificed his life. His successor is in almost as unsatisfactory a position. He has a sort of office, a few forms, and we think a copy of Plunketts Magisterial Guide, and a new code of Frontage Regulations. He, too, we suppose, was told to "do his best to keep things quiet". Since his advent to office, the population has doubled and the office work increased fourfold yet no clerical assistance is rendered, in order to keep pace with the wants of the goldfield.
Some few weeks ago we advocated the appointment of a CPS and a Mining Registrar, thus leaving Mr. Browne free to perform his judicial duties which, we are sure, would occupy him ten hours a day to discharge them efficiently. At Grenfell, Young and Forbes, three mining townships, with a population in the aggregate not near as numerous as that of Gulgong, there is a CPS whose duties altogether are mere amusement in comparison to those required to be performed on this goldfield, and why such an official has not been appointed here is indeed passing strange. If retrenchment "bars the way" why not appoint a Police Constable, as is done in numerous localities throughout the colony. The duties of Mining Registrar was performed for a long time very creditably by one of the force, and could, we presume, again be, if required.
Owing to press of other business Mr. Browne cannot obtain time to deal with police court business before midday and, as a result, much loss of time and other inconveniences are experienced by the public which should not be inflicted. The direct revenue derivable from the Gulgong goldfield is now many thousands yearly; nearly 5,000 miners rights alone have been issued this year, irrespective of business, publicans, and in many other revenue producing licences. An official who would divide the work of managing the goldfield with Mr. Browne, can, therefore, be demanded as a right and not as a favour. The public convenience demands some little consideration at the hands of the government, and as the matter has been prominently brought under its notice, no excuse - not even that of the Audit Act - can be put forward as a reason for following the "rest and be thankful" policy so characteristic of the coalition of an antagonistic political atoms which Sir James Martin lauds it over.
After repeated remonstrations, tenders have been called for erection of court house which should have been erected a year ago, with only in defence to public decency, and as this favour (so it is called) as being extracted the application for "more help" in the administration of the affairs of the goldfields will probably be also conferred as a favour. Even as a favour it will be welcome.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 31, 16 September 1871
1871 - Mechanic’s Institute
Last week a number of gentlemen held a meeting at Selff’s Hotel to consider the possibility of establishing a Mechanic’s Institute in Gulgong. The following motions were passed:- ‘That the named be called The Gulgong Mechanic’s Institute’. ‘That Mr. Commissioner Browne be request to accept the office of President’, ‘That the fee of membership be 5/- and 5/- per quarter and Messrs. Pickering and Atkins be empowered to find a suitable room and report to the next meeting.
[We are glad to see that steps have been taken to create this useful local institution, but we think a more suitable name could be found, as ‘Mechanic’s Institute’ is a misnomer.]
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 32, 23 September 1871
1871 - Correspondence - Another Growl
Sir, I beg you to allow me to state certain facts which have occurred here through the indecision of Mr. Commissioner Brown and the stupidity of Mr. Surveyor Sharpe. I can only speak about my claim. Some weeks ago Commissioner Browne brought Mr. Sharpe down and ordered him to survey or measure out our claim, evidently not according to the regulations, but some idea of his own. We rested easy, believing we had our legal complement of ground. A few day later, a second surveyor comes and according to his survey, we had too much ground. Which one is right, the Commissioner comes to the ground, decides that if we have only our superficial feet we are entitled to it. Now comes the puzzle; two hours later he issues us with a summons against us for trespassing on the claim he gave us, or rather did not take away from us after Mr. Sharpe’s measurements. To the law we went, for nothing can be done now without a lawyer. Our lawyer, like all lawyers, soon made a case out of it, and we were soon parting with a few guineas, without the affair being settled. We got a private survey done and settled the case privately, otherwise we would have been in court for the next 3 months. We have been out of pocket through the joint bungle of Messrs. Brown and Sharpe, who ought to refund us.
Signed: No. 6 Happy valley
[No 6 will we see toned down his ‘growl’ and omitted all about the baby. The bungle is, we think, Mr. Sharpe’s principally. No. 6 showed good sense in settling the matter privately, instead of trying his luck in the Court of appeal.] Ed. G.G.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 32, 23 September 1871
1871 - Telegraph Tenders - Government Notice
Persons sending in Tenders for supplying of Poles, digging holes or erecting the Telegraph line are informed that the Line will be taken via Slashers Flat, and are requested to amend their tenders accordingly. All tenders to be in by 16th inst. - T.A. Browne - Commissioners Office Gulgong - October 11, 1871
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 35, 14 October 1871
1871 - [TROLLOPE'S VISIT]
Among the speeches on the occasion of Anthony Trollope's visit to Gulgong:
... Mr. R.H.D. White proposed the health of the Chairman [Mr. Commissioner Browne], alluding to the difficulties that existed in the way of satisfactorily discharging the duties of a Commissioner.
Mr. Browne responded briefly and said, that in the old days when he had rivers to swim and blacks to fight, he had never such hard work to do as he had since coming to Gulgong. He could lay his hand upon his heart and say, that in all decisions he had ever striven to act impartially and justice to all...
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 36, 21 October 1871
1871 - Business Allotments
Mr. Commissioner Browne has notified that about 70 applications to purchase improved business allotments have been approved.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 37, 28 October 1871
1871 - Public School Meeting
Public School Meeting held at Binders hotel, for the purpose to take steps to procure a public school under the auspices of the Council of Education. TA Browne in chair. Those present – Messrs. Russell, Benjamin, Young, McLennan, Naughton, Driscoll, Stacy, Stewart, Sellman, Deitz, Moss, McCulloch, Ferrie, Scully, Hewitt, Donaldson, McDermott, Dec. Browne, Plunkett, Booth, R. Jones, Keating, Cairns, Self, Tissington, Adams and J. Hill.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 42, 2 December 1871
1871 - POLICE COURT
Resisting the Commissioner - John Murphy and Richard Winter were both charged with resisting Commissioner Browne on 29th November last on No. 29 N Star Lead. The offence consisted in pulling up pegs after the Commissioner had ordered them to be put in, and refused to put them back in at the request of the Commissioner. Mr. Browne requested the Bench to deal leniently with the defendants as no person interference took place. Fined 1/- with Courts costs and cautioned.
Mr. Belinfante for defendants and Mr. Clarke for Mr. Browne.
Trespass - Daniel Connor v G. Talbury, the plaintiff sued a boy under 12 years for trespassing on his claim. The defendant was shepherding the claim when the plaintiff jumped it, and the Commissioner held the jumping to be lawful as the boy was under age. The boy kept possession of the claim and refused to go off it although repeatedly urged to do so by plaintiff; but the youngster said ‘he didn't care
for the Commissioner’s decision’- the case was going to Sydney. He kept trespassing for the last 4 weeks and plaintiff again brought the boy for trespass. After hearing council on both sides, the Police Magistrate stated that he was glad that the case came before him as it would settle the matter of boys shepherding one way of the other; there must be a line drawn somewhere. Mr. Macarthur had adopted the age of 12, and Mr. Browne would do the same, he agreed that the plaintiff had a just right to the claim and ordered the trespass to be abated, allowing professional cost 21/- with court costs.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 43, 9 December 1871
We have had occasion from time to time to criticise adversely the decisions of Mr Commissioner Browne in several mining disputes, and for so doing we have been charged with almost every moral offence by those who prefer pandering to speaking independently and exposing what we have deemed an injustice to the miner. Of course these puny outbursts of opposition are to be expected, but as we pursue our course steadily, we have declined to turn aside to notice them, or to allowed them in any way to turn down what they call "our propensities for fault finding." If, when the Commissioner overstepped his power, and deals with a dispute in a manner that we think is contrary to the Gold-field Act and regulations, it is the peculiar duty of the local journalist to notice the matter, and point out plainly where the error lines. We feel sure that Commissioner Browne is too honest, and sensible an officer to believe that in any adverse criticism we may make, we are animated by any personal feeling. On the contrary, we bear a willing testimony to Mr Browne's anxious desire to administer the regulations impartially and correctly; but this desire on his part does not - as he himself well knows - exempt him from criticism, or render it desirable that this should be so exempted. We have indulged in these preliminary remarks so as to prevent our criticism on another of his decisions being misunderstood.
On Tuesday last a case was heard before Mr Commissioner Browne in which the question to be decided was - "can a boy over 11 but under 12 years of age having a miners right, shepherd a share." Mr Belinfante who appeared for the complainant, argued that the boy could not, and Mr Johnson (Attorney) argued that he could. Mr Brown decided that such a boy could not shepherd or in any way represent a share. This decision has been the subject of considerable discussion and much "town talk," and we shall endeavour to prove that the Commissioner is indisputably wrong in giving utterance to such a judicial decision.
Those who are acquainted with the provisions of the Goldfield Act of 1861 will remember that in that sec-tion of it that defines the meaning of certain words used in the statute that the words "authorised persons" were defined to mean amongst many other things, per-sons under 14 years of age. To these persons miner's rights were not issued and we have seen them repeatedly refused. In the amended Act of 1866 this important safeguard was purposely admitted, and miners rights were therefore issued to "any person applying for the same." The effect of a miners right is - that during the period it is in force, the holder is authorised to mine upon any Crown Lands, and to occupy an area prescribed by the regulations, vide sec. 5. Now, in the face of this express enactment it is a matter for grave surprised how any officer could be so ignorant of the provisions of the Act of Parliament that created him a Commissioner, and the provisions of which the user specially appointed to carry out, as to say that a person to whom a miner’s right has been duly issued cannot mine upon Crown Lands. The Commissioner has no power, either expressed or implied, to debar any holder of a miner’s right from holding a share in any min-ing claim, on the ground that he is under a certain age. He is not empowered to decide such a question and his decision is beyond all doubt, ultra vires. It is to be regretted that more care is not taken in reading up the law bearing upon such disputes before giving a decision. If such a reasonable precaution was taken, much time, trouble, and money would be saved, litigation avoided, and, more important than all, the decision of the Commissioner would be looked up to with respect and confidence. We fear that the slovenly and peculiar manner in which mining disputes are know decided in every court on this goldfield, that respect is not one of the feelings engendered. We can hardly conceive any-thing more irritating than to hear a dispute involving no intricate question or the law bearing upon which is not doubtful or obscure, decided in a manner clearly against the law.
We can, we think, comprehend how this erroneous decisions a given. They are caused by the Commissioner thinking that he has the power to decide every mining dispute that is brought before him, whereas, in fact, there are many kinds of disputes that are altogether beyond his jurisdiction, and many complaints that in law are not disputes at all. In the particular case we have reviewed, a man, holding a miner’s right, comes onto a claim in which the boy, also holding a miner’s right, is occupying a share. The man takes position of it, under what regulation we know not - and the Commissioner does not enquire - and the boy, not leaving, the man lays a complaint of trespass. Now taking the definition of the word "trespass" in the Goldfield Act, we find that it is therein defined to mean an "unlawful interference with a right lawfully enjoyed under the Act." Well, the man does not law-fully enjoy any right in the claim, therefore there can be no trespass until he first proves his title; yet the lawful holder - the boy - is charged with a trespass that the has not committed. The late Mr Macarthur has been quoted as having decided that no boy under 12 should shepherding or hold a share. But he, in order to carry out this intention, refused to issue a miner’s right to any persons under that age, for, as he remarked, "being possessed of a miner’s right, placed the question beyond his power to interfere." This was what this officer did really do, and not what was asserted on Tuesday last. He had serious doubts as to the legality and suggested to the Minister for Lands that a regulation on the matter should be made. The minister possibly declined, as we know that in the present Act he intentionally omitted the definition of "authorised persons" (as we before stated) in order to avoid the many difficulties that its retention would create.
We are strongly opposed to children of such tender years holding a miners right, by which they are enabled to fill the place of a miner in occupying a claim. It is morally wrong, and cannot but have a most pernicious effect. We never, in an 18 years experience on the goldfield, saw the "boy" shepherd so numerous as he is on this goldfield; and we hope that in the amended mining statute, that we have been so long promised, the grievance will be dealt with immediately and decisively. Until then, as the law allows these children do hold miners rights, and consequently to occupy mining claims, they should be protected by the law, and not ousted by the erroneous decisions of a Commissioner.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 43, 9 December 1871
1871 - CORRESPONDENCE - Another of the Commissioner’s Decisions.
Sir – As the "Guardian" has been ever ready to expose any defects in the way thee regulations are administered, I ask room to lay before my fellow miners the diabolical manner in which Mr Commissioner Browne has capsized the Star Lead, or Con the Greek's. The lead has been shepherded for some distance below Con's prospecting claim for some months, and another prospecting claim taken up on the same line, and there are a great number of claims shepherding below the lower prospectors claim. Mr Con the Greek goes to the Commissioner and tells him that he wants to take his claim lower down, because he has proved that the claim below him is better than his own claim. Mr Browne directly comes on to the lead and ousts No. 1 and No. 2 and gives Mr Con the Greek the ground; then up comes the prospectors of the Red, White, and Blue, another lead entirely, and tells Mr Browne that they want a claim because they have been unlucky. He ousts another claim and puts them in. Then comes the grand shifting arrangement. He brings in the Surveyor and lays off a base line, and makes three claims less than the miners did themselves when they laid of a preliminary line, which would make six claims to be shifted the other side of the lower prospectors. He tells the shareholders of three of the said claims to take possession of a claim each, on the other side of the lower prospectors; the holders of the other three claims he flatly orders off, after shepherding for some months, and tells them that they have no busi-ness there. What do you call that but an exercise of authority neither warranted by law, facts, or common sense. Some of these men held claims before the lower prospectors took up their claim, and even shifted one claim higher up so as to allow the lower prospectors to take up a double claim, as the ground was all unoccupied below at that time, if the Commissioner is justified in ousting these men out of their legal rights, it is time for all the miners to leave the diggings and take to lambing down.
I am, Sir, JUSTICE.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 43, 9 December 1871
Sir,- If you will allow me room to insert a few lines in one of your valuables columns of the "Guardian", I shall feel greatly obligated, to expose the ungentlemanly expressions that Mr Commissioner Browne used towards me on the Star Lead. He not only ousts me out of a claim that I am legally entitled to, but tells me that "he never knew me to do any work on the diggings but jump claims." I should like to know what it is to do with Mr Browne whether I choose to work or not. I told him flatly that I would "jump" as he calls it again, whenever I could see a chance in a legal manner. If Mr Browne keeps those things in his head in the execution of his duty, it shows plainly that he bears malice, which ought not to be the case with any Commissioner on the goldfields.
I am, Sir, C.E. CUTHBERT
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 43, 9 December 1871
1871 - THE FRONTAGE REGULATIONS
(A section only)
(A section only)
There was a discussion in the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday in reference to the existing code of frontage regulations. No doubt the tone of the debate will amuse our readers who will perceive that without the "collective wisdom" any goldfield subject is still a sealed book. We commend the remarks of the Minister for Lands to the particular attention of the miners of this goldfield, who will find that Mr Bowie Wilson suffers from his chronic moral complaint - reckless untruthfulness - as virulent as ever. He says Mr Jones is opposed to the frontage system; Who in the deuce is Mr Jones?
The following is the report of the debate:-
Mr Baker moved - "That in the opinion of this House the frontage mining regulations, gazetted on the 25th August, and on the 10th October of the present year, has not remedied the defects that it is alleged previ-ously existed in the regulations relating to the frontage leads, and that they are, most of them, injudicious, and were quite uncalled for." The only other mode of bringing it before the House was by moving the ad-journment of the House. He pointed out elaborately the nature of his motion and the necessity for its pass-ing. Mr Farnell seconded the motion.
Mr Wilson said he was glad of an opportunity to remove certain misrepresentation. The Honourable Member had taken an unfortunate time to introduce this question. He had also asked the House to condemn the conduct of the Government on an important subject, without giving the House evidence in support of the charge he made against the Government. The House ought to have information to enable them to judge the matter in all its lights, before they are called upon to condemn the course pursued by the Government. The majority of the Commission condemned the frontage system. The Honourable Member (Mr Baker) wanted to extend that system. The chief witnesses examined by the Commission spoke strongly against the frontage system. Mr Jones stated, in page 81, that he was altogether opposed to the frontage system. He read the statement of the Commission in page 84 of the frontage system. It was under the influence of a strong pressure from practical miners that the regulations of August, 1871, were issued. He would rather have waited till the report of the Commission came out before he issued amended regulations. The great majority of intelligent miners at Gulgong acknowledged that the new regulations were an improvement on the older ones. The Government had made all possible inquiry, and had acted only with a view to meet the requirements of miners. No one would draw up regulations that could last in perpetuity. Great difficulty arose from the number of "leads" verging into one another. There was no evidence to show that this new regulations were uncalled for.
Mr Church said no doubt the new regulations had not put an end to the difficulty. That was shown by the monster petition he had presented. But they found there was a great difference of opinion about this frontage system. Even the Commissioners could not agree together about it. It was a very unfortunate thing for the goldfields that every new set of regulations gave less satisfaction than the code that preceded it. This he ascribed to the ignorance of the Ministers in charge of the matter.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 43, 9 December 1871
1872 - Frontage Regulations
A few day ago a case before Mr. Commissioner Browne and two assessors, involving the important question of whether the Commissioner had the power to shift a party out of the ground they have marked off on a frontage lead. The case tried may be summarised as follows, Marshall and party, [Mr. Bellinfante] had a claim on the Star Lead, before the prospectors, ‘Con the Greek and party’ were blocked off. In order to give the prospectors their claim on what they deemed to be golden ground, the Commissioner made their northern boundary the southern one, which compelled the two claims, Nos 1 and 2 N to shift on to the following numbers and so on to the end of the lead. This shifting process was generally objected to and but Mr. Browne quoted his authority the 11th Reg. of Aug 1871 which read as follows:- The Commissioner shall determine all questions as to the priority of occupation on the lead, and may alter the numbers and arrangement of the claims as circumstances may require’ and ordered the claims to shift down. Dr. Belinfante argued that no regulations made under the provisions of any Act could have the force of law, they were inconsistent with such Act. This 11th Reg. was repugnant to the spirit of the 5th Sec. of the Gold Field’s Act, and consequently the Commissioner’s order was bad. Mr. Clarke contended that is was necessary that the Commissioner should have the power to shift claims on the declaration of a lead, otherwise a serious confliction of rights would ensue. The assessors gave their decision in favour of the complainants, thus decreeing that the Commissioner had not the power to order claims to be shifted. With all due deference to the wisdom of the assessors, we most decidedly disagree with their interpretation of the regulations. It has ever been one of the principles of the frontage system that on the declaration of a lead, all previous marks of claims shall be cancelled, and the claims allotted as surveyed. The wisdom of this is, we presume, apparent to the most stupid person. The 11th Reg. carries out this principle, though somewhat obscurely. The argument that the Regulation is contrary to Sec 5th of the Gold Field’s Act is an absurd one. That section simply authorises the holder to mine upon a certain area of land as may be prescribed under the regulations and of course, until the claim is allotted. We are of the opinion that the Commissioner has the power to shift the claim under the 11th Reg., and that there is no appeal against his de-cision, it being a discretionary one.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 48, 13 January 1872
1872 - Police Court
Before Commissioner Browne and Two Assessors
Mining trespass – Russell and party v. Nichols and party on No. 18 N Black Lead. Having heard the advocates for the parties, the assessors decided that occupation took precedence of registration, and gave judgment for defendants.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 50, 27 January 1872
1872 - Hospital Meeting
Newly elected committee of management is T.A. Browne Esq. PM. in the chair, Messrs. Donaldson, Cregan, Sellman, T. F. DeC. Browne, Hon sec. Tenders called for Supplies.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 51, 3 February 1872
1872 - SWINGING THE BASELINE
A case was heard before the Commissioner and two assessors, on Thursday last, in which Smith and party, calling themselves No.3 N Cosmopolitan Lead, were the complainants, and Bradley and party, No.2 N Black Swan Lead, were defendants. Mr A.A. O’Connor appeared for the Cosmopolitan and Mr. T.F. DeCourcy Browne for the Black Swan. The issue tried was as follows:-
In July last the defendants a occupied a claim on the Black Swan lead, and a week after they took possession they were prohibited from working by order of the Commissioner, until the Black Lead claims, in whose wings the Black Swan was supposed to run, had blocked off. On the 7th October the complainant took up a claim on what was called the Cosmopolitan Lead, and in accordance with Reg. 11, of August, 1871, marked of their claim on a temporary base line. On the 2nd November, the Commissioner, at the request of the Black Swan claimholders, laid down a new base line for the Black Swan Lead, and allotted the claims thereon. No.2 N on this lead, owned by the defendants, taking in the ground claimed by the complainants as No.3 N, Cosmopolitan Lead. The complainants appealed against the decision of the Commissioner with reference to the swinging of the base line; but the appeal was dis-missed for want of jurisdiction. The defendants have since the appeal been in undisturbed possession. Mr. O'Connor contended for the complainants - 1st. That the Commissioner had no power to swing a base line, as the regulation authorising him to do so, was contrary to Sec. 5 of the Goldfields Act. 2nd. That the complainants having been in possession of ground out-sides the claim held by the defendant before the base line was swung could not be ousted from occupancy, by any alteration of the direction of the base line of a senior lead. He argued this point for nearly two hours. Mr Browne for the defence contended - 1. That under the present code of frontage rules, it was an essential condition of them, that in order that the frontage claims should obtain the lead that the base line be swung. 2. That the Black Swan being the senior lead, and the alteration of its original base line having been made before any base line was laid down by the Cosmopolitan, the defendants were lawfully in possession of the ground in dispute. 3. That Sec. 5 of the Goldfields Act did not confer any title to the ground except in the manner provided by the regulations made under the Act. 4. That his was not the province of the Commissioner or his assessors to say whether or not a reg-ulation was contrary to the Goldfields Act; that was for a Court of Review to say. The Commissioner and assessors having deliberation, decided in favour of defendants, the Commissioner stating that in any future dispute between these leads, the question of cost would be entertained.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 52, 10 February 1872
1872 - St. Patrick’s Day
The programme of sports at Homer’s Paddock, has been adopted, and will appear in Saturday’s issue. A vote of thanks was passed to Mr. Commissioner Browne for granting the use of the Court House for a ball in the evening; also to the Guardian & Argus for their generous offer of advertising. A splendid band will be engaged for the evening, and as the whole of the surplus funds raised will be handed over to the hospital, we believe that the public will attend en masse. May the committee succeed brilliantly in there efforts for so good a cause as the relief of the and suf-fering of this populous goldfield.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 54, 21 February 1872
1872 - MINING REPORT
... The report that has been current for the past week, and generally believed in, that payable gold had been found in what is known as the "Chance Lead” has, as we expected from an examination of the locality, proved to be untrue. We were told very positively that 5½ dwts to 5 dishes had been washed, but we refused to give currency to such a report without convincing proof. On Friday morning Mr Commissioner Browne visited the ground with the Mining Surveyor to lay down a base line. He sent two men down the so called prospectors shaft to knock down a prospect and wash it. They done so, and could not obtained a payable prospect. To add to this, the depth of the shaft when measured by the Surveyor proved to be only 87 feet deep, or 13 feet too shallow to bring it under the provisions of the frontage regulations, consequently no base line could they laid down. This result has caused much adverse comment, as the prospectors had repeatedly stated that they had found payable gold, and this induced some hundreds of men to mark of claims, register, and occupy them...
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 69, 13 April 1872
1872 - Extraordinary Mining Appeal Case - The Mudgee Ring Again
Appeal Court, Thursday April 18th.
Before Messrs. McDonnell and Tebbutt JP
Title to a Block Claim
F. Osborne, John Russell, Stephen Tuckerman and Charles Single, appellants.
George Cowin, Michael Griffiths and John Berry, respondents.
Mr. Johnson for appellants, Mr. Clarke for respondents.
This was an appeal from the decision of Mr. Commissioner Browne and two assessors, who decided in favour of respondents as to the title to a block claim on the East wing of No. 21 and 22 N, Black Lead.
The appellants were the registered claimants, and the respondents the occupation claimants. As the evidence exposes how the Mining Registrar’s Office was worked under the notorious 27th Regulations of August 1871, we give a copious summary of it as follows:-
F. Osborne, sworn: I produce the book for registration of claims. The block was applied for in writing. I wrote it. I do not know where the application is. I believe it is in Mr. Commissioner Browne’s custody. The claim in question is in the book the ninth in order of registration on August 28th. I am one of the appellants. I know Mr. Russell, I first saw him about 9am on that day in my office. When I made the entry I gave a certificate of registration. I signed the certificate F.S. Osborne, pro T.A. Browne, who on that date was Mining Registrar. I was his private clerk. I came to the Mining Registrar’s Office that morning with Messrs. Tuckerman, Russell and Single before 5am. They came to my residence before 5am. I did not receive registrations. I received applications to register. I received no money that morning. I did not receive half a sovereign. I took down the applications, and entered them in the book. I could not say how many I entered. I registered myself in two of the blocks as a shareholder. I do not know whether I entered Dr. Belinfante’s name. I believe it was on a Monday morning I registered the blocks. When Mr. Browne came to the office that morning I got him to sign his name over mine. I do not remember if Mr. Russell got the certificates before Mr. Browne signed them. When the office opened some other persons came in to register the same blocks.
Henry Palmer, sworn: I am the registered agent for F. Osborne. I know the blocks of 21 N Black Lead. The frontage blocked on January 18th. I pegged off the block on January 19th in the evening by putting four pegs in. There were four men present, Henningham, Lawler and Nicholson. Each man put a peg in. We pegged off the block within 48 hours after the frontage block off. We started to sink, but were stopped by order of the Commissioner. To Mr. Clarke: I pegged off the claim as agent for Mr. Osborne and produced the certificate. Henningham agent for Russell. This case was for the appellants.
Mr. Clarke said that he thought there was no case made out. Henningham was stated to be Russell’s agent, but it was not shown on the miners right. Palmer had sworn that he pegged off the block as the registered agent of Mr. Osborne. Under Reg. 10 of the repeal code an agent could only be appointed when the holder of a share in a claim was absent from the locality . Mr. Osborne was not absent and therefore Palmer illegally acted for him, and could not in any case peg out a claim as an agent. There was no proof that the four men who pegged out the claim held a miner’s right, without which they had no right on the ground at all. There was no proof either that there was any transfer from the registered holders to the appellants.
The Bench held that the appellants had not proven their case. Appeal dismissed
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 71, 20 April 1872
1872 - Amateur Concert
An Amateur Concert was given by the Guntawang Mutual Improvement Society on Tuesday evening last, in the School room of the village. Commissioner Browne presided in the absence of Mr. Rouse, he sang ‘The Cattle Muster’. The society has 50 members.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 71, 20 April 1872
1872 - EDITORIAL
The report of the case of Osborne and party v Cowin and party, heard in the Appeal Court on Thursday last, and a full report of which will be found in another column, exposes one of the most discreditable mining frauds there has been recorded for years. On the 25th August, 1871, a new code of frontage regulations were gazetted, one of which was the notorious 27th Regulation which created the order of "registered block claim holders." A copy of the Government Gazette, containing the regulations, reached Mudgee on Sunday, the 27th August, when a "ring" was formed to register all the block claims on each side of the Black Lead as far as No. 2 North. A portion of the "ring" arrived on Gulgong late on Sunday night, or early on Monday morning, and proceeded to execute their nefarious plan of operations. At that time Mr Commissioner Browne had thrust upon him the united offices of Police Magistrate, Clerk of Petty Sessions, Gold Commissioner, and Mining Registrar. He was of course physically and mentally unable to attend personally to the discharge of the onerous and varied duties of these offices. To attend to the duties required of the Mining Register he employed a Clerk named Osborne, in whom he of necessity had to place a certain degree of confidence. To the house of this clerk the members of the "ring" went, and having aroused him he, at their request, accompanied them to the registrar's office at "three o'clock" on Monday morning, and their received written applications for over a dozen block claims, and registered them in the usual register-book, issuing certificates of registration in the usual manner. As a token of gratitude for his pliancy in this impudent swindle, this trusted clerk was entered as a shareholder in two of the block claims, the title to one of which was the case in which the exposure was made on Thursday. Having succeeded so far with their plan, the next step was to obtain the Commissioners signature, as Mining Register, to the certificates of registration which had been signed by this confidential clerk in his name. This, we understand, was done successfully, and thus ended the first part of creating a title to a valuable mining property. The second part was the pegging off of the block claims after the frontage claims had been blocked off. In this the "ring" was not successful. They did not understand occupation so well as registration, and therefore spoiled the success of their well made plan. They lost the case on Thursday. They failed in the case of Lodge v Cowin, and, in fact, have not reaped the benefit that they calculated upon. We are in possession of much disturbing information in connection with the working of this "ring;" details of which if exposed would astonish many, and inflict a lasting injury on men who innocently became the victims of this disgraceful conspiracy. As there are other cases between this registered "ring" and the occupiers of block claims yet to be heard, we give them a fair warning, that if they dare to bring one of them into Court we will lift the veil, and have justice meted out to all concerned. The members of this cleverly-concocted fraud know full well how they perfected the title to the various blocks. They may believe us when we say that we know how the "doctoring" was done quite as well as themselves, and will not hesitate to use that knowledge if circumstances warranted such a course. We do not desire to "Bell the Cat," we leave that to those whose duty it is to do so; but having exposed the depravity, we hope it will be a warning. With reference to the trusted clerk, Osborne, we consider his retention in the Mining Registrar's Office will be detrimental to the public interest. There has long been a feeling of want of confidence in the business transactions of this office, and as this exposure proves that it was not without foundation, the cause must be removed. As under the new system of registration the titles to claims will materially depend upon the accuracy of the records of this office, its business should be transacted in a manner free from suspicion. Mr Osborne was placed in a position of trust but an overworked Commissioner, who could not possibly excise the supervision requisite to prevent irregularities. He betrayed that trust, and placed the Commissioner in a false and very unpleasant position, and as a matter of good Government, and even as an ordinary business precaution, we think that he should be placed beyond the reach of a similar temptation, otherwise the frauds will rankle in the minds of those who have to do business in the office.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 71, 20 April 1872
1872 - New Gold Rush [The Birth of Home Rule]
On Monday last Mr. Commissioner Browne visited the new rush at Cooyal Creek, near Chapel’s crushing machine, in order to decide whether it should be occupied on the frontage or the block. On his arrival he ordered two disinterested miners to descend the shaft and “knock out” a prospect. This was done, and the result was 2½ dwts for two dishes. The depth of the shaft was 87 ft., but as Reg. 22 requires that three shafts must be bottomed in order to test the depth, the Commissioner ordered the claims either side of the prospecting shaft to sink. As the sinking is good, a week should decide if the locality will be alive with working miners, occupied by the halt, the lame, and the blind, the young and tender as shepherds.
The prospectors have called the rush ‘Home Rule’, a name significant in many ways, one being home rule for the goldfields – ie, that the miners should have a direct voice in the making of the laws. About 1200 visit the locality daily, and tend to give the Canadian a lively, and bustling appearance.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 76, 8 May 1872
1872 - Commissioner’s Notice
I hereby Reserve and Temporarily Withhold from Occupation the portion of ground known as the Racecourse until May 25th, all persons are hereby cautioned against working there on.
T.A. Browne, Commissioner.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 77, 11 May 1872
1872 - District Coroner
T.A. Browne, Police Magistrate has been appointed Coroner for the district of Gulgong. This appointment will prove a public convenience as well as carrying out in a practical way the theory of retrenchment.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 78, 15 May 1872
1872 - EDITORIAL
It seems that the lawful and sensible decision of Commissioner Browne with references to placing the Home Rule rush on the "block" is unsatisfactory to those who held frontage claims and to those small speculators who invest in shares while all the ground was provisionally held in frontage claims. Of course it is absurd to expect that the Commissioner can please everybody, especially in a decision in connection with the frontage system, but though in the matter of the "Home Rule" while he has displeased the few, he has received the approval of the many...
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 80, 22 May 1872
1872 - Town Talk (By Photo)
...What has become of Commissioner Browne? I know that he went to Sydney about a fortnight ago, but I have not heard whether he has returned. Various rumours are afloat. One is that he is drawing up a new code of frontage regulations which will ‘block’ all litigation. If he is doing this I fear he must reside up the Parramatta River for good. Strange to say, I’ve not heard a single inquiry for the Commissioner since he left, yet were he here the cry is ‘Where is he?’ would be heard a hundred times a day, now, when it is not known where he is, no curiosity is evident, except by the law breakers, who have to put in an appearance at the well ventilated Police Court before the “Venerable Tebby” [H Tebbutt JP]...
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 83, 1 June 1872
1872 - Public Inconvenience
More than a fortnight ago Commissioner Browne left for Sydney as a witness in a mining case. No provision appears, to have been made to have his commissioner’s [duties] performed by a suitable officer. The result is that mush serious inconvenience is experienced all over the goldfield. On the Helvetia Lead is at a stand-still waiting for the Commissioner, Home Rule is in a similar fix. Many disputes summonses issued for the hearing of mining disputes with assessors are postponed, at much loss of time for all concerned. It is simply astonishing that such a lax, slovenly system of management should be tolerated. Some efficient provision should have been for Mr Browne’s duties being performed during his absence before he left. There was ample time to do so, but the happy-go-lucky style of transacting public business that pervades all departments, especially on the goldfields, reigns supreme, and the largest and most populous goldfield in the colony is left to look after itself. Most certainly the Commissioner-in-charge should have some controlling power in such matters, otherwise there will be no system or efficient authority in connection with the discharge of a Commissioner’s duties. The present state of muddle cannot be longer borne without an outburst of popular feeling that will not be forgotten in a hurry. There is a Police Magistrate acting as a Commissioner in Mudgee who has not much to do. Why could he not be temporally transferred to Gulgong.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 85, 8 June 1872
1872 - The Home Rule Dispute
Yesterday Mr Commissioner Browne visited the Home Rule to give his final decision on the question of “block” v “frontage”. He decided that all ground from the prospectors to the southern boundary of No.9 frontage should be worked in block claims, and from No.9 northward the frontage should prevail. As we desire to deal with the Home Rule muddle in a complete manner and give our opinion on all the proceedings connected with it, we will reserve our remarks until the Wednesday’s issue. If what we hear
is true about the pressure brought to bear and the manoeuvring brought resorted to, it is time that roll-ups should bear fruit.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 87, 15 June 1872
1872 - Demonstration by Home Rule Miners
On Thursday last it became know in town that the miners at the Home Rule had held a public meeting that morning and had determined to walk in procession to Gulgong, and interview Commissioner Browne concerning the existing difficulty of Block vs Frontage. Shortly after 11 o’clock a large and orderly crowd was seen approaching the town through Queen Street proceeded by a strong Brass Band playing ‘March through Georgia.’ Following the band were two stalwart standard bearers each bearing a
flag. At the head of the procession were the deputation of four - Messrs. Duffy, Baker, Moor and Harris. It then proceeded along Queen and Herbert Streets as far as the Camp Reserve, and thence to the Commissioner’s office, where they delivered an address to the Commissioner as adopted by the public
meeting :-
“To T.A. Browne, Esq., P.M., Gold Commissioner in charge of the Gulgong Gold Field.
At a monster public meeting held this morning at the Home Rule rush we were appointed to wait upon you with reference to the dispute now pending between the block and frontage, and to respectfully lay before you the resolution unanimously adopted by that meeting:-
That the decision of the Commissioner with reference to placing the Home Rule rush upon the “Block” being according to law, justice, and common sense, we are determined to uphold the decision in its integrity, and to resist to the utmost by every lawful means, any attempt to vary or rescind that decision.”
Mr Browne said that the miners were perfectly right in dealing with their grievances in so manly, orderly, and constitutional a manner. He had always been treated with respect by them, which he much appreciated. He had always endeavoured to deal fairly and honestly to all, and administer the regulations impartially to the best of his ability. He regretted this difficulty at Home Rule, and would be there at 11 o’clock of Friday to give his final decision. (You've decided already.) He was aware he had, and it was probable that that decision might be varied a little on Friday, when he hoped the matter would be settled satisfactorily. (Cheers).
The procession, which now numbered about 1,800, then proceeded by Medley, Bayly and Herbert Street to Selff’s Hotel, from the balcony of which Mr Duffy communicated the Commissioner’s answer. He urged them to be firm and united, and to uphold the “block” to the end. (Cheers). In response to repeated calls Mr DeCourcy Browne came forward and addressed the assemblage. “He said he was glad to see that they were at last on the war path, and now felt hopeful in the cause of mining reform. He endorsed emphatically the decision of the Commissioner in placing Home Rule on the “block.” (Cheers.) The frontage system was never intended by its inventors to apply to dry ground. It was a humbug and a delusion to apply it to the Home Rule. He counselled moderation in their conduct and language, and any excess would weaken their cause and strengthen their enemies. He urged them to be united and firm, and he was sure that in the end justice would triumph. The Commissioner had decided and the law must now take its course. He called for three cheers for the Queen and one for the Home Rule which was responded to.
Mr Sweeney in an earnest stirring speech endorsed Mr Browne’s statements and condemned the “frontage” as the curse of the goldfield. The “block” system meant work and gold, the “frontage” idleness and starvation. (Cheers.) The meeting then dispersed until 3 pm when the procession reformed and left for the Home Rule to the livening strains of “Cheer Boys Cheer” which would no doubt cheer them up on their seven mile walk.
The whole proceedings were of the most orderly character, reflecting credit on the men and their leaders.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 87, 15 June 1872
1872 - EDITORIAL
Mr Commissioner Browne has made for himself a very unenviable reputation by his management of the Home Rule rush. He has, by his extraordinary interpretation of the goldfield’s regulations, created such a feeling of discontent that will we fear will culminate, if not in bloodshed, in such an outburst of popular feeling as will not be forgotten for years. This is no exaggeration of the case, but only a reasonable deduc-tion from facts. A brief outline of Commissioner Browne's blundering will enable the public to judge whether we exaggerated the case, and also if the miners of the Home Rule have not a full justification for the manly course they have chosen in the matter.
On the 15th May Mr Browne visited the home Rule in order to learn the facts concerning the alleged discovery of payable gold there. Having satisfied himself that payable gold did exist, and that the depth of the prospectors shaft, as well as those on two other claims, was under one hundred feet in depth, he de-clared the rush open for occupation in "block" claims. We have taken great pains to learn the truth of this, and we are now in a position to state that beyond all doubt he without any limit or reservation declared the Home Rule rush to the upon the block. This decision did not give satisfaction, for within a day or two no less then twelve appeals against that decision were duly lodged. Business called him to Sydney, and during his absence a number of summonses against the “bock” claimholders were issued by the Clerk of Petty Sessions in his magisterial capacity at the instance of the frontage claimants, who did not rest content with this, but sent two of their number to Sydney, who had an interview with the Minister for Lands, and others on the subject. Mr Browne being in Sydney, he, we believe, was asked for his version of the transaction, and gave it, we do not of course know the exact result of this "log-rolling," nor yet what view his official superior took of the matter, but judging from the action taken by the Commissioner on his return, there is little doubt that the Minister for Lands gave some specific instructions to him respecting the matter, for on the 13th June, a couple of days after his return from Syd-ney, Mr Browne visited the Home Rule and hinted that he had changed his opinion on the subject of block verses frontage, and would on the following day give his final decision. This peculiar information seemed to have aroused the suspicions of the miners, and to have confirmed the rumours prevalent for days previous, that the Commissioner was likely to vary his first decision. A "role-up," of 1,500 men marched six miles in procession to Gulgong, and by a deputation presented a resolution to the Commissioner that they intended "by every lawful means" to resist any attempt to vary or reverse his first decision. On the day after this demonstration he visited the Home Rule, and to the utter disgust and amazement of the thousand miners around him, he stated that his final decision was that the block claims would not extend beyond the boundaries of No. 8 N frontage claim. The roar of disapproval that followed this humiliating attempted to pander to the "careful manoeuvrers" was but a natural result, and evoked a feeling of active resistance that has not yet subsided. We have failed to find under what law or regulation this pitiable vacillation can be claimed to be justifiable. We protest in the name of public decency and common justice against this attempted perversion of the law. There is not any justification for this extraordinary final decision, and we repudiate it as being founded on a desire to pander to official interference and corrupt influences. Will Mr Browne or any of those whom he has tried to propiti-ate say that he can on the 14th June vary or rescind a decision given by him one month previously, especially when a number of appeals and summonses await being heard against the legality of that decision? Can he take from a party of miners a claim in which they have worked hard and steadily for weeks and give it to another party whose sole right is his will? Where is the word "final" to be found in the Act or Regulations that we can apply it to his attempt of Thursday last to bring the law into contempt? There is doubtless some mamby-pamby persons who would counsel the miners to take this matter coolly. When men do not feel the injustice of a judicial act they do not as a rule under-stand why the victim should kick against the griev-ance. Mr Browne has now been a year in charge of the goldfields, and should, if he possesses any mental or administrative capacity, have every detail of the front-age system at his finger tips. But the has not. He does not feel any pride in his office. He cares not to learn by experience. Like many more members of the Civil Service of these Colony, he feels contented if he can muddle along, draw his salary, and then "rest and be thankful." Any officer with a spark of pride in him would have felt keenly the disgrace such as was inflicted on Commissioner Browne on Monday last, when his authority was defied, and himself hooted off the rush. With an indiscretion only equaled by the foolhardiness of the act, he visited the Home Rule on Monday accompanied by two mounted Constables to enforce his decision on Thursday. The miners felt the insult conveyed by the presence of the Police, and quickly perceived that they had to deal with a man de-ficient in moral and physical courage, and soon showed by their actions that they treated both with contempt, and were determined to abide by the law.
It is a matter for a searching inquiry into the continued blundering of the Commissioner. Almost every deci-sion he gives produces litigation, which of course retards the development of the goldfield, and has made the law and its tribunals a buy-word of contempt. We have spoken out strongly and with feeling in this Home Rule blunder. We know what miners are, and how patient they are under grievances that if endured by any other class would create a great outcry. On this goldfield their bearing has been commendable in the highest degree. They have been the victims of a series of administrative blunders almost beyond belief, and if now they have been driven to follow their present course, no intelligent man can blame them. We do not here say that the Commissioner's decision on the 15th May was either according to law or otherwise. That is not the question. But we do say that having given that decision, and its legality being in process of being tested in the Appeal Court, he is deserving of the severest censure for his actions of Thursday last, by which he sought to practically override that decision, and thus has evoked such a feeling that it will be fortu-nate if nothing disastrous results from it. We have dealt with Mr Browne as a Commissioner solely. We believe him to be an honest minded gentlemen, well intentioned, and entirely free from that corruption that is rampant on this goldfield, but truth compels us to say that as a Commissioner he lacks that discretion and firmness, that capacity to govern and to profit by experience so necessary in such an officer. Some months ago we warned him against the danger and degradation of having a "conscience keeper." We asked him to interpret the regulations for himself, and not ask any persons advice as to what decision he should give in a mining dispute. He has disregarded that friendly warning, and the result is that painful sce-ne at the Home Rule on Monday last.
The Home Rule miners have acted wisely in sending two delegates to Sydney to explain their grievances. The petition to be presented to Mr Parkes sets forth fully the disorganised state of the goldfield, and if the Premiere does not supply a prompt remedy he will, when perhaps too late, regret that the did not. We have every confidence however that Mr Parkes will give the matter his most earnest consideration, and that, as a result, we should be able to chronicle a "change for the better" in the management of this important gold-field.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 88, 19 June 1872
The difficulty at the Home Rule rush appears to have been aggravated by the interference of the Minister for Lands. While willing to make every allowance for the inexperience of this new fledged Minister, we confess to a feeling of surprise at his defective knowledge not only of official routine but of the simple fundamental rule of justness and equity – to hear both sides before he gives a decision. Mr Farnell does not appear to have done so. He claims to have been satisfied with the representation of the frontage claimants, as laid before him, and of the version of the difficulty as given to him by Mr Commissioner Browne. Of the statement of the frontage representatives we regret to being unable to say that they a founded on fact. Hearsay coupled with an excited imagination, is the leading evidence of these claimants, and it is a matter for grave surprised to all that more care was not taken by them in preparing the materials of their case. If that had been used, we feel sure that the Minister for Lands would not have issued the instruction to the Commissioner that he is reported to have done. Whether rightly or wrongly, we cannot positively assert, but it is currently believed that the Minister for Lands has issued some specific instructions to Commissioner Browne with reference to what his decision on the 14th June should be in the dispute between the block and frontage claimholders on the Home Rule rush.
Taking for granted that the Minister for Lands has so far forgotten himself as to interfere in the dispute on behalf of one side, we should like to be informed un-der what section of the Goldfields Act or any other regulation in such matters. Given a statute with a code of regulations made under its provisions by which a Justice, sworn to dispense that law without fear, fa-vour, or affection to the rich and poor alike, is required to give a decision, we ask in the name of justice by what right any Minister of the Crown, or any other person, from the representative of the Queen down-wards, dare to say a good a magistrate you shall interpret - regulations in a particular way? We deny the right of anyone to dictate to Commissioner Browne what interpretation he shall put upon any mining regu-lations, he is appointed to administer the mining laws. If any person feels aggrieved at his decision, there is a lawful constituted tribunal to review that decision and finally decide thereon, and we protest most earnestly against any Minister perverting the functions of his office to interfere in the proper administration of the law. Supposing that Commissioner Browne was in er-ror - that his decision of the 15th May was an erroneous one. Is the Minister for Lands aware that twelve appeals against that decision have been duly lodged, and are fixed for hearing on the 27th instant - and if aware of these appeals being lodged, will he state why he interfered, to cause the Commissioner to vary the decision under review by the Appeal Court ?. It can only be ignorance, coupled with inexperience that has led him to utter an opinion or give instructions of any kind likely to affect the impartiality of the Appeal Court. We hope for the fair fame and reputation of the Parkes administration that the Minister for Lands will be found to have acted with discretion and impartiality in this matter, for there is nothing that miners so strongly resent as tampering, whether knowingly or otherwise, with the administration of the mining laws. They have enough to suffer from the absurdities and injustice of these laws without having them aggravat-ed by the minister in charge of the goldfield. Repre-hensible as the interference of the Minister may be, when the conduct of one of the local justness is still more so. (Cannot read the following paragraph) The simple dispute at the Home Rule appears, through official blundering to have assumed a very serious as-pect, which is to be regretted for many reasons. The management of the goldfields appears to be in a hope-less state of muddle, and must promptly have a reme-dy applied. It is almost impossible to have a mining dispute, no matter how simple, heard and decided un-der two or three months, thus occasioning much an-noyance and lots of time. We have heard that Mr O'Malley Clarke, the Commissioner in charge of the southern goldfield, has been ordered here to set the goldfield in order. We feel sure that we but echo the unanimous wish of the miners when we say that we hope the report is true, as in him they will have an of-ficer with a "will of his own," competent to interpret-ing the regulations, and with a "style" that will com-mand respect from all. This is the only Commissioner in the Colony competent to govern a frontage gold-field, and we do think that if he visited the goldfield and set it in order that it would be the simplest and most satisfactory solution of the existing difficulty. Possibly, the petition signed by two thousand miners, coupled with the representations of the two delegates now in Sydney, will lead to a radical change in the management of the goldfield, and of this goldfield in particular. If so, the present agitation will have proved an unexpected bonus.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 89, 22 June 1872
1872 - MINING APPEAL FROM GULGONG.
Yesterday afternoon a deputation from the new Home Rule rush at Cooyal Creek, near Gulgong, consisting of Messrs J. P. Sweeney and R. Gillies, waited upon the Colonial Secretary, who was accompanied by the Solicitor-General, the member for the district, to lay before him a statement of their dissent from a recent decision of the goldfields Commissioner. It was mentioned at the outset, in terms of a telegram that had been forwarded to the delegates, that 6 affidavits had been dispatched from Gulgong in relation to the dis-pute, which would probably arrive today (Tuesday); meantime it was thought desirable to submit an abstract of the case. Mr Sweeney then read a lengthy narrative of the transaction, from which it appeared that at the beginning of May, Mr Commissioner Browne visited the rush in order to decide whether the ground should be worked on the frontage or the block. Having found that a prospect had been obtained at the depth of 87 fleet, the Commissioner directed that three more shafts should be sunk, in order to test the ground under the 22nd clause of the new Goldfields Regulations of March, 1872. These claims having bottomed at under 100 feet, he at once, on the 15th May, de-clared that the ground should be held in block claims. This decision, the deputation allege, gave general satisfaction to the miners, the majority of them believing that the decision gave fair play to all. The claimholders of No. 6, however, represented that they had sunk 100 feet, and a large number of blockers were summoned for trespass by the frontage holders. It is now contended, however, that the shaft of No. 6, was only 96 feet instead of 100 as stated; and the Commissioner finally decided on the 14th June, that the claims below No. 7 should be worked upon the frontage system, thus to a great extent reversing his former decision. It was stated that the signatures to the forthcoming affidavits could have been signed by all the practical miners on the rush, as also two-thirds of the business people of the place. A great number of men had arrived from Victoria and Queensland who were anxious to take up blocks on the lead. By the 22nd Regulation, the frontage system could not be brought into operation under 100 feet in dry, and 60 feet in wet or rocky ground, of which the bottoming of three or more shafts on the supposed line of lead shall be a sufficient test, unless the Commissioner shall specially sanction a further testing, all marked on the supposed line of lead shall be null, and the ground shall then be taken up on the block form, the frontage holders having a preference to select their claims in rotation according to their priority of occupation on the supposed lead; provided that each miner shall have the right to include in his block claim any shaft which may have been sunk by him to a depth of at least two-thirds of the depth of the nearest prospecting shaft on the same lead or workings, and it was contended that the decision of the Commissioner was, therefore, clearly opposed to the rule. The solicitor-general and Mr Parkes put several questions which stripped the case of various technicalities, and thus clearly ascertained the position of the views of that portion of the mining community of Gulgong who were averse to the views of the advocates of the block system, who were represented by the deputation to exceed the objectors in the proportion of one to twenty. In conclusion, the deputation stated that the great majority of the miners placed the most implicit trust in the impartial sense of justice in which their case would be considered by the Premier and the Solicitor-General; and they felt confident that the statements would be borne out when the affidavits of those persons who had measured the workings arrived. It was arranged before the deputation retired, that they should call at the Colonial Secretary's office at an early hour this morning and furnish the affidavits if they should arrive by the mail.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 91, 29 June 18721872 - A Novel Sight
The regular visitors to the Police Court must have been astonished on Tuesday last, when no less than seven magistrates were to be seen in Court at once, namely, Messrs. Browne, P.M., Rouse, Medley, Clements, Tebbutt, McDonnell and Donaldson C.P.S. There were twenty-nine summons cases set down for hearing, and, probably this magisterial roll-up was to report them through. Unfortunately, up to one o’clock, not one case was finished.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 92, 3 July 1872
1872 - Home Rule Dispute.
Mr Johnson, Commissioner-in-charge of the western goldfields, arrived in Gulgong on Saturday forenoon, to inquire into the Home Rule dispute, and to report upon the management of the goldfields generally. On Monday he visited the Home Rule in company with Mr Davidson, Mining Surveyor, and instructed that officer to make a rough plan of the workings, showing the position and depths of the test and other shafts. On Tuesday he was engaged taking evidence relating to the dispute. We very much regret to hear that when the mining surveyor visited the Home Rule on Tuesday to measure the depth of the shaft and prepare his plan, he was preventable by some misguided men from lying a connecting line between the prospectors and the test shafts, although he showed and read Commissioner Johnson's order for doing so. It is evident that the claimholders are labouring under a wrong impression as to the object of the Surveyor using this chain upon their claims. They fancy he may thus be laying a base line, and so getting to the windward of them. We assure them that the surveyor is only performing a simple necessary at in order to show the relative position of the three test shafts, by which Commissioner Browne was guided on the 15th May. It is imperative that this should be done in order that a reliable report founded on facts and not hearsay may be forwarded by Mr Johnson. We hope that no further interruptions will be offered to the mining surveyor obeying his instructions, so will not, in any way, interfere with their title to the ground. All concerned may take our "tip" in this matter. The offenders of Tuesday have been summoned, but we hope that they will not be severely dealt with, as it is evident it was a missconception of the surveyors intentions, and not rowdyism that lead them to commit the offence.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 92, 3 July 1872
1872 - Fatal Mining Accident
Coroner T.A. Browne P.M., held an inquiry at Lowe’s paddock upon the body of Bryan Tonkin Richards, who met his death the previous day by a quantity of falling earth while working in a drive No. 6 South Block, Lowe’s paddock.
Robert Wilson stated he was working with the deceased, the drive was 20 to 30 feet from the bottom of the shaft; deceased was filling a truck, a quantity of earth fell on him, he was about 4 feet from the deceased, he was so confused that he did not know what became of the deceased, until he saw Daniel McKay and William Irwin getting the deceased from under the earth. Irwin and McKay, Walter Donnolly [manager of the claim], gave evidence, as did John Lloyd who stated he knew Richards for about 18 months and he was Cornwall, England and about 26 years old. Dr. Ramsay was called and he stated the deceased had died from a fracture of the skull. Verdict accidental death.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 93, 6 July 1872
1872 - EDITORIAL
The Home Rule dispute has advanced another stage towards, we hope, a satisfactory conclusion. Mr Commissioner Johnson has been engaged during the week taking voluminous evidence in connection with this serious dispute from both block and frontage claimants. He has patiently heard each witness, and faithfully recorded the evidence as tended, so that there is no excuse to say bye-and-bye that the evidence is not correct. It was taken almost verbatim, and in the presence of a numerous body of miners, comprising both sides.
In is not our intention at this stage of the inquiry to deal with the evidence offered - we will wait until the decision of the government is made known, and then we can, without prejudice, review it in detail. But there is one item of evidence in which we deem it our duty at the earliest opportunity to publish and criticise. We allude to a telegram, dated 11th June, from the Under Secretary for Lands to Mr Commissioner Browne, and worded as follows:-
"in the case of to Messrs Brainaud and Murray suspend action; letter by post. The Home Rule should be worked under the frontage system."
Acting upon the instructions conveyed in this telegram, Mr Browne visited the Home Rule on the 14th June and limited the operation of the "block" system to the northern parallel of what was called No.7 North, frontage claim. Why at No.7 ?, we will not now discuss.
We do not think that the history of the Colony furnishes a more glaring instance of attempting to tamper with the impartial administration of the law than is furnished by this telegram. It may perhaps be instructive to many, and enable all to more clearly comprehend what we shall call the "grave indiscretion" of Mr Farnell, the Minister for Lands, in connection with this dispute. We shall state facts, so that no misunderstanding shall exist in forming an opinion on the conduct of the minister. On the 15th May, by virtue of a clearly defined power vested in him, the Commissioner gave a decision under the 22nd Regulation that the Home Rule working should be worked in block claims. On the 18th May he repeated that decision. This decision, it seems, gave great offence to a few frontage claimholders, who possess a little money, and we wish we could say an equal amount of discretion in using it. These malcontents went to Sydney and made a statement of their alleged grievance to the Minister for Lands, who, without hearing their opponents, ordered the now famous telegram quoted to be sent to the Commissioner who evidently acted upon it. Within less than one week after the 15th May not less then twelve appeals were lodged by the "frontage" claimholders and set down for hearing in the Court of Appeal on Gulgong. Whether that court had jurisdiction to hear these appeals or not does not matter, the fact remains the same that a Minister of the Crown dared, while a dispute was pending its final judicial hearing before a lawful tribunal, to order that the decision given, which was the subject of the appeals, should be so varied as to practically rescind it. The grave character of this indiscretion cannot have been understood by the Minister for Lands, who, doubtless as a new broom, was impulsively anxious to show the miners how clean he could sweep. Unfortunately for his reputation, he swept away that which no Minster ------ to discharge his duties ------. He should have known that there are two sides to a question, more especially, in a mining dispute. He should have made himself acquainted with the evidence of the case, and consulted his colleagues, the Attorney General or Solicitor General, before he assumed the ------ of interfering in the matter. If he had consulted one of the Crown lawmakers he would have learned two things. First, that the decision of the Commissioner in this case was one that could not be varied or rescinded. It was made and acted upon, by which men were placed in possession of claims, and that the same officer could not by varying or rescinding that decision ------ these miners in the -------. Second, he would have learned that the decision of the Commissioner, being a discretionary one, it was final and comprehensive, and that the only power he, as Minister for the goldfields, is that he could censure Commissioner Browne for an error in judgement, but could not lawfully order him to put an interpretation upon a regulation contrary to his judgement. These two things the Minister for Lands would have learnt - if he had acted with ordinary official discretion - and thus have saved himself and the miners of the Home Rule much annoyance. If he had kept within the lawful bounds of his power and duty in this dispute, and allowed the law to take its natural course, he would have acted wisely; but as he has allowed himself to become the partisan of one side of this dispute, he must put up as gracefully as his impulsive temperament will permit him, with the disagreeable result of his conduct. He, doubtless, sees ere now the folly and absurdity of allowing his youthful memories to induce him to endeavour to override the law to serve a friend. We acquit the Minister of all corrupt motives in the course he has taken, but we must certainly censure him for interfering in this dispute in an improper and illegal manner. We would remind him that though he may, as Minister for the goldfields, and as a member of the Executive Council, take an important part in enacting a code of regulations - that once they're gazetted - it is only the officer duly appointed to administer them that can interpret them. That officers decision can be reviewed by a higher legal tribunal, and confirmed or reversed; or if the decision is a corrupt or improper use of the discretionary power of that office, the Minister for Lands can censure or dismiss him, but he cannot in any way interfere with the operation of the decision.
We regret that Mr Browne was so yielding as to obey the unlawful order of the Minister for Lands contained in the telegram. If he had understood and explained his position, and protested against such an order, we verily believe it would has been recalled. By obeying it, he has caused the Home Rule dispute to assume a very serious aspect, which will require judicious handling to amicably settle.
We further regret that a strict sense of our duty should compel us to find fault so soon with the Minister for Lands; but it is better to speak out plainly on so serious a matter at once, so as to prevent any further development of careful maneuvering. Any other course would, neither be an independent or worthy one. We have given our honest convictions on this dispute without any regard as to whom we please or displease, and that straightforward course we shall ever pursue.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 93, 6 July 1872
Sir – I have noticed, with much interest, your earnest and persistent efforts for the abolition of the frontage system. I think you would succeed much more quickly if you offered something in the shape of a quid pro quo. It is unreasonable to expect that the frontage men would give up without a struggle a system which gives them the command of so much ground, for the lottery of a block claim. Under the former system six miners may hold an area of one million two hundred and sixty seven thousand two hundred feet, which one may expect to include the whole width of this lead. Under the latter, four men hold thirty thousand feet, not one foot of which may be the lead. My suggestion is – abolish for ever the frontage system, and substitute blocks, one hundred yards square for six men. This would be a reasonable compromise, and the details could be easily filled in; convergence of leads could go ahead without those vexatious delays caused by their wings over-lapping; shepherding would die a natural death, and even Mr. Commissioner Browne could work your field under such a system; litigation would cease ‘and any member of the legal profession who had not amassed a fortune would have to seek fresh fields and pastures new.’
REEFER – Sofala.
1872 - HOME RULE DISPUTE
Mr. DeCourcy Browne received the following tele-gram at 9.20pm last night. ‘The government will decide the Home Rule dispute on Monday. Cabinet meeting called for the purpose’.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 95, 13 July 1872
1872 - EDITORIAL
It is an unfortunate circumstance - but one evidently that cannot be avoided - that we are compelled almost every week to complain of the maladministration of the regulations by Mr Commissioner Browne. It is anything but a pleasant task for us to be continually pointing out his sins of omission and commission; but as he does not appear to profit by experience, there are only two courses open to us, either not to notice his short comings, and let the miners suffer, or else speak out plain and demand that a change for the better should take place. We prefer the latter course, as the one best calculated to aid the cause of mining reform, and as being more in accordance with our position as independent journalists. We have ever claimed to have an opinion of our own on all grievances - and they are numerous - under which the miners have suffered on this goldfield, and we have not hesitated to give ex-pression to that opinion at all times, caring not whom we please or offend.
The disgraceful state of confusion and muddle into which the management of this goldfield has hopeless-ly drifted is a matter for grave consideration, and the occasion of an immediate remedy. Complaints are so plentiful that it is difficult to enumerate them all; but the burden of them is the utter want of energy and system exhibited by the Commissioner in the discharge of this duties. On a goldfields so large as this, and worked principally under the frontage system, it is ab-solutely necessary that the officer in charge should be a man of energy, decision, and experience. In these three essential qualities Commissioner Browne has exhibited a deficiency so great that much public in-convenience is felt and dissatisfaction expressed. His want of energy is only too clearly shown by the number of mining disputes and the large summons-sheet waiting to be dealt with week after week. Two days a week - Tuesday and Friday – are set down for hearing summonses in the Police Court. The court is not opened till eleven in the morning, which on a gold-field half the day is over. A case is called, and the professional gentleman are allowed to fritter away the time in irrelevant examinations and pointless objec-tions without a word of remonstrance. The dinner hour arrives without one paltry case being decided; an hour, and often two elapses before the court resumes business, and it does not as a rule sit after four o'clock, having at most sat four hours and disposed of from two to five cases, out of a list often over twenty. All the unheard cases are put off till the next summons day, to the serious loss and inconvenience of the miners, and in many cases resulting in a denial of justice. Now, why the court shall not open at ten o'clock is a matter for inquiry. We can remember when the late Commissioner Macarthur was in charge of the gold-field, and had at least five times as much work to perform - and did it - as has Mr Brown; that he for some time came from Mudgee daily, and had the court open at ten. Ten o'clock is quiet early enough to open the Police Court and on summons day the hour should be punctually observed, and with an exact hours adjournment at one o'clock and sitting till five - any magistrate of capacity could pretty nearly clear off the case list; but to do so he must be decided on the Bench, and curtail the verbosity of the learned advocates. Again, we are unable to understand why so many paltry mining disputes are allowed to be heard by summons. Speaking from a large experience of the cases heard in the Police Court we hesitate not to say that infinitely less injustice would have been committed, and saved much time, money, and annoyance to the disputants, if the Commissioner had dealt with the cases on the ground. It is a mode of hearing the ------ capable officer would ------ to his office to indulge in. Instead of miners having to travel miles and take out a summons, fee a lawyer, pay witnesses, and often a surveyor, to have a dispute settled, the Commissioner should - take notebook and Bible in his pocket - visit the scene of the dispute, and in an affirmative way settle the matter on the ground. At all hours of the day people are inquiring for the Commissioner; no one knows where he is to be found. He is not in his office, and, strange to say, is rarely seen about in the field. The truth is, that living some half dozen miles away, he apparently cannot arrive until the most convenient hours of the day for the miner is past. This is not a mode of performing the responsible duties of a Commissioner that is calculated to give satisfaction to the public, or elevate the office in the opinion of those whom he rules over. On a goldfield like Gulgong the Commissioner must be systematic, active, and energetic in discharging his duty in order to keep level with his work. If he indulges his leisurely propensities, his business must fall into arrears and confusion, and he will find that he exists in a chronic state of muddle. Censurable as Mr Browne's want of energy is, his peculiar indecision is more so. It is productive of much loss to those who suffer and is apparently incurrable. He allows himself to be bullied or wheedled by clever designing persons in such a manner that the saying "he has no mind of this own," is so commonly used as to be the general experience of all capable of forming an opinion on such a matter. His inability to profit by experience is another peculiar trait in his administration. Blunders that former experience should have taught him to avoid he perpetrates with a coolness rather amusing. Regulations and precedents he apparently knows nothing of, as both decisions and opinions clearly show. In fact as we have said before, he does not appear to take any pride in his office, and it is therefore no wonder that such wide-spread dissatisfaction should exist. He no doubt will think that we have exaggerated his shortcomings; but we are sure we have not. If he heard, as we daily hear, the strong opinions expressed as to his what of energy and decision, the would agree with us that he should make an effort to cure these two grave defects. We gave him full credit for being an honest, well meaning officer, but no more. It is better for us to speak plainly and truthfully to him, and thus pass on public opinion, so as to enable him to try and remedy his faults, than to pander him and pay him meaningless compliments. We have never yet censured Mr Browne through any ill-feeling, and we sincerely hope, have never done so unjustly. We know thoroughly what the Commissioners duties are, and how they should be performed. We have seen able men discharge their duties in a manner that excited the administration and exacted the respect of the miners. We had hopes that Commissioner Browne would have tried to attain a similar position, but he has failed from a constitutional apathy. It is no doubt unpalatable to him for us to say so, but it must be said. He now knows public opinion, and it rests entirely with him to reform. One thing is certain, that another six months of the present state of things will end very unpleasantly.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 97, 20 July 1872
1872 - [LITERARY INSTITUTE]
On Monday evening, a public meeting was held at Selff’s Hotel, for the purpose of inaugurating a Literary Institute and Reading Room, about 50 people attended. Mr. Townley took the chair in place of T.A. Browne Esq. PM, who was absent, who then turned up late, Mr. L.S. Donaldson, Mr. McLennan, Rev. Mr. Allworth and Rev. J. O’Donovan, Rev. Mr. Swift, Mr. W.D. Gould, Mr. Simmon, Mr. H. Dennis, Mr. T. Goulding, Mr. P.B. Cooke, Mr. D. Driscoll, Mr. Hinwood, Mr. Stacey, Bland, all mentioned.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 98, 24 July 1872
1872 - Correspondence - Where is the Commissioner?
Sir, in your truthful leader of last Saturday upon the shortcomings of the Commissioner, you said truly that you echoed the opinion of the miners, on the energy and intelligence of Mr Commissioner Browne. For nearly three weeks he has been promising to settle a trifling dispute, in which I an concerned on the Home Rule. I have called five times at his office and at the court house to see him, but failed. Last Saturday I waited from half past nine till nearly two o'clock, hoping to see him, but was again disappointed. While I was waiting, at least 30 persons came on a similar errand to myself, and met my fate. On that day he was not seen upon Gulgong. I wonder, where he was. He is truly the easiest going Commissioner I ever met in my wanderings, and I hope you will keep stirring him up. It's a pity he is not a miner with a dispute. I fancy, if he was, he'd take it easy on the claim, and leisurely wait till his case was settled.
Yours J. M. C.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 98, 24 July 1872
1872 - Correspondence - Another Growl
Sir, Your amusing writer, ‘Photo’ has hit off the peculiar habits of our Commissioner most truthfully and happily. As a victim of his ‘leisurely propensities,’ I can bear testimony to his want of energy and decision. I am an unlucky blocker on the Home Rule, who has been kept idle the last thirteen days by an order, signed by him, ordering me to cease working until he will hear the complaint. I have waited with the patience of an ass for him to hear the complaint, but there is no sign of him coming to do so. What am I to do? I hear any number of complaints about his neglect of this rush, which growling must end in him being removed to some bush township, where he will have cosy times of it, and be able to preside at some snug tea party, and grow cabbages to his heart’s content. But while he is here, he might try and earn his monthly cheque decently, and give me and others a show to earn a living with the pick and shovel.
I am, Sir yours, BLOCKER.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 98, 24 July 1872
1872 - EDITORIAL
In our issue of today a correspondent asks the very pertinent query why the dispute between the frontage and block claimholders and the Home Rule has not yet been settled. He says truly that there is nothing in the point at issue that could not be settled in an hour by half a dozen intelligent miners, chosen of our "collective wisdom" having the evidence taken by Mr Commissioner Johnson, together with his report thereon, in their position for some weeks, and are apparently able to come to a decision upon it.
The Commissioner on the 15th May, by which the Home Rule workings were without any limit deemed open, to be occupied in block claims. That decision is unalterable. Unfortunately Mr Commissioner Browne in a weak moment submitted to the censurable interference of an inexperienced Minister, and complicated a very simple dispute by his so-called decision of the 14th June. We are at a loss to know what the matter in dispute is that the Government have to decide, or admitting that they possess any power of interference, that it should take so long as to arrive at a decision upon the matter. There is a widespread belief that because the Commissioner at the dictation of the Minister for Lands varied his decision of the 15th May a month after he gave it, and also that in inquiry was held by the Commissioner-in-charge, that the title to the claims onward from what is called No.7 N frontage claim, is in doubt, and that it is for the Government to see whether the claim in dispute shall be held in frontage or block claims. Owing to this a large number of men are unable to work and are forced to idle away their time and waste their scanty means in shepherding their claims. The progress of the rush is seriously retarded, and enterprise of all kinds reduced to the narrowest limits. This is a most undesirable state of affairs, and should not have occurred under any circumstances. The miners have enough difficulties to contend with under the existing legislation - difficulties that arise in a legitimate way, without having such absurd drawbacks to contend with at this Home Rule muddle. We do not of course profess to know what is the true cause of the delay of the Government in not dealing promptly and finally with this muddle, though we could give a shrewd guess at the reason why; but we do know that it will not add to the reputation of the government, individually or collectively to trifle with abuses on the goldfields in such a manner.
Miners are strong believers in having their business properly settled, and this dilatory manner of setting at rest the doubt and distrust now existing with regard to the Home Rule claims will not tend to allay the ill-feeling engendered by the dispute, or instill the miners with a imbued feeling of confidence in the desire and ability of the government to deal effectively with the subject of mining reform even "next session."
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 99, 27 July 1872
1872 - HOME RULE CORRESPONDENT
Mining matters at this rush remain very much in status quo. Up to the time I write no announcement has been made of authority respecting the dispute so long pending, but a rumour is afloat, and pretty widely believed that the decision is known to a favoured few, who thus have the opportunity of turning the information to account. This is probably mere surmise, but it is certain, nevertheless, that several shares have been bought at figures much higher than would have been offered if the question between block and frontage was still open.
Mr Commissioner Browne was here on Wednesday. His first visit was to the "Britannia" but the water in the shaft was too deep to allow a prospect to be taken, and therefore nothing was done. He then went to the "Sir James Martin" on the appeal of the prospectors, who asked for protection while they put down another shaft. This, after much discussion, was granted, and the block men sinking between the parallels were or-dered to desist working. Some other disputes of no public interest were afterwards either settled or post-poned by the Commissioner.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 99, 27 July 1872
1872 - Home Rule Dispute
The decision of the Government on this irritating dispute was made known Wednesday evening by a telegram to Mr. DeCourcy Browne from Mr. Buchanan. It created intense excitement at the Home Rule, and a public meeting was called Thursday evening, report as follows received by Messrs. Sweeney and Gillies from the Principal Under Secretary, giving the decision more fully than the telegram:-
‘Colonial Secretary’s OfficeJuly 29th, 1872‘Gentleman, - With reference to the petition presented by you to the Colonial Secretary, on the 21st ultimo, from certain miners resident on the Home Rule rush and the Gulgong goldfield generally, I am now directed to inform you that the Government have determined that from No 8 shaft downwards north, the ground shall be worked on the frontage system, and the remaining portion on the block system, and that at an early date the existing Regulations will be carefully revised and measures submitted to Parliament for the amendment of the mining laws of the colony.I am further desired to state that this decision is not intended to prejudice any legal right which either of the parties have acquired, or may be advised to establish in a court of law.I have this honour, etc.Henry Halloran.Messrs Sweeney and Gillies, Gulgong.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 101, 3 August 1872
1872 - To the Miners
The following memorial was presented to Commissioner Browne at the Home Rule:-
‘We the undesigned, being foreigners and almost totally unacquainted with the English language, and unable to pay an advocate to defend us, beg that you, as Commissioner under the Goldfields Act of 1866, will accept the following statement of facts:-
"The protected areas now to be recognised as the 'Sir James Martin' lead, hold and derived any right they possess from the prospecting protecting area now abandoned. Under No. 6 Regulation it continues to be a prospecting protection area so long as it continues to be worked in a bona fide manner by not less than two men. No one has been on the claim for any purpose whatever for a fortnight; and moreover the prospectors told several parties that they had abandoned the ground, and offered to sell the slabs in use on the ground to us. The same Regulation also sets forth that no prospecting protection area shall be allowed within half a mile of the boundary of any other of a similar character. The 'Sir James Martin' is within the prescribed distance from the 'Britannia' prospecting protection area. It is our opinion that without reducing the regulations to an absurdity, the rights claimed by the protected areas on the 'Sir James Martin' cannot be allowable. To establish such a precedent would lead to endless confusion. Suppose, for instance, that a party of prospectors registered an area where gold was likely to be obtained, and thirty two other parties encircled them within half a mile with as many prospecting protection areas, on a lead being discovered, to whom would it belong? They cannot all have it. Everyone of them would have to be disqualified, but the one holding the prior right. We cannot see under what Regulation you are acting when you uphold the 'Sir James Martin's' right to occupying the ground in dispute over the leads of the block men who are, as we shall presently show, in honest and straightforward possession of the ground. If you read the applications schedule, A, which must be made before a prospecting protection area be granted, you will find that the Certificates of Registry of the 'Sir James Martin's' prospecting claim must have been obtained by false representation; and by referring to Regulation 247 it is obvious that the registration so obtained is null and void; and Regulation 238 provides, that instead of being awarded, the preference in a lead to which they have obtained an illegal right, they are liable to a money penalty and failing payment, imprisonment.
J.Hogan
W.Cunnagham
G.Baker
P.Barrett
John Hickey
Peter Madalena
Pitelp Glekey
W.Williams
Jas. McLaulry
Wm. Walson
John Strange
E.Henricks
H.Rathke
J.F. Brane
R.Baudate
Thos. Strong
H.Julien
Wm. O’Grady
Jas. Fitzpatrick
John Kyle
Michael Downes
George Smith
Charles Rush
John Mayne
Fraances Muir
Thos. Denneen
John Pooley
J.B. Paterson
Samuel Walsh
James Walsh
Andrew Conly
Wm. Cotter
Alex. King
Wm. Gretton
M.Crawen
Robert Cross
Edward Murray
Edmund Lloyd
Wm. Stewart
Joseph Taylor
Tim Finnigan
Joseph Dillon
Peter Gaspero
G.S. Budweaty
David Jones
T.Coglan
Michael Glynn
C.Hamilton
Andrew Maloney
Edward Tribute
C.R. Martin
Peter Forrester
Nilo Lafgren
Wm Wilson
Charles Tomson
David McNish
David Hoad
John Nicol
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 101, 3 August 1872
1872 - HOME RULE RUSH
From our CorrespondentI must yet once more alluded to the "double-bankers" case that came before the Appeal Court last Thursday, when the Bench reversed the decision of Commissioner Browne; nor will I whine out any "beg-pardon" humbug a la Tebbutt for so doing. At the present critical moment, on the eve of a new session, during which a radical reform in mining legislation is promised, the worthlessness, may be positive, mischievousness of the old code cannot be kept too promptly before the public, or be too often forced upon the attention of our representatives, from whose common sense, if not "collective wisdom," we hope for emancipation from the worst mining management in the whole world. As an illustration of the evils necessarily resulting from the arbitrariness of the present regulations, no better instance can be sighted than the Home Rule muddle, which cannot be truthfully designated as anything else than an easily avoidable act – or rather series of acts – of gross judicial injustice. Judicial, look you, for no one charges Commissioner Browne with any conduct that carries the slightest taint of dishonour, but he is most fairly open to the charge of official incapability, and the very faith that was, and still is, reposed in him as an honourable man, has increased the mischief by inducing submission instead of provoking the wholesome resistance the manoeuves of an unprincipled man would have met with. As a sample of what has happened, does happen, and will happen for an indefinite time to come, to a large body of working miners on this rush, the case above mentioned is as good as can be given, and has the advantage of conciseness.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 124, 23 October 1872
1873 - BLOCKERS v JUSTICE
[To the Editor of the Gulgong Guardian]
Sir – The ‘enterprising capitalist,’ Alec Brown and Co., cut but a poor show in the Police Court last Monday when they prosecuted the blockers for disobeying and order made under the 14th section of the Goldfields Act, prohibiting them from working on the claim or lease of the above crowd as ordered by that miner’s friend Henry Tebbutt, Esq., J.P. The history of these cases are of course amusing, as they must be, like all other things the Commissioner takes in hand, and shows very clearly the side he takes in this dispute between the working miner and the "ring." His compliance in keeping men confined in the lockup until he heard the summons against the offending blockers, and then when Mr Clarke was not ready to proceed with the cases adjourning them until he was, is proof. Whatever Mr Clarke said was perfectly correct and according to law, so far as his (the P.M.'s.) knowledge went, and that was not much, for, as a sample, he attempted to hear the cases by himself until he got the tip that the was not two magistrates and could not do so. He then hastily adjourned them till Monday. Now, Sir, there has been a haste about these cases which proves clearly that the Commissioner’s conduct has not been that which could merit the approval or confidence of those who are compelled to submit to this holding the scales of justice. As everyone knows, this intelligent and zealous officer is very lazy. He not only does not do this duty in an active way during the week, and thus have some claim to a half-holiday on Saturday, but he is notoriously dilatory all the week and can never be seen from Friday till Monday on Gulgong. But, Sir, on Friday, the 21st, he issues summonses against some blockers for disobeying a justices order, and strange to say, made them returnable for the next day (Saturday), at 10 o'clock - a thing he has never done before. Ten o'clock came and no sign. Eleven o'clock came and no sign, but at quarter past he was seen sauntering towards the Court House, as if 50 men, besides three or four offenders in the steaming cells of the lockup, were not waiting to see him. Finding that he could not hear the cases that day, he adjourned till Monday, and read a homily to the assembled miners about what he would do if they cases were proved. Two months in gaol and nothing else! He endeavoured to explain what the law was, and of course put his foot in it, causing the miners to laugh. Well, Monday came and though the cases were openly stated by him on Saturday to be adjourned till Monday because Mr Clarke could not procure some papers that he wanted; yet, when Mr Spring asked on Monday for an adjournment for the attendance of Dr Belinfante, it was refused - very impartial that. The cases went on, and despite the blunder of the advocate for the complainant, they broke down most ignominiously. Costs were asked for, and refused of course. I must say here, in justice to Mr Tebbutt, that it was through him the cases "burst up." I say this, though I do not like the old man in any character. He could see the utter absurdity and the unequalled ignorance of the complainant in straining or rather perverting the law to punish the defendants. If the Commissioner had been on the bench by himself he would have convicted the defendants, if one can judge by his wise remarks after the case, when he said they escaped by a "technicality." What does he call a technicality I wonder. I suppose he calls the decision of the Supreme Court against regulation 211 a technical one. Poor man, where ignorance is bliss, etc. His mind was clearly made up that the defendants were guilty, even before he heard their evidence at all, and his remarks, after the complainants advocate had withdrawn the case, were simply ignorant and impertinent. He said the defendants were fortunate in not being convicted. As much after the style, I presume, in which he is fortunate in not being sacked long ago. Miners only laugh at his feminine utterings on the judgement seat, because they know that he does not understand the meaning or application of the law (only as his tutor tells him), and for this he receives £450 a year. If we blockers are successful in having all the papers connected with this dispute printed by order of parliament, I feel sure that with the printing of them will come the end of his career on Gulgong. He has by this incompetence ruined many a hard working miner and deprived him of his daily bread. He has kept the goldfields in a state of muddle since he has been here. He has turned away capital in thousands and driven every man with money of the field in disgust; but the tables will yet be turned on him.
A BLOCKER
[A. Blocker will oblige by making his letters shorter, if not we will be compelled to reject them, much against our desire. – Ed. G. G.]
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 160, 26 February 1873
EDITORIAL
...We think it will be admitted by all intelligent persons that the arrangements for the administration of the law on Gulgong are capable of a great change for the better and ere long that change will be rendered inevitable. The inexplicable neglect with which the applications for a remedy have been treated by the Government demands an explicit explanation for making every allowance for press and public business, political antipathy and human frailty generally, the neglect wears a discomforting appearance. More than a year ago a request was made for the creation of a sufficient number of magistrates to carry on the Petty Sessions business regularly and in a manner that would create public confidence. The request was deemed a reasonable one by Mr. Parkes and a promise was made that it would be granted. As yet the promise has not been redeemed though Mr. Parkes has been repeatedly reminded of it. The only Magistrates available for the daily work of the Police Court are the Police Magistrate and Mr. Tebbutt. As the former is also Gold Commissioner, he would, if he discharged his goldfields duty efficiently be seldom available for Bench duty. We need hardly say that he does not perform that duty competently and effective as he is as a Commissioner, he is worse as a Justice so much so many who do not believe in Mr. Tebbutt deem it a fortunate circumstance that he sits as regularly as a colleague of our stipendiary magistrate. We think so too, for he undoubtedly keeps his colleague from committing many a blunder that would have ruined him long ago in Supreme Court actions. But this is poor comfort to the aggrieved public who for many reasons often publicly expressed desire that an addition should be made to the number of resident Justices. Until this is done dissatisfaction and distrust will exist and assume an unpleasant development. The gentleman on the Commission of Peace in the neighbourhood attend as regularly as their leisure will permit It be reasonable to expect that they should devote much time to the business of the Gulgong courts which have as it were, suddenly sprung up in their midst. If they preside in the Appeal Court regularly it is as much as can be asked of them, though we dare say it is a duty they would prefer not having to perform. What is wanted is two or three local magistrates who reside in the town and who would attend by roster at the Police Court regularly every morning punctually at ten o’clock and later waiting for the Police Magistrate to turn up from the bush. Surely out of a population so large as that of this goldfield a sufficient number of suitable persons can be found willing to accept the office of magistrate and thus remove a source of dissatisfaction of a very serious character.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 163, 8 March 1873
EDITORIAL (Part 2)
[Part 1, presumably in Issue No 171, is not available]
As we expected, the summons against the proprietor of the Guardian has resulted in a committal at the Circuit Court to be held in Mudgee on Thursday next. We say we expected it, because we were told last week it had been decided to have a committal in this case. To any person present at the hearing of the case it was quite clear before a witness was called how it would be dealt with. The reasonable application for postponement was curtly refused, though if a really criminal offender was being heard, he would have been allowed time to meet a charge the exact nature of which was only disclosed when the case was called on. However we do not complain, because we know we have not acted unjustly or with malice. We are ready to fight out the issue to the utmost, on it merits. We have charged the misguided complainant with ignorance and incompetence and will prove it most convincingly. We repudiate with manly scorn that ever one line had been written in this journal which we did not believe to be honestly true. We may have been wrong in our deductions and criticisms, but we have never thought so. We have charged Commissioner Browne with being incompetent, ignorant and prone to muddle. We repeat it. We have dealt with him as a public official, whose acts have created discontent and inflicted hardship, who is universally condemned as placed in a wrong position. Our advocate, Mr. Davidson, made an able defence and tore the alleged libel to pieces with the words of truth. We shall deal with this little affair more fully in our next issue.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 172, 9 April 1873
1873 - HOME RULE RUSH
[From our Correspondent]
Strange as it may appear to the Sydney wiseacres, the miners now prefer paying twenty to thirty times the Government fee to landowners rather than to be half ruined by the litigation which seem to be inseparable from the administration of our ultra-silly regulations by Mr. Commissioner Browne. Confidence in the clear sightedness of this gentleman and of his judicial shadow, Mr. Tebbutt, is absolutely nil. As mining authorities their dictum is held by diggers of very moderate capacity as something wholly unworthy of respect. In saying this nothing whatever is intended against their position as private citizens or as magistrates ad-ministering criminal law.
It is simply said and believed, that as mining magistrates they are incapable and this is saying volumes. How gentlemen can continue to hold their positions in the face of this opinion of the mining population, can only be accounted for by their assuming that they belong to the order of genius, whatever that is, of the pachydermatous pre-eminently thick skinned animals. But then this supposition militates against their readiness to take offence without cause. In fact they are enigmas and God alone can help the unfortunate placed for some inexplicable reason under their sway. The people here have been bothering their brains to find out the casus belli – the new one – against the ‘Guardian’; but the issue that prints this letter will doubtless tell us the number and size of the eggs found in the mare’s nest.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 172, 9 April 1873
1874 - A Warden at Last
Mr. Browne P.M. has been notified by the Minister for Mines that he is to perform the duties of Warden temporarily, pending the revision of the boundaries of the Mudgee Mining district. We are glad some arrangements have been made, we say delays possibly may be prevented, BUT knowing Mr. Browne he is hard to find and often can be found comfortably ensconced in the School of Art in Gulgong, in blissful forgetfulness of the appointment he has made, this happens so often that it is now the first place in which he is looked for.
Source: The Home Rule Pilot, No 3, 20 June 1874
__________________________
1915 - OBITUARY. Death of Mr. T. A. Browne.
By the death of Mr. Thomas Alexander Browne, known throughout Australia and other parts of the world as "Rolf Boldrewood, the author of "Robbery Under Arms," a notable figure in literary circles, has been removed.
Death occurred in Melbourne on March 11. The deceased was in his 89th year, and as he had been ailing for the past twelve months, his death was not unexpected. He leaves a widow and family of seven—five daughters and two sons. He was the son of Captain Sylvester John Browne, of the Honorable East India Company's service; and was born in London, on August 6, 1826.
Captain Browne brought his family to Sydney in 1830, to settle in the colony of New South Wales, which then meant Australia. His four-year-old son's arrival was thus practically contemporaneous with that of Governor Bourke. The lad went to Mr. T. W. Capes school in Sydney, and afterwards to Sydney College, when Mr. Cape was appointed its headmaster.
Young Browne was made of sterling stuff, and prepared to carve out his own fortune. His father was now a squatter, and Tom, not much over seventeen years of age, started with a herd of cattle for the Port Fairy district, in Victoria. That State was little explored in 1844, and the future Australian novelist became a pioneer squatter of the district, forming the station known as Squattlesea Mere. Here he remained until 1856, taming the wilderness, and sharing the ups and downs of early pastoralists. In 1858 he acquired the Murrabit Station territory on the Murray.
Things went well with him, and in 1860 in the little church at Mulgoa (near Penrith), New South Wales, he was married to Miss Margaret Maria Riley. He took his bride to England for a honeymoon returning the following year. Having sold his Victorian property, he in 1864 took up the Bundidjanee sheep station on the Murrumbidgee.
By this time the squatter had a fairly extensive knowledge of Australian life, and in 1865 a contribution from him appeared in the "Cornhill Magazine," and from this time, on ward his tales and sketches began to appear in the Australian papers. But 1866 and 1868 were years of terrible drought. Browne toiled like many another squatter to avert ruin, and those who now read "A Squatter's Dream," may reflect that the novelist learned in suffering what he told in the story. He shared the fate of many another squatter, and in 1869 his losses were so severe that he was compelled to relinquish pastoral pursuits.
The next year (1870) he was appointed police magistrate and gold fields commissioner in New South Wales. For a quarter of a century he held that office, and his various circuits included Gulgong, Dubbo, Armidale, and Albury. Now he superadded to his knowledge of pastoral and city life a close acquaintance with the existing mining life of the time. Gulgong, in the "roaring days," was vastly different from the Gulgong of today, and many a tale of bushrangers did the P.M. hear from those with whom business or sociability brought him into contact. Accordingly, few men were ever better equipped
to write Australian novels, and presently his time came. He began to furnish articles in 1870 to the "Town and Country Journal." After a series of short sketches, "The Fencing of Wanderoona" was published in the "Town and Country Journal," and this was followed by "My Run Home," "The Squatter's Dream," "A Colonial Reformer," "An Australian Squire," and "The Miner's Right."
In the eighties his "Robbery Under Arms" was published serially, and in 1888 it appeared in book form in London. The success of the elderly novelist—he was then 62—was established at a bound. He was at
once recognised as the third of the great Australian novelists, the other two being, of course, Marcus Clarke and Henry Kingsley.
It is pleasant to be able to add that after a life of ups and downs, Mr. Browne was able to retire from the Civil Service in 1895, in comparative affluence, with nearly a score of years still before him. He made his home in Melbourne, and varied his literary labors with well-earned holidays and travel.
1917 - Mrs. Margaret Maria Browne.
A telegram from our Melbourne corre spondent on Monday' announced that the death occurred , on Saturday, at her residence, Boldrewood, Grange road, Toorak (Victoria), of Mrs. Margaret Maria Browne, widow of the late Mr. T. A. Browne (Rolfe Boldrewood). The deceased was a woman of exceptional intellectual attainments.
Source: NLA
