2 which had already been dubbed by him 'the other side*.

The p r essing p r o b l e m of unemployment in Sy d n e y was met by some opposition members with motions to cut back the salaries of government officers, i n c l u d i n g Gipps himself. W i n d e y e r pointed out that Polding's salary was only £500, as compared to the

governor on £5,000, an anomaly rendered even more striking by the fact that P o l d i n g 'possessed the greatest share of dignity and commanded the greatest respect and influence in the c o l o n y ' . Plunkett was not prepared to deny this latter assertion, but he

quickly pointed out that given Polding's vow of poverty it was unlikely that he would want to burden the revenue of a Colony

3

which held him in such esteem. A few days later W i n d e y e r was quick to seize the advantage given to h i m and proposed that P l unkett's own salary be cut by half - to £600. In his reply Plunkett gave a detailed outline of his duties, which included a

denial that he augmented his salary in any appreciable m a n n e r by private practice. He stressed that he had to confine this to

'Special J u r y and E q u i t y cases' and the facts were, that after his return to the Colony in 1843, he rarely appeared in the Courts as

a private barrister, and the newspapers made no more attacks on those grounds. He also asserted that 'the Magistrates always

1. S M H , 4 N o v e m b e r 1843«

2. I b i d . , report of L e g i s l a t i v e Council proceedings of 3 N o v e m b e r 1843

3. I b i d . , 2 October 1843, report of L e g i s l a t i v e Council p r o c e e d ­ ings of 30 S e p t e m b e r 1843.

applied to him for advice 5 and in no case had a verdict been given against the C r o w n ' . This assertion he attempted to m odify by s t a ting that he did not claim to have been in v a r i a b l y right,

1

’but he had never been proved to be w r o n g ’ . In the event both his own salary and that of Gipps remained unvaried, although a Bill was passed to reduce the salary of future governors by

£ 1,000.12

The opposition to the Government in the Council was led by Wentworth, W i n d e y e r and Cowper, with L an g v a c i ll at in g between the two sides. I n essence it was ill-liberal, conservative and representative of what remained of the wealthy classes after the recent depression. W e n t worth was able to present h im se lf as the champion of colonial liberalism in this period simply because he constantly repr e s e n t e d the view that all would be well if the Council were allowed to abolish the Schedules, obtain complete

control of the revenue, and direct the disposal of Crown Lands. All of this comprised in his eyes ’responsible g o v e r n m e n t ’ and

the model for such government was allegedly the Canadian experiment. Gipps, together with some of his Government officers, notably

E. Deas Thomson and Plunkett, h e ld to the view that in the present development of the Colony the Sch e d u l e s and some control over

the revenue had to be retained by the Crown, whilst to a ll o w the Council to direct the disposal of Crown Land would do no more than augment the h o ldings of the wealthy and squatting elements, to the detriment of overall development.

Plunkett was convinced that he and Gipps wou l d eventually be judged by ’the impartial historian, by whom the course of events would be fairly unmasked, and the actions of h i m s e lf and his

1. I b i d . , 14 O c t o b e r 1843, report of Legislative Council proceedings of 13 October 1843«

2. I b i d . , 15 June 1844, report of Legislative Council proceedings of 14 June 1844.

T

opponents fairly weighed*. ' He said that he did not k n o w what W e n t w o r t h meant by responsible government and he doubted whether W e n t w o r t h knew himself. He thought it likely that W e n t w o r t h

would have taken an entirely different view of Gipps h a d it not b een for the N e w Zealand land affair, and that in the end Gipps wou l d be vindi c a t e d rather than D a r l i n g who was alleged to have

2

won friends by his liberal land grants. It was a quirk of fate that made men like Gipps, Thomson and Plunkett appear to be the upholders of entrenched authority, conservatism and privilege whilst Wentworth, Cowper and L a n g were able to curry favour with sections of colonial society by proposing, measures that appeared to foster progress and social advancement. At the same time

there were occasions w hen both sides were able to show their true c o l o u r s .

One of the m e asures that W e n t w o r t h and his followers i n t r o ­ duced to cut down government expense was the curtailing of a

paid m a gistracy at places like Goulburn, Yass, I l l a w a r r a and 3

Windsor. W hen it was known that such a measure was likely to succeed petitions were presented to the Council from several place re q u e s t i n g that it be not proceeded with. The peti t i o n from

W i n d s o r contained the names of several ticket-of-leave holders and