THE ETHICS of Mr. Lowe.

To the Editors of the Sydney Morning Herald.

Gentlemen, Will you oblige me by referring to the report of my speech on the trial of Knatchbull for murder, which, I believe, will be found in the Herald of January 25, 1844, and by pointing out what doctrines it contains opposed to the first principles of Christianity, and what those principles of Christianity are to which you consider those doctrines to be opposed?

I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient servant,

Horbury Terrace: March 24, 1845.

ROBERT LOWE.

The editors, little suspecting the practice their antagonist had had in theological disputation at Oxford with Newman and Ward, promptly took up the challenge. They pointed out that Mr. Lowe had opposed the principle of man's free agency, which they considered to be the first principle of the Christian religion.' It is opposed likewise,' they added, to the whole tenour of that sacred history which is designed to exemplify and demonstrate the depths of human depravity, and to

6

assert Eternal Providence,

And justify the ways of God to man.'

The reply to this fresh attack has been described as a masterpiece of polemical discussion; it is certainly a very characteristic rejoinder. With the omission of a few paragraphs not essential to the argument, it reads as follows:--

'You bite against a file! Cease viper.'

Sir William Draper to Junius.

To the Editors of the Sydney Morning Herald.

Gentlemen,-When I asked you to point out the doctrine of Christianity to which my speech was opposed, I expected to be referred to something held by Christians in common, and not to the doctrine of the Wesleyan Sect; for it may be, gentlemen, that I am not a Wesleyan Methodist, and, not to keep you in further suspense, the fact is that I am a member of the Church of England. You are not ignorant of this, but you probably are ignorant of the Articles of that Church. I therefore beg to subjoin a copy of her

tenth Article, and to refer you to the eleventh, twelfth and seventeenth, which will, I apprehend, show clearly that though you may consider the foundation of the whole system of Divine Government to be man's free agency and consequent responsibility, the Church of England, whose Articles I have repeatedly subscribed, does not.

Had I foreseen that, in defiance of all usage and all principle, the arguments used to persuade a jury were to be fastened upon me as my own opinions, and used against me for electioneering purposes, I would have reported the speech myself. There are many things in that report I never said, but I am in the habit of attaching so little weight to what falls from counsel in argument, that I should have thought it ridiculous egotism to meddle with it.

This last touch is very characteristic. Nothing seems to have aroused Lowe's contempt at any time more than when a political opponent, or a newspaper, expected him to support, on the hustings or in Parliament, the opinions which he may have expressed as an advocate in a court of law. He was never enamoured of those arts and artifices which are so useful for the winning of verdicts, and spoke of them as the tricks of this wretched trade.'

It was an aspiring wish of the Arian Milton [he adds in allusion to the Herald's quotation] to 'justify the ways of God to man;' but it is a wish which can never be accomplished; the existence of evil will meet the presumptuous speculator at every turn and fling him back into the shallow nothingness of his nature. Dangerous it were,' says the eloquent and judicious Hooker, for the feeble brain of man to wade far into the doings of the Most High, whom, although to know be life, and joy to make mention of His Name, yet our soundest knowledge is to know that we know Him not as indeed He is, neither can know Him, and our safest eloquence concerning Him is our silence, when we confess without confession, that His glory is inexplicable, His greatness above our capacity and reach.'

'He is above and we upon earth, therefore it behoveth our words to be wary and few.'

And now, gentlemen, I have done with you. I ask you for principles, and you give me inferences. I ask you for Christianity, and you give me Methodism. You are now at full liberty to inter this slander by the side of his deceased brother of last week, and as you seem rather at a loss for something to use against me at the

present time, I will take the liberty of suggesting a few topics myself.

I ride a very ugly horse, that clearly proves me an Atheist, for who else could be so insensible to the beauties of the noblest animal of the creation. I live in a very small house, which clearly shows I must have a contracted mind, and I am sometimes known to play at billiards, which shows a strong though, it may perhaps be expedient in candour to admit, not quite fully developed propensity for gambling.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient servant,

ROBERT LOWE.

There was a yet more personal and pathetic sequel to this case. In the issue of March 9, 1844, the Sydney Morning Herald printed this brief report in its law notices :

Before Sir James Dowling, Chief Justice.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ORPHANS JAMIESON.

In this case Mr. Lowe applied by petition to be appointed guardian of these infants, at the same time expressing his willing. ness to give such security as the Court might require. The application being unopposed was granted by the Court.

The two little orphans of the murdered woman-a boy and girl-were taken by Mr. and Mrs. Lowe and carefully brought up by them in their own home. Writing to Mrs. Sherbrooke of Oxton, at the close of 1845, when they were living in their own delightful house at Nelson Bay, some few miles out of Sydney, Mrs. Lowe makes this touching reference to the children: The little boy and girl, whose mother Knatchbull murdered, are still with us. The little girl is a great favourite with Robert; she reads for him if I am engaged, and is not only clever but an exceedingly good child. The boy, just four years old, is quick and can read a little. They give no trouble, and the servants are very fond of them. The little girl carries my notes and messages, the boy goes with her, and she is as steady and sensible as a grown-up person; her father died a year before her mother, to whom she seems

VOL I.

Р

to have been much attached. The poor little thing is quite premature in mind, which I have no doubt may be attributed to her having known so much early sorrow. She talks to the little boy and comforts him if he cries, as if she were his mother.'

The sequel of the story is a sad one, and hardly encouraging to philanthropists. Mr. and Mrs. Lowe brought them to England, and they continued to live with them until the girl died at the early age of thirteen. An excellent appointment was obtained for the boy, but he abandoned it without reason, and, after various vicissitudes, went out to New Zealand and served for a while in the colonial forces against the Maoris. Like the proverbial bad coin, he came back and was a source of much trouble and anxiety to his benefactors. It was in reference to him that Lord Sherbrooke made the remark: 'What evil that I have done has ever been visited upon me like this one good action?'

The story thus simply set forth may, perchance, sound strange to a world which has proclaimed Lord Sherbrooke to be a cynic, a hard man of logic, unemotional and without human feeling. Talking over the matter with Sir John Simon (who had often seen the young Jamiesons), I made some such natural observation as this, when he went on to tell me of many another nameless, unremembered act,' which to his knowledge Lord Sherbrooke had performed. He was not only,' he added impressively, the clearest-headed man I ever knew, but the best hearted.'

211

CHAPTER XIII

LAYING THE FOUNDATION OF PARLIAMENT

Chairman of Committees-The Chaplain-Dr. Lang and State ChurchesBreach of Privilege-Duelling in Sydney-Anti-Corn-Law Speech-Parallel between Canada and Australia-Report on Education

THE foundation of Parliamentary Government in Australia was laid by the 'popular' or representative members of Lord Stanley's Legislative Council, of whom Robert Lowe became the virtual leader. Through their action the colonists were taught not to be satisfied until they had achieved the rights. and privileges of self-governing Englishmen. But to us the most singular side of the story is that the achievement should have been won in great measure by the action of a young English barrister, who, at the outset at least, was merely the nominee of the Governor. If, however, we investigate the proceedings of this single and only partially representative Chamber during its earlier sessions, we shall find that Robert Lowe did more to secure to colonists the civil and political rights of Englishmen than any other member of the Council.

As soon as the session of 1844 opened (May 28th) the Colonial Secretary proposed a gentleman as Chairman of Committees without salary. Mr. Lowe promptly objected to the election of a chairman unless a salary were placed on the Estimates. In the clearest way he pointed out that by such appointments they were laying, well or ill, the foundations of their parliamentary system. It was essential that the chair