La Trobe: The Making of a Governor

He departed from office a disappointed man whose contribution to the development of the colony was not immediately recogn...

Author: Dianne Reilly

237 downloads 1073 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

He departed from office a disappointed man whose contribution to the development of the colony was not immediately recognised. His was a vision of a cultured, economically viable and Christian society, with equality of opportunity for all. Any recognition of his achievements eluded him, especially regarding the Aboriginal people and the goldfields administration.

La Trobe

Charles Joseph La Trobe was Superintendent of the Port Phillip District of New South Wales and Victoria’s first Lieutenant-Governor (1851–54). His administration, which coincided with the turbulent challenges of the Victorian gold rushes, was highly controversial.

As Dianne Reilly Drury shows in this fascinating investigation of the man, La Trobe’s actions, ideas and behaviours during his fifteen years in office in Melbourne may be best understood by an examination of the way his character was shaped—especially by the influences on him of the Moravian faith and education, by his passion for travel and by the devotion and support of his family and friends in England and Switzerland.

Reilly Drury

About the Author Dianne Reilly Drury is La Trobe Librarian at the State Library of Victoria and has worked at both the Bibliothèque Nationale and the Centre Pompidou Library in Paris. A graduate of the University of Melbourne and Monash University, her previous published works include Sun Pictures of Victoria: the Fauchery-Daintree Collection, 1858 with Jennifer Carew (1983), and Charles Joseph La Trobe Landscapes and Sketches (1999). She is currently Secretary of the C J La Trobe Society.

La Trobe

The Making of a Governor

Supplementary digital content is available from www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/ebooks/0-522-85236-X/index.html

MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS •

•

An imprint of Melbourne University Publishing Limited www.mup.com.au

Dianne Reilly Drury

Cover design by Phil Campbell

BIOGRAPHY

Reilly_cover_Feb22.indd 1

27/2/06 12:05:31 PM

La Trobe

Reilly Lat Trobe .indd 1

2/3/06 2:13:59 PM

Unknown artist, Charles Joseph La Trobe, c. 1835, oil, frontispiece to The Rambler in Oklahoma (Harlow, Oklahoma City, 1955) This picture has been reproduced in good faith. The author is continuing to endeavour to trace the ownership of this picture and the copyright owner of their photograph. She would be pleased to receive any related information.


2/3/06 2:14:03 PM

La Trobe

The Making of a Governor

Dianne Reilly Drury


2/3/06 2:14:04 PM

MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS An imprint of Melbourne University Publishing Ltd 187 Grattan Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia [email protected] www.mup.com.au First published 2006 Text  Dianne Reilly Drury 2006 Design and typography  Melbourne University Publishing Ltd 2006 This book is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means or process whatsoever without the prior written permission of the publishers. Designed by Phil Campbell Typeset in Utopia by J&M Typesetting Printed in Australia by University of Melbourne Design & Print Centre National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Drury, Dianne Reilly. La Trobe : the making of a governor. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 0 522 85235 1. (paperback) ISBN 0 522 85236 X. (e-book) 1. La Trobe, Charles Joseph, 1801-1875. 2. Lieutenant governors - Victoria - Biography. 3. Victoria - History 1851-1891. I. Title. 994.5031


2/3/06 2:14:05 PM

For John


2/3/06 2:14:05 PM


2/3/06 2:14:05 PM

Contents List of Illustrations

viii

Acknowledgements

ix

Chronology

xii

Abbreviations Used in Notes

xvi

Introduction

1

1

A Huguenot Heritage

6

2

The Young Man, 1824–1832

32

3

North America and Mexico through Anglo-European Eyes

68

4

Creation of a Civil Servant: La Trobe in the West Indies

99

5

A Position ‘Not Without Its Difficulties’: La Trobe Encounters the Port Phillip District

132

6

A Cultured European in a Distant Colony: La Trobe’s Civilising Mission

159

7

‘Duties of No Ordinary Difficulty’: La Trobe as Administrator, 1839–1854

182

8

The Aftermath of Office: ‘The Hedger’s Glove’

237

Appendix 1 La Trobe’s Instructions

255

Appendix 2 La Trobe’s Art

261

Appendix 3 Charles Joseph La Trobe: Journeys and Excursions in Australia

263

Bibliography

267

Index

284

vii


2/3/06 2:14:05 PM

Illustrations Unknown artist, Charles Joseph La Trobe, c. 1835 Albert-Alexandre de Pourtalès, Pencillings by the Way, 1832

ii 72

George Alexander Gilbert (1815–?), View of Jolimont, the Residence of C. J. La Trobe, 1843–44

152

Charles Joseph La Trobe, Rose’s Gap, The Grampians, 1850

171

Sir Francis Grant, Charles Joseph La Trobe, [1854]

215

A La Trobe exhibition can be found online at: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/41735/20040505/www.statelibrary. vic.gov.au/slv/exhibitions/latrobe/index.html

viii


6/3/06 2:12:57 PM

Acknowledgements To the late Dr Davis McCaughey, AC, and to Professor A. G. L. Shaw, AO, I owe the suggestion that, with some application, I might advance to another level my professional interest in Charles Joseph La Trobe. Associate Professor Don Garden and Professor Peter McPhee kindly agreed to take me on as a student, and I acknowledge my debt for their direction at every stage of my study, their encouragement when the enormity of the task seemed overwhelming, and their kindness always. The many members of the extended La Trobe family around the world have my profound thanks for their continued interest in a research project on one of their relatives which has necessarily been protracted. In particular, I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the late Dr John Henry de La Trobe and Frau Renate de La Trobe of Hamburg, Germany, for their inspiration and unflagging support in researching one of their family. Mrs Carlotta Blake of Hove, England, Charles Joseph’s great-grand-daughter, and her family have been resourceful, hospitable and at all times supportive of my work on their ancestor. Dr Bernard and Mme Anne Latrobe Kirchner of Gifsur-Yvette, France, have been enthusiastic for the project and kindly gave permission to view and quote from the manuscript ‘Livre de Famille’ in their family archive. Rev. Basil and Mrs Vera MacLeavy of Leominster, England, generously gave me access to some West Indian resources and family documentation in their possession. Mr Charles (Sandy) Hazlehurst Latrobe III of Baltimore, USA, kindly provided me with access to correspondence between Charles Joseph and his American cousins. My deep gratitude is extended to the many librarians, archivists and curators who opened to me the treasure troves in their care. In particular, my colleagues and friends at the State Library of Victoria, especially the staff of the La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection and the La Trobe Picture Collection, have been helpful and always interested in the project. Access to previously inaccessible original source material in Switzerland was made possible by Dr Maurice de Tribolet, Archivist of the Canton of Neuchâtel. Dr de Tribolet and his staff, particularly Mme Patricia Rey, provided the most agreeable facilities for research

ix


2/3/06 2:14:05 PM

in the tower of the Château of Neuchâtel from which views of the Alps and the Lake were charming distractions. In the course of a week in 1999, my husband, John Drury, and I photocopied and catalogued for the State Library of Victoria over 4000 documents relating to Charles Joseph La Trobe. Other colleagues who have provided much-needed professional support have included: Martin Beckett, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales; Michael Piggott and the staff of the University of Melbourne Archives; the staff of the Baillieu Library and the Education Resource Centre at the University of Melbourne; the staff of the Public Record Office Victoria; Terence Lane, National Gallery of Victoria; Adrian Flint, Photographer, State Library of Victoria; Leonie Triolo, Multimedia Access Team, State Library of Victoria; Paul Blewitt, Archivist, Moravian Archives, Muswell Hill, London; Margaret Connor, Archivist, Fulneck, Yorkshire; the staff of the National Portrait Gallery, London; the staff of the Public Record Office, Kew, England; and Sara Dodgson, Librarian and Archivist, Athenaeum Club, London. Marguerite Hancock kindly shared with me her extensive knowledge and scholarship relating to Sophie La Trobe. Dr Fay Woodhouse generously read my manuscript at various stages, and gave me the benefit of her objective overview. Others who gave me research assistance in various ways were: the late John Holroyd, OAM; His Grace the Bishop of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, the Rt Rev. Alfred Reid; Douglas Bishop, University Secretary, La Trobe University; Anne Cassidy; Ken Fraser; Elsie Graham; Jack McCrae; Ian Renard; and Angus Trumble. In addition to a Postgraduate Travelling Scholarship from the University of Melbourne, support for necessary research in Switzerland was generously given by Credit Suisse (Melbourne) and by Fuji Rank Xerox Australia. The staff of the School of Graduate Studies, and Building Services at the University of Melbourne, and the University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association, especially Ron Heales, Ellen Smith, Nick Chilcott and Jude Rossiter, have been unfailingly kind, courteous and helpful. My thanks for making sense of incoherent and frequently illegible text go to Karen Thompson whose perfectionism is much appreciated. Julie Beaumont kindly formatted the Index in her usual professional manner.

Acknowledgements


2/3/06 2:14:06 PM

I am greatly obliged to Sybil Nolan, Commissioning Editor, and to Nathan Katz, at Melbourne University Publishing, for recognising the need for an in-depth study of Charles Joseph La Trobe, and for bringing about this publication so effortlessly. I am especially indebted to Jean Kingett who edited the manuscript with great care and professionalism. To John Drury, the most enthusiastic, most critical and most assiduous research assistant and companion throughout the years of this research, goes my deepest gratitude. Dianne Reilly Drury

Acknowledgements


xi

2/3/06 2:14:06 PM

Charles Joseph La Trobe CHRONOLOGY 1801

Charles Joseph La Trobe born on 20 March at Kirby Street, London, the son of Christian Ignatius La Trobe and Hannah Benigna (née Syms). 1809 Sophie de Montmollin born on 9 February at Neuchâtel, Switzerland. 1821 Rose Isabelle de Montmollin born on 24 July at Valengin, Switzerland. 1824 Hannah La Trobe died in London on 8 April. 1824–27 Charles Joseph La Trobe tutor to Comte Albert de Pourtalès. 1829 His first book The Alpenstock: Or Sketches of Swiss Scenery and Manners published. 1832 The Pedestrian: A Summer’s Ramble in the Tyrol published. 1832–34 With Pourtalès and American author Washington Irving, made a long journey across America, preceding a second tour in Mexico. 1835 The Rambler in North America published. La Trobe and Sophie de Montmollin married on 16 September at the British Legation in Berne. 1836 The Rambler in Mexico published. 1837 British government sent La Trobe to report on educational facilities for emancipated slaves in the West Indies. Agnes Louisa La Trobe born in Neuchâtel on 2 April. Report on Negro Education in Jamaica tabled in House of Commons on 19 October. 1838 Report on Negro Education in the Windward and Leeward Islands presented in House of Commons on 14 April. Report on Negro Education in British Guiana and Trinidad presented in House of Commons on 14 August. 1839 La Trobe appointed Superintendent of Port Phillip District in January. Sailed from London on board the Fergusson on 31 March with Sophie, Agnes and two servants.

xii


2/3/06 2:14:06 PM

1841

1842

1843

1845 1846

1847

Arrived Sydney on 25 July. La Trobe’s appointment as Superintendent of Port Phillip District of New South Wales proclaimed on 10 September. La Trobe and family sailed from Sydney on board the Pyramus. Arrived Hobson’s Bay on 30 September—met by Captain William Lonsdale. La Trobe landed and walked into Melbourne on 1 October. Assumed office as Superintendent on 3 October. Depression at Port Phillip following the boom of 1839–40. George Gipps, Governor of New South Wales, made official visit to Port Phillip District. Eleanora Sophia La Trobe born on 30 March. The town of Melbourne incorporated on 12 August. Elections for first Melbourne Town Council held on 1 December. First Constitution Act proclaimed in Sydney on 5 January. Port Phillip to have five members in NSW Legislative Council. Mary Cecilia La Trobe born on 20 June. Melbourne Argus first published on 2 June. Charles Albert La Trobe born on 25 December. Melbourne Hospital founded on 20 March. John Arthur appointed first curator of Botanic Gardens for which La Trobe had chosen site in previous year. La Trobe reached Cape Otway on third attempt on 2 April. Laid Foundation Stone of St Peter’s Church, Eastern Hill, on 18 June. Sir George Gipps retired as Governor of New South Wales on 10 July. Sir Charles FitzRoy arrived as Governor of New South Wales on 2 August. La Trobe appointed Acting Administrator of Van Diemen’s Land vice Sir John Eardley Wilmot on 6 October. Returned to Melbourne on 10 February, arriving in Williamstown on 23 February. Melbourne proclaimed a city on 25 June.

Chronology


xiii

2/3/06 2:14:06 PM

1848 1849

1850

1851

1852

1853

1854

Charles Perry, first Bishop of Melbourne, arrived on 23 January. Specimens of gold found near Maldon and the Pyrenees in February. Convict transport Randolph arrived on 8 August. La Trobe paid captain £500 to remove his ship from the Bay. Royal Assent to Imperial Act separating Port Phillip from New South Wales on 5 August. La Trobe declared Prince’s Bridge open on 15 November. La Trobe appointed Lieutenant-Governor of the new colony of Victoria on 1 January. Separation Act proclaimed, creating the Colony of Victoria, on 13 January. La Trobe sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor by Mr Justice a’Beckett on 6 February. Gold discovered near Clunes in June, at Anderson’s Creek (Warrandyte) and at Mt Alexander in July, and at Buninyong near Ballarat in August. William Lonsdale appointed Colonial Secretary for Victoria on 15 July. Gold licence fee of 30s monthly imposed in August. Licence system enforced on goldfields from 6 January. Unsuccessful attempt to raise fee to £3 per month in January. Supreme Court established on 10 February. La Trobe dispatched his resignation to England on 31 December. Foundation stones for the Melbourne Public Library and the University of Melbourne laid on 11 January. Sophie La Trobe and three children departed Melbourne for Neuchâtel on 25 February. Sophie La Trobe died at Neuchâtel on 30 January. La Trobe sailed on steamship the Golden Age after 14 years 7 months and 6 days at Port Phillip on 6 May. Sir Charles Hotham arrived in Melbourne as new Lieutenant-Governor on 22 June.

xiv


2/3/06 2:14:07 PM

1855

1856 1858 1859 1862 1865

1875 1878 1883

La Trobe in London. La Trobe married Sophie’s widowed sister, Rose Isabelle de Meuron, in Neuchâtel on 3 October. Margaret Rose La Trobe born at Addington in England on 3 September. La Trobe appointed Companion of the Order of the Bath. Isabelle Castellane Helen La Trobe born at the Château de Greng in Switzerland. La Trobe’s eyesight begins to deteriorate seriously. Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) Act proclaimed 5 July. La Trobe awarded pension of £333 6s 8d a year. Practically blind. Charles Joseph La Trobe died on 4 December at Clapham House, Litlington, near Eastbourne, in Sussex. Rose La Trobe built chapel at Neuchâtel in memory of her husband. Death of Rose La Trobe in Neuchâtel.

Chronology


xv

2/3/06 2:14:07 PM

Abbreviations Used in Notes ADB CO PROV SLNSW SLV

Australian Dictionary of Biography Colonial Office Public Record Office Victoria State Library of New South Wales, Sydney State Library of Victoria, Melbourne

xvi


2/3/06 2:14:07 PM

Introduction Charles Joseph La Trobe is a shadowy figure in Australian history even though he presided over some of the most important and decisive events in the development of the Port Phillip District in what was then southern New South Wales. After eleven years as Superintendent of this outpost of New South Wales, he was appointed the first Lieutenant-Governor of the new colony of Victoria, a post he filled with mixed success. Nevertheless, he is astonishingly little known as a person. The question of his parentage has often been raised, and although the explanation of his English background is accepted with some surprise, conjecture as to the origin of his unusual surname remains. The historiography has not provided an understanding of the man who was Governor. Apart from a single slender biography which portrays a rather wooden character, other detailed references to him in contextual studies can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. It is only in recent years that a body of primary source material has become available, and use has been made of some of it in this book to remove the veils and shake off the dust to reveal something of the real Charles Joseph La Trobe. La Trobe was a virtually untried and inexperienced civil servant when he arrived in Melbourne to take up the new position of Superintendent of the vast Port Phillip District in the south of New South Wales. In this role, he was subordinate, primarily to the Governor in Sydney, Sir George Gipps, and ultimately to the British Colonial Office in London. He remained as Superintendent until 15 July 1851 when separation of the Port Phillip District as a distinct colony was proclaimed and he was declared Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria. La Trobe had arrived at this outpost of the British Empire when the population of Port Phillip was in the vicinity of 3500 to 4000 people.1 When he left Victoria on 5 May 1854 there were as many as 236 776 residents,2 at that time one of the most prosperous colonial settlements in the world. He managed the colony through perhaps the most turbulent fifteen years in its history, as the infrastructure of government was established, separation from New South Wales was achieved, abundant gold discoveries were made, and the principal


2/3/06 2:14:07 PM

cultural institutions were created. While the chief aspects of his public life in Australia are reasonably well documented, less is known about his background before his arrival at Port Phillip, and his activities after leaving his official post. An appreciation of his formation until the age of thirty-eight in 1839 is fundamental to an understanding of the man who became Governor. Early influences created contradictions in him, all of which affected his judgement throughout life, and they may explain why he made some decisions in the course of his life and work, and how he developed as he undertook increasing responsibilities. Despite the fact that most of those who are today aware of La Trobe and his presence in a fledgling Victoria think of him as having been a significant figure in the State’s past, relatively little is actually known about him as a personality. Much less is known about the type of man he was. Very little is recalled of the deep discordancy which prevailed for much of his fifteen years in the colony. Naturally enough, as in any society, there were those in colonial Victoria whose views on almost any subject were diametrically opposed to the ideas and actions of La Trobe. However, La Trobe himself fuelled much of the controversy by unwittingly bringing his own susceptibilities and particular personality traits to the fore in his decision-making as administrator. This book examines the first four decades of his life in order to understand the formative influences that made ‘the man who stepped off the boat’ in the Port Phillip District in 1839. A re-examination of his key policies and attitudes and of responses to them in Port Phillip/ Victoria in 1839–54 in the light of this socialisation enables a new understanding of the foundation period of the State’s history. In order to reveal something of the character of the man, this book contextualises the life of Charles Joseph La Trobe, and examines his ‘continuing vulnerabilities’ and his interaction with society, so as to better understand his attitudes and behaviours while in Australia. The influences on his character, and the commitments, both personal and public, he made during his life, go some way towards explaining his public behaviour. Until now, the public man has been hidden behind the diplomatic reports and formal correspondence. It is the public La Trobe, therefore—the Superintendent and the Lieutenant-Governor—who emerges from what biographical literature there is about him. This

La Trobe: The Making of a Governor


2/3/06 2:14:07 PM

is because, until very recently, no body of personal archives has been accessible to scholars. La Trobe’s reputation has, in the past, been projected solely from his official activities as administrator of the Port Phillip District. This may reflect, to some extent, a wariness on the part of previous writers to stray beyond the public façade of one who was so intimately involved in many of the seminal events in the creation of Victoria. This certainly seems probable, but the simple truth is that La Trobe’s personal records did not become available to researchers until the last decade of the twentieth century. La Trobe was a profoundly controversial character. This is evident from the constant and often scurrilous attacks on him in the press. It is not at all surprising that he had his critics. These were tumultuous times, and everyone in Port Phillip had an opinion, and expressed it, on how their new colony should be developed. More significantly though, La Trobe was controversial because of his unusual manner and style. Everything about him marked him as a man apart from those he had come to govern. All his life his personal conduct was characterised by what was understood as an aloofness, an appearance of snobbishness, but certainly a distance from most of those he dealt with. No understanding of how the man thought or felt comes through from a recital of the litany of his achievements or actions. The vaguest hint of the prophetic role he played in the creation of cultural and scientific institutions begins to emerge with the realisaton that his input was crucial for so many of those ‘civilising’ bodies which continue to flourish today. La Trobe, too, was partly responsible for Victoria’s fame as ‘the garden state’ since he it was who set aside vast tracts of land in Melbourne and country Victoria for recreational use as public gardens and national parks. Much of his planning for Victoria’s future culture may be termed ‘visionary’, since it is only in recent years that the magnitude of his input and forethought has begun to be recognised by the connection between La Trobe and much that is valued as essential to the culture of Victoria. However, at the time, he was living proof that ‘Prophets are not without honour except in their own country’,3 so great was the antipathy and the abuse heaped on him. It would seem, therefore, that the life of La Trobe—the official and the man—is important enough in Victorian history to be explored in all its dimensions. This exploration naturally embraces biographical

Introduction


2/3/06 2:14:08 PM

elements of the central character, together with a wider study to give context to the personal details. Peter McPhee in his biography of ‘Pansy’ Wright summarised appositely the two-way demands of biography: In the end, however, it is precisely the relationship between individual and society, the general and the particular, uniqueness and generality, which is so fascinating about history in general and biography in particular.4 By considering La Trobe in these terms, it is clear that he must be assessed not only from the intensely personal angle of his character and attitudes, but also within the context of the constantly changing world about him. The historiography on La Trobe which covers the period of his life prior to 1839, the year in which he arrived in Australia, is very thin. The only two major biographical works are a monograph, Charles Joseph La Trobe5 by Alan Gross in 1956, and Davis McCaughey’s chapter ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe’ in Victoria’s Colonial Governors6 in 1993, and neither of these does more than mention his Huguenot heritage and Moravian education. While none of the writing about him has been insignificant, historians have not, until recently, had access to original materials which have the ability to shed new light onto the character and attitudes, formed from childhood, which made La Trobe the man he was. Fortunately, a wealth of archival documentation is now available which allows the revelation of more personal characteristics of the man. These papers lead to an explanation of how La Trobe’s background—his family heritage, education and life experiences— shaped his character and informed his administration in Australia, thus enabling a new understanding of this complex man and his responses to the environment in the colony. Peter McPhee, extending metaphors used by Le Roy Ladurie to reflect the historian’s requirement for overview as well as attention to detail, has reminded prospective biographers of the need ‘to be both “parachutists” and “truffle-hunters”, always aware of the broad social terrain as they descend to earth in search of their prey, the experiences of real individuals’.7 I hope that, while considering my subject as a



2/3/06 2:14:08 PM

man of his time, I have been able to demonstrate that the ‘truffles’ located in La Trobe’s character and life experiences create the mosaic which, from an aerial perspective, reveal the man in many of his strengths and in his vulnerability. In a constructive summary of the necessary elements in the form, M. H. Ellis stated that biography is not merely … a record of deeds and events affecting the fate and reputation of an individual, but ... something which sets out to reflect primarily both the event and the growth of the inner life and character and spirit of a particular man or woman.8 It is my contention that the ‘inner life’ of Charles Joseph La Trobe—the background, character, experiences in life and the attitudes which he had formed before his arrival in Australia—shaped his administration as, firstly, Superintendent of the Port Phillip District from 3 October 1839 to 15 July 1851, and then, as the first Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria from 15 July 1851 to 5 May 1854. A preliminary point must be made about the family name of the subject of this book. In France the name has been spelled ‘Latrobe’ from as early as the fourteenth century, and this is the form also used by the American branch of the family. Some Anglo-Saxon branches adopted the form ‘La Trobe’, while the Baltic line is known as ‘de La Trobe’ following the knighthood bestowed on John Frederic by Czar Alexander II in 1864.9 I have followed this orthographic practice when referring to the different national family groups. Charles Joseph La Trobe’s family generally used the version ‘La Trobe’, although Charles Joseph himself used ‘La Trobe’ and ‘Latrobe’ interchangeably.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Garden, Victoria, A History, p. 42. Vamplew (ed.), Australians: Historical Statistics, p. 26. Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version), Matthew xiii, p. 57. McPhee, Pansy: A Life of Roy Douglas Wright, p. 7. Gross, Charles Joseph La Trobe. McCaughey, Perkins and Trumble, Victoria’s Colonial Governors, 1839–1900. McPhee, A Social History of France 1780–1880, p. 5. Ellis, ‘The Writing of Australian Biographies’, p. 432. Pierre Latrobe, ‘Le Patronyme’, pp. 28–9.

Introduction


2/3/06 2:14:08 PM

chapter 1

A Huguenot Heritage

‘Qui la cèrca, la tròba’1 Charles Joseph La Trobe, Superintendent of the Port Phillip District of New South Wales from 1839 to 1851, and first Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria from 1851 to 1854, was a descendant of a remarkable Huguenot family which, as part of the great diaspora created by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France in 1685, was to achieve renown on every continent and in many countries of the world. The cultural legacy inherited by members of the La Trobe family was to have far-reaching impacts on them and their activities, and Charles Joseph La Trobe was no exception. The La Trobe name has its origins in Occitan, the language of the inhabitants of Languedoc in southern France, with its capital in Toulouse. ‘La Troba’ was also the name applied to troubadors, ballad singers or minstrels in the time before family names were generally in use from the mid-fifteenth century. It may have been that the founders of what is known today as the La Trobe family were, in fact, troubadors, but there is no way that this can be proven. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the spelling of any name—a surname, given name or place name—was variable. It was not until the establishment


2/3/06 2:14:08 PM

of the Académie Française by Richelieu in 1635 that the spelling of names in France was defined.2 Prior to the thirteenth century, individuals were known only by given names. Among the nobility, regional or national relationships were usual as additions to personal names in order to avoid confusion. Family names for the rest of the population began to appear in the thirteenth century and were used only for male descendants, female children being identified by the addition of, firstly, their father’s name (for example, the Latrobe forebear, Anne de Gasc was Anne, daughter of Gasc) and, upon marriage, by their husband’s family name.3 The need for surnames arose first in larger cities and towns, and spread much later to residents of villages.

Montauban Origins Although much in the way of historical detail can only be guessed at, what is certain is that the family had its origins in the area around Montauban, north of Toulouse. The presumed ‘cradle’ of the Latrobe family is the tiny hamlet of Monbéqui near Montauban. It would seem logical for an ancestor whose local nickname was ‘La Troba’ to assume this name as his own, once surnames became obligatory.4 The family was rather numerous and widespread, and there were most probably various branches. The Latrobes were of the bourgeois or middle class, being notaries and barristers, as well as artisans and tradesmen in various fields: shoemakers, masons, tanners, weavers and property owners. The name can be traced in church registers in or near Montauban in the villages of Villemur, Varennes, Verlhac, Monbéqui, Montech, Monbartier and other hamlets. Montauban has for many centuries been the principal commercial centre and central focus for these and countless other villages and very small settlements. Thus, events taking place in Montauban had enormous repercussions for the surrounding district, each occurrence of any significance having direct bearing on the lives of members of the Latrobe family. The city of Montauban occupies both banks of the river Tarn which has been spanned since 1335 by a strong brick bridge. One of the ‘villes roses’ of France (the others being Toulouse and Albi, so called because of the characteristic red brick which is a feature of most buildings in these cities), Montauban had been established by the Comtes de Toulouse as a centre of lucrative industries and

A Huguenot Heritage


2/3/06 2:14:08 PM

agriculture. Leather and wool were made into high quality articles from the initial stage through to completion at Montauban; Toulouse had a university and various primary industries; and agriculture and textiles were the economic bases of Albi. During the sixteenth century Montauban, like many towns in the south of France, had limited but significant self-government. It was managed by six consuls elected by the town assembly, three representing the nobility, two the tradesmen, and one the rural population. Reigning over what a specialist in the history of French Protestantism, Janine Garrisson, has described as ‘a truly autonomous town’,5 these consuls administered justice, levied royal and municipal taxes, and were responsible for local security within the city’s fortified walls. They organised trade fairs and markets to promote Montauban, which was in the heart of rich agricultural land, and thus created a lucrative focus for the commerce of the region. As it does today, Montauban sold the fruits of its craftsmen: wool and leather goods and the wine and wheat of the surrounding flat lands. These wares spread throughout the south-west of France via the River Tarn and the Garonne, and the wines travelled as far as Bordeaux.6 As a busy commercial centre Montauban was thus connected to areas outside its immediate vicinity and, despite a powerful central government far away to the north in Versailles, was comparatively free from monarchical control. The uniqueness of Montauban lay in its college. This was not a religious establishment, but one operated on behalf of the municipality and managed by the consuls. From the end of the fifteenth century, instruction in the arts and philosophy was given by renowned professors attracted to Montauban as a centre for the prodigious movement of ideas which swept across western Europe at the start of the sixteenth century. The students and intellectuals who gathered around these professors were a natural conduit for the transmission of new philosophies, added to which the spread of printing at this time made for the easier dissemination of ideas. In such an active, enterprising, and intellectually cultivated environment, it is not surprising that reforming ideas fell on fertile ground.7 From the beginning of the sixteenth century, European consciences were troubled about the appropriate practice of faith, and everyone, including the lowly and poorly educated, was preoccupied



2/3/06 2:14:09 PM

by questions of religion. Of particular concern was the explanation in the Catholic Church of the means of attaining eternal salvation. During the first decades of the century, Martin Luther in Germany had challenged the Church, and in due course, he founded a new and competing Lutheran faith. The Frenchman Jean Calvin shortly afterwards laid down the principles of a theology with close parallels to those of Luther. These two alternatives to Catholicism attracted numerous doubting Christians in search of morality and a reformed ecclesiastical organisation in Switzerland, France, the Low Countries and Scotland. This enormous change—known as the Reformation— caused the collapse of the Catholic Church in many parts of Europe. From 1560, the ideas of Calvin and the practice of Christian faith according to what was known as the Geneva rite, were disseminated by leading citizens of Montauban, including the nobility, who had great influence on the entire population. Even the bishop of Montauban, Jean de Lettes, did not oppose these new ideas. In fact, he was so in favour of reforming policies that he renounced all his ecclesiastical privileges and left for Geneva. However, the Toulouse Parlement, the local pinnacle of royal justice and regional administration located only about 50 kilometres from Montauban, became extremely concerned about what it termed ‘the Calvin heresy, and its progress in the neighbouring town’.8 Toulouse, both then and well into the future, was hostile to the reform movement, and therefore towards Montauban and its reformers. Despite this opposition, reformist ideas spread gradually, influencing the entire population. Pastors, having received instruction in Geneva, began arriving in Montauban as early as 1558, ministering to the inhabitants who had been deprived of beneficial sermons and the sacraments since the collapse of the Catholic Church. By 1561 Montauban had become a totally Protestant town, and it remained a principal bastion of Protestantism throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Monks, nuns and priests underwent conversion or fled; and churches, convents and other religious buildings were seized for Protestant worship. Soon, Calvinistic order was in place, and the religious authorities were supported by municipal government, so as to confirm their status. When the religious wars broke out in 1562, during which the Protestants strove to have both King and Catholic Church respect their freedom of worship, Montauban

A Huguenot Heritage


2/3/06 2:14:09 PM

resisted. The inhabitants suffered three sieges during the year of 1562, all in the name of their Protestant faith. Throughout almost forty years of religious and civil wars, the inhabitants of Montauban remained Huguenots,9 and the town, like Nîmes and La Rochelle, became of central importance as a Protestant bastion. The resulting conflict caused the persecution of Huguenots for almost two centuries, only ending in 1789 when the National Assembly affirmed religious freedom and granted Protestants admission to all offices and professions. Political gatherings took place, where not only clergymen, but also highly placed Calvinists, among them, Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre, debated aspects of religious teaching. After the notorious Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in August 1572 at the Palais du Louvre in Paris, where Protestant guests of Catherine de Medici were slaughtered, Henri de Bourbon was selected as protector of the Huguenots, in effect, their political leader and commander-in-chief. It was he who led the last three civil and religious wars against Henri III and, after the assassination of Henri III in 1589, Henri of Navarre, his closest relative, succeeded to the crown of France as King Henri IV. In 1593, obliged to give way to the wishes of the Catholic majority in France, Henri IV renounced his Protestant faith. He demonstrated a complete change of heart, showing little favour to the Huguenots, while giving increasing privileges to the Catholic population.10 After continual pressure from his Huguenot subjects, Henry IV granted them in April 1598 an Edict of Tolerance, known as the Edict of Nantes. Among the important rights allowed to Protestants by the decree were freedom of opinion, freedom to live anywhere in France without restriction and, to a lesser extent, freedom of religious worship. However, in the time leading up to and immediately after the assassination of Henri IV in 1610, there were violations of the terms of the Edict. An increasingly uneasy atmosphere developed between the Huguenots and the rest of the predominantly Catholic population. Restrictions against Protestants increased, and certain towns became fortified Huguenot strongholds. The religious wars proceeded with huge loss of life.11 Louis XIII, son and successor of Henri IV, was a fervently religious king. His sincerity for Catholicism coincided with a huge wave of Catholic religious feeling sweeping the elite of France towards the

10



2/3/06 2:14:09 PM

Church of Rome which, following the lapse from favour during the Reformation, was now in high resurgence. In 1621, to demonstrate his commitment to Catholicism, Louis XIII went to Béarn, a Protestant princely republic, to support the Catholic clergy through the difficult period of their reinstallation. Tension between Huguenots and Catholics increased, and a new religious war commenced during May 1621 when the royal army marched on the south-west where those towns so strongly held by the Huguenots were unable to resist. In August, the King and almost 25 000 men camped outside Montauban, the resulting siege lasting from 21 August until 18 November. No inhabitant of Montauban, including the Latrobes, would have avoided the terrible privations. An unexpected ally intervened and ravaged the camp of Louis XIII: it was the plague which devastated the gathered forces. Thus, a garrison of small numbers of a fervent Protestant population had successfully resisted an army of the King of France for almost three months. Montauban had triumphed.12 This assault was followed by the notorious siege of La Rochelle in 1627. Here, the Protestant population was totally defeated in 1628 when the town, hemmed in by royalist forces by land and from the Atlantic, collapsed under starvation and disease. In 1629, Louis XIII and his chief minister, Cardinal Richelieu, made peace with the Protestant leaders who were in effect forced into a position of surrendering. The result was that Huguenots lost their safe haven and became politically subservient to the state. Although the Edict of Nantes was ostensibly reaffirmed in the sense that liberty of conscience was preserved, the privileges granted to the Huguenots in 1598 were rescinded. Richelieu, representing the King, solemnly entered a devastated Montauban in 1629 and officially reinstated the Catholic faith. The once powerful Huguenot refuge was under royal control. Six consuls were permitted to operate at the municipal level, and a token and concession to the feelings of the people was made in that these were to be Protestant and Catholic in equal number. Institutions such as a tribunal and treasury were established in the town and, in 1635, a senior administrator with wide-reaching powers and representing the King was installed to oversee his interests.13 These official bodies established at Montauban a core of Catholic magistrates and advisers whose role it was to counter Protestant influence. As Janine Garrisson has stated, it was, in effect, ‘the Catholic

A Huguenot Heritage


11

2/3/06 2:14:09 PM

Church and royal power colonising the Huguenot town’.14 In a period of only thirty years, more than 300 orders were issued aimed at excluding Huguenots from the public activities of French life. At first, measures were introduced to make the Huguenot inhabitants of Montauban invisible: Protestant clergymen were no longer to wear clerical dress, and Protestant funerals were ‘to take place either at dawn or dusk with a maximum of ten people in attendance. No more than a dozen people were allowed to attend baptisms and marriages; the singing of hymns was only permitted within the temple or private houses, and this above all in a low voice’.15 Secondary measures were introduced which, in effect, would reduce the spread of the Protestant faith: specifically, Protestant schools were forbidden. It was considered that young children were mature enough to choose the Catholic faith—girls at twelve years of age, and boys at fourteen. By 1681, this age of ‘free will’ was lowered to seven years of age. Children of both sexes were then accepted or virtually kidnapped by the teachers, monks and nuns, and housed in special accommodation for new recruits. About 1685, other prohibitions excluded the Huguenots from the public and medical professions and the skilled trades, with the result that the only occupations open to Protestants were commerce and agricultural labour. The Huguenots of Montauban were patient, and although they witnessed the destruction of their temples by fire and by other forms of violence, they set up commercial ventures, and soon major enterprises prospered.16 However, this attempt at the eradication of a minority religion by royal power and the might of the Catholic Church did not succeed; very few of the Huguenots converted to Catholicism by choice. From 1683, however, force was used to coerce them into accepting the Catholic faith. These were the infamous dragonnades, when soldiers were billeted in Protestant homes and encouraged to provoke disorder. This policy had many successes: the regiments sent to Poitou, Saintonge, Béarn, Guyenne, and Languedoc were exceptionally brutal in oppressing the Huguenots so numerous in these provinces. Known as the ‘missionaries in boots’, it was these soldiers who broke resistance in Montauban and the rest of France.17 At the seat of government in Versailles, the King and his court assumed the pretence that there were no longer any Huguenots in France, and on 17 October 1685 the Edict of Nantes was revoked. ‘This

12



2/3/06 2:14:10 PM

text forbade the Reform Church to celebrate the liturgy, expelled unconverted clergymen, made Catholic baptism obligatory for all children, forbade those Huguenots remaining [in France] the right of exile, as well as those who had converted to Catholicism.’18 Despite this, approximately one thousand people fled from Montauban into exile on account of their faith. At that time, while nearly 700 000 Huguenots practised Catholicism on the surface, about 200 000 persevered ‘underground’ in the practice of their Protestant religion, in the face of severe restrictions and police surveillance.19 Since there were no Protestant cemeteries, and a Catholic priest was required for any burial in town, a problem arose when deaths occurred, since a Catholic funeral was unacceptable to those of Protestant faith. The result was that many of those who died were buried in secret.20 The people who fled from the intolerance of the kingdom of France were those with portable skills, such as craftsmen, some notable and well-connected people who would find a safe haven elsewhere, and the members of the nobility. They left to join their fellow Huguenots in Switzerland, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Britain and its North American colonies, and South Africa where they could live lives free from persecution and in freedom of conscience. A number of them kept in contact with members of their families who had converted to Catholicism for practical reasons and had remained at Montauban, or in its vicinity.

Jean Latrobe It was into this violent and intolerant society that Jean Latrobe was born at Villemur-sur-Tarn on 26 September 1670, fifteen years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Jean, the eldest surviving son of Michel Latrobe and his wife, Maffré de Raymond, may be considered the founder of the English branch of the La Trobe family. Soon after his birth, he was baptised by the Protestant minister at the Reformed Church in the village of Verlhac, close to Montauban. His godparents were Jean Barthe and Jeanne de Raymond, his mother’s sister.21 Very little is known of Jean Latrobe’s background, but family tradition holds that he was well educated and that as a young man, he—like so many of his contemporaries—was forced by the religious persecution of the time to sever his family connections and to leave France. In the French branch of the family, he is known as ‘Jean, le Réfugié’.

A Huguenot Heritage


13

2/3/06 2:14:10 PM

While many thousands of Protestants fled to Switzerland where a large French community was established, Jean became a soldier with the Dutch Protestant Prince William of Orange, and accompanied him to England where the Prince was invited to take the English throne in 1688. According to the tradition of the English branch of the La Trobe family, Jean had joined William’s army in Holland.22 It is not surprising that Jean Latrobe should be one of the 36 000 soldiers of various nationalities who crossed the Irish Sea in 1690 with William of Orange, determined to fight against Catholicism and despotism in the incarnation of James II and his forces. William’s trust in the organisational talents, bravery and reliability of the men who joined his troops was justified in the achievement of victory over James II and his army at the Battle of the Boyne River in 1690. Jean was among those who fought and won with William in Ireland. The Irish military historian, Hugh Murtagh, in his comprehensive overview of the participation of the Huguenots in this battle, states: William had a high regard for the military qualities of the French refugees and relied on them to give a stiffening of experience, professionalism and commitment to his forces in Ireland. William’s confidence in the Huguenots proved justified, they were amongst the most dependable and courageous of his troops, and played a prominent and possibly a decisive role in the achievement of victory at the battle of the Boyne. The core of the Huguenot contribution to William’s Army was three regiments of foot and one of horse … All the cavalry troopers were said to have been French Gentlemen, but the rank and file of the infantry was less select. In 1690, the four regiments mustered about 2,800 officers and men.23 Jean Latrobe’s rank is not known, but family tradition has it from a letter 140 years later from Frederick La Trobe to his brother, Christian Ignatius, that their great-grandfather had been an officer in William’s army.24 Injured in the fighting, he was shortly afterwards invalided out of the army, and remained in Ireland, at Waterford. In 1690, there was already a substantial Huguenot colony in Waterford. Samuel Smiles, commenting on the history of the city,

14



2/3/06 2:14:10 PM

described the French Protestant colony as ‘of considerable importance’, encouraged by an act of the Irish Parliament to settle in Waterford. Many of these refugees were disbanded Huguenot officers and soldiers, and others skilled in the arts and manufacturing who were attracted by the emerging linen industry. Thus Waterford became a flourishing centre for the linen trade.25 A compatriot of the Huguenot leader Louis Crommelin, known as the founder of the Irish linen industry, Jean Latrobe soon established himself as a linen manufacturer in the town. Louis Crommelin was the son of a well-to-do family which had been active in the linen industry in France for several generations. He had, fortuitously, anticipated the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and had left France entirely of his own accord, taking with him a considerable fortune. After settling in Ireland, he undertook a contract for the Irish government to develop the linen industry and to spread technical knowledge among the Irish. In 1698, he was given the title of ‘Overseer of the Royal Linen Manufactory’.26 His assistants undertook the important role of travelling from place to place, superintending the cultivation of flax, and seeing the process through to the completion of the fine fabric.27 It is probable that Jean Latrobe was chosen by Crommelin to be his assistant in Waterford and Leinster. Jean Latrobe, in some official documents, is described as a ‘clothier’.28 This may well indicate his advancement to the position of employer of a group of weavers, who dealt either directly with clients or through wholesale merchants on behalf of small farmers who undertook weaving as a cottage industry. Jean Latrobe had thus become involved in the newly established linen industry which was vigorously encouraged by King William in the last decade of the seventeenth century. This decade was later to become known as ‘the golden age of the Huguenots’.29 The Ulster Journal of Archaeology notes that John (Jean) La Trobe received several subsidies between 1715 and 1721 of £10 each for services rendered for the advancement of the linen industry in the county of Leinster.30 In 1717, Crommelin and Latrobe jointly petitioned the Irish government for a grant to establish a sail-cloth manufactory in Waterford. Crommelin was awarded £1000 a year for two years, Latrobe and another associate receiving smaller sums.31 After Crommelin’s death in 1727, Latrobe continued successfully in the linen and sail-cloth industry until 1746, when the invention of power

A Huguenot Heritage


15

2/3/06 2:14:10 PM

looms in larger centres caused a downturn for smaller manufactories, and he left Waterford for Dublin to join his son James, also a sail-cloth weaver and merchant.

Moravianism Jean was the father of three sons, the second of whom, James, was the great-grandfather of Charles Joseph La Trobe. James La Trobe, a linen manufacturer and merchant like his father, was brought up in his birthplace of Waterford as a Baptist. However, a subsequent choice of another Protestant denomination was to have profound consequences for his family, and in particular his great-grandson. He was received into the Moravian congregation in Dublin in 1750, thus beginning a deep and enduring commitment to that faith continued by many of his descendants. James was a churchwarden at St Mark’s in Dublin, and it was in the adjoining churchyard of this church that he was buried, aged fifty, in 1752.32 Moravianism is a Protestant, non-conformist denomination which traces its history to the fifteenth-century Bohemian Brethren, or Unitas Fratrum, in Moravia, a central province of what is now the Czech Republic. The Brethren had formally left the Catholic Church, whose form of worship and governing precepts were felt to be alien to their view of Christianity. The teachings of John Hus, the Wycliffite burned at the stake in 1415,33 who advocated strict scriptural teaching and the living of a truly Christian daily life, accorded more with their ideals. Upon the suppression of the Brethren in Bohemia and Moravia, the followers fled to Saxony in 1722 where they settled on the estate of Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, a Lutheran who offered them sanctuary. There, on his land, they set up a communal society called Herrnhut, meaning ‘the Lord’s watch’. The Moravians believed, and still do, that they had a special ecumenical mission, and their hope was to unite Christians with divergent beliefs into one practical system of living the Christian way of life.34 Evangelism is an important aspect of Moravian work. As early as 1738, a number of Moravians went from Saxony to London where they established the Fetter Lane Society in a small street bearing this name off Fleet Street leading to Holborn.35 This congregation was one which played a major role in John Wesley’s early spiritual development before he founded a more prescriptive faith. Moravians

16



2/3/06 2:14:10 PM

considered their particular calling was to bring the Christian message to places not previously reached, rather than to set up churches in opposition to established denominations. In England, they became affiliated with the Anglican Church and, in the nineteenth century, had close links with evangelical Anglicans at home and abroad.36 The La Trobe family in England and elsewhere exerted great influence over the development of the Moravian Church in England. Benjamin La Trobe, the son of James, was born in Dublin in 1728. After matriculating from Glasgow University in 1743, he returned to Ireland, where he sought out the company of Protestants whose orientation was more evangelical than the Baptists among whom he had been raised. With a small group of like-minded individuals, including his father, James, Benjamin invited the English lay evangelist John Cennick to Dublin in 1746, and it was this connection which resulted in Benjamin’s interest in the Moravian Church. John Cennick was born in 171837 in Berkshire to an old Bohemian family who ‘had probably fled to England at the time of the downfall of the Ancient Church’38 when the Brethren were persecuted in Bohemia and Moravia. After associations with John and Charles Wesley at Oxford, he set out on his own as a preacher in Wiltshire and was so accomplished as a speaker that he soon had quite a preaching circuit. This developed to such a degree that he shortly had to request religious societies, including the Moravians, to take over the burden. Cennick himself joined the Brethren in 1745, and preached with such effect that congregations would form two or three hours ahead of the service. It was to this charismatic Christian that Benjamin and James owed their conversion to the Moravian faith.39 The Moravian Church is liturgical in the conduct of its rites, special emphasis being placed on the use of music in its services. The Church is governed by provincial synods rather than by its bishops, who fulfil the role of spiritual leaders and administrators. Attracted to the simplicity and the sincerity of this celebratory communal form of Christianity, Benjamin La Trobe visited Moravian settlements in Germany and in England and, in September 1748, was received into the Moravian Church at its English centre in Fetter Lane. He spent his young life in constant journeyings throughout the British Isles, making Fulneck in Yorkshire his base. He was ordained a Moravian minister in 1754, taking charge of the Fulneck settlement three years

A Huguenot Heritage


17

2/3/06 2:14:11 PM

later, and establishing a reputation as a gifted orator with an ability to draw and hold large crowds. In 1756 in Herrnhut in Germany he married Anna Margaretta Antes, daughter of the prominent Moravian Henry Antes of Pennsylvania. The following year, they took up residence at Fulneck.40 As the Moravian leader in England, Benjamin was foremost in the establishment in 1785 of the Moravian village of Fairfield near Manchester, and it was he who encouraged the use of music among Moravians in Britain. Benjamin and Anna’s first child was Christian Ignatius La Trobe, born in 1758 at Fulneck, where later he began an education which was to result in a career as a Moravian bishop.41 He was enrolled at Fulneck School at the age of just two in 1760 during his father’s headmastership.42 Benjamin La Trobe, the father of this infant, administered Fulneck in a dual role as headmaster and minister for eleven years from 1757.43 Fulneck Settlement, in Yorkshire near Leeds, had been established in 1753 on a site selected by Count Zinzendorf as a suitable location for a Moravian settlement in the north of England.44 Its school, opened on 3 May 1753, was originally intended solely for the children of ministers and others employed in church activities. It was supported by voluntary contributions from the various Moravian congregations. Its reputation as a school offering a fine education soon made it attractive, for their children’s benefit, to parents not of the Moravian faith, and non-Moravians were admitted to the boarding school. In 1808, an Academy offering a more advanced level of education was opened at Fulneck, its primary aim being the provision of training for the ministry and other services in the Moravian congregations of Great Britain and Ireland, without the necessity of undergoing the inconvenience and expense of travel to Herrnhut, the Moravian headquarters in Germany.45 It is interesting to note that, typical of the ecumenism of the Moravian faith, not only candidates for the Moravian ministry were admitted, but also students intended as clergy for other churches. Many students at the Fulneck School progressed straight to the Fulneck Seminary following their final year as school students.46 However, Christian Ignatius and his brothers continued their studies at the Moravian Theological College at Niesky in Germany47 where the curriculum allowed for the development of an individual student’s talents, as well as equipping them as religious leaders. It was here that he was given ‘excellent musical instruction’

18



2/3/06 2:14:11 PM

and developed an extraordinary facility with a wide range of musical instruments. In 1787, he became Secretary to the Moravian Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel. Three years later at Fulneck, he married Hannah Benigna Syms of Ballinderry, County Tipperary in Ireland, daughter of a Moravian minister.48 Of this marriage, six children were born, of whom Charles Joseph was the fifth child and third of four sons.

Christian Ignatius La Trobe Due to his extraordinary intellectual abilities and vision, Christian Ignatius was elected Secretary of the United Brethren in England in 1795, and so began a career as an evangelical missionary which was to last forty-one years.49 It has been said of him that he was ‘not only the finest Moravian preacher of the Century, but was recognized as one of the greatest Protestant preachers in England’.50 Some of his experiences are recorded in his book Journal of a Visit to South Africa in 1815 and 1816.51 On his return journey, on board the Royal Navy frigate Zebra, he visited the island of St Helena ‘to offload some wine, sheep and other goods’52 for Napoleon, who had just been landed there as a prisoner. La Trobe was conducting the young Plantagenet Somerset, son of the Governor of the Cape Province, home to England. They had hoped to meet the former Emperor, but he was just now not only highly displeased with the Governor [Sir Hudson Lowe] and the English in general, on account of some necessary restrictions put upon him, but truly ill with a swelling of the gums, and a breaking out in the lower part of his face, which had confined him to his room for several days.53 Christian Ignatius La Trobe mixed in musical circles, counting the renowned musicologist Dr Charles Burney and the composer Franz Josef Haydn among his closest friends.54 He himself was a prolific composer, dedicating his Three Sonatas for Piano, published about 1791, to Haydn.55 His most important publication for the Moravian liturgy was Anthems for one or more voices sung in the Church of the United Brethren (London, 1811),56 and his Selection of Sacred Music in six volumes issued between 1806 and 1826, was,

A Huguenot Heritage


19

2/3/06 2:14:11 PM

according to Nicholas Temperley, a ‘pioneering work [which] opened an entirely new realm of music, most of it Catholic in origin, to English musicians’.57 While he was not a professional musician,58 it is recorded that Christian Ignatius could play an immense number of Haydn’s compositions by heart, and was a noted composer himself. An obituary noted that It seemed extraordinary, that, with such large hands as he possessed, he could manage the keys of the pianoforte with the requisite clearness and agility. Yet he played delightfully in the style of the most accomplished musician.59 Like his father before him, Christian Ignatius was active in the anti-slavery movement, and had close contact with William Wilberforce, the English Member of Parliament who had devoted himself and his considerable financial resources to the cause of the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery itself. Wilberforce was one of the leaders of the Clapham Sect, a group of evangelical social reformers in London. Christian Ignatius subscribed to the same principles as this gathering of well-connected and influential men, and had recourse to the generosity of Wilberforce who contributed to the increasing expense of Moravian missionary work. Christian Ignatius was frequently away from his six children while on evangelical missions. To maintain his parental role, he compiled ‘Letters to my children, written at sea during a Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope in 1815’.60 These display the care and tenderness of a loving father, and reveal in their didacticism his concern for the education and social consciousness of each of his offspring. There is little evidence of any softness or overt affection to illuminate the love and tenderness which doubtless existed within the family life of Charles Joseph, his parents and siblings. Almost the only material extant which demonstrates parental care and concern is contained in these letters. The first letter to Peter, the eldest, discusses music and the cultivation of friends who personify all the Christian virtues. To Charlotte, his elder daughter, he wrote of the evils of the slave trade and the work of Wilberforce; to Anna Agnes, he wrote of religious virtues and music; to John Antes, he described his Moravian work; and to Benjamin Frederic, he spoke of the evils of sin.

20



2/3/06 2:14:11 PM

In his lengthy and concerned letter,61 the only one in existence, to the fourteen-year-old Charles Joseph, whom he addressed by his family name of Joseph, he recalled his great fear of losing him as an infant at two years of age from a debilitating fever, and the tremendous relief when the crisis had passed. He went on to communicate to Joseph the great importance of religious principles in living a good life and, in a series of anecdotes, gave his son ‘some proofs of the gracious dealings of God our Saviour’.62 Christian Ignatius wrote to all his children, recounting various events in his lifetime. When writing to Charles Joseph, he made reference to his son’s sense of humour: ‘You are of a lively, cheerful disposition, and would perhaps, best like some merry story, by which you might be amused, as well as instructed’.63 The responsible father in Christian Ignatius set his intention in perspective, noting that light-hearted, amusing anecdotes are best reserved for conversation. This would indicate that light-heartedness, as well as more didactic matters, formed part of the fabric of La Trobe family life. In recounting the incident of Charles Joseph’s fever, Christian Ignatius recorded the efforts he took to ensure his son’s recovery, his great concern not to worry his wife unnecessarily, and the sharp anxiety he felt at the very real prospect of losing the infant to some unknown illness. As well as seeking to set the adolescent Charles Joseph a perfect example of true manliness, his father reinforced the religious piety with which his whole family had been imbued from birth. The moral he wished to point out to Charles Joseph was that, having been spared a premature death, he had a moral obligation to the God who had preserved him: ‘our dear Joseph should be a joy and honour to him and to his people, as his child and servant’.64 The next anecdotes in the letter referred to generous donations to the needy, episodes whose true importance would appeal to Charles Joseph, since ‘You have a generous heart, and love to hear of a poor man relieved in distress’.65 Little else is known of the family life in which Charles Joseph was brought up, but it may be deduced from his father’s letters and his own tenderness towards his children that his was a caring and cultured background. Charles Joseph La Trobe was born in London on 20 March 1801 at Kirby Street in the Farringdon Ward, now known as Hatton Garden. The family had a typical education and religious upbringing of the Moravian faith, and it was this strong faith which

A Huguenot Heritage


21

2/3/06 2:14:12 PM

was to govern his every action, and shape his character for the rest of his life. In order to understand how his religious upbringing had such a profound effect on his whole being and outlook, it is necessary to return to the fundamentals of Moravianism in more detail.

Moravian Principles The Moravian faith upholds as a fundamental principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and the practice of that faith. With this in mind, the Moravian Synod of 1775, held at Barby in Germany, declared: We will therefore, without lessening the importance of any other article of the Christian faith, steadfastly maintain the following five points: 1. ‘The doctrine of the universal depravity of man; that there is no health in man, and that since the fall, he has no power whatever left to help himself. 2. ‘The doctrine of the divinity of Christ; that God the Creator of all things, was manifest in the flesh, and reconciled us to Himself; that He is before all things; and that by Him all things consist. 3. ‘The doctrine of the atonement and the satisfaction made for us by Jesus Christ; that He was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification; and that by His merits alone, we receive freely the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification in soul and body. 4. ‘The doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the operations of His grace; that it is He, who worketh in us conviction of sin, faith in Jesus, and pureness in heart. 5. ‘The doctrine of the fruits of faith; that faith must evidence itself by willing obedience to the commandments of God, from love and gratitude to Him.’66 These basic tenets of the faith underpinned the principle linking all the scattered Moravian congregations and institutions as a whole, ‘no oppositions of interest ought to exist among them, or their individual members’.67 Brotherly love, demonstrated in mutual sympathy and reciprocity of feeling, was called for:

22



2/3/06 2:14:12 PM

In order that as part of the universal Church, we may more and more attain the aim of our high calling of God in Christ, it is not enough for her members to agree in doctrine and certain rites and ceremonies, but that they should individually be living branches in Christ the Vine, and thus exhibit to the world a community of true children of God, a family of God having Jesus in their head, whose members love each other as Brethren and sisters, and maintain the closest unity of Spirit.68 Charles Joseph became a pupil at the Fulneck School in 1807, aged six.69 No accounts of his experiences at the school are known to exist, but informed speculation allows the construction of a picture of his time as a student. He was removed from his home at a very young age, and his education and moral development were handed over to the Church. This was typical Moravian practice, members of the Church being confident that a well-organised boarding school life would shape their children both educationally and spiritually. Christian Ignatius had weighty responsibility as Secretary of the United Brethren. He and his wife were based in London, with the result that they saw their children infrequently in the course of a year. An enlightened precept of Moravian philosophy was the requirement that each child was an individual who should be educated to the extent of his or her own capabilities. The Moravian education system was governed by some prescriptive directions. Scholars were classified, firstly by age, and secondly, according to their level of ability. Supervision at all times, during class and recreation, was viewed as the best way ‘in early familiarizing the pupils with the serious truth that nothing can be attained in this life without labour and perseverance, and thus habituating them to diligence and regularity in all their pursuits’.70 Classes at the time that Charles Joseph attended the school were seldom larger than twelve pupils and lasted no longer than one hour ‘so as not to weary scholars by fixing their attention too long on the same object’.71 Every activity was governed by the timetable, with the result that students were soon taught the benefits of order in their lives. No doubt, the care taken in the sympathetic nurturing of each child had much to do with the exceptional education results achieved:

A Huguenot Heritage


23

2/3/06 2:14:12 PM

Care is also taken, that the classes, in which the languages, mathematics etc are taught, are held in the early part of the day, when the memory and faculties are in the best order for study; the easier branches of learning being reserved for the afternoon.72 Discipline in the educative process was of the gentlest nature, following the practice in the church as a whole, which consisted ‘of brotherly Admonition, Reproof and Correction’.73 It was instilled into students in a didactive but gentle manner: As instructors of youth, the Brethren avoid, as much as possible, all coercive measures, and endeavour to enforce diligence and good conduct by addressing themselves to the understandings and affections of their pupils. They seek on all occasions to convince them that, as obedience to their parents and teachers, the proper application of their time and talents to learning, are duties required by God himself; they cannot be truly happy without a faithful performance of these duties.74 La Trobe evidently flourished in such a system, as did his brothers and his talented father and uncles. This is demonstrated by the wide range of his interests in adult life, and in his reflective and informed personality. Like his uncle, Benjamin Henry Latrobe, the Moravian education system gave him the basis for a future of ongoing study and eclectic interests.75 The standard curriculum at Fulneck included the study of Classical and Modern Languages, History, Drawing, and Science in the form of Botany and Physics. Children were also required to develop physical strength and fitness. Charles Joseph’s second cousin, Samuel Hazard La Trobe, kept a diary of his own daily life at Fulneck some forty years after Charles Joseph’s time at the school. This reflects the sort of regime and the general ambience of the school experienced earlier by his older cousin. The weekly routine of the boys who lived, worked and relaxed in the Single Brethren’s quarters, embraced all the necessary subjects: English Grammar, Latin, French, Arithmetic, Geography, Drawing and Singing. A great deal of homework and learning by rote was the

24



2/3/06 2:14:12 PM

norm and, as was the case for the young Samuel, so was gentle correction for such misdemeanours as talking in class and impertinence.76 The week was liberally sprinkled with periods of recreation, cricket being a great favourite. Visiting clergy of many denominations preached to the students and there were various lectures on interesting subjects, such as elocution and slavery. The Debating Society was a focus for the whole school, and Samuel recounted that ‘I went to it as I wished to hear the debate of this evening as I was greatly interested in the subject which was about slavery and it was proved that it was a good thing that slavery is abolished’.77 Constant supervision was considered a leading principle of Moravian education, and Samuel recorded the many excursions for historical purposes on which the boys went, accompanied by their masters. About the same time that Charles Joseph was at the school, John Dawes Worgan was a fellow student at Fulneck. In some notes which formed the introduction to his published Select Poems, he conveyed what seems to be a typical opinion—one that Charles Joseph would no doubt have shared in hindsight—of life at the School: ‘Within its confines some of the happiest of my days were passed. There was a predominant spirit of piety which produced a spirit of harmony and content. I turn with the most tender regret from the place where I received my education for two years; where I was treated with uniform kindness;—where my understanding and my heart were alike the objects of attention, and perhaps were equally improved’.78 He described the division of the Single Brethren’s quarters into five classes, each with a separate room with two teachers. Masters in particular disciplines sometimes attended, and all was under the superintendence of the headmaster: ‘Every morning at 8 o’clock we assembled in the Chapel where a brief discourse was delivered to us. It was also part of our daily task that we should commit to memory two texts of scripture’.79 The teachers in Moravian schools were selected for the moral example they would set students, as much as for their pedagogical acumen. Their task was ‘leading their pupils to act from religious principles’ and in so doing, to guard them ‘against the pernicious influence of ambition’. The end result of such an approach to the formation of youth in the educational system of the Moravians was ‘a character, which is more strikingly apparent in the principles and

A Huguenot Heritage


25

2/3/06 2:14:12 PM

spirit inculcated in both teachers and scholars, than in the regularity, with which scriptural instruction and devotional exercises are attended to in their schools’.80 As one who enjoyed a Moravian education himself, and who is himself a distant cousin of Charles Joseph, the Rev. Basil MacLeavy, before his retirement a Moravian clergyman in Jamaica, has recently recalled: ‘It is clear that life at Fulneck in the early nineteenth century was much gentler, and perhaps more humane, than in the big public schools with their fights and floggings’.81 The sons of Christian Ignatius La Trobe—Peter, John Antes, Charles Joseph and Benjamin Frederic —were educated along these lines at the Moravian School in Fulneck, and at the Fairfield Boys’ Boarding School, another Moravian Settlement, in the Manchester suburb of Droylsden,82 no doubt with the intention of preparing them for the ministry. However, of the four, only Peter followed his father into the Moravian Church, taking over in 1836 on the death of Christian Ignatius as Secretary of the United Brethren. John Antes La Trobe became an Anglican clergyman and, eventually, Canon of Carlisle Cathedral, while Benjamin Frederic, a doctor in the West Indies, succumbed to fever in 1841, aged thirty-eight. Having decided not to enter the Church, Charles Joseph became a schoolmaster for a time at the Fairfield school. While he was teaching, his father and his brother Peter made an extensive journey to Europe, principally to Germany, but also to France and the Netherlands. The journal kept by Peter showed the abiding interests in church architecture, the natural environment and music, interests held by so many members of the La Trobe family.83 It revealed him as a well-educated, well-read young man with a most impressive knowledge of European history and English and German literature. This cultured tourist demonstrated an education common to all the sons of Christian Ignatius. He presented a detailed knowledge of battle movements and their ramifications in his description of the visit to the site of the Battle of Waterloo, related historic details of many other places visited, and described with appreciation the various beauties of nature before his eyes. Throughout the journal, at every turn, Peter’s inbuilt religious faith found reflection in the natural environment. Of all the La Trobe sons, Charles Joseph was the one who appears not to have had a clear idea of the direction in life he should take. In his 1815 letter to him, Christian Ignatius hinted at perhaps a certain

26



2/3/06 2:14:13 PM

lack of seriousness in the fourteen-year-old boy, when referring to his ‘lively, cheerful disposition’, and his liking for ‘some merry story, by which you might be amused’.84 After regaling the boy with four moral tales, including a didactic one recounting Charles Joseph’s fortunate escape from death as an infant, his father concluded by warning him of the need to be a responsible adult: ‘While we rely on the care and providence of a gracious God and Father, it behoves us to be cautious and circumspect, and not unnecessarily to run into danger’.85 Charles Joseph La Trobe was a sensitive man throughout his life and, no doubt, had been an impressionable youth. He may have been seriously affected emotionally by the long periods at school, separated from his parents. It is quite plausible that this remoteness should have created in him a guardedness or an aloofness and seeming lack of responsiveness which would influence his future behaviour. His youngest uncle, John Frederic La Trobe, could have been speaking for his nephew when he said: What did I know of our father but by hearsay? I left him, when I was six years old, to go to Fulnec [sic] School. Here I saw him sometimes, when he came to Yorkshire on a visit, but when I was 14, he brought me to the college at Nisky [sic], and I never saw him afterwards.86 In any case, Charles Joseph finished his schooldays with all the Moravian values and convictions instilled into his character. He had been educated in the firm Protestant beliefs of the Church which showed themselves in the piety and spirituality evident all his life, and in the natural evangelicalism of all Moravians. He left school, having had a broad-ranging education in many subjects and with a continuing scholarly interest in diverse fields. By the time he completed his formal education, he was at least tri-lingual, having excellent skills in French, German and his native English. He had developed throughout his youth a passion for the outdoors and a physical strength which equipped him well for his future sporting and natural history activities. He had been schooled in debating, a Moravian method of imparting skills in analysis on many subjects and a respect for the opinions of others. He had had a well-rounded and thorough education to equip him appropriately for his future.

A Huguenot Heritage


27

2/3/06 2:14:13 PM

Conversely, an indecisiveness, or a reluctance to commit himself, seems to have been enough for Charles Joseph to side-step any pressure to go into the Church. Possibly, this was one decision he was clear about and, coupled with a degree of immaturity, it led him to spend the years from age eighteen to twenty-three filling in time as a teacher at the Moravian school at Fairfield rather than focusing on any particular profession for his future. This placement also clearly indicated that he accepted the Moravian faith and the values it imparted while he worked out what his career path should be. Eventually, it was only because of his father’s useful and influential contacts that he was precipitated into a position as tutor in the family of Comte Frédéric de Pourtalès in Switzerland. This was a move which opened up a different future to him, giving him entrée to the upper levels of society, and setting him on the path of travel, adventure, responsibility and independence.

Notes 1

2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

28

The family motto, ‘Qui la cèrca, la tròba’, in the Occitan language of the Languedoc region in the south of France, obviously gave rise to the family name, possibly as early as the twelfth century. In modern French, it translates as ‘Qui cherche trouve’, or ‘He who seeks shall find’ in English. (Pierre Latrobe, ‘Le Patronyme’) ‘Deriving the Family Connections’, Pierre and Janine Latrobe collection. ibid. John Henry de La Trobe, ‘Histoire de Jean le Réfugié et de ses Descendants, XVIIIe et XIXe siècles’, p. 104. Garrisson, ‘Montauban ou La Ville Résistante’, p. 62. Montauban, Office de Tourisme, Montauban, 1997. Garrisson, ‘Montauban ou La Ville Résistante’, p. 62. ibid. The term ‘Huguenot’ is the name applied to the people of France who, in the sixteenth century, adopted the Reformed faith as taught by Calvin to replace a Catholicism they considered corrupt and unacceptable. ‘Henry IV’, in Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse, vol. 5, p. 5223. Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse, vol. 7, p. 7268; vol. 9, pp. 8957–8. Garrisson, ‘Montauban ou La Ville Résistante’, p. 66. ibid., p. 68. ibid. ibid. ibid., p. 70. ibid. ibid.



2/3/06 2:14:13 PM

19 20

21

22 23 24

25 26 27

28 29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36

37 38 39 40 41

ibid. Frequently in the south of France, groups of three cypress trees can still be seen. Popular tradition has it that they mark sites where Huguenot burials took place. Le Chevalier Latrobe, ‘Livre de Famille’, Anne and Bernard Latrobe Kirchner collection. John Henry de La Trobe, ‘Histoire de Jean le Réfugié’, p. 82. Murtagh, ‘Huguenots and the Irish Jacobite War, 1689–1691’, p. 2. John Henry de La Trobe, ‘Jean Latrobe in Ireland’, p. 3, John Henry de La Trobe collection. Smiles, Huguenots in England and Ireland, pp. 297–8. Knox, Ireland’s Debt to the Huguenots, p. 26. John Henry de La Trobe, ‘Waterford’, p. 3, passim, John Henry de La Trobe collection. ibid. Smiles, Huguenots in England and Ireland, pp. 297–8. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 4, 1846, p. 208. There is virtually no doubt that the John Latrobe mentioned in Irish Parliamentary Papers from 1715 to 1721 as having received grants for promoting the linen industry, is the same person as Jean Latrobe of the army of William of Orange. ‘Waterford’, p. 4, John Henry de La Trobe collection. ibid. John Hus (1369?–1415), Czech reformer of the Christian church, was burned at the stake on 6 July 1415, having been condemned as a heretic at the Council of Constance. He had adopted the ideas of John Wyclif of Oxford which emphasised moral reform. Hus denied Catholicism as the only true faith, rejected the idea of the supreme authority of the Pope, and emphasised preaching in the vernacular. Visitor’s Guide, The Moravian Church Centre. Moravian centres are still located in London, behind The Water Rat public house in Chelsea on land which once formed part of Sir Thomas More’s estate; at Fulneck in Yorkshire; and at Fairfield near Manchester. Congregations exist today in England, the United States, Herrnhut in Germany (the headquarters of the Church), and in the West Indies. Moravian History Magazine, vol. 4, Spring 1993, p 1. Langton, History of the Moravian Church, p. 131. ibid., p. 132. Speake and Witty, A History of Droylsden, p. 134. His younger brother, Benjamin Henry, who received a similar Moravian training, migrated to the United States in 1796 and became one of the greatest American architects. He designed the south wing of the Capitol and, in 1815–17, was in charge of rebuilding it after it was destroyed by the British. He was the architect for the remodelling of the White House in Washington, among many other fine architectural works, notably in the Greek Revival style. His most appreciated building is the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Baltimore.

A Huguenot Heritage


29

2/3/06 2:14:13 PM

42

43

44 45

46 47

48 49 50 51

52 53 54

55

56 57 58

59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66

67 68 69

70

71 72 73 74

30

Mason and Torode, Three Generations of the La Trobe Family in the Moravian Church, p. 19. Hutton, Through Two Centuries: An Account of the Origin and Growth of Fulneck School, 1753–1953, p. 28. ibid., p. 9. Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, vol. 2, p. 248. Waugh, A History of Fulneck School, p. 51. John Henry de La Trobe, ‘Histoire de Jean le Réfugié et de ses Descendants, XVIIIe et XIXe siècles. Jean devenu John.’, p. 98. Mason and Torode, Three Generations, p. 18. Stevens, Christian Ignatius La Trobe, 1758–1836. Hutton, Through Two Centuries, p. 28. Christian Ignatius La Trobe, Journal of a Visit to South Africa in 1815 and 1816. ibid., p. 35. ibid., p. 371–2. Holmes, ‘The Rev. Christian Ignatius La Trobe’s Account of his First Introduction to Hayden’, pp. 249–56. Stevens, Three Sonatas for the Pianoforte, Opus III, by Christian Ignatius La Trobe. Temperley, ‘Christian Ignatius La Trobe’, p. 535. ibid. Holmes, ‘The Rev. Christian Ignatius La Trobe’s Account of his First Introduction to Hayden’, p. 249. This critic noted that the Selection of Sacred Music ‘continues to be the ornament of the best libraries’. ibid., p. 250. Christian Ignatius La Trobe, ‘Letters to my children, written at sea during a Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope, 1815’. ibid., p. 85–99. ibid., p. 85. ibid. ibid., p. 89. ibid. Moravian Synod Journal, 1775, Barby, Germany, quoted in Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, vol. II, pp. 61–2. ibid. ibid., pp. 63–4. Hutton, Through Two Centuries, p. 39; and Hutton, ‘Distinguished Old Boys of Fulneck’, p. 10. Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, vol. II, p. 74. ibid. ibid., p. 75. ibid., p. 334. ibid., p. 75.



2/3/06 2:14:14 PM

75

76

77 78 79 80 81

82 83

84 85 86

Carter, Van Horne and Brownell (eds), Latrobe’s View of America, 1795–1820, p. 4. Samuel Hazard La Trobe, ‘Remnant of a Schoolboy Diary, 1848’, p. 5, Basil MacLeavy collection. ibid., p. 2. Hutton, Through Two Centuries, p. 24. ibid. Holmes, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, pp. 75–6. Basil MacLeavy to Dianne Reilly, 15 February 2000, private correspondence. Speake and Witty, A History of Droylsden, p. 149. Peter La Trobe, ‘Journal of a Visit to Germany, 1822’, La Trobe Archive, MS 13003, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Christian Ignatius La Trobe, ‘Letters to my children’, p. 85. ibid., p. 99. ibid., p. 6.

A Huguenot Heritage


31

2/3/06 2:14:14 PM

chapter 2

The Young Man, 1824–1832

As far as we can tell, Charles Joseph seems to have been a young man without a clear sense of direction for his future. The family expectation would have been that he would enter the ministry or pursue a career through which he could contribute to the great evangelical role of the Moravian Church. His two older brothers, Peter and John Antes, had both followed the clerical path, while the youngest, Benjamin Frederic, had become a doctor whose work took him to the mission fields of the West Indies. Duty was a predominant factor in Moravian life, Christian Ignatius like his father before him fulfilling his obligations as a missionary and as a renowned preacher. Like them, Charles Joseph’s Moravian education pointed to his responsibility to those less fortunate than himself. However, he had evidently reached the end of his schooling with no clear idea of an occupation in which he would find fulfilment. His had been a thorough education, both within his cultured family environment, and in the Moravian religious and education system. Because Charles Joseph, his three brothers and two sisters were brought up in the Moravian boarding school system, their contact with their father and, most probably, with their mother as well, would have been infrequent, since the family home at that time was in London and travel to Yorkshire would not have been easy. However,


2/3/06 2:14:14 PM

this deprivation seems to have done nothing to lessen the deep appreciation and respect of the children for their parents. One of the precepts upon which the Moravian education system was based was that every child should have a say in his or her destiny. As the Berthelsdorf Synod exhorted: Parents should be warned of the danger of bringing up their children in the belief that they will inherit the house, and must follow the occupation of their father, without being allowed any say in the matter. Such pressures have also lost the Church useful workers.1 Although well schooled in the Moravian religious system and, like all his family, deeply religious, Charles Joseph does not appear to have been attracted to enter the theological college and progress from ordination into a life of religious service. At that time, ‘it was deemed essential for an ordained minister to be married’.2 Despite encouragement during childhood to express opinions, young prospective clergy had their wives selected by an Elders’ Conference and by the Lot. The Lot was an archaic means of arbitration or decision-making used by the Moravians for matters of importance. The belief was that actions decided by drawing lots to reach a consensus in the congregation indicated the will of God.3 The lot produced three answers—yes, no, blank—indicated by an object drawn randomly from a screened container.4 Fortunately, the agreement of the young couple was an equally important ingredient for the process to succeed. La Trobe apparently had no prospects of marriage at this time, and this may have been a factor in his decision to follow a secular path. In this he may have been influenced by his eldest brother’s experiences. In his ‘Journal of a Visit to Germany’,5 Peter La Trobe, described in great detail the months from May 1822 which he spent touring Germany and other parts of Europe with his father. That Charles Joseph was not with them, as has previously been thought by archivists dealing with the journal, was proven recently by consultation of a private family archive in France:

The Young Man


33

2/3/06 2:14:14 PM

L’année suivante dans le mois de 7bre, Mr C. I. Latrobe et son fils ainé, Pierre, vinrent nous voir à Paris après avoir assisté à Herenhutt [sic] en Saxe, au jubilé anniversaire au sujet de la rénovation de l’Eglise des Frères Unis, et ils resterent une quinzaine de jours au sein de ma famille.6 Peter’s private journal was in much the same vein as his father’s published account of his visit to South Africa,7 and Charles Joseph was later to emulate this literary and didactic style in his first two books.8 Despite the fact that Charles Joseph did not accompany his family on their journeys, the narratives, which he undoubtedly read, would have awoken in him the desire for travel. Christian Ignatius made contact with family members, at least in France,9 and with Moravian friends while in Europe, thus laying the foundation for the future work of Charles Joseph in Switzerland. Peter records one such contact which possibly was of future use: My Father, being anxious to reach Neuwied before the departure from that place of some friends, of whom he had heard that they were about to proceed into Switzerland, determined to accompany the party thither today …10

La Trobe in Switzerland Two years later, Charles Joseph La Trobe went to Switzerland as tutor to the French-Swiss family of Comte Frédéric de Pourtalès. This was La Trobe’s first visit to the Continent: ‘The sunset of a bright autumnal day, towards the end of October 1824, found me for the first time standing upon the shore of the Lake of Neuchâtel’.11 There is nothing surviving in the family correspondence or records which points to how arrangements were made for his employment. La Trobe does mention ‘having entered into a contract, which left me undisputed master of an apartment about fourteen square feet’12 in the town of Neuchâtel, no doubt referring to arrangements made with the Comte de Pourtalès for his engagement as tutor. There is no evidence as to where the tiny apartment was, but this was to be his residence throughout the winter of 1824–25. The preamble in the opening chapter of The Alpenstock, his first

34



2/3/06 2:14:14 PM

book of travel adventures, is interesting for the deeply personal remarks made by the writer. In it, La Trobe referred to the fact that he had come to Switzerland ‘under the influence of peculiar feelings’. Such a remark leads one to speculate on what these feelings might have been. In a reflective mood, he elaborated: A year, distinguished among the few and comparatively even ones, of which my life had hitherto been composed, by a number of severe trials, was coming to a close; trials, which are not the less painful to the individual, from the knowledge that all are more or less liable to experience them. However, from the heavy thoughts which these had left behind them, my attention and feelings were imperceptibly diverted by the scenes amidst which I was placed, the quiet of my little chamber, my books, and the kind and winning attentions of the few who knew of my existence at that time among them.13 What could these ‘severe trials’ of the previous twelve months have been? At the time of his arrival in Neuchâtel, La Trobe was twenty-three. His own formal education had been completed. It is possible that the ‘severe trials’ he had undergone referred to decisionmaking regarding his future career. He had decided not to go into the Church, and perhaps this had caused friction within the family from which so many members of the Moravian clergy had emerged. It is quite possible that he had absolutely no idea of the direction in which his future lay, that he simply could not make up his mind. Then again, he may have suffered from a form of depression—‘heavy thoughts’— which no one but himself could resolve. Alternatively, it may have been that he had been unlucky in love and had come abroad to dispel the resultant malaise. Any or all of these may have been the underlying factors for the ‘number of severe trials’ he had undergone.14 These are reasons about which we may only speculate. However, one probable cause for the low ebb of his feelings was the death of his mother on 8 April 1824.15 Hannah Benigna La Trobe, née Syms, was born into an Irish Moravian family on 28 October 1758, and it is believed that she was a Helper among the Single Sisters at Fulneck. There, she met Christian Ignatius La Trobe, whom she

The Young Man


35

2/3/06 2:14:15 PM

married at Calverley near Fulneck on 25 December 1790.16 Until their marriage, they were not well acquainted, but their relationship appears to have been a happy and a lasting one.17 In the published writings of Christian Ignatius, Hannah is not mentioned in Journal of a Visit to South Africa (1818),18 and she appears only briefly and obliquely, unnamed, in Letters to my children written at sea during a Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope.19 The only first-hand account of her is a very slight one, given in her husband’s description of a meeting with Haydn: When Haydn arrived in England in 1790, I was introduced to him by Dr. Burney … he was pleased, not long after, to pay me a visit. When he entered the room, he found my wife alone, and as she could not speak German, and he had scarcely picked up a few English words, both were at a loss what to say. He bowed with foreign formality, and the following short explanation took place: H. ‘Dis Mr. LaTrobe’s house?’ The answer was in the affirmative. H. ‘Be you his woman?’ (meaning his wife). ‘I am Mrs. La Trobe’, was the reply. After some pause, he looked round the room and saw his picture, to which he immediately pointed, and exclaimed, ‘Dat is me. I am Haydn’. My wife instantly knowing what a most welcome guest I was honoured with, sent for me to a house not far off, and treated him with all possible civility.20 Nor did Charles Joseph himself mention his mother in any of his published works, or in his voluminous correspondence. No doubt she was a typical Moravian wife and mother of the day, acting as the mainstay to her brilliant husband and, quietly efficient, raising their six children. It is interesting to note that the two daughters of the family, Charlotte and Anna, rated no mention either, women at that time usually being shadowy household figures. Certainly, on first arriving in Neuchâtel, La Trobe was needing to register that he had overcome the ‘severe trials’ of the preceding year and to demonstrate that he was able to get on with his life:

36



2/3/06 2:14:15 PM

I must be allowed to say a good word for myself … Though neither misanthropic nor of a particularly gloomy turn, I had no objection to solitude; and trusted to find in the scenes around me, and in my own thoughts and resources, sufficient amusement to prevent my suffering from ennui.21 He meant to prove himself stable, capable, independent and reliable during his sojourn in Switzerland, and a clearly demonstrable manner of doing this, of rehabilitating himself in his own eyes and, perhaps, in those of others, was in wholehearted engagement with life in Switzerland. When La Trobe arrived in Neuchâtel, he found a picturesque and flourishing university town nestled at the foot of the Jura mountain range on the shore of Lake Neuchâtel. The lake, 38 kilometres long, and ranging between 3 and 8 kilometres wide, commands attention from every perspective. Physically, La Trobe discovered a small, well-laid-out civic centre where the hôtels particuliers22 of the bourgeoisie lined well-kept boulevards. The town owes its origin to its value as an easily fortified location where, in former times, the population was well protected by the Jura to the north, the Lake to the south, and the River Seyon to the west. In the twelfth century the construction of a massive château was begun on the highest vantage point as a residence for the Counts of Neuchâtel and, by the time of La Trobe’s arrival, this imposing building had become the centre of government for the canton of Neuchâtel. Dominated in turn by the French and the Prussians, Neuchâtel was under Prussian rule from 1707 to 1798, and again from 1814. Neuchâtel had joined the Swiss Confederation in 1815, but continued under Prussian governance until 1857. Social contact for the newly arrived La Trobe was at the highest level. Not only did he frequent the Pourtalès mansion in the course of his teaching but, as an attractive and charming Englishman, he was greatly sought after as a guest in the salons of the merchants, bankers and nobility of Neuchâtel. In an era when many cultivated people were Anglophiles, he was also a frequent guest at the aristocratic country homes of the Neuchâtelois in various parts of Switzerland. It was often said at this period that everyone in Neuchâtel was related. Certainly, this was true among the noble families. A glance at any

The Young Man


37

2/3/06 2:14:15 PM

genealogical chart will show that the Merveilleux, Tribolet, Montmollin, Osterwald, Pury, Pourtalès and many other families were all interlinked by marriages across the centuries. At that time, Neuchâtel was, as it is now, also a centre for commerce, with many private Swiss banks located there. The family of Comte Frédéric de Pourtalès, which received La Trobe as a trusted tutor, had a background remarkably similar to that of the La Trobe family. The Pourtalès’ ancestors were also Huguenots who had managed to remain in France during the persecution following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, before moving to Neuchâtel in 1720. Despite political uncertainty, the Pourtalès family prospered in banking, importing and exporting and related financial enterprises. Frédéric’s grandfather, Jérémie, was elevated to the nobility by Frederick the Great in May 1750.23 Frédéric himself gained the honour of attachment in 1809 to Napoleon’s household as Masterof-the-Horse to the Empress Joséphine. In due course, he married Joséphine’s lady-in-waiting, the Comtesse Marie-Louise-Elisabeth de Castellane-Norante, on 18 November 1811. The civil rites took place in Paris, after which the couple and their families were invited to the château of Malmaison for the religious ceremony presided over by Cardinal Mauri, in the presence of the Empress. The brother of the bridegroom, Colonel Louis de Pourtalès, reported the occasion in his journal: ‘Après ces cérémonies, il y eut excellent dîner, puis concert et souper. Mes deux frères et leurs femmes sont restés à la Malmaison pour coucher’.24 Comte Frédéric de Pourtalès went on to become a Swiss Councillor of State and aide-de-camp to the Prussian Prince Berthier, Comte de Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe was engaged for the education, either principally or maybe even exclusively, of one of Frédéric’s sons, Comte Albert-Alexandre de Pourtalès,25 twelve years old at the time of La Trobe’s arrival in October 1824. With frequent breaks to enjoy mountaineering, La Trobe tutored Pourtalès for nearly three years until February 1827, after which he returned to England, and, despite their age difference, the two remained close friends for many years. In the course of his employment in Switzerland, La Trobe was diverted by the outdoor life. He became a pioneer alpinist and was noted for his skill as a mountaineer. He climbed peaks and later wrote about them for a readership in England which would never emulate

38



2/3/06 2:14:15 PM

him but only marvel at his feats. One historian has described him as ‘a pioneer member of the Alpine Club’.26 This cannot be established as fact since the Schweitzer Alpen Club in Berne was founded only in 1863, and the Alpine Club of Great Britain has no record of his membership. It may be that he joined a regional alpinists’ club, perhaps based in Neuchâtel or Interlaken, but it has not been possible to verify any such membership. Nevertheless, it is clear from his writings and his sketches from high vantage points that he was an able and inveterate climber. So talented a sportsman was he, and so great his love of nature, that he climbed previously unconquered mountains and crossed untraversed passes without the help of guides or porters. His climbs without companions were not entirely due to his love of being alone, although he had ‘no objection to solitude’.27 He was attracted by adventure and had the curiosity of the explorer. This foreshadowed many lone ‘rides’ in Port Phillip where, again, he was an explorer in another country. Despite a reluctance to detail his resources, La Trobe was honest enough to record that his limited finances required him to travel independent of guides, because he ‘did not feel at liberty to indulge in luxuries which I could possibly do without’.28

Travelling and Writing After spending the winter of 1824–25 in Neuchâtel tutoring his young charge and in private study, La Trobe set off alone in June 1825 on his first journey of discovery in the Alps, a trip which was to last four months. He had lived his life to date almost exclusively within the safe confines of a known Britain, but the benefits of a family used to travel and his broad-based education cultivated in him an image of the world outside Britain which was totally new, intriguing and exciting. His broad knowledge, gained by reading history and literature with great relish, would have developed in him a desire for acquaintance at first-hand of places outside his experience. Added to this was, of course, the natural attraction of his European heritage and a wish to explore other cultures. In total, La Trobe made three extensive tours of Switzerland in his three years’ sojourn there: the first, from June to October 1825; the second, between June and August 1826; and the third during September and October 1826. These are described in great detail in his book, The Alpenstock, which was first published in 1829.29 A second edition appeared, almost certainly in 1830.30

The Young Man


39

2/3/06 2:14:16 PM

The Alpenstock was destined for popularity among armchair travellers at home in England. The book went into two editions, obviously sought after by a readership hungry for access to other worlds. It is not known if La Trobe set out on his journeys to write with this audience in mind, or if the notes he made attracted the attention of the publisher, Robert Benton Seeley, who then suggested turning them into a book. Seeley was to be the publisher of all four of La Trobe’s books, as well as of the South African travels of Christian Ignatius. He was connected to the family by common evangelical links. Neuchâtel was the centre from which La Trobe set out on foot on each of his well-planned travels. Although no mention is made of his tutoring of the young Comte de Pourtalès, it is reasonable to assume that this work occupied him during the cooler months when he was based in Neuchâtel. Apart from the family at the parsonage at Erlenbach—‘now one of those spots to which my heart clings with an affection which is interwoven with the thread of my being’31—for whom La Trobe had developed much respect and a deep friendship during his numerous visits to their home, he mentions none of his personal contacts in Switzerland, or if, indeed, he had made other friends. A possible interpretation is that the pain of his mother’s death was still vividly with him, and he needed a period of solitude in which to come to terms with his great emotional stress. In any case, he enjoyed his own company throughout his life and was, by nature, at least to a certain extent, a ‘loner’. He made a point of stating that: Man, and his works, were not, at that time, the objects of my study or pursuit; and though I took pleasure in them, as far as they formed a part of the delicious picture I had before me, I could not bring myself to linger among them at that time more than was necessary. I grudged every moment that robbed me of the contemplation of those majestic scenes which were then within my grasp, and, I did not know how soon, might pass from my sight for ever.32 La Trobe’s purpose, then, was to study the new-found landscape and to learn as much as he could about this fascinating country while the opportunity was available to him. He was very focused in the planning of his first journey from Neuchâtel. He intended to begin his

40



2/3/06 2:14:16 PM

travels with a visit to Avenches on the other side of Lake Neuchâtel, and then to proceed to the historic and picturesque village of Morat before heading to Thun, one of the principal towns on Lake Thun, adjacent to the Simmenthal Valley. As came to be typical of the man, he was very systematic. The course of every day’s journey was plotted in advance as, for example, his entry into the Simmenthal Valley: My plan was now to turn my steps towards the Stockhorn chain to the Westward, and to visit the Simmenthal which lies behind it, before entering upon the examination of the higher and more central portions of the district termed the Oberland.33 His account of his Swiss travels is very analytical, describing the physical features of the landscape, the flora and fauna he came across, and his various types of accommodation as each evening arrived. The style of writing is particularly clear and, while it sometimes lacks a certain personal dimension, the descriptive quality makes it engrossing reading. One particularly evocative passage is the description of his view of the high peaks of the Jungfrau and the Eigers from a vantage point on the Wengern-Alp, between Lauterbrunnen and Grindelwald: The Jungfrau and two Eigers, with the Wetterhorn and its neighbours to the Eastward, all rose before me in unclouded sublimity; the early morning sun lighting up one peak after another, and making the long waste of glaciers between them sparkle with the whiteness and brilliancy of burnished silver. As the sun rose higher, the light stole downward towards the immense range of dark granite precipices which supported them, and illuminated the exterior layers of fleecy vapour, rising midway from the depths of the Trümletenthal below.34 La Trobe observed and analysed what he saw and, despite the fact that he adopted a style suited to the genre of travelogue which, on the surface, seemed impersonal, his writing betrayed a good deal about his personality. He also documented in his sketchbooks the

The Young Man


41

2/3/06 2:14:16 PM

natural features and evidence of the built environment as he travelled. Throughout The Alpenstock, the reader is at all times aware of both the sportsman and the scientist. A good illustration of this is given in the account of one of his many mountain climbing adventures when he found himself in serious difficulties. He was exhausted and yet still alert to the discovery of a hitherto unlocated botanical specimen: I felt both body and soul fagged to a degree I cannot describe; when, casting my eyes a little to one side, they rested on a plant for which I had till then sought far and wide among the Alps without success (Aquilegia alpina) and the emotion of pleasure and surprise which was called forth in consequence instantly turned the scale, and gave me the strength of body and light-heartedness to do and to dare.35 In the course of the three separate journeys described, La Trobe climbed the sizeable mountain peaks of the Stockhorn (2193 metres) and the Righi-Kulm (1801 metres), among others, viewed the Eiger, the Münch and the Jungfrau at sunrise, and traversed the Simmenthal Valley. He penetrated the Simplon, Brunig and the Great St Bernard’s passes, surveyed the great Rhône Glacier at Gletsch which is the junction of the Furka and Grimsel passes, visited the cities of Berne and Geneva, and the towns of Montreux, Thun and Zurich, as well as touring the Rhineland. The book conveyed in great detail La Trobe’s love of solitude, a characteristic which was to mark his fifteen years in Australia, when he so often escaped his administrative responsibilities to wander alone on horseback. He was direct and honest in his acknowledgement that ‘I had had, in former years, often reason to bewail a naturally restless mind and body’,36 and in Switzerland he was able to indulge his wanderlust. Throughout his life, La Trobe was perfectly comfortable when alone. On more than one occasion, he made it clear that he ‘had no objection to solitude’.37 Although he was rarely lonely, this enjoyment of his own company revealed a certain unsociableness and a solitary disposition which would later alienate many of those whom he was sent to govern at Port Phillip. While alone, he could recollect all he knew of each place he came across, knowledge gained from what was to be a lifetime habit of study and voracious reading. Before setting out to view the Jungfrau,

42



2/3/06 2:14:16 PM

he ensured that he was familiar with its history and, in an extended footnote, shared with the reader the details of the conquest of that gigantic peak just the year before his book was published.38 In this method, repeated frequently at notable settlements and beauty spots on his journey, La Trobe conveyed his own impressions of the place, and then proceeded to detail its history. One such example is the description of Avenches: Avenche [sic], or Wiflisberg, the ancient Aventicum, is situated on a rising ground, at the edge of the morasses which extend to the S.W. of the lake of Morat. The country at the back reminds me forcibly of many parts of England. Gentle hills, covered with wood; meadows and cornfields, separated by hedgerows filled with trees. The present town occupies the site of what was once the castle, the outer walls and moatings of which still remain; thus the great and splendid city, formerly the capital of Roman Helvetica … has now shrunk with the inclosure formerly its citadel.39 This style of writing, informative in its description of picturesque locations, is at the same time, in the fashion of the day, didactic. On a number of occasions, La Trobe gave bibliographical references for his readers to follow up, as he did in this recommendation: ‘I continued to find Schiller’s Thirty Years’ War vastly entertaining’.40 He was obviously reading the book in the original German, since the work was not translated into English until 1828 by George Moir.41 When referring to a plain adjacent to the Little St Bernard Pass where ‘Hannibal and his Carthaginians’ had once camped, he encouraged closer attention to the facts: The work entitled A Dissertation upon Hannibal’s Passage of the Alps, by a Member of the University of Oxford, is referred to for a most entertaining examination of the claims of this pass to be the scene of that renowned march.42 While The Alpenstock is written in the form of a diary, it lacks many of the personal details expected of this genre. With very little adjustment, it could have been shaped into the format of a travel

The Young Man


43

2/3/06 2:14:16 PM

guidebook, and would have lacked nothing in content by comparison with a Baedeker, a Murray, or even a Michelin guidebook.43 La Trobe wrote in the same conversational and yet textbook style of his father’s work, Journal of a Visit to South Africa, and that of his brother in his ‘Journal of a Visit to Germany’. It is as if he had a formula in mind when compiling the account of his own adventures. However, he did include glimpses of his own personality and interests. His tendencies towards depression or negativity, and impatience, revealed themselves on more than one occasion as, for example, when he lost his way to Erlenbach: Here, I thought, I had a first taste of ill-luck which must often be my lot in the Alps … After some further musing, I roused myself, having recruited my good temper by a little rest, and my bodily strength by an application to my leathern bottle.44 He was relieved to discover, when quite calm, that his destination was just around the corner. His tremendous physical stamina was demonstrated on his climb to the Convent of the Great St Bernard Pass: The last league of the ascent I found more difficult than I had anticipated, as the weather, which had favoured me hitherto, began to change for the worse. A thick mist overspread the mountains, and it hailed and snowed violently. Indeed so dense was the mist, that when the track led me on to that part of the mountain which was still covered with the unmelted snow of the preceding winter, I found myself more than once, excessively bewildered, and quite without track. By returning, however, and a careful examination on every side, I hit again upon the right path, and after half an hour’s fatiguing climb over the snow and ice, got into shelter just as the increasing violence of the wind and snow storm began to make shelter necessary.45 The Alpenstock is not without occasional touches of humour which do much to lighten its didactic effect. When travelling in the Italian part of Switzerland near the lakes district, he needed to ask

44



2/3/06 2:14:17 PM

directions and mused, sadly, that the only Italian language he knew came from his study of music: Poco non allegro, said I to myself, Volti subito, Allegretto non troppo, that is nearly all the Italian I am perfect master of, and out of that I can cobble no sentence to make the old lady know what I want to consult her about, twist and twine and intertwine it as I may.46 On another occasion, soaked to the skin in an alpine storm, he again sought directions: About four o’clock, P.M., I came to a human habitation. The vacher [cowherd] asked me to enter, but I refused, knowing that I must keep in motion if I would keep in health; and about two hours after, entered the inn at Meyringen, more like a fish than a human being.47 Among his many scientific adventures, La Trobe related an intriguing occurrence he pursued until he obtained a satisfactory explanation: I remember the report reaching Neuchâtel … that the waters of the lake of Morat had suddenly become the colour of blood … Many small fishes were seen to become intoxicated while swimming amongst it, and after a few convulsive leaps, to lie motionless on the surface.48 He listened with interest to local explanations of the odd occurrence, such as: It is not known that this phenomenon has appeared before on the lake of Morat within the memory of man. Tradition states the same to have happened the year preceding the great battle [1476].49 He finally accepted the analysis of ‘The naturalists of Geneva … that it was an animal substance, which, if not the oscillatoria subfusca, was nearly allied to it’.50

The Young Man


45

2/3/06 2:14:17 PM

He further developed the enduring interest in botany that he had begun at Fulneck. As his father had done in South Africa, he added as a useful appendix to The Alpenstock a definitive list of Flora of the Chain of the Stockhorn, Canton of Berne and Additional Flora of the Opposite Chain of the Thurnen, a record which provided a practical basis for alpine plant studies at the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle for decades afterwards.51 In a letter to his dear friends living at the entrance to the Simmenthal which accompanied a copy of The Alpenstock—‘the volume which my leisure has put it into my head to send forth to the world’—La Trobe expressed his deep admiration for the Studer family at whose home, the parsonage at Erlenbach, he had often stayed: All I can say is, that however unworthy of the theme of which it treats and however full of faults, it is written with a full heart towards Switzerland and my Swiss friends. Their delicacy I have ever avoided wounding by the mention of names as you will see (thus doing as I would be done by) at the same time that I rejoiced to acknowledge the affection & kindness of which I was the object.52 The list of alpine plants is the work of the Rev. Studer, and La Trobe, typical of his honesty, acknowledged this: ‘I hope Studer’s list of plants will be found tolerably correct: not to ascribe that list to him would have been to arrogate the honour to myself and that I could not do’.53 What is particularly striking is that La Trobe saw evidence of God in nature, of a divinely created universe everywhere he looked. Overtones of his religious orientation, so much a part of his consciousness, appear in every chapter. At all times, he was ‘reminded of his dependence upon the bounty, providence, and mercy of God’, and his ‘conviction of the infinite goodness of the Creator towards his creature’.54 This may have been a way of expressing in print the evangelism bred into him which took every opportunity to reach the unconverted. Whether or not this is the case, La Trobe’s obvious and sincere gratitude to God and acceptance of the ‘Divine Will’ pervade the text. In his thorough and incisive history of the canton of Neuchâtel, La Trobe described the introduction of the Reformation to Switzerland in 1530 by the eminent pastor William Farel. He went on

46



2/3/06 2:14:17 PM

to discuss the first translation of the Bible for Swiss congregations by Pastor Osterwald to whose family he was later to be related by marriage.55

The Grand Tour La Trobe’s period of employment in Switzerland came to an end in March 1827. He had felt very much at home in Neuchâtel and in Erlenbach, and regretted that his residence there had come to an end: The thaw commenced early in March, and this was the signal for my departure from a country, which, much as I may love my own, had long ceased to be a foreign land to me.56 It appears that it was with his Swiss friends and employers, the Pourtalès family, that he first felt the warmth of sincere friends who welcomed him into the heart of their close-knit family. The same homely atmosphere had welcomed him at the parsonage at Erlenbach. Regretfully, therefore, he turned for home where, it is conjectured, no similar family centre awaited him. There is no evidence for this deduction, only the suspicion that lack of warmth at home, especially after the death of his mother in 1824, made him appreciate the generous and welcoming friends he had made in Switzerland. For the time being, his Swiss employment and adventures were over, and he had to face an unknown future. Once his manuscript documenting Swiss scenery and manners was published in 1829, La Trobe, perhaps rather unexpectedly, found himself a celebrity, and he was now meeting with some degree of financial success. Possibly in reaction to the dread of wasting his whole life on what he saw as superficiality in his ‘rambling’ pursuits, La Trobe enrolled at Magdalene College, Cambridge, in 1829 soon after the publication of his book. However, he did not take up residency at the university.57 Indeed, his application to formal study, if it happened at all, was short-lived for he was soon rambling again in the Tyrol and parts of Italy and Switzerland. The success of The Alpenstock confirmed his vocation as a travel writer and inspired him to return to Europe in search of another adventure that he might turn into a travel volume to enchant the curious and the vicarious traveller

The Young Man


47

2/3/06 2:14:17 PM

at home. He may even have been commissioned by his publisher, Seeley, to produce another volume. No doubt, he was also drawn back to the welcoming friends at Neuchâtel, and to those at Erlenbach who always so warmly received him. It is certain, too, that he resumed his friendship with the Pourtalès family, and may even have taken up again his tutoring of Albert de Pourtalès. The itinerary he selected for his next travels might be thought of as a very personalised ‘grand tour’, limited only by his particular interests in certain continental tourist attractions, and by the funds at his disposal. As a fashion which began in the sixteenth century, and flourished from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, the European grand tour was the mechanism by which young people, in particular, young men of a certain social echelon, travelled for the sake of their further education after leaving their school days behind them. In fact, ‘taking the grand tour’ was a type of ‘finishing’ to their education, before they took their place in society at home. At the time that La Trobe set out on his travels, he was bound to encounter young noblemen and others who, in the company of tutors or ‘bear leaders’,58 as they were commonly known, were sent to the Continent to experience as much as possible of a different way of life and of the world of art, and to gain a veneer of polish. A letter of introduction from some aristocratic contact was sufficient to gain entrée at the highest level into society in a foreign town or city. As well as undergoing a degree of educational ‘polishing’, young British tourists took advantage of the comparative freedom of their travels to ‘sow their wild oats’ before assuming the responsibilities of adulthood which awaited them on their return to their families in Britain. The historian Jeffrey Morrison has succinctly conveyed Richard Lassels’ message59 for the parents of prospective travellers describing the principal benefits of the grand tour as ‘the attainment of social graces, military and political awareness, and physical endurance’.60 Morrison also commented on a side-effect, possibly not looked for by doting parents: ‘there is no doubt that the inexperienced “boys” who undertook the Grand Tour saw escape from home as a chance to indulge in sexual adventures’.61 The grand tour, was, however, far from just a British phenomenon since well-born young Europeans of all nations were drawn towards Rome, then the centre of the art world under the influence of classical antiquity. Gradually, the means of travelling to Italy, usually

48



2/3/06 2:14:18 PM

via Paris, and sometimes through Switzerland en route, became easier, though sometimes fraught with danger and always a great adventure for young travellers. La Trobe’s own voyage of discovery would have brought him into contact with many such tourists, especially in Venice and Rome. Guidebooks for venturers abroad made their first appearance in print as early as the sixteenth century. The volume of literature for the intending traveller increased on the booksellers’ market in the eighteenth century until, by the early to mid-nineteenth century, it had reached a flood. Some of the particularly popular authors to capture the imagination of the British reading public were James Boswell with Boswell on the Grand Tour: Germany and Switzerland (1764), and Italy, Corsica and France (1765–66); Tobias Smollett with his Travels through France and Italy (1766); and Thomas Nugent’s popular and informative guidebook, The Grand Tour, published in four volumes in 1778.62 These titles would have been easily accessible to La Trobe who, to be sure, would have studied them carefully in preparation for his travels. At the time that La Trobe was contemplating his tour in Switzerland, he had access to reports of voyages of discovery to all parts of the ‘new world’, and specimens of animal and plant life, until then unseen in Britain, were exhibited and discussed in intellectual forums. Not only the world of literature, art and architecture excited this young man, but also the process and results of scientific discovery. His passions and abilities made him an eminently suitable candidate for a ‘grand tour’ which would have the dual purpose of giving him the space and the time to cure his emotional ills, and allowing him the intellectual exercise of recording his experiences in a journal that was destined for publication. In 1829, La Trobe ‘resumed the same winter-quarters as formerly’,63 and spent nearly eight months in Neuchâtel during one of the coldest winters recorded, when the lakes of Neuchâtel and Bienne were completely and solidly frozen over: The whole of the lake of Bienne, sheltered as it was by the Jura, had, during this whole period, remained solidly frozen, and was traversed by carts and sledges in every direction. The Isle of St. Pierre was crowded with visitors; as

The Young Man


49

2/3/06 2:14:18 PM

many as forty horse-sledges having been there at the same time.64 When he set out from the home of his hospitable friends at Erlenbach at the beginning of May 1830, he was again on foot. His plan was to see something of the country further east than he had ever been, beyond the St Gotthard Pass which he had visited three years earlier. As in The Alpenstock, he recorded the course of his travels in chronological order in his notebook, which he later revised for his book The Pedestrian. Rather more sophisticated in style than his previous literary work, this book reveals a more mature author only too ready to play games with his audience, cheekily referring to a literary convention of the eighteenth century whereby a number of novelists65 addressed their public as ‘Dear Reader’ in an effort to imply intimacy.66 This method has been described as ‘conscripting’ the audience and was used increasingly by writers in the nineteenth century to personalise their plots. Some of these later writers were Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen and Charles Dickens.67 La Trobe announced his intention to use the same device to involve his readers in the tale about to unfold: I must announce myself to be a lone man, and entering upon the relation of a solitary journey … I desire to follow the example of my predecessors of old, and make a friend of my READER; craving permission at the outset, to address him from time to time as my companion.68 And so he did. He had not long left his starting point when he called upon his ‘gentle reader’69 to heed many ‘a useful hint upon such subjects as experience, my sole master, has rendered familiar to me’.70 La Trobe encountered the natural world as he explored the Swiss alpine regions. At that period in the early decades of the nineteenth century, naturalists were searching for an underlying order in nature and imposing a classification system on the flora, fauna and physical features of the landscape so as to arrive at a wider comprehension of the natural world.71 This ‘quest for insight into the order of nature’72 led naturalists to seek concepts which would explain the world about them. More profound philosophical, ethical and religious issues were

50



2/3/06 2:14:18 PM

the natural progression of scientific thought. From the outset, however, La Trobe made his own position as a Christian clear: I am a great and ardent admirer of the works of God, in all of which, from the stars of heaven to the ridge sporting in the sun-beam, I find abundant food for thought, whenever I raise my mind to the earnest contemplation of them.73 La Trobe had, no doubt, absorbed much of the French sensibility to nature through the tradition of his own family, and he may also have seen himself in the long tradition of ‘voyageurs’ like Restif de la Bretonne, Jean-Jacques Rousseau,74 and numerous other writers who communed with the natural world in their works. The philosopher Daniel Mornet described this emotional response to the environment in the following terms: ‘on peut goûter l’harmonie des collines et la grace simple des horizons’.75 La Trobe may be seen as stepping into the shoes of those many earlier authors of guidebooks—who ‘voyagent pour connaître et nous renseigner’—listed by Mornet.76 As was the case for educated young men, he would have been familiar with Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s Paul et Virginie77 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s La Nouvelle Héloïse,78 and quite probably, he knew of Albrecht von Haller, the Swiss botanist and poet, and the first to write about emotion evoked at the sight of a mountain or pastoral view, from reading his poem Die Alpen, first published in 1732.79 Among other popular writings available from booksellers in his youth to particularly stir his imagination were Description des montagnes et des vallées qui font partie de la principauté de Neufchâtel et de Valengin,80 and Letters from an English Traveller in France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy.81 By the end of the eighteenth century, certainly in the ‘new world’, the ‘preoccupation with the landscape had profound religious and aesthetic consequences’ inspiring ‘feelings of awe majesty, wonder, fear and mystery’ creating ‘the natural sublime’.82 Writers and artists concentrated their thought on those inexpressible aspects of nature, such as vastness, isolation, and infinity, the awe and enchantment they tried to express being summed up in the concept of the sublime. Whether inspired by his reading or from a deep religious longing to transcend the everyday and to experience the sublime, but

The Young Man


51

2/3/06 2:14:18 PM

probably from both, La Trobe was attracted by the beauty and the awesome power of mountains wherever he went. By climbing to their summits whenever he had the opportunity, or just by gazing at the distant peaks, he sensed himself closer to God, his mind transported in reverent contemplation. This attitude is expressed many times in the journeys reported in his travelogues, this example from his first book serving to illustrate the point: The level beams of the rising sun were glistening on the majestic forms of the Berne Alps on the horizons, lighting up the nearer chain of the Stockhorn and the broken country at its base, and shining bright and clear upon the lake and shores of Neuchâtel, at the foot of the mountains by which I was surrounded … my senses and imagination had indeed reaped true and healthy enjoyment from the contemplation of the vast and indescribably beautiful scenes of God’s creation in that land. 83 It would be unlikely that La Trobe had not learned a great deal about the physical and philosophical composition of landscape painting from the uncle he had never met, Benjamin Henry Latrobe. The elder Latrobe’s famed ‘Essay on Landscape’84 encapsulated those artistic theories reflected in Charles Joseph’s own works. This treatise was a book of instruction in landscape drawing which not only described various techniques in sketching, but also guided the prospective artist in an appreciation of the picturesque and the sublime in nature. Such instruction would have informed and influenced Charles Joseph’s work, a discernible similarity being evident in the watercolours of both uncle and nephew. Similarly for Charles Joseph, mountain scenery was the perfect landscape, and his many sketches revealed the magnetic appeal of the picturesqueness of peaks and valleys, and the awesomeness of geological formations. The Entrance to the Simmenthal is an example of the artist associating in the one sketch his feelings of wonder at the grandeur of the scene—the sublime—and a profound fascination with the physical structure of its formation—the picturesque and the scientific. The prevailing tastes for the sublime and the picturesque in art and literature shared a love of natural scenery, and La Trobe employed both concepts in many of

52



2/3/06 2:14:18 PM

his works. Benjamin Henry had similarly espoused the belief that ‘I find nothing so instructive as the contemplation of the works of creation’ and, though an eminent architect, he also believed in the ‘precedence’ which belonged ‘to the representation of the Beauty of Nature, and not to that of the actions of Man’.85 In the same way, Charles Joseph’s fascination with the landscape and the flora and fauna which he saw with such fresh and observant eyes, at all times reflected his deep religious faith: I have seldom held a flower in my hand, which I did not think curious and beautiful enough to have bloomed in paradise; and never returned the insect or reptile to its bed of leaves, without a feeling that the link that binds me to every living thing has become strengthened.86 La Trobe’s planned route took him towards St Moritz and the Engadine Valley before he reached the border of the Tyrol. As in The Alpenstock, the striking feature of the description is his remarkable stamina, a personal characteristic he was to display time and time again in the future when living in rugged and primitive conditions. Now twenty-nine, he would often walk from dawn until late evening, carrying his backpack and with an alpenstock as his only support, through territory unknown to him. His affinity with nature, and his enjoyment at being able to come to terms with a difficult situation, were to support him in the most arduous and fatiguing circumstances. Once, while hiking towards the end of a long day across ‘soft and untrodden snow’, he had to exert extraordinary self-control and almost Herculean strength to extricate himself from a snowdrift: Several times I was so deeply buried in the latter, and so forced down and jammed in by the weight of my knapsack, that prudence made me lie motionless, and wait awhile, till my strength should have become reinforced and capable of being exerted with effect to extricate myself.87 Always an early riser, a note of pomposity, but perhaps also of superiority, crept into his voice as he described his genuine love of early rising:

The Young Man


53

2/3/06 2:14:19 PM

A glorious sunrise cannot fail to bring comfort and good assurance … I do not envy the man who can breathe the perfumed air of a May-morning, and gaze upon the bright face of renewed nature without emotion. I am no longer a boy, but, at such moments seldom fail to find my spirit imbued with feelings of one; and fresh, cheering, and delicious they are.88 The historical details of important places visited were tipped into the text for the benefit of his readers. Examples of the wellresearched author turned teacher are the three lengthy episodes describing the war with Austria in the Tyrol in 1809.89 La Trobe had a strong inclination to give his audience the benefit of the philosophies he had come to rely upon in the course of his life. He thus gave an insight into his own character and personality: I am by nature unsuspicious, and have an old-fashioned habit of believing every man with whom I come in contact to be ‘chevalier sans peur et sans reproche’, till I see good reason to surmise the contrary: and I assure you, reader, that is the easiest way of getting through the world.90 His journey eventually took him south from the Tyrol, over the Brenner Pass, into Italy and to Padua. Here, his arrival coincided with the feast day of St Anthony of Padua, and he was caught up in the religious and civil celebrations: If I am asked whether I am satisfied, I must in truth answer No! I had been excited, smothered with heat and dust, had my eyes and ears tickled as they would have been in a theatre: but no portion of the ceremonial had been productive of devotional feeling in my breast.91 La Trobe was always ready and interested to observe the religious practices of whatever town or city he happened to be in, and while he could appreciate all that was sincere and of high calibre, particularly in Catholic practices, his Reformist background made opportunities

54



2/3/06 2:14:19 PM

for improvement only too obvious to him. While attending Mass at St Mark’s Basilica in Venice, he was scandalised by what he saw: If mass be performed, would you not desire to see it celebrated by the officiating ministers with decorum …? I have stood divided between shame, diversion, and anger at the door of a church in which a young ecclesiastic was holding forth from a broad pulpit … with a violence of gesture and utterance which was perfectly indecorous; while close up to the portal, and within hearing by those within the church, stood a huge punch-box in full activity, with its usual laughing audience.92 His was a simpler, less ostentatious faith, closely governed by simple Moravian practices, and less liable to what he perceived as the extravagance of Catholic ritual. As one brought up in a simple Protestant tradition, yet with a profound ecumenism, his opinion of the requirements for revival of the Catholic Church was ‘not … separation from the Roman Catholic faith and incorporation with the body of existing Reformed … but … reformation in the Romish church itself’.93 La Trobe’s appreciation of the picturesque was frequently conveyed very nicely to his readers in the imagery he used throughout the journey. By way of an example, the glories of Venice as described in The Pedestrian could easily complement the works of Canaletto, so well known to his readers: Surely there is nothing on earth to be compared to Venice. A mighty and populous city with its thousand churches and palaces, in whose construction the richest marbles are lavished, as though of no price and rarity—rising from the barren sand of the sea! Remark those tributary isles, spread abroad far and near with their steeples and convents, and the long streams of living light and colour which chequer the surface of the waters. Far and wide reign the signs of a vigour, which though long past the prime, has left too many tokens of force to be forgotten, and of beauty of too peculiar a character not to be regarded with delight.94

The Young Man


55

2/3/06 2:14:19 PM

Similarly, the excitement of his first visit to Rome is evident: To tread upon the dust of the Roman Forum, to traverse the narrow streets of Rome in all directions in search of the vestiges of its ancient and the monuments of its modern grandeur, and to wander at even-tide through the matted brushwood and arches of the Palatine, or in the Coliseum, was a source of proud delight to me, as it has been to tens of thousands of pilgrims, of all countries and times.95 However, the Campagna outside the walls of Rome appealed more to him than the crowds within. Even the onset of sunstroke, foolishly brought on by his long rural walk in heat of temperatures ranging from 100 degrees to 120 degrees Fahrenheit when no other person was about—‘the effects of my imprudence hung about me for the brief remainder of my stay in the city’96—did not deter him. The principal goal of his return route to Switzerland was to climb the glacier of the Great Glockner, ‘a very noble spectacle. Higher, more imposing and wider spread glaciers I have seen; but I do not recollect one that can compare with it in elegance of form’.97 Further glimpses of the humorous side of his nature were also sprinkled through his narrative. He gave a wonderfully witty, and yet biologically accurate, description of his study of the method used by a mosquito to sting him: Thus, at St. Quirico, I recollect, after having been repeatedly bitten by my winged assailants, when I would have sunk into transient repose, I … suddenly took the fancy into my head to see how in all the world they effected their entry into my skin … for it was curious to see the little bloodthirsty maurauder [sic] address himself to his work in quite a workmanlike manner—poise himself upon four of his delicate legs, while the other two were extended laterally, to keep him in balance. He then forced in his little transparent proboscis deeper and deeper, till I felt him in the quick … I could see that it acted just as well as that of an elephant, and drew up a minute stream of blood into his little thirsty stomach.98

56



2/3/06 2:14:19 PM

This wit was evident too, when, after a very long and arduous walk in the direction of Andermatt, he was anxious to reach his lodgings and looked forward to his supper: The reader need not be surprised at a sudden feeling of neglected appetite which came across me at the sight of a number of little flat-sided, red pigs that I met with in this portion of my progress, rooting among the scattered herbage, and looking quite crisp and tasty even in their uncooked state. The truth is I was rather hungry, and knew I should be more so. Hunger is hunger, and though I was never pushed to the extremity of eating a boiled hat or a fricasseed shoe or boot, I have just sufficient experience to be certain that I could do either or both upon certain occasions.99 He was very conscious of his less than elegant appearance after nearly four months of walking and climbing, but was somewhat taken aback when asked by a Tyrolean in Tamao: ‘Are you a blacksmith?’ Elsewhere, he was mistaken for a journeyman—a shoemaker or a miner, all because of ‘the dark colour of my coat, and the hook at the end of my Alpenstock’.100 However, he could fully appreciate the amusement in the encounter with two peasants: ‘Hah, I have seen that fellow before now at the fair at Lienz. He plays excellently with his long staff, balancing it upon his finger and foot!’ ‘Yes’, added a third, and on his nose too:—I have also seen him’. ‘In verity’, thought I,—as chuckling with diversion I made the best of my way forward,— ‘this is worse than all! shoemaker and blacksmith were bad enough, but now I am taken for a jack-pudding and a conjuror, and here are people ready to swear they saw me play the devil at a fair!’101 Wherever he went, La Trobe was attracted by the landscape and its differing characteristics. An amateur scientist since his schooldays, when botany and other scientific subjects were part of the curriculum, he found topography fascinating and endeavoured to represent

The Young Man


57

2/3/06 2:14:19 PM

mountains and other natural features in pencil sketches to record the features of those parts of the world in which he found himself. By so doing, he was recording his personal experience and adding to his already considerable and eclectic knowledge of the world. It was the appeal of an environment new to him and the novelty of extraordinary landscape which attracted him as the amateur artist. La Trobe was not alone in his fascination with the world and he recorded his impressions both in written and sketch form wherever he was to go on this and future journeys. To complement his writing, La Trobe sketched the views he saw. Described some years later by his friend, the American writer, Washington Irving, as a ‘sketcher of no mean pretensions’,102 La Trobe was to use his talent throughout his life to document the places he visited and the scenery around him. Although the advent and development of photography in the 1840s and 1850s gradually changed the method used by many travellers to record their impressions, the sketchbook and pencil remained a popular way to represent one’s environs. This was certainly the only means of depicting his surroundings available to La Trobe as he set out on his solitary wanderings. He used his sketchbook in the same way that a traveller employs a camera today—to compile a record of people and places visited and sights seen, for future reference. His development as an artist who could rapidly record a landscape or a building for official purposes as well as for his own pleasure is evident in the hundreds of his sketches still extant. In the nineteenth century, tuition in drawing was included in every student’s curriculum. As the son of a gentleman, La Trobe was given the education of a gentleman himself. Educated people were grounded in the principles of perspective and scale, and most were able to produce creditable impressions of the world around them. In his drawings and watercolours, La Trobe illustrated his familiarity with the English landscape-sketching conventions of the nineteenth century, and he was in the social and economic position of being able to indulge his artistic skills. As the art historian Victoria Hammond has noted: Topographical sketching was strongly associated with empirical observation. The sketcher was not only documenting the landscape particulars of a ‘scene’ or ‘view’, he

58



2/3/06 2:14:20 PM

was recording his thoughts about that landscape. In La Trobe’s case these might be of an historical, geological or spiritual nature. Landscape sketching was a way of thinking about the world, and describing it.103 The Alpenstock and The Pedestrian contain countless references illuminating how La Trobe went about his work, such as at Heiligen-Blut, near the Great Glockner: ‘The pen and pencil, and an examination of the immediate neighbourhood, filled up the time till sunset’.104 He also offered useful advice to prospective ramblers for the recording of their travels: If you sketch, do not be too difficult in choosing your point of view—but when the object first strikes you,—out with your materials. A careful outline is always valuable, whether you have time to finish it or no.105 This is a very interesting remark, since it explains the many unfinished sketches which form his known and existing opus of 467 works of art. His art captured the moment for La Trobe and, maybe, if he had had the leisure, he would have completed more of his sketches. While mountain scenery was what appealed most to him at this stage of his life, and he certainly appreciated both its sublime beauty and forbidding aspects, he also liked to come across some evidence of man being at one with the natural world. As an example, he delighted in mountain huts and other habitations which gave him scope to indulge his other passion—that of architectural drawing. While two or three shepherds’ huts executed in fine detail appear in his European portfolio, the sketches of the châteaux of Avenches and Villars in Switzerland, Petrarch’s house in Arqua, Italy, Ezzolino’s tower in Padua and Cecilia Matella’s tomb in Rome are examples of La Trobe’s passion for history and the relationship of historical buildings to the landscape. La Trobe wrote about these buildings in much the same way as he described them with his pencil, brush and watercolours. He conveyed information about Petrarch’s house in Arqua and its surrounds with the same delicate touch he used in his sketch:

The Young Man


59

2/3/06 2:14:20 PM

The laurels which Lord Byron mentions, must long ago have perished … [You] are introduced through an arched gateway, into a small court-yard, or garden, half choked with vines and weeds. Here stands the house of the poet. You ascend a vine-covered staircase … to a small open stone balcony or porch, and thereby enter the hall. Petrarch’s favourite apartments lie on the left hand, and consist of an outer room and two interior ones of small dimensions, particularly the more remote, which was the poet’s study, and is little better than a closet. Here he was found dead in his chair. This venerable worm-eaten relic of carved wood, as well as his book-chest, are exhibited in the neighbouring apartment. The mummy of his cat,—for Petrarch, like all good and wise men, loved dumb animals, and chiefly his cat,—dignified by an inscription, is seen over one of the interior doorways … From the windows of Petrarch’s apartments, … you see … hills, one of which, perfectly conical, is exactly opposite.106 La Trobe described his dual method of detailing his journeys both in sketch and diary form: The sketches of the pen from nature may, and do often, resemble the hasty sketches of the pencil. Though roughly drawn, and destitute of the careful touch and keeping which characterize a work perfected at leisure in the cabinet, they often bear, with all their rudeness of outline and roughness of colouring, a truth and a vigour which no copy can imitate, and which any subsequent retouch would be more likely to destroy than heighten. If this is admitted, it will be perceived, why, in many of the following pages, the loose and irregular style of a journal, written while the impression of the objects and events attempted to be described was yet fresh on the imagination, is retained, in preference to any remodeled edition of it.107 La Trobe completed his tour of the Tyrol and parts of Italy in August 1830, and returned to London where he revised his notebook

60



2/3/06 2:14:20 PM

diary of his experiences into another manuscript which was published by his friend Robert Seeley. However, he had mixed thoughts about the accomplishment. At twenty-nine years of age, he could see no future prospects before him. He had exhibited a certain talent as a mountaineer and had had some financial success as an author. In his solitary rambles, La Trobe showed a degree of indecision at various points en route, a characteristic which was to plague him when he held the posts of Superintendent and Lieutenant-Governor at Port Phillip. This uncertainty showed itself in insignificant ways while he was rambling in Europe, but he was very much aware of it: What a terrible thing is choice, either to an ass in his provender, to a school-boy between right and wrong in parsing, to a statesman between conscience and expediency, or to a pedestrian at the junction of two equally plausible ways.108 And again, ‘But was not my mind a prey to that vile tormentor, indecision?’109 While trivial in these circumstances when only he had to bear the repercussions, it was to be the cause of major dissatisfaction with him during his diplomatic career. This irresolution stressed him too. His diary of the Tyrolean journey allowed a glimpse of regret, and a definite concern he felt that he should aim to do more with his life: SUPPOSING the words [were] addressed to me ‘What dost thou here Elijah?’ I have but a sorry answer to give—‘Lord, I am on my road to the Tyrol, and mean to write, and paint, and botanize, and amuse myself as well as I can, and perhaps shall publish another’—pshaw this is humiliating and leads me to say internally—Well! I almost hope that much as I love this kind of life and the pursuits with which I enliven it this will be the last summer of the kind. I have travelled enough in this manner, enough to satisfy ordinate desire.110 Such a sad reflection on a period of years with, in his view, few tangible results or achievements demonstrated La Trobe’s great dissatisfaction with his aimless life as a dilettante. It indicated a despondency and yet, there was a hope or a desire, if not quite an aim, to

The Young Man


61

2/3/06 2:14:20 PM

accomplish something worthwhile in his life before it was too late when he wrote: I pray God that I may have nobler aims and nobler purposes!—such as will not leave me to sit down and think as I have, and I fear may yet have to think during the course of this summer—‘Alas—I have spent my strength for naught’.111 La Trobe’s European ‘grand tour’ was undertaken not only for personal enrichment, but also for scientific investigation of the natural environment. He had a great thirst for knowledge which prompted him to take advantage of every opportunity. On all his travels, he saw in the natural wonders before him the scientific and theological evidence of what he had already learned from years of theoretical study of the world’s flora, fauna and geology. The first recorded example of his continued interest in scientific subjects appears in his book, The Alpenstock, which listed his solitary rambles in the Swiss Alps in 1825 and 1826. While admiring the sublime views he encountered at every turn, he revelled in the variety of specimens of flora he came across. Above all, however, his observations confirmed for him the existence of God in the universe around him. La Trobe was very much a man of his times. In his childhood, he learned of the intense exploration of new worlds which had accelerated during the eighteenth century and continued well into the nineteenth. A great deal of the new knowledge acquired through contact with remote countries and other cultures came back to Europe and was a source of intrigue to those who glimpsed specimens of hitherto unknown plants and animals in the collections of naturalists and their patrons. There was ‘a growing vogue for natural history’ as collectors went in search of the exotic for ‘cabinets’, libraries and gardens at home.112 La Trobe probably experienced such wonders in the cultivated and learned circles in which his father mixed. The British government was, of course, interested in the newly discovered lands far away, since they provided welcome advantages on both economic and imperialistic levels. Not only was Britain short of space for a huge population, but competitive colonisation with other European powers was considerably important. Britain had ‘to take a longer, strategic view of imperial matters’,113 to maintain its status and position of

62



2/3/06 2:14:20 PM

influence. The entrepreneurial activities of naturalists such as Sir Joseph Banks promoted the idea of a British empire across the world. Thus, itinerant botanists like La Trobe, collecting and categorising plants, were actually ‘agents of empire’.114 The facts that La Trobe was influential as a teacher, and that he was a successful writer, a gifted artist and a serious amateur scientist, point to talents and expectations nurtured during his earliest years in his parents’ care, and developed under the strong principles of the Moravian system of education. Further, the impact of his self-guided European ‘grand tour’ may be seen to have broadened both his cultural appreciation and his outlook on life in preparation for a career yet to unfold. However, his total approach to life was governed by his deep religious faith and by his profound sensibility towards nature and its divine properties. These were the most important facets of his character with which he approached every aspect of his life to come. In this chapter we have seen La Trobe’s continuing education and how certain events shaped him into the adult he became. I have suggested that he was an introverted, immature young man who had been content to rely on others to make decisions for him. It is now clear that it was not until he was alone in Switzerland, without the security of reliance on the family and the Moravian brotherhood which had so influenced his formation, that he really matured. The connections he made at this time in Neuchâtel foreshadowed his entire future—his lasting relationships, his career as a diplomat, and his acceptance of Switzerland as a second home.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5

6

Berthelsdorf Synod,‘Education of Children’, in Papers, p. 4. Hutton, ‘Olim’, Schools and Scholars, p. 16. Speake and Witty, A History of Droylsden, p. 144. Welch, ‘The Bedford Moravian Church in the Eighteenth Century’, p. 12. Peter La Trobe, ‘Journal of a Visit to Germany’, La Trobe Archive, MS 13003, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Originally considered to be a diary by Christian Ignatius La Trobe due to a note in Charles Joseph’s hand, mistakenly ascribing it to his father. Now positively attributed to Peter La Trobe by confirmation in the ‘Livre de Famille’, for which see note 6. Le Chevalier Latrobe, ‘Livre de Famille’, p. 26, Anne and Bernard Latrobe Kirchner collection. ‘The following year [1822] in the month of September, Mr. C. I. Latrobe and his eldest son, Pierre, came to see us in

The Young Man


63

2/3/06 2:14:21 PM

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19

20

21 22 23 24

25

26 27 28 29 30 31

64

Paris after taking part at Herenhutt [sic] in Saxony at the jubilee anniversary of the renovation of the Church of the United Brethren, and they stayed a fortnight in the bosom of my family.’ (My translation) Christian Ignatius La Trobe, Journal of a Visit to South Africa in 1815 and 1816. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock: Or, Sketches of Swiss Scenery and Manners, 1825–1826, and The Pedestrian: A Summer’s Ramble in the Tyrol and Some of the Adjacent Provinces, 1830. Evidence for this is provided by two letters, one dated 29 February 182?, from Christian Ignatius La Trobe in London to Le Chevalier Latrobe at Varennes near Montauban, and the other dated 31 January 1822 from Jean-Joachim Latrobe (Le Chevalier) in Paris to Christian Ignatius in London. These are the only remaining parts of a correspondence which obviously continued for some time, and Christian Ignatius alludes to their meeting in 1822. Peter La Trobe, ‘Journal of a Visit to Germany’, p. 39. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock (1829), p. 1. ibid., p. 2. ibid., p. 3. ibid. Register of the Moravian Chapel, RG4/4392, Public Record Office, Kew. ibid. Information received from a La Trobe family genealogist, Graham Easte, New Zealand. Christian Ignatius La Trobe, Journal of a Visit to South Africa. Christian Ignatius La Trobe, ‘Letters to my children written at sea during a Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope, 1815’. Christian Ignatius La Trobe to Vincent Novello, 1828, British Library, quoted in Holmes, ‘The Rev. Christian Ignatius La Trobe’s Account of his First Introduction to Haydn’, p. 255. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, pp. 5–7. Hôtels particuliers are private townhouses. Petitpierre, ‘Journal Colonel Pourtalès’, p. 35. ibid. ‘After these ceremonies, there was an excellent dinner, then concert and supper. My two brothers and their wives stayed at Malmaison for the night.’ (My translation) Albert de Pourtalès had an Australian connection in that he had attended the same school at Vevey on Lake Léman, not far from Lausanne, with William Macarthur, son of John Macarthur, during the Macarthurs’ sojourn in Europe following the Bligh rebellion and arrest of Governor Bligh in New South Wales. Eastwood, ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe’, pp. 89–93. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock (1829), p. 6. ibid., p. 7. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, 2nd edn. 1830? Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, p. 19.



2/3/06 2:14:21 PM

32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51 52

53 54 55

56 57 58

59 60 61 62

ibid., p. 161. ibid., p.16. ibid., p. 48. ibid., p. 112–13. ibid., p. 5. ibid., p. 6. ibid., pp. 49–52. The Jungfrau was first conquered by Peter Bauman and five other Swiss climbers on 10 September 1828. ibid., p. 8. ibid., p. 5. Schiller, Historical Works, vol. I. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, p. 293. Karl Baedeker in Germany and John Murray in England began publishing travel guides in the early nineteenth century, some of which have endured in updated editions to the present day. The French Michelin guides began to appear much later in the century. Charles Josep La Trobe, The Alpenstock, p. 19. ibid., pp. 266–7. Dunstan, A Cyclopaedic Dictionary of Music, p. 109. poco non allegro = not quite so fast as allegro volti subito = turn over immediately allegretto non troppo = moderately lively Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, p. 54. ibid. pp. 12–13. ibid. ibid., Oscillatoria subfusca = algae of dark hue. Musée d’Histoire Naturelle, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe in London to Rev. and Mrs Studer at Erlenbach, 5 June 1829, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 45, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, pp. 69–70. ibid., p. 173. The Osterwald and Montmollin families were frequently linked by marriage. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, p. 383. Shaw, A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 171. Hodgson, A New Grand Tour: How Europe’s Great Cities Made Our World, p. 6. Lassels, The Voyage of Italy, Preface. Morrison, Winckelmann and the Notion of Aesthetic Education, p. 14. ibid., p. 12. Modern editions of three of these works, as listed below, are still readily available: James Boswell, Boswell on the Grand Tour: Germany and Switzerland; James Boswell, Boswell on the Grand Tour: Italy, Corsica and France; Tobias Smollett, Travels through France and Italy; Thomas Nugent, The Grand Tour.

The Young Man


65

2/3/06 2:14:21 PM

63 64 65

66

67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80

81

82

83 84

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

66

Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Pedestrian, p. 2. ibid., p. 4. Mrs Ann Radcliffe, Henry Fielding and William Makepeace Thackeray, to name a few. Stewart, Dear Reader: The Conscripted Audience in Nineteenth Century British Fiction. ibid., pp. 99–345 passim. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Pedestrian, p. 8. ibid. ibid., p 11. Farber, Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E. O. Wilson, pp. 72–3 passim. ibid., p. 4. ibid., p. 12. Mornet, Le Sentiment de la Nature, p. 49. ibid., p. 42. ‘One can taste the harmony of the hills and the simple grace of the horizons.’ (My translation) ibid., p. 58. ‘travel to learn and to inform us’ (My translation) Saint-Pierre, Paul et Virginie. Rousseau, La Nouvelle Héloïse. Mornet, Le Sentiment de la Nature, p. 260. Osterwald, Description des montagnes et des vallées qui font partie de la principauté de Neufchâtel et de Valengin [Description of the mountains and valleys which form part of the principality of Neuchâtel and of Valengin]. (My translation) Letters from an English Traveller in France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy. Murphy (ed.), The Book of Nature: American Painters and the Natural Sublime, p. 1. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, p. 384. Benjamin Henry Latrobe, ‘Essay on Landscape’, in Carter (ed.), The Virginian Journals of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1795–1798. ibid., p. 467. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Pedestrian, p. 13. ibid., p. 21. ibid., p. 9. ibid., pp. 37–9; 91–6; 280–-91. ibid., p. 29, ‘a fearless and blameless knight’. (My translation) ibid., p. 166. ibid., p. 184. ibid., p. 185. ibid., p. 181. ibid., p. 204. ibid., p. 211. ibid., p. 258. ibid., p. 283. ibid., pp. 341–2.



2/3/06 2:14:22 PM

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

111 112 113 114

ibid., p. 282. ibid., p. 283. Irving, A Tour of the Prairies, p. 5. Reilly, Charles Joseph La Trobe: Landscapes and Sketches, p. 38. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Pedestrian, p. 258. ibid., p. 50. ibid., pp. 170–2. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, p. 7. ibid., p. 38. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Pedestrian, p. 162. ‘Journal of a Journey in the Tyrol, 1829–30’, La Trobe Archive, MS 13003, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ibid. Miller and Reill, Visions of Empire, p. 3. ibid., p. 5. ibid.

The Young Man


67

2/3/06 2:14:22 PM

chapter 3

North America and Mexico through Anglo-European Eyes

La Trobe’s association with the Pourtalès family of Neuchâtel went far beyond the acquaintance gained during his employment as tutor for three years to the elder son of the family. This was to develop into an enduring friendship between La Trobe and the Comtesse de Pourtalès, the mother of his young charge, and between Albert de Pourtalès and his former teacher which came to an end only with the sudden death of Pourtalès in 1861. In all his writings, La Trobe made only one oblique allusion to his own mother, and that was when indicating that there were various reasons for his low spirits when he arrived in Neuchâtel in 1824, the year of Hannah La Trobe’s death. His lengthy and cordial correspondence with the Comtesse de Pourtalès,1 although none of her letters to him is known to exist, was characterised by a remarkable expansiveness and frankness on La Trobe’s part which certainly indicated an affinity between them. It may have been more than that. It was quite likely that La Trobe found in the Comtesse a warmth and closeness he had never experienced with his own mother. His long absence at school would have precluded that. The Comtesse fulfilled the role for La Trobe of confidante and mentor at a time in his life when such an adviser was necessary to him. He, in turn, was an assurance to her of her son’s wellbeing and education.


2/3/06 2:14:22 PM

When La Trobe’s role as tutor came to an end in 1827 and the time came for him to return to England, La Trobe recorded ‘the bitterness of that moment’ which gave him cause ‘to sorrow that I must see those scenes and those friends no longer’.2 Two and a half years later, he was back in Neuchâtel to renew his friendships, and to embark on another adventure, this time in the Tyrol and Italy, which was to keep him in Europe with Switzerland as his base for another ten months. La Trobe next travelled when he accompanied Albert on a prolonged tour of North America and Mexico which began in the spring of 1832. At this stage, he was thirty-one years old, and Pourtalès nearly twenty. It has hitherto been unclear why the two men joined forces for a journey which lasted over two years. However, the unpublished correspondence from La Trobe to the Comtesse de Pourtalès confirms that La Trobe was the paid guide and mentor of the young count. It can be speculated that Pourtalès may have been involved in what his parents saw as an unsuitable relationship and that they sent him away to distance him from it. Another possibility as a driving force for the long absence from home may have been that his parents wished the difficult young man ‘to sow his wild oats in a foreign country’.3 It is certain that Albert de Pourtalès gave his parents grave cause for concern, and that they considered La Trobe an appropriate person to take over the role of guardian to their errant son during an extended period away from Switzerland. In fact, such an arrangement was totally in keeping with the contemporary notion that the ‘grand tour’ would give the young person, in this case, Pourtalès, a last opportunity to experience freedom before settling down responsibly for his future life. As Jeffrey Morrison has phrased it, ‘The tour is an exercise in containment, or a means to file down the rough edges of a character so that he fits his place in society more neatly’.4 After their return to the ‘old world’ from America, La Trobe was able to say of his young charge with some conviction to the Comtesse de Pourtalès: ‘He comes to you with a heart full of good intentions, and a desire to repay you by his love and respect for your long period of anxiety and solicitude on his account’.5 He might have been quoting the travel writer Richard Lassels, whose advice he no doubt took to achieve success with Pourtalès: ‘travelling takes my young nobleman four notches lower in his self-conceit and pride’.6 It is also entirely probable that Albert de Pourtalès wished to follow the fashion of the day for those with

North America and Mexico


69

2/3/06 2:14:22 PM

education and a certain degree of wealth to travel in the ‘new world’. Indeed, it was suggested by an acquaintance that his thirst for knowledge about North America was provoked by an occasion in 1827 when he saw six Osage Indians who had been brought to Geneva as a curiosity,7 and this experience no doubt excited his curiosity to know more of their homeland and their way of life. Another quite plausible reason for La Trobe to go to America was to visit cousins whom he had never met. His father’s brother was Benjamin Henry Latrobe, who is now regarded as the founder of the architectural profession in the United States.8 Among his best-known designs were those for the completion of the Capitol building in Washington, the north and south porticoes of the White House, and the vaulted Roman Catholic Cathedral of the Assumption in Baltimore.9 Benjamin Henry had died in 1820 of yellow fever contracted in New Orleans,10 long before his nephew undertook his journey to America, so they never met. However, two of his sons, John Hazlehurst Boneval Latrobe, an eminent lawyer, inventor and public servant, and Benjamin Henry Latrobe Jr, the pioneering engineer of the Baltimore–Ohio Railroad,11 lived in Baltimore at that time with their sisters, Lydia and Julia.12 This was a great opportunity to meet family members of his own age with whom, to judge from their later correspondence, he had many interests in common. By far the most convincing reason for La Trobe and Pourtalès to undertake such an extended tour and to face up to the frequent dangers en route, however, was that they were enterprising and intrepid young men in search of adventure. The ‘new world’ held out to them all the prospect of excitement that they could wish for. For Pourtalès, the two years away were simply an extension of his education, and for La Trobe, they were an alternative to mountain climbing. As before, he willingly documented in his notebook each of the five separate major journeys, as well as many of the minor excursions they made together. Despite the fact that ‘I resolved that nothing should tempt me into the manufacture of a book’,13 the result was a further two publications, The Rambler in North America, which appeared in 1835, and The Rambler in Mexico, published in 1836. La Trobe had set out from London in March 1832 with the intention of meeting Pourtalès in Paris to prepare for their tour. However, he found himself in quarantine at Calais for a week or

70



2/3/06 2:14:22 PM

more,14 due to the cholera plague raging in England. In fact, cholera and yellow fever posed threats to the two travellers on and off during the whole journey. By an extraordinary stroke of luck, they met the noted American writer, Washington Irving, as they were embarking at Havre-de-Grâce in April that year for New York.15 He was returning to America after a self-imposed exile of seventeen years in England and Spain and, to a large extent, this chance meeting determined their itinerary for La Trobe and Pourtalès. Washington Irving was the first native-born writer to have captured the imagination of the American people with his best-selling short stories ‘Rip Van Winkle’ and ‘The Legend of Sleepy Hollow’ which appeared in his Sketch Book in 1819– 20. A lawyer by profession, he spent a number of years in his family’s Liverpool offices and undertook some minor diplomatic roles on behalf of the United States during his long sojourn in England. After his somewhat fearful return to America, where he was concerned about popular opinion as to his national loyalties after having been away for so long, he published a number of major biographies, including those of Oliver Goldsmith and George Washington.16 The remarkable series of his Correspondence and Journals and Notebooks, which cover the period 1832 until his death in 1859, were published over a period of eighteen years, and document in passing the early stages of his long-time friendship with La Trobe and their tour together of the American West.17 Washington Irving was an excellent judge of character who summed up La Trobe’s heritage, education, and experience of life, together with his favourite pursuits and his attitudes—in short, his strengths and weaknesses—in one succinct paragraph: Another of my fellow-travellers was Mr. L…, an Englishman by birth, but descended from a foreign stock, and who had all the buoyancy and accommodating spirit of a native of the Continent. Having rambled over many countries, he had become, to a certain degree, a citizen of the world, easily adapting himself to every change. He was a man of a thousand occupations; a botanist, a geologist, a hunter of beetles and butterflies, a musical amateur, a sketcher of no mean pretensions, in short, a complete virtuoso; added to which, he was a very indefatigable, if not always a very



71

2/3/06 2:14:23 PM

successful, sportsman. Never had a man more irons in the fire; and, consequently, never was a man more busy or more cheerful.18

Albert-Alexandre de Pourtalès, Pencillings by the Way (Charles Joseph La Trobe sketching on horseback), 1832, pencil sketch, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel

He saw La Trobe as an Englishman, which he certainly was, but with an additional continental ‘ingredient’ which distinguished him from his fellow countrymen. He discerned the dilettante, the refined and discriminating man of taste, in La Trobe’s interest in many aspects of science and the arts, but he also recognised a certain irresolution or listlessness in the many ‘irons in the fire’ of this ‘citizen of the world’. Nevertheless, Irving was charmed by the personable younger man’s abilities, and by his geniality which underlay a serious approach to life. La Trobe was at a point in his life where he would soon be required to show his true mettle. As guide and mentor to the young Comte de Pourtalès, La Trobe would need all the strength of character and inbuilt wisdom he could muster to steer this spoiled and headstrong fellow away from the temptations of the freedom of the journey and form him into a resolute and reliable adult. La Trobe’s principal role on this journey was to act as guardian to Albert-Alexandre de Pourtalès. The count’s parents obviously had

72



2/3/06 2:14:24 PM

great faith in the seriousness and the abilities of their son’s former tutor to entrust their son, who had proven difficult for them to bring up at home, to La Trobe for a long educational tour in a foreign country. La Trobe described Pourtalès as ‘a cheerful and accomplished travelling companion, who, I believe, was bent like myself on forming opinions from observation’.19 Just what La Trobe had to contend with was hinted at in the personal details with which the self-centred Pourtalès regaled his mother in his letters home during the journey: Although I perspire profusely, I have gained weight, and I have grown so dark that my skin is like a Negro’s. I have grown heavier and taller, and I shave. I smoke only once or twice a week, because in Ohio and the West up to now, I have found only execrable cigars.20 Despite La Trobe’s declaration ‘that nothing should tempt me into the manufacture of a book’,21 the result of his prolonged absence was the publication of his third title, The Rambler in North America, which appeared in two volumes in 1835. Perhaps he needed to reassure himself that he was not wasting his existence as a dilettante, and doubtless he needed an income, so one way of legitimising his appetite for travel and shirking any professional responsibility lay in the production of a book of his experiences. Although this may seem to be a severe judgement, it would appear that there was an element of truth in this interpretation; for him this was a known and therefore less exacting way of making a living than applying himself to a profession or other demanding course in life. As in his second book, this one was addressed in the epistolary style to his youngest brother, Frederic. Ostensibly, he was sending the thirty-seven letters which made up the book to him, but this was a literary device in vogue at the time to draw the reader into the text. The work is dedicated: ‘To WASHINGTON IRVING, ESQ. These Volumes are Inscribed in Token of Affectionate Esteem and Remembrance by THE AUTHOR’, thus denoting the impression the American had made on him and their mutual respect. Typically, La Trobe would have had clear plans for the itinerary of their tour, but he was receptive to diversions suggested by Irving:



73

2/3/06 2:14:24 PM

The acquaintance which my comrade and myself had begun with Mr. Irving at Havre, and cemented on shipboard, was resumed ashore, and led to that series of common projects and common wanderings, which kept us bound together as a trio for the greater part of the summer and autumn of this year.22 While Irving was welcomed in New York as a returning hero, La Trobe and Pourtalès travelled to Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, with excursions to Harper’s Ferry and the Point of Rocks on the Potomac River and to the Catskill Mountains via the Hudson River. They also experienced the newly opened and much celebrated Baltimore–Ohio Railroad, designed by La Trobe’s cousin, Benjamin Henry Latrobe Jr. They rejoined Irving in Boston, and the party headed north in order to avoid the dreaded cholera which was scourging different American cities in the south. La Trobe was always interested in any mountain range he saw, and he climbed Mount Washington (1917 metres) among other peaks in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.23 It was at Saratoga Springs, where they were ‘spending some days at a fashionable resort famed for its mineral waters’,24 that La Trobe sustained an accident which may have caused his later blindness. He described to Albert’s mother the mishap they had while driving in a horse-drawn vehicle: As Albert and I were driving like two milors in a rumbletumble vehicle towards Lake George, the machine was suffered to break down and the shape of my nose was suddenly changed from a nondescript, to a very decent Grecian one—besides my right eye [was] nearly cut out. The latter is not particularly a change for the better. Albert escaped without a scratch, as we were going at a snail’s pace over a bridge, & neither fell out, only my superior height brought me in contact with the head of the vehicle.25 Although his letter made light of the setback, it was obviously quite a serious one which, more than likely, had dire repercussions for his health in the future. It was from Saratoga that La Trobe journeyed to view Niagara

74



2/3/06 2:14:24 PM

Falls. He recollected ‘my juvenile weakness, that of being a notorious cascade-hunter. There was something in the motion of a waterfall which always made my brain spin with pleasure’.26 He had come to this part of the world with great curiosity to become familiar with scenery such as he had never seen: ‘I longed to wander among the details of that sublime scenery which the fancy associates with the New World, as so peculiarly her own: her wide-spread streams— interminable forests and foaming cataracts’.27 To date, he had been disappointed with the landscape through which they passed: ‘In truth, America is the most prosaic, matter of fact country I ever saw— and I hope ever shall see. So pray, my dear Madam, do not expect great things either from our pens or pencils.’28 He considered ‘that the United States, taken as a whole, is far from possessing a fair proportion of what we should term picturesque scenery’.29 He anticipated something remarkable at Niagara which, in his imagination, he envisaged as ‘the huge step between the waters of an upper and a lower world, whence the thunder of water has echoed through the forests, and the vapour of the great cataract has ascended for ages, like smoke from an altar to the great Creator of All’.30 On first viewing the Niagara Falls, he was indeed awestruck by the incredible grandeur of the view: ‘Every surrounding object seems to be on a corresponding scale of magnificence … all combine to form a scene in which sublimity and picturesque beauty are enchantingly blended … I am Niagara mad’.31 This sensibility reflected both his view of nature as a reflection of God, and his typical nineteenth-century bourgeois appreciation of this wonder of the world.

Treatment of the Native Americans Fate then took another hand in the unfolding of the route taken by the two adventurers. La Trobe and Pourtalès temporarily abandoned their intention of going on to Canada in order to join Washington Irving and a new acquaintance—Judge Henry Leavitt Ellsworth, recently appointed by President Jackson as Commissioner for the Indians—on a ‘Western tour’ from St Louis through northern Missouri to Independence, then south to Kansas and Oklahoma.32 Ellsworth was part of a three-man mission to go into the Indian Territory to appraise the land west of the Mississippi River to ascertain conditions for agriculture and its natural features. Under the Indian Removal Act



75

2/3/06 2:14:24 PM

of 30 June 1830, all tribes living east of the river might be moved to the west of it,33 thus clearing the way for occupation by white settlers. Ellsworth was to attempt to settle any disputes over land, make peace with the Indians and, in general, to have a calmative effect on Indians and settlers alike. As the historian Howard Zinn has described it: Indian removal … cleared the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the building of a huge continental empire clear across to the Pacific Ocean.34 Ellsworth, a humane man, was opposed to President Jackson’s cruel usurpation of Indian territory. He found himself increasingly sympathetic to the plight of the tribes he had been sent to survey: Politics are mixed up with the Indian question, and representations are made, often, on both sides for party effect— As for myself, I am far, very far, removed from all the scenes of political strife, and as my feelings become every day more and more interested in behalf of the Indians, my mind withdraws most willingly, from the heart burnings and reckless destractions [sic] of political conflict …35 The outcome of his mission was far from the recommendations in his report to Congress, and resulted in further more drastic encroachment of the white man into these lands. La Trobe was, thus, present at the very commencement of the invasion of the Indian territory which was later named Oklahoma. La Trobe was a serious thinker, added to which he was able to indulge his spirit of adventure on this North American tour. He and Pourtalès had joined forces with Washington Irving to experience the variety of scenery in the country away from the major centres of population. Due to the chance meeting with Ellsworth, they were invited to accompany him on his official tour into the west as far as the frontier post at Fort Gibson on the Neosho River. This was an ideal opportunity for one as philosophical as La Trobe to observe and

76



2/3/06 2:14:24 PM

comment upon the condition and treatment of the native American people. La Trobe had begun his journey to North America in a state of excitement based on curiosity about the ‘new world’ ‘whose characteristics were so different from any I had yet seen’.36 While his primary interest was in the scenery, where he hoped to find a combination of all that was picturesque and sublime, he was also keen to learn something of the new world’s original inhabitants: ‘I longed … to be a guest in the lodges of that race, of whom men speak as doomed speedily to disappear from the face of the earth’.37 In a chapter in the first volume of The Rambler in North America, La Trobe typically provided detailed historical information to inform his readers on the ‘Settlement of the West’.38 He touched on the fact that the Indian population retreated before the inundation of white settlers moving west, and was full of commendation for ‘the fine race of backwoodsmen, of whom Boone seems by common consent to have been considered the patriarch’.39 However, while admiring the fortitude of the immigrants in establishing themselves where they could guarantee their future, La Trobe deplored the effect on the indigenous landholders: Where he found them poor, he left them poorer; where one scene of violence and vengeance has been seen, there many have been enacted; where he found one evil passion, he planted many; where one fell disease had thinned their ranks, he brought those of his blood and land to reap a more abundant harvest.40 He was in a position to observe at first-hand the results for the native Americans of close contact with the white man and he did not like what he saw: The gifts which the Pale-faces brought to the Children of the Forest have indeed been fatal ones, and by them the seeds of misery and death have been sown to a terrible extent … he excited the passions of the savage for his own purposes, and when it raged against him, he commenced the work of extermination.41



77

2/3/06 2:14:25 PM

No doubt, canvassing the opinions of someone better informed than himself, La Trobe would have had long and philosophical conversations around the camp fire at night with Judge Ellsworth, a man whom he admired: ‘The Commissioner, with whom we had long become intimately acquainted, was worthy of the respect which all entertained for him. His kindliness of spirit won our regard’.42 While convinced on an intellectual level that the government had the best interests of all the population at heart in moving Indian tribes to the west, La Trobe’s pity for the latter was obvious: No one can look upon the state of the Indian, struggling for existence on the frontier, without commiseration … I would ask, are the majority of the agents appointed by government to live among the Indians,—to carry its benevolent designs into execution, just, honest and good men— men of character and probity—above profiting by the defenceless state of the tribes and superior to the temptations held out on every hand for self-aggrandisement? I think I might answer without fear of contradiction in the negative.43 Foreshadowing the situation he was later to encounter in dealing with the Aboriginal people at Port Phillip, he expressed his anguish and despondency for the predicament of the native Americans: ‘What check is there upon an unprincipled agent, who knows that, for a bottle of whiskey, an Indian will sign or say any thing, and at the same time that his testimony is not valid in a court of justice?’44 In the end, however, La Trobe seemed to accept the demise of the Indians in the face of change, much as he accepted the inevitability of extinction of the buffalo: ‘Like the Indian, they too have had to forsake their original domains and retire into the waste’.45 He considered that the white man and the Indian could never inhabit the same areas of land in North America, and he was convinced that ‘If the Indian turns his back upon the alternative of civilization, he must recede’.46 La Trobe was keen to observe the activities of missionaries among the Indians, and to find some evidence that they had accepted strong Christian principles into their way of life. During a brief sojourn

78



2/3/06 2:14:25 PM

at Harmony on the Missouri frontier, and later at the sister-settlement of Union on the Neosho River, he was disappointed to realise that the only success they had had was the establishment of a school for the Indian children, and some attempt at agriculture.47 Part of Ellsworth’s mission was to travel to the territory lying between the Arkansas River and the Great Canadian River in the south to discover if it was suitable country in which the Indian tribes from the southern states could be located, so as to free up their homelands for white settlers.48 No doubt, it was his own anguish for these disinherited people, as well as his assessment of the territory he surveyed, which led Ellsworth to report negatively on its acceptability to President Jackson. His feelings were apparent in his diary, and he agreed with La Trobe that ‘The object of the expedition, as far as it had extended, had been in one respect accomplished, in that the country between the two great rivers had been ascertained, and found to be such as to preclude all idea of settling the eastern Indians upon it’.49 Regrettably, Ellsworth’s official report is missing from the Secretary of War’s documentation at the National Archives in Washington, but his clear opinion was recorded in his diary.50 La Trobe was among those who condemned President Jackson’s determined plan to push the Indian population out of their homelands and into the alien country of the west: No one who reads the history of these countries since their first settlement can draw any other conclusion, than that the white man with his grasping hand, selfish policy, and want of faith, has been in almost every case, directly or indirectly, the cause of the horrors which he afterwards rose openly to retaliate. How often did he return evil for good!51 This, then, was the result of decisions made by the administration at the very top level. President Andrew Jackson was not totally the admired patriot and democrat he has long been portrayed. His relentless harassment of the indigenous population revealed him, in the words of one historian, as ‘Jackson the slaveholder, land speculator, executioner of dissident soldiers, exterminator of Indians’.52 La Trobe was left with a deep sadness for what he saw as the inevitable passing of the Indian people before the advance of progress:



79

2/3/06 2:14:25 PM

But the evil is now done, and unfortunately irreparable … The Indian tribes have melted like snow from before the steady march of the white … If you ask, where is that noble race whom Smith found in Virginia … they are gone!53 The Ellsworth expedition proved an important feature in the documented history of Oklahoma, since Irving, La Trobe, Pourtalès and Ellsworth all kept journals which recorded the journey from four personal perspectives. La Trobe’s was the most inclusive account of the tour, this well-trained observer recording in great detail the events as they happened and providing the most informative travelogue of places visited. La Trobe’s romantic written descriptions reflected his attraction to natural features of the landscape, and very often these were accompanied by a pencil sketch of the same scene to enhance his memory of the event described. Washington Irving, in his journal, was full of admiration for La Trobe’s wisdom and abilities, and appreciative of his vitality, whether he was fording a flooded river, driving bees from their hive to extract ‘the rich booty’, ‘catching a mess of fish in a small brook’, or killing a polecat.54 Ellsworth described La Trobe’s interest in botany in somewhat more detail than did Irving: He always has a little bag slung to his coat button, to receive a new variety—from every kind of stalk and limb (not excepting the grasses) he makes a gathering, and the collection of months is thrown promiscuously together, to be sown in Europe—What a collection!55 Writing to his mother from Independence, Missouri, on 26 September 1832, Pourtalès also mentioned La Trobe’s botanical activity: ‘La Trobe has gathered more flowers here in a week than in the rest of America in five months’.56 In his collecting, La Trobe revealed his fascination with the natural order and his passion for the identification of new species which would inform himself and scientists at home. Henry Ellsworth was not as complimentary about the count. Pourtalès’ self-conscious manhood evidently manifested itself in sexual predatoriness. Among his reflections on the youngest member of the party, Ellsworth feared that regret would characterise his future

80



2/3/06 2:14:25 PM

and that he would ‘in later life, look back upon his western follies (to say the least) with shame’, especially when his ‘future domestic felicity’ is disrupted ‘by the appearance of red progeny, who will rise up to call him father’!57 In contrast, Washington Irving was amused by the vain young man, decked out in his Indian gear: The Count was well mounted; and, as I have before observed, was a bold and graceful rider … His dress was a gay and well-cut hunting-frock of dressed deerskin, sitting well to the shape, dyed of a beautiful purple, and fancifully embroidered with silks of various colours; as if it had been the work of some Indian beauty. With this, he wore leathern pantaloons and moccasins, a foraging-cap, and a doublebarrelled gun, slung by a bandalier athwart his back; so that he was quite a picturesque figure, as he managed gracefully his spirited steed.58 La Trobe had to manage this immature young man who was so tremendously stimulated at the prospect of the extraordinary adventures which he was soon to experience. This excitement was well conveyed in Albert’s first letter to his mother from St Louis as he was about to set off on the first stage of the tour: We are leaving on our great expedition after tomorrow. I am overjoyed at the prospect of realizing all I have hoped for on this trip: visiting the Indians, seeing them in their meetings and assemblies, watching them dance, joining them in buffalo hunts, killing bears with a carbine. I am about to die of excitement. Today I bought a carbine and a complete leather outfit embroidered Indian fashion. That’s the best thing for this expedition.59 Albert was obviously a great problem for La Trobe to manage during their travels together. In this period, La Trobe wrote thirty-two letters, mostly to the Comtesse de Pourtalès, with a few addressed to her husband, describing the young count’s behaviour. The travel correspondence began as their ship lay at anchor off New York on 21 May 1832, with passengers anxious to disembark. It continued until



81

2/3/06 2:14:26 PM

July 1834 when he wrote to the Comtesse from Havre-de-Grâce in France, assuring her that Albert was on his way from that port to Berlin where the Pourtalès family was then living. Each letter contained all the detail worried parents would want. With almost monotonous reliability, La Trobe described where they were, what they were doing, and what the next stage of their journey would entail. He always gave a report on Albert’s health, together with his assessment of the young man’s state of mind and conduct. He did not shy away from mentioning, on countless occasions, the deficiencies he observed in him: ‘You know Albert’s fickleness and instability of purpose sufficiently well to conceive that there must be moments, when the novelty of his position ceases to excite him and loses its first force’.60 He noted that Albert ‘should learn to restrict his desires and fancies’.61 He did not, however, mention the fact that Albert was a source of irritation to some others in the touring party in his complete egotism and lack of restraint. While La Trobe reported on activities in a general way to his employers, he avoided in his letters to them any mention of two serious blunders by Pourtalès which could have had disastrous repercussions. Irving described Albert’s illadvised and foolhardy insistence that he was going to leave the main party and go off in search of the Osage Indians: The most experienced frontiers-man in the troop remonstrated on the hazard of the undertaking. They were about to throw themselves loose in the wilderness, with no other guides, guards, or attendants, than a young, ignorant halfbreed, and a still younger Indian … The Osages and the Pawnees were at war … Nothing, however, could restrain the romantic ardour of the Count for a campaign of buffalo-hunting with the Osages; and he had a game spirit, that seemed always stimulated by the idea of danger.62 La Trobe was depicted as trailing along behind Pourtalès, Irving reflecting the utter helplessness to restrain him that La Trobe must have been feeling: His travelling companion, of discreeter age and calm temperament, was convinced of the rashness of the enterprise;

82



2/3/06 2:14:26 PM

but he could not control the impetuous zeal of his youthful friend, and he was too loyal to leave him to pursue his hazardous scheme alone.63 La Trobe, though, in the early stages of their rash and impetuous excursion, must have prevailed on Albert to consider the danger of their situation, and by nightfall, Irving noted ‘We welcomed them to the camp with heartfelt satisfaction; for their departure upon so hazardous an expedition had caused us great uneasiness’.64 The second occasion on which Pourtalès caused extreme concern to his guardian and to all in the travelling party was towards the end of a buffalo hunt when he disappeared and gave the party, La Trobe in particular, a night of great disquiet before he was, at long last, discovered. ‘I need not tell you that the meeting was a joyous one, and that none could feel it in a greater degree than myself’.65 Despite annoyances, major and minor, La Trobe was able to trace a growing sense of responsibility and self-reliance in Albert, and he was at great pains to convey his assessment to the concerned parents. A number of times in his letters, he hinted at the reformed character who was to emerge in the future: ‘He will have laid in a store of rare and choice information … and I hope learned to feel the value of home by his long absence from it’.66 Later, he could state much more positively that ‘I believe there is every reason to hope that the events of the past winter have had a very favourable influence upon the character, & style of thought of my young mercurial friend’.67 Making use of the sound Moravian educative principles under which he, himself, had been brought up, La Trobe was able to say to the Comtesse de Pourtalès: ‘Albert is now of an age to choose between evil and good, without being prompted by another, and it is well that he is occasionally placed in positions when the choice is left entirely to him.68 He did, however, only report to his employer in the mildest manner, no doubt so as not to alarm her. The physical and moral dangers which Pourtalès embraced in the most foolhardy fashion were not reported to her, nor did they appear in La Trobe’s journal. Pourtalès and his scrapes were related in the diaries of his fellow travellers who had none of La Trobe’s reticence. La Trobe said of himself that he was, by nature, unsuspicious, only seeing the good in others. This characteristic, and his timidity in confronting unpleasant or difficult



83

2/3/06 2:14:26 PM

situations, would have made him avoid mentioning any of Pourtalès’ activities which created uneasiness. La Trobe’s perspicacity, though, which emerged from time to time in his future activities, was demonstrated in one letter which must have created great hope in Albert’s parents: I could find it in my heart, when I think of his great energy of character and general talent, to prophecy him a brilliant career … and I am more & more inclined to think that, before this time next year, he will feel even more forcibly than he does now, that years are not to be trifled with.69 Pourtalès would indeed fulfil La Trobe’s predictions for him, without a doubt owing to La Trobe’s good influence on him and his own innate intelligence. Soon after their return from the tour, Albert entered the Prussian diplomatic service, his first important assignment being to represent his country at the marriage in London in 1838 of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. After holding several minor posts, he was appointed Ambassador to Constantinople, and later, Ambassador to France. After leaving Irving and Ellsworth, La Trobe and Pourtalès travelled in November and December 1832 via Arkansas down the Mississippi to New Orleans before a bleak winter in Maryland. The pair arrived in Baltimore on Christmas Day. It was an ideal opportunity for La Trobe to become acquainted with his cousins. While there, Charles Joseph copied by hand into a notebook ‘Extracts from my uncle Benjamin’s private papers. Made in Baltimore. Winter 1833’.70 The first twenty-four pages of the notebook contain an account of Charles Joseph’s grandfather, Benjamin, as recorded by his uncle Benjamin Henry. He wrote to his father: On my visit to Lydia (my Uncle Benjamin’s eldest daughter), I got out of a bundle of papers a memorandum in my late Uncle’s handwriting, giving a much more detailed account of the La Trobe and Antes families than I had yet seen. Of course I copied it.71

84



2/3/06 2:14:26 PM

Other extracts copied from the private papers included anecdotes, poems, correspondence concerning schools and education, and descriptions of the American landscape. The respite in Baltimore fortified the two travellers for their long-planned tour of the southern states of America. Charles Joseph and his young protégé travelled to Norfolk in Virginia, and made a thorough journey of two months through Alabama, Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Tennessee before turning again to the north to Canada, to experience the sights and lifestyles of Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa.

Travels in Mexico Their next ‘ramble’ in January 1834 took them from New Orleans to Mexico. La Trobe and Pourtalès embarked with a Mr McEuen,72 someone they had befriended along the way, on the small vessel, a goélette or slender two-masted craft, the Halcyon, at New Orleans on 15 January 1834, bound for the port of Tampico in Mexico. Their journey in Mexico, of three months’ duration, took them by sea, on horseback and by coach, and was a far from comfortable one. Even before reaching Tampico, they very nearly lost their lives in the Gulf of Mexico. La Trobe described in graphic detail the terrifying storm at sea and ‘El Norte’, the savage wind which whipped up the waves to horrifying proportions, so that the boat was ‘tossed about like a cork in a boiling pot’73 for the best part of five days. The captain and crew— ‘wild half-savage, pirate-looking’74—were so disreputable that, on arrival off the coast of Tampico, La Trobe, Pourtalès and McEuen abandoned their goods and chattels on the Halcyon, and took advantage of a passing brigantine to escape to shore. This event occurred when it became clear that their own vessel would put to sea again in face of another storm with no consideration of the needs of her passengers. Thanks to various letters of credit in their possession, they were able to outfit themselves at great expense for the adventure ahead. Clad in a mixture of European and Mexican dress, head surmounted by a broad sombrero, La Trobe for the first few days indulged his passion for botany and biology by collecting every new plant or insect he came across. ‘That was certainly a species of intoxication! … No flower courted my admiring gaze in vain. No insect hummed in my



85

2/3/06 2:14:26 PM

ear unattended to’.75 It was only when he, all unsuspecting, became ‘a perfect pasture for these omniverous nuisances’ of leeches and mosquitoes, that he ‘found it was one thing to catch crickets, or gather lilies, daisies, or daffodils in England, and another to make collections under the tropics’.76 In the process of adjustment to their new environment in Tampico, La Trobe found ‘The population … the most mongrel that can be conceived’,77 in the sense of ‘hybrid’, since foreigners from all parts of the world flocked to this commercial centre. In his book,78 he described the people he met in his travels as canaille and in a letter to his aunt in New York he wrote: As to the people, they are for the most part a race of canaille and must remain so for the present. They are incapable of self government, wanting that instruction which is the property of the poorest among you in the U.S.79 La Trobe was not speaking in an entirely pejorative way about the local inhabitants, since he believed that religion and education were the redeeming qualities needed by every man, whether in Mexico or elsewhere. He, no doubt, thought of those from all countries and backgrounds who were milling around Tampico as ‘rabble’, or a ‘mob’ who lacked the firm hand of a government which would raise their standards. By the use of this term, though, he was betraying his attitude to class, which for him was largely determined by those same characteristics of religion and education. After their fraught entrance in the eye of a storm, Tampico did little to welcome them. Accommodation was almost non-existent, food was at a premium and in limited supply, and cholera was an ever-present terror: ‘The sum of the population the preceding year, before the cholera broke out, had been estimated at five thousand. Of these, three thousand are said to have been swept away’.80 The three men quickly set out to travel a wide semi-circle through the Valley of Mexico to the port of Vera Cruz. As in The Rambler in North America, La Trobe used the letter form to record his descriptions. The Rambler in Mexico, the volume which resulted from this journey of discovery, took the form of nine letters, again to his brother, Benjamin Frederic, who was by now

86



2/3/06 2:14:27 PM

established as a doctor in the West Indies. As in his previous travel books, La Trobe described in great detail the historical, physical and social features of each place visited, adding touches of levity, such as his enjoyment at breakfasting on tortillas ‘with the addition of an agreeable liquor, made of the fermented juice of the sugar-cane’.81 He also recorded the fascinating scenery before him in his sketchbook. The images he conjured up in pen and ink for family and friends, and as a memento of a fabulous journey of adventure for himself, revealed the buildings, lakes and other natural features of this country. He marvelled at natural beauties, at one point writing that ‘any description of the wide view to the north, west and east, comprizing in the latter direction the Laguna Tammiagua, and fading to the apparently illimitable horizon, would be utterly impossible’.82 Writing for a readership at home who had no hope of ever visiting such an exotic and far-off land, La Trobe took his readers on his journey along the Panuco River on which Tampico is situated, to the ‘Mountain of the Huastec’ on the Mexican Plateau west of the Sierra Madre Oriental Mountain range, where ‘we agreed that, no where in America had we seen mountain scenery whose general features and colouring bore so great a resemblance to the lower green Alps of Switzerland, with their wide pastures, transparent atmosphere, and glistening chalets’.83 The glorious views of the southern end of the Sierra Madre Range and of the Rio de Cãnada, a tributary of the Rio Tula, inspired him with religious awe, and led him to use his habitual word—‘sublimity’—when particularly struck by the natural world and reflecting on the work of God: ‘I have no where met with the sublimity of an alpine mountain gorge on a great scale, clothed with such beauty’.84 At the picturesque town of Real del Monte in Hidalgo province, the party were escorted in their tour above and below ground by one of the officials of the silver mining company, owned by the Count of Regla, but leased to a British mining company. This mine had been opened two hundred years before by the Spanish who had worked it systematically before abandoning it. An English colony had been established at Real del Monte at about the time of this visit, and La Trobe described the tour his party were given underground by ‘two of the English captains or overseers’85 in charge of the Indian workers. He went on to explain that the silver ore was transported to Regla, an



87

2/3/06 2:14:27 PM

industrial town nearby, where the smelting and amalgamation of the metal were done. Thrilling to vastly different landscapes, La Trobe recorded the ‘celebrated cascade’ at Regla, a waterfall reached by tracing the course of the Pachuca River along a path which wound its way ‘through two walls of basaltic columns, upwards of a hundred feet in height’.86 The great nineteenth-century historian of Mexico, William H. Prescott, quoted La Trobe in his classic work History of the Conquest of Mexico: Of recent tourists, no one has given a more gorgeous picture of the impressions made on his senses by these sunny regions than Latrobe, who came on shore at Tampico; a traveller, it may be added, whose descriptions of man and nature in our own country, where we can judge, are distinguished by a sobriety and fairness that entitle him to confidence in his delineation of other countries.87 Prescott commented on the credence he gave to La Trobe’s explanation of the ‘Calendar Stone’, an immense circular block of carved porphyry weighing 24 tons, discovered in 1790 in the central square of Mexico City. The stone revealed the sophisticated grasp of scientific principles of the earlier inhabitants, and was sometimes referred to as ‘Montezuma’s watch’.88 Both Prescott and La Trobe marvelled at such advanced technological ability in the Aztecs. But it was La Trobe’s practical yet erudite explanation of the method of transport of so enormous a stone which found acceptance with Prescott: The English traveller, Latrobe, accommodates the wonders of nature and art very well to each other, by suggesting that these great masses of stone were transported by means of the mastodon.89 The mastodon was an animal, now extinct, allied to the elephant, whose remains were occasionally disinterred even in the nineteenth century in North America and Mexico. La Trobe visited the beauty spot of Montezuma’s Bath close to Lake Texcuco, in the Sierra Madre Mountains. This had been described

88



2/3/06 2:14:27 PM

as of massive proportions by other historians, but La Trobe’s picture of it more approximated the truth in Prescott’s view: We … soon came to the so-called bath, two singular basins, of perhaps two feet and a half diameter, cut into a bastionlike solid rock, projecting from the general outline of the hill, and surrounded by smooth carved seats and grooves … As to Montezuma’s Bath,—it might be his foot-bath if you will,—but it would be a moral impossibility for any monarch of larger dimensions than Oberon, to take a duck in it.90 If La Trobe was unimpressed by Montezuma’s Bath, he was captivated by Montezuma’s Gardens, or the ‘Contador’—a grove of cypress trees, on the shores of Lake Texcuco—as his charming sketch showed. La Trobe’s survey of the area revealed some three or four hundred ancient symmetrically planted trees, which formerly had been massed around the Lake. He remarked: ‘I have seen few remnants of antiquity in the valley of Mexico, which interested me more than this solitary grove’.91 In April 1834, La Trobe and his party visited the pyramids situated in the valley of San Juan Teotihuacan, ‘emblossomed in shady groves irrigated by plenteous streams’.92 These two phenomenal structures of earth and stone rise at heights of 55 metres and 44 metres from the lush Micoatl plain, just north of Mexico City. Unlike the pointed pyramids of Egypt, La Trobe found these to be ‘constructed in distinct stories [sic], and terminated with a platform, upon which, probably, a small structure was erected’.93 Succumbing to the call of adventure, like those who had explored the Great Pyramid of Cheops in Egypt, and as he had in the Swiss Alps and would again on his journeys of exploration in the Port Phillip District, La Trobe with McEuen ‘ventured into a snake- and scorpion-infected passage’94 of the Moon Pyramid: After undergoing a partial stripping, I proceeded to share in the glory or danger of the enterprise, whichever it might be … I laid myself flat upon my face, and ducking into the aperture, squeezed myself blindly forward with my candle, through a passage inclining downwards for about ten yards,



89

2/3/06 2:14:27 PM

when I found myself in a more open gallery, at the termination of which, not many paces distant, I found de Pourtalès and McEuen at the brink of two wells, which, considering the height at which we entered, might perhaps be in the centre of the pyramid.95 La Trobe was courageous almost to the point of recklessness when confronted by a challenge such as this, and it is true to say that he apparently knew no physical fear. On climbing the Sun Pyramid, he correctly estimated that the real base of the structure ‘lies below the level of the present soil, concealed by the wrecks cast down upon it’.96 The travellers also visited the ancient sacred city of Cholula in the Great Nevadas, west of the large Spanish-built town of Puebla, where they viewed the celebrated ‘great’ pyramid, about 52 metres above the plain of Cholula. The structure is faced with stone, and La Trobe proffered the view that it was ‘still a marvel and a wonder in the land, and will probably remain so to the end of time’.97 The historical details recounted by La Trobe about the monuments he saw, such as the fact that the pyramids had been discovered, not built, by the Aztecs who constructed their own great temples using the pyramids as models, provided excellent factual background for his readers. The group visited two historic monuments of religious significance. The first—Desierto, a ruined Carmelite monastery, perched high on the jagged Sierra Madre, not far from Mexico City—was surrounded by superb views as far as the mountains beyond Guadeloupe, the capital of Mexico City, Lake Texcuco and San Cristobal. Before reaching their port of departure at Vera Cruz, La Trobe’s party took in the picturesque town of Jalapa high in the mountains leading to the ridge of lava beds of the extinct volcano of Coffre de Perote. There, they marvelled at the views of the magnificent snow-covered summit of Orizaba (5296 metres), ‘in comparison to whose sublime and majestic stature, the elevated mountains which cluster round its feet, appear but as pigmies [sic]’.98 It was at Jalapa that La Trobe and his friends viewed the second historic monument, the impressive edifice of the monastery of San Francisco, surrounded by its great white walls. La Trobe was obviously intrigued by the mystique surrounding the structure, and spent considerable time completing a well-composed watercolour of this striking building which provided such a

90



2/3/06 2:14:27 PM

welcoming sanctuary to many a terrified resident fearing for his life. It was to this refuge that Europeans not yet acclimatised to the oppressive Mexican climate in the port fled at the annual onset from August to October of ‘that dreaded sickness, the vomito prieto’ (yellow fever).99 La Trobe recorded the high death toll from this disease in Vera Cruz prior to his departure. The ‘ramble’ in Mexico came to an end when the La Trobe party embarked at Vera Cruz on a packet steamer, the Mexican, for New York where they arrived on 19 May. The book concludes with La Trobe’s horrifying, almost clinical, description of a young Frenchman who died of the vomito on board the Mexican. This anecdote reveals La Trobe’s compassionate and gentle nature, and his telling of the episode graphically evokes the full horror of the death, and the fear of infection pervading the minds of the unfortunate young man’s companions. The two books concerning his American travels, published after La Trobe’s return to London, are important in the first instance as travelogues. In 1835, few British tourists dared to cross the Atlantic, but they were curious about the unknown lands beyond. As a reviewer of The Rambler in North America indicated, La Trobe’s descriptions: though something of polish and purity may be wanting, have a free forest tone about them—as if the author had caught the spirit of the strange land he journeyed in— which remind us of the sketches of the best native writers—of Irving, and Audubon, and the author of the ‘Sketches of the Mississippi Valley’.100 The Rambler in Mexico met with a mixed reception. One reviewer commended it to ‘either the idle or the inquisitive traveller’ since ‘there is much interesting ground for research as yet but little explored’.101 At the same time, while the work was not, nor did it pretend to be, a complete and thorough history of the country, yet there is much extremely pleasing both in the incidents narrated and the manner of narration, a happiness of style, light, sketchy, and generally (we cannot say always) unostentatious, yet full of vigour, sprightliness, and penetration,



91

2/3/06 2:14:28 PM

that will, if we be not much deceived, gain a cordial reception for the Rambler in Mexico.102 Another journal carried an important review which reproved La Trobe, since ‘no man is justified in pronouncing dogmatically on such subjects, after a mere hurried gallop—a sort of swallow flight—over the surface of a country’.103 It went on to say, even more piercingly for one of La Trobe’s sensitivity and piousness: We shall quit the subject, only observing, that the animating spirit of the work towards the Mexican people, whom Mr. Latrobe repeatedly calls canaille, is in strange contrast with the genius of that religion the hackneyed phrases of which he scatters so plentifully over his pages, and with the benevolent tenets of the Moravians, from whom he is said to be descended.104 It was a telling criticism. In his use of the derogatory canaille La Trobe perhaps revealed a lack of understanding or sympathy for these people so much less well off than himself and, certainly, a surprising lack of charity, as the reviewer was keen to point out, in one raised in the Christianity of the Moravian faith. After such stinging yet honest and justified criticism, to be panned thus: ‘As a descriptive writer, Mr. Latrobe has acquired more reputation than we think him entitled to … Mr. Latrobe belongs to the inferior class’,105 was mild censure indeed. La Trobe’s book did not, in fact, set out to describe Mexico and the Mexicans in an historical context. There were, though, some of his typical asides which provided the salient facts of the past as they applied to the various places where he happened to be. Mexico was not a country completely unknown to La Trobe’s readership. They were likely to be already familiar with the recent publication, History of the Conquest of Mexico by William H. Prescott, even if they had not read it. This multi-volumed publication, in its myriad editions, was considered the standard work on the history of Mexico for decades to come. La Trobe’s contribution to the literature on Mexico was, by contrast, on the lighter side, more in narrative travelogue, and more appealing to dreamers who would never visit that far-off country. This first encounter with the ‘new world’ had a profound effect

92



2/3/06 2:14:28 PM

on La Trobe’s sensibility. Here, he discovered aspects of nature which he could never have imagined. He attempted to depict in his sketches the vastness of the landscapes with their unexpected revelations of long-gone civilisations, and to describe them in his published narratives at the end of his journeys. It is apparent that he was forcibly struck by the grandeur of every feature of the landscape in both North America and Mexico, so dissimilar to the European scenery he knew so well. For him, as always when exposed to the marvels of nature, the magnificence of every new scene was an even stronger reflection of the glory of God, ‘the great Creator of All’.106 An important influence on La Trobe in the course of this journey was the cultivated company he kept. His relationship with the erudite and sophisticated Washington Irving influenced his attitudes and helped mature many of his ideas. The effect of Henry Ellsworth, a thoughtful and learned man whose compassion and circumspection were object lessons to La Trobe in his future dealings with indigenous peoples, was to contribute to the shaping of his ideas about dealings with a native population, an influence which would later affect his attitude to the Aboriginal people of Port Phillip. He experienced Ellsworth’s deep concern for the native Americans, and yet, his practical attitude was that they could do nothing but recede before the onslaught of white migration. This was a profound lesson for La Trobe when he found himself administering a similar situation later. It is relevant that three independent writers—Irving, Ellsworth and Pourtalès—commented on La Trobe’s character and personality in their published records of the journey, each finding him a serious and responsible individual, with great talents as a sportsman and an artist. La Trobe, himself, had little to say in his narrative about any of them, perhaps indicating his greater interest in the new landscape before him, than in their behaviour. It was only when realising the plight of the country’s indigenous population that a personal response to a disenfranchised race was expressed in the deeply moving cry: ‘they are gone!’107 However, he had been prepared for this, seeming to accept the general prediction that the Indians were ‘doomed speedily to disappear from the face of the earth’.108 He had reflected on the condition of the American Indians and had formed an opinion about their future—they were doomed to extinction despite what he would have considered the ‘benevolent designs’109 of the government.



93

2/3/06 2:14:28 PM

The numerous letters that La Trobe wrote from North America to the Comtesse de Pourtalès110 shed light on the tour itself. They reveal more about La Trobe the person in their conversational tone than did his entire published narrative. The letters are also of interest for what they did not report, in particular, the misbehaviour of the young count. La Trobe’s dislike of confrontation saw him remonstrating only mildly, as far as can be judged from his narrative, with his young charge as, for example, when he disappeared overnight while hunting buffalo. Neither did he report the delinquent behaviour to the young man’s parents, perhaps reflecting a certain passivity. And yet, his very inaction may only have been symptomatic of his Moravian technique and belief that it was better to lead by example. His actions, or at times quite the reverse, as well as his correspondence with his employer and his two books published at the completion of the long tour, point to La Trobe having matured in his experience of life and in his understanding of his fellow man. La Trobe’s encounters with others he met in the course of his tour also served to confirm his inbred class consciousness. He was disgusted and repelled by various groups his party encountered. Among these were the ‘unprincipled agents’111 of the government, ‘the wild, half-savage, pirate-looking’112 crew of the Halcyon en route to Mexico, and the ‘canaille’,113 or riff-raff, once he arrived there. This strong attitude of superiority, a view of the ‘lower classes’, was discordant with the firmly held belief in the transforming power of religious conversion and education which stemmed from his Moravian education and which he would apply in future situations.

Notes 1

2 3

94

Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossiers 45(a) and 45(c), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. This collection comprises thirty-five letters, covering the period May 1832–June 1834, from La Trobe to the Comtesse de Pourtalès which have shed light on La Trobe’s role as a tutor and mentor in the Pourtalès family. The correspondence documents in detail Albert’s progress towards maturity from what had apparently been a wayward adolescence. There are a number of subsequent letters in the Archives which show La Trobe in the role of one seeking advice about his direction in life. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Alpenstock, p. 384. Ellsworth, Washington Irving on the Prairie: Or, A Narrative of a Tour of the Southwest in the Year 1832, p. 68.



2/3/06 2:14:28 PM

4 5

6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

18 19 20

21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32

Morrison, Winckelmann and the Notion of Aesthetic Education, p. 14. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès, Havre de Grâce, France, no date but July 1834, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 45(b), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Lassels, The Voyage of Italy, preface, quoted in Morrison, Winckelmann and the Notion of Aesthetic Education, p. 14. Irving, Journals and Notebooks, vol. V, 1832–59, p. xxi. Carter, ‘The Papers of Benjamin Henry Latrobe’, p. 436, describes Benjamin Henry Latrobe as ‘the great American architect and engineer’. Wilson, ‘Benjamin H. Latrobe’, pp. 613–14. Kimball, ‘Benjamin Henry Latrobe’, Dictionary of American Biography, p. 24. ibid., p. 26. Among his feats of design and construction during the years 1836–48 was the railway line from Harper’s Ferry to the Ohio River. Association Latrobe International Symposium, Les Latrobe dans le Monde, pp. 27–8. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, 1832–1833, vol. I, p. 8. ibid., pp. 13–14. According to the Columbia Lippincott Gazetteer of the World (Columbia University Press, NY, 1988), the French port of Le Havre was founded as Havre-de-Grâce in 1516 by Francis I near the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce Chapel of which only a façade remains today. Hedges, ‘Washington Irving’, pp. 479–80. Irving, Journals and Notebooks, 5 vols, various editors, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1969–86. Irving, A Tour on the Prairies, p. 5. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 8. Albert-Alexandre de Pourtalès to Comtesse Frédéric de Pourtalès, St Louis, 14 September 1832, quoted in Pourtalès, On the Western Tour with Washington Irving: The Journal and Letters of Count de Pourtalès, p. 21. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 8. ibid., p. 25. ibid., p. 56. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès, Saratoga Springs, 10 August 1832, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 45(c), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 72. ibid., p. 6. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès, Saratoga Springs, 10 August 1832. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 37. ibid., p. 41. ibid., pp. 76–80. The Indian Territory was united with Oklahoma Territory to become the State of Oklahoma in November 1907.



95

2/3/06 2:14:29 PM

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

54 55 56 57 58 59

60

61

62 63 64 65 66

67 68 69 70

96

Nash and Jeffrey, The American People, p. 395. Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 124. Ellsworth, Washington Irving on the Prairie, p. 61. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 6. ibid. ibid., pp. 83–98. ibid., p. 98. ibid., p. 165. ibid., pp. 164–5. ibid., p. 146. ibid., p. 169. ibid., p. 170. ibid., p. 203. ibid., p. 169. ibid., p. 155. ibid., p. 179. ibid., p. 61. Ellsworth’s original diary is in the possession of Yale University Library. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 166. Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 129. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, pp. 166–7. Irving, Journals and Notebooks, pp. 114–45 passim. Ellsworth, Washington Irving on the Prairie, p. 69. Pourtalès, On the Western Tour with Washington Irving, p. 34. Ellsworth, Washington Irving on the Prairie, p. 68. Irving, A Tour on the Prairies, pp. 44–5. Albert de Pourtalès to Comtesse de Pourtalès, St Louis, 14 September 1832, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 45(c), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès, Saratoga Springs, 10 August 1832. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès, St Louis, 15 September 1832. Irving, A Tour on the Prairies, pp. 37–8. ibid., pp. 38–9. ibid., p. 42. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 235. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès, New York, 5 January 1832, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 45(c), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ibid., Baltimore, 24 March 1833. ibid., 26 January 1833. ibid., Chicago, 20 September 1833. Notebooks of La Trobe’s grandfather, copied by him in Baltimore in 1833, La Trobe Archive, MS 13003, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV.



2/3/06 2:14:29 PM

71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

89 90 91 92 93 94

95 96 97 98 99 100

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

Charles Joseph La Trobe to Christian Ignatius La Trobe, January 1833, John Henry de La Trobe collection. McEuen had travelled with them the previous year in Canada. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in Mexico, 1834, p. 17. ibid., p. 12. ibid., p. 33. ibid., p. 35. ibid., p. 24. ibid., p. 302. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, canaille means rabble, riff-raff, scoundrel, blackguard; low, rascally, vulgar, coarse. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Vera Cruz, to Mrs Benjamin Henry Latrobe, née Mary Elizabeth Hazlehurst, New York, 29 March 1834, Charles Hazlehurst Latrobe III collection. ibid., pp. 24–5. ibid., p. 44. ibid., p. 54. ibid., p. 76. ibid., p. 64. ibid., p. 96. ibid., p. 89. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico, 7th edn, p. 6. Montezuma (1466–1520), the last Aztec emperor from 1502 to 1520, was seized by Cortes, the Conqueror of Mexico, and in 1519 was compelled to acknowledge himself as a vassal of Spain. ibid., p. 109. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in Mexico, p. 187. ibid., p. 191. ibid., pp. 194–5. ibid., p. 197. ibid.; also quoted in Tompkins, Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids, pp. 123–5. ibid. ibid., p. 124. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in Mexico, p. 275. ibid., p. 291. ibid., p. 292. Review of The Rambler in North America, The Athenaeum, London, 1835, p. 639. Review of The Rambler in Mexico, Dublin University Magazine, p. 423. ibid., p. 424. Review of The Rambler in Mexico, The Athenaeum, p. 545. ibid. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 37. ibid., pp. 166–7. ibid., p. 6. ibid., p. 169.



97

2/3/06 2:14:29 PM

110

111 112 113

98

Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtales, from North America, Mexico and France, 21 May 1832–July 1834, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossiers 45(a)–(c), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ibid., p. 170. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in Mexico, p. 12. ibid., p. 302.



2/3/06 2:14:29 PM

chapter 4

Creation of a Civil Servant: La Trobe in the West Indies

As we saw in the previous chapter, La Trobe had indulged his passion for the ‘rambling’ begun in his youth by spending more than two years touring North America and Mexico. By July 1834 he was back in England after enjoying a long period of freedom as a traveller. While he had had the responsibility of acting as guide and confidant to the young and undisciplined Comte de Pourtalès, he had also had the liberty to pursue his own interests of exploration, botanising, visiting his relations, and sketching and writing about the very different landscape he was experiencing. His travels so far, from the age of twentythree when he was in Switzerland and other parts of Europe to that of thirty-three and just returned from the ‘new world’, had resulted in a broadening of his life experiences and an enhancement of his already considerable education. The journeying had shown him as a resilient, resourceful and committed seeker after all that the world had to offer. It also made him realise the value of education in elevating man above the most basic of levels so that he could assert himself at a ‘civilised’ level. It was not long after La Trobe’s return to England that boredom with the sameness of everyday life set in. After the initial pleasure of being at home, he was very soon restless again, and keen to do


2/3/06 2:14:29 PM

something more with his life. This was not the first time such thoughts had struck him. However, he now had the resolution to make something of himself and to set his course in life. His way forward to a suitable career, now that his ‘rambles’ were over, was not at all clear. His diary, on arriving back in his homeland, revealed a man discontented with the tedium of daily duties and tasks after a long period in foreign countries where every day had its own excitement. He was initially charmed to see his native land when he arrived back in England at Winchester in July 1834: the deep tinge of the foliage: then the ruddy, healthy complection [sic] of all ranks compared with the Americans: then the diversity of costume among the several ranks—even my own country men and women, with less claims than their continental neighbours, appear picturesque compared with the commonplace of the trans-Atlantic states.1 However, the delight soon wore off. Only a month later, he was restless again: Were my Father and sister not resident here, I should not stop an hour. So much so now, and melancholy hovers over the recollections that here meet me at every turn that the charm is over. Besides I detest the neighbourhood which every year becomes more smoky and less picturesque.2 He spent the best part of the year with his father and sister Charlotte at their home in the Moravian settlement at Fairfield, near Manchester, with frequent visits to friends in the Moravian enclaves at Ockbrook, Calverly and Fulneck, and in London. During this period, he finished the manuscript of his third book, The Rambler in North America, and handed it to his publishers.3 At the same time, the turmoil in his mind about his future prospects became increasingly evident in his diary entries. The book was published in the last week of May 1835, but a certain apprehension clouded his elation on seeing his work in print: ‘The ‘Rambler in N. America’ was published the last week of the month and as far as I could judge from the first days’ [sic] sale was, in spite of all its faults, likely to do well. Nous verrons …!’4 Perhaps his

100



2/3/06 2:14:30 PM

nervousness was related to an underlying timidity, or a certain pessimism which seemed to beset him when reliant on his own resources throughout his life.

The Decision to Marry On 30 May, probably financed by his publisher, he was off on another journey, this time to Europe for four months. He was terribly restless, no doubt because he seemed to have made up his mind to marry. He had recently confided to the Comtesse de Pourtalès that he was ‘dreaming of a wife’,5 and it may have been she who suggested one of her unmarried cousins as the perfect solution. La Trobe enjoyed nothing better than to be up and ‘off again at ½ 6’ to some unknown beauty spot or historic site, but this time the aim of his travel was to take him to Neuchâtel once again with a particular purpose in mind. No doubt, La Trobe planned to visit Albert de Pourtalès but, although he was so discreet as never to mention her name in any correspondence or diary entries, it can be concluded that he also intended to renew an acquaintance with the young Count’s cousin, Sophie de Montmollin, the eighth of the thirteen children of Frédéric Auguste de Montmollin, a Swiss Councillor of State. For two weeks, his journal entries recorded the dozens of visits he made to such beautiful and historic places as Thun and Montmirail and to see former acquaintances made while he had been employed in Neuchâtel, especially the various friends and relations of the Pourtalès family. Considering how small and inter-married Neuchâtel society was, this welcoming circle necessarily included Sophie and her wealthy, aristocratic family. La Trobe was later to describe Neuchâtel as a place where cousins ‘swarm like herrings in every corner of the country’.6 It is probable that he had met Sophie during the period when he tutored Albert de Pourtalès. However, nothing is known of Charles Joseph and Sophie’s courtship, other than the anxious notations in La Trobe’s journal. It may be the case that La Trobe had never seriously contemplated marriage before this time, or he may have felt that he would not have been considered a serious suitor for Sophie. However, on meeting her again at her aunt’s home, his agitation was apparent: ‘Don’t know what to think; am like a ship lying at anchor but with a spring on its cable ready to make off at a moment’s notice’.7 Two weeks later, his purpose firm, he sought out Monsieur de Montmollin, presumably to ask for his

Creation of a Civil Servant


101

2/3/06 2:14:30 PM

daughter’s hand in marriage. By a series of almost farcical just-missed meetings,—‘To the Borcarderie early—too late, miss him—but find her’,8—La Trobe was in a feverish state of mind. ‘I can think of n. but S’9—so much so that ‘my mind made up to the justice of setting S. at liberty by telling her father’.10 While awaiting a response from Monsieur de Montmollin, he wrote: ‘If I get S. I know what I have in her, neither beauty nor wealth but—’,11 and his relief was indicated in the single word ‘Approved’12 for his diary entry five days later. Despite these rather enigmatic statements, La Trobe must surely have appreciated her good qualities and disposition. He gave the clearest insight into his feelings for Sophie in the letter he wrote a few weeks later to his friend John Murray, the publisher, that ‘In short, I am on the point of being married to one I have long loved and esteemed’.13 Given that he considered that she had ‘neither beauty nor wealth’, it is clear that his feelings for her were much deeper, and that he had a judicious appreciation of her fine character. By this alliance, La Trobe would have considered that he had made a very suitable catch. He was bringing education, a gentlemanly family, reliability and the Protestant faith to their union, while she was a member of a distinguished, well-connected, educated Protestant family which was also highly prosperous, judging by their impressive property holdings. This may have been part of La Trobe’s attraction to the idea of marriage. He needed to marry well. In an era when arranged marriages were the norm among social elites, the proper introductions would have been arranged, and the appropriate moves to steer the young people together no doubt occurred. Sophie’s parents would have been keen to have her marry eligibly since there were a number of other unmarried daughters in the family still to be suitably settled. There was, quite probably, a dowry to accompany his bride, and this would provide the sound financial basis on which the couple would begin their life together. As it fortunately turned out, it was a very good match and a happy marriage for them both. La Trobe, being at that time resident in Switzerland, had his brother, the Rev. Peter La Trobe, a minister of the Moravian Church in London, make arrangements for his marriage. The banns were read in London, at the Parish Church of Saint Andrew, Holborn, on 16, 23 and 30 August 1835.14 The marriage took place at the British Legation in Berne which was in the home of David Richard Morier, ‘His Britannic

102



2/3/06 2:14:30 PM

Majesty’s Minister Plenipotentiary to the Swiss Confederation’ on 16 September 1835 ‘according to the ceremonies of the Church of England’, with the Rev. Hubert McLaughlin officiating.15 Although Charles Joseph was of the Moravian faith, a sect closely aligned in England with the Anglican Church, Sophie came from a Calvinist family, that is to say, the Montmollins were of a reformed Protestant faith, similar to Presbyterianism in Scotland, which had much in common with Moravianism.16 Their honeymoon was spent at Jolimont,17 a property belonging to Comte Frédéric de Pourtalès, an uncle of the bride, and Albert de Pourtalès’ father. This house was situated on a hill outside the village of Cerlier (its name in French), or Erlach as it is more commonly known, overlooking the scenic Lake Bienne. La Trobe noted enigmatically in his diary: ‘God be with us and bless us—je n’ai pas d’illusion’,18 as though he was not altogether sure of their compatibility. This was certainly not an affirmation of love, nor of great hope in the promise of a happy future life together. However, the remark may simply have been indicative of his typical lack of certainty, or timidity, or scrupulosity, in matters of importance. Two superb portraits of La Trobe are known to have been executed at about the time of his marriage to Sophie de Montmollin. The earlier image, a pastel drawing in the National Gallery collection in London, was the work of his friend, the popular society artist of the 1820s and 1830s, William Brockedon.19 It shows a good-looking young man of thirty-four, lively, healthy and full of expectation for what life was about to offer him. La Trobe looks the typical Regency dandy, with carefully tousled hair and an air of confidence that he is any man’s peer. In this portrait, his sensitivity and refinement are certainly in evidence, and his direct gaze and firm yet gentle features give an impression of positivity and assertiveness. The second picture, an oil painting once owned by La Trobe’s late grandson, Captain Charles La Trobe, was by an accomplished but unnamed artist. Until the 1950s, it is known to have hung, together with a contemporary portrait of Sophie by the Swiss-German portrait painter, Dietler, in the London family home, but regrettably, it is now missing.20 This picture of Charles Joseph may also have been painted by Dietler, and perhaps both were commissioned by the Montmollins to celebrate their daughter’s marriage. The painting of La Trobe is a full-length portrait of a tall, slim man who adopted a calculated negligence or relaxation



103

2/3/06 2:14:30 PM

before the painter. He is rather Byronic in appearance, and once again, exudes an air of self-possession, resolution and vigour. The effect of these two portraits on the observer is that the subject was one with a great deal of promise and ability, who would be equal to any challenge, and who could be relied upon to achieve in all his undertakings. Of course, the skilled artist could contrive to portray his subjects in any way he wished, but there is such a similar air of affirmation about both these studies that a fair indication of the character of the living model may be surmised. From the time of his return to Europe after his long tour of North America and Mexico, La Trobe had ostensibly been seeking some form of paid employment. This was the age of political patronage and, as early as 1829, he had been hoping to find favour at the highest governmental level. In a letter dated 8 August 1834, from Fairfield where his father was then living in retirement, he confided to the Comtesse de Pourtalès, then in Berlin: in 1829, when disgusted with having lost a year in awaiting the tardy fulfilment of a promise of patronage by Lord Godrich21 [sic], then prime minister, I returned to my inobtrusive perch among your mountains like a bird escaped from its cage.22

Seeking Preferment Now, after a long period in the ‘new world’, he lamented to the Comtesse the fact that ‘I have it is true no profession—for what Washington Irving calls “poor devil author” can hardly be accounted one’.23 The La Trobes travelled frequently, Charles Joseph in particular moving about from one place to another in England, seemingly at whim. Although he does not comment about expenses in his diary, his excursions to the Continent undoubtedly incurred costs, even though much of his accommodation was at the homes of friends and acquaintances. This mode of travel was typical, certainly in the nineteenth century when it was expected that family and friends would provide lodgings for travellers as a matter of course. The family were bound up in the Moravian Church which certainly did not provide for numerous holidays abroad. Although there is no concrete evidence, it

104



2/3/06 2:14:30 PM

may be speculated that the La Trobes were independently wealthy, due to the role played by early generations of the family in the lucrative Irish linen industry. Some members of modern generations of the La Trobe family agree that there may have been a certain residual inheritance which had probably all but dissipated by the mid-nineteenth century.24 However, any conjecture that Charles Joseph came from an affluent family, and was thus able to fill his time in an unproductive fashion, was totally quashed in this same letter to the Comtesse. La Trobe discussed the fact that he lived ‘in the total absence of fortune’.25 His books appear to have been his sole source of income, and had given him the independence to travel and to indulge his intellectual pursuits. With earnings from his publisher, he was able to say quite proudly: through the exercise of common sense, common prudence and common pride, I have neither been a burden to my Parent,—nor put myself under dishonorable obligations,— nor gone into debt, nor been obliged to descend to meanness of any kind to support my idleness … My own art hitherto has been to confine my wishes within the circle of my means.26 Seeking preferment, or appointment to a position of employment using personal contacts, was an accepted means in the nineteenth century for young men of La Trobe’s class to earn a salary with which to support themselves. However, until 1837, when he was thirty-six, La Trobe’s life had been spent in a private capacity, while he waited for such a position to be offered to him. It would seem that, until his marriage, La Trobe had had a relatively inexpensive lifestyle, living mostly at home with his father when not travelling, and incurring no expenses when visiting family and friends. He had enjoyed himself in the pursuit of nature, the pleasures of mountaineering, and minor and major travels, and at no time did he seem to have a problem finding accommodation. He always stayed with friends and acquaintances, ranging from Pastor Studer in the Simmenthal to the Montmollin family in Neuchâtel to the Comte and Comtesse de Pourtalès in any one of half a dozen residences in Switzerland. Certainly, he would have been an attractive and interesting guest



105

2/3/06 2:14:31 PM

wherever he went. However, a close reading of his remaining correspondence, in particular, his letters to the Comtesse de Pourtalès, raises the suspicion that like many other educated and charming, but impecunious, young men he managed to rely on and to be accepted by others better off than themselves. In his four letters to the Comtesse between July 1834 and April 1835, La Trobe mentioned thirteen times the fact that ‘I look forward with a species of impatience already to the time when I may be allowed to see you and talk over matters instead of writing’.27 In another letter, he added that ‘I am happy to learn that you will be in Switzerland at the close of May and there I trust I may be permitted to see you and Monsieur de Pourtalès once more’,28 and ‘I am getting more and more impatient to see the Alps and those who live within sight of them’.29 This itinerant and irresolute way of life came to an abrupt halt not long after his marriage in September 1835. Sophie’s mother made available spacious apartments for the newlyweds in her enormous house on the market square in Neuchâtel. La Trobe wrote to his sister Charlotte, describing their new home, and commenting that ‘our dear mother is very anxious that we should be comfortable in her house, and I am sure that we shall be so’.30 La Trobe voiced here the accepted norm: he had married into a well-to-do family and was thus treated as any of the children of that family would be. Sophie’s mother was his ‘mother’ in all senses except biological, and Madame de Montmollin would have considered him as one of her ‘sons’. No doubt, had La Trobe been financially better off than he was, he would have provided his own roof over their heads. However, since he was not, and the Montmollins were able to accommodate them, this fact was accepted by all concerned as entirely appropriate. La Trobe was now a married man with all the responsibilities which accompany that state. He needed to provide for himself and his wife with more than just the proceeds of his books. Writing once again to the Comtesse de Pourtalès of his proposed permanent residence in Switzerland, he indicated a rather reluctant return to his former role as a teacher: ‘I see at present no alternative to my securing if possible two or three pupils (if suitable can be found)’.31 If La Trobe did take on students again, it can only have been on a spasmodic basis, since his correspondence to the Comtesse described frequent visits to his ailing father in England.

106



2/3/06 2:14:31 PM

Then, in February 1837, seemingly without effort on his part, he was offered a British government posting to carry out an assignment in the West Indies. Yet, this could not have been the case. He must have been making his existence known, his presence felt by being seen in all the right places where government ministers and officers were to be met. Although he does not mention the fact, some lobbying must have been going on, even in a social way, since he would not have been offered the position sight unseen. No doubt he had come to the attention of the Colonial Office principally due to his family connections at the highest levels of government with regard to that family’s experience with and views about slavery and the slave trade. The fact that he was by now an established author with four books to his credit would also have drawn attention to him, and it is possible that he promoted his own interests by sending copies of his works to appropriate officials in the government. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, at that time under Lord Melbourne as Prime Minister, was Charles Grant, Baron Glenelg.32 Glenelg was a humanitarian and a member of the Church of England Missionary Society. His particular interest was the sympathetic and even-handed treatment of the West Indian population leading to and following the abolition of slavery. He was supported in his attitudes by James Stephen,33 Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who exerted enormous influence in and beyond the civil service. At that time, the Colonial Office was very close to the seat of power, being situated at No. 14 Downing Street until 1876.34 Both Glenelg and Stephen were members of the Clapham Sect,35 that group of evangelical Christian philanthropists, mostly Anglicans, who were inspired by the principles of their leader William Wilberforce.36 Wilberforce, a Member of Parliament, was a politically conservative, independently wealthy philanthropist and abolitionist who believed ‘that God had set before him two great objects—the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners’.37 His renowned success with the first of these objectives makes the second pale into insignificance, although he did write several tracts and books on the subject of personal and moral conduct. It was largely due to the efforts of Wilberforce that Parliament abolished the slave trade in British colonies, following the passing of his Bill in the House of Commons in 1807. Wilberforce actively supported the establishment of the Anti-Slavery Society in



107

2/3/06 2:14:31 PM

1825 and channelled much of his wealth into the cause. This group fought for the liberation of slaves who had been bought before 1807. He also generously contributed to the increasing expense of the missionary work of the Moravian Brethren who were the only missionaries active among the slaves both before and after emancipation.38 In his celebrated book on Christianity, A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System, Wilberforce described the Moravians as: a body of Christians who have, perhaps, excelled all mankind in solid and unequivocal proofs of the love of Christ, and of the most ardent, and active, and patient zeal in His service. It is a zeal tempered with prudence, softened with meekness, soberly aiming at great ends, by the gradual operation of well adapted means, supported by a courage which no danger can intimidate, and a quiet constancy which no hardships can exhaust.39 He died as the result of a horse-riding accident, one month before the final passage of the Emancipation Act through Parliament, effective from 1 August 1834,40 which abolished slavery throughout the British Empire. The principles of the La Trobe family were totally aligned with those of Wilberforce. As Moravians, they were missionaries wherever they were, at home or abroad, and they were also highly cultured, in line with the Moravian principle that education was pre-eminent from childhood in the development of the adult. It was this intellectual and cultural standing which placed family members in social proximity to other educated and cultured people. Charles Joseph’s father, Christian Ignatius La Trobe, Secretary of the Moravian Missions, had benefited from his long years as a student at the Fulneck Moravian School in Yorkshire and at the Moravian Academy at Niesky in Germany. He had travelled widely and, besides having a scholarly and practical knowledge of music, was an intellectual and a genial character, welcomed by the intelligentsia of London. With strong views on the role of Britain in her West Indian colonies stemming from his experience in the mission fields, it is not surprising that he was called upon to present ‘an important memorial to the Committee of the Privy Council on Moravian methods in the West Indies about the

108



2/3/06 2:14:31 PM

treatment of slaves’.41 No date is given for this presentation, but it was soon after this call for advice on the part of the government that William Wilberforce approached Christian Ignatius for evidence on how slaves were treated, and he used this advice in his parliamentary submissions.42 Thus, it may be seen that the moral code so dear to the Moravians, and in particular, to the La Trobes, found an echo at the highest level of government. The intellectual connection between Wilberforce and La Trobe would have been immediately obvious, and the great charm that Christian Ignatius exercised over all he met43 would have appealed immediately to Wilberforce and his Clapham Sect colleagues. The Clapham Sect was made up mostly of wealthy Anglicans of an intellectual turn of mind. While Christian Ignatius did not match them in a philanthropic capacity, the convergence of ideas and the information on West Indian matters that he was able to provide to this group of social reformers would doubtless have been extremely valuable. At the same time, the Clapham Sect members believed in the natural presence of ranks and orders within society. They preached philanthropic benevolence on the part of those with means, and the necessity of the poor to submit to the benefits of religious institutions and, thereby, to improvements in their conventional behaviour.44 In keeping with the society in which he mixed, it would have been surprising if Christian Ignatius and his family did not hold similar opinions. Thus, the intellectual and practical sympathies of the La Trobes converged with those of the Clapham Sect. The total abolition of the slave trade and the colonisation of Africa in a humane way were mutual ideals towards which they worked actively. Such ideals were undisputed for Charles Joseph, too. He was convinced of the natural dominance of those with education and social position over those without. He believed in the common benefit engendered by good government and by the impact of Christianity—as he had indicated when referring to the canaille of Tampico—and he was to contribute to bringing these opportunities into play in the West Indies. These humanitarian motives coincided with a geographical change of direction in the imperial focus of Great Britain from west (the Caribbean) to east (India), following defeat in the American War of Independence. At the same time, there was a switch in economic policy from the protection of British industries to one of free trade,



109

2/3/06 2:14:31 PM

resulting in no guarantees for the sale of West Indian produce as in the past.45 Official Colonial Office policy on the West Indies at this time was committed to uplifting and educating the freed slaves, to improving the conditions of public utilities, such as schools, gaols, asylums and hospitals, and to stirring landowners and local officials into productive activity.46 The Colonial Office, in the persons of both Glenelg and Stephen, was familiar with the work with former slaves carried out by the Moravian Church in the West Indies through their acquaintance with Christian Ignatius. In fact, one of Charles Joseph’s brothers, Benjamin Frederic, was practising as a doctor in the West Indies at this time,47 demonstrating his commitment to the humanitarian cause so actively espoused by his family and fellow Moravians.

The West Indies Commission It was unsurprising then that, with such impeccable credentials, Charles Joseph, as the son of a former anti-slavery activist (Christian Ignatius had died in Yorkshire on 6 May 1836) with connections in the Colonial Office, should be offered a mission to the West Indies. This was to be the great turning point of La Trobe’s adult life. At last, he was to become a trusted government servant with meaningful paid employment in which he would demonstrate his aptitude in a responsible way. His commission was to inspect the schools in the British West Indies for which missionary bodies had received parliamentary financial grants in 1835–36, and to report back to the Colonial Office on progress made in educating the newly liberated slaves.48 Although La Trobe made no reference to any hopes he might have held that this posting would lead to further appointments in the future, the commission was entirely in line with his requirement to be able to support his family, and his expressed desire to clarify his purpose in life. La Trobe entrusted Sophie, pregnant with their first child, to her parents in Neuchâtel, and sailed for Jamaica in March 1837. Only five letters from him in this period are known to survive, and of these the two longest are to his wife. La Trobe was again in the role of sharp observer and recorder of all that was new to him. He began the tradition which was to last throughout their life together of referring to Sophie as ‘dear S’. He obviously missed her terribly, writing to her as ‘you who are ever at my side in fancy’,49 and dreaming of being in contact with her: ‘What pleasure I should have to fling you a nosegay over

110



2/3/06 2:14:32 PM

the broad sea—but —Il ne faut pas penser’.50 Their daughter Agnes was born on 2 April, and La Trobe was no doubt referring to this event when he wrote: ‘I never had such good cause to exercise prudence, or to wish, if such be God’s will, to live a little longer’.51 In the eighteen months since their marriage, he had developed into the caring husband he was always to be. He lamented their absence from one another: ‘the evenings are so long and so dark and so lonely—que faire?’52 He was to spend seventeen months away from her, studying the effect of Britain’s early attempts to provide educational facilities for the emancipated slaves in the West Indies. Apart from his notebooks and the three reports to the Colonial Office on his mission, there is very little record in existence of his long period away from home. La Trobe wrote two letters to Albert de Pourtalès from Kingston shortly after his arrival there, the first describing his voyage from Falmouth on the Lyra, and the company he met with on board.53 The second, longer letter gave Albert the benefit of his first impressions of Jamaica and its people, and showed La Trobe’s comfortable familiarity with his former pupil. He laughingly reminded Pourtalès of his posturing and immoderate behaviour during their long journey together in North America and Mexico, saying: ‘You know I am not an epicure. I know you are none, though I have not forgotten your straining to cheat yourself and others into the idea that you were such—as all Frenchmen ought to be par théorie !’54 With great good humour, he related the definition of the word ‘epicure’ as given by the old boatswain on the Lyra: ‘Epicure, what’s epicure, Mr. Bosen?’ ‘Why’, said Bob, after a decent pause, ‘that’s a bugger what’ll eat anything!’55 When La Trobe arrived there, the West Indies were in turmoil. On 31 July 1834, the 776 000 slaves on plantations in the British West Indies had been emancipated. In spite of the £16 500 00056 paid in compensation to slave owners, the planters were in financial difficulties. This came about because British settlement in the West Indies was only ever intended as transitory by the plantation owners. Those who went there were hoping to develop the islands and to quickly



111

2/3/06 2:14:32 PM

make their fortunes. More often than not, they were absentee landlords, leaving unsatisfactory and sometimes cruel managers to administer their estates. Most of the compensation money went to their creditors, generally London bankers. There was a shortage of labour from July 1834, once slaves were free, and poor prices for crops, and overworked, exhausted estates. The price of sugar fell dramatically. Many estates, mortgaged to the hilt, were abandoned by absentee owners and by their local overseers. The widespread malaise of the islands was not conducive to much improvement, if any, in the living conditions of the former slaves, although a definite effort was made. La Trobe’s official brief was twofold: he was ‘to inspect the schools on account of which any share of the Parliamentary grants for Negro education of 1835–1836 had been applied, and to furnish a report upon the state of education in those colonies at the present time, especially with reference to the Negro population’.57 La Trobe would certainly have been well briefed at the Colonial Office on his forthcoming mission to review the state of education. The geographic and historical features of the archipelago would have fascinated this energetic man who had thrilled to the varied terrain of parts of Europe, North America and Mexico. However, despite a cultural background which equipped him intellectually for the task ahead, La Trobe was, in effect, in his first official position. Apart from three years intermittently spent as a tutor in Switzerland, he had spent his life in a desultory fashion. It is true that he had published four books but, until now, he had been entirely his own master. He had had no administrative training, and yet he was now expected to document fully and make a complex analysis of how the allocation of funds for West Indian education from the British government had been spent. In short, it would appear that, given his incomplete practical knowledge of the colony and lack of comparable past experience, the undertaking ahead must have been daunting. How, then, did he respond to the task? As we have seen, La Trobe was economical when it came to expressing his own responses. Rarely did he make known his innermost feelings of love, joy, anxiety and, perhaps, fear of what confronted him. He did better in his more formal correspondence with his employer, the Colonial Office. In his first official report, he noted that his skill as an alpinist was certainly

112



2/3/06 2:14:32 PM

one useful attribute in preparing him physically for the difficult landscape he was to encounter: My tour of inspection in Jamaica was undertaken and effected at a season of the year when the weather interposes no small difficulty in the way of the traveller, in a country much of whose rugged and unreclaimed surface is, at all times, difficult to traverse.58 La Trobe had left Falmouth on 3 March 1837, and arrived at Kingston on 15 April.59 He was required to visit, as soon as practicable, the islands which then made up the British West Indies: Jamaica, the Windward and Leeward Islands, British Guiana and Trinidad. Funds for the erection and support of schools had been sent to the various missionary societies on those islands. He was to spend, firstly, five and a half months on Jamaica, accumulating data for the first of three reports—Negro Education in Jamaica—which he sent from the West Indies to the Colonial Secretary. This and his two subsequent reports60 appeared as part of a suite of parliamentary papers relating to the measures then in the process of being adopted for the abolition of the system of ‘apprenticeship’, referring to that period, following the abolition of slavery in 1833, leading to the granting of full freedom to former slaves. A specific provision of the Emancipation Act was that field-slaves had to continue working for their masters as apprenticed labourers for a further six years, and house-slaves for another four years. Despite the different titles, in reality, there was little difference in the two states of bondage of slavery and apprenticeship.61 This was the social and political climate in which La Trobe began his work. The Jamaica report is the only one of the three for which there is a coinciding body of private correspondence in existence. These letters, to Albert de Pourtalès and to Sophie, shed light on La Trobe’s personal reactions to what he saw in a way that the official reports do not. The letters describe the landscape, commenting on the topography and the scenery, the people and their customs, but they supply no critical commentary on the educational practices he was there to report on. They were strictly personal letters, lengthy letters in which he could freely indulge himself. He wrote to his wife and his friend in a conversational style, describing all that interested him in his new



113

2/3/06 2:14:32 PM

environment. In this correspondence, he could be himself. He was articulate, amusing, irreverent about local authorities, appreciative of the kindness he met. It was in these letters that La Trobe’s personality began to show. On the other hand, his reports, based on his private journal,62 were just that: reports on what he had been sent to observe, formal, informative and with the recommendations the Colonial Office masters would expect from this discerning, trusted, and intelligent servant. In fact, the two distinct sides of La Trobe’s character—the personal and the official—were revealed in his writings. Each of the three official reports consisted of a lengthy narrative introduction in the form of a letter to Glenelg. Then followed two schedules, or tables, listing (a) a summary ‘Showing the Number and present Condition of the School-houses, for the Erection of which Aid was obtained from the Parliamentary Grants for Negro Education’ in 1835, 1836 and 1837, and indicating locations where such funding had been or would be used to erect school buildings; and (b) a summary ‘Showing the Number of Schools, of whatever Description existing’ in 1837 when La Trobe inspected them. The information given in the tables was very detailed, comprising the locality, name of the school, controlling body, date of commencement, number and type (boys, girls, infants) of students, their denomination insofar as status (free children of townspeople, free children of apprentices, orphans, ‘superior’ class), average attendance, number of teachers, hours of operation, subjects taught, education system in operation, character of school room (permanent or temporary), and status of inspection (by clergy or lay inspectors). Following each schedule, he then compiled a brief narrative on every school visited, and he aimed to, and did in fact, visit almost all in existence at the time he was in Jamaica, the Windward and Leeward Islands, British Guiana and Trinidad: ‘I flatter myself that there is no omission of any consequence’.63 These narratives were designed to convey La Trobe’s perception as to the progress each denomination was making in conforming to the requirements of the Colonial Office in accepting the grants-in-aid. The emancipation of the slaves was nearly fully achieved when La Trobe arrived in the West Indies. Up until that time, the halfhearted efforts to educate the Negro population by local religious and humanitarian groups and individuals had failed largely because the

114



2/3/06 2:14:32 PM

local government authorities and the white planters had been hostile to the idea, and because substantial funding was needed. Resistance to the idea of instruction for the slaves was due to the fact that an educated underclass would have been difficult to keep subjugated. Perhaps more importantly, the landholders were dependent on the labour of the slaves for their wealth, and any time devoted to learning was time away from their work. At this point in history, the moral philosophy and practical objectives of the Colonial Office were to ensure that the black population had access to education which would equip them to take part in society as free individuals. The grants-in-aid for Negro education were made initially in 1835 for five years, but they were subsequently continued to respond to local needs.64 La Trobe, very much in accord with government policies, saw it as his responsibility to provide the most accurate information to satisfy the needs of the Colonial Office. He had been used to collecting facts and figures, as evidenced by the detailed notebooks he kept on his earlier journeys as background for his four books. Now, he had time on his hands between excursions to the various districts to inspect school facilities, to create a sound method of reporting what he had observed and to tabulate the evidence. In his private diary,65 kept while in the field visiting the innumerable schoolhouses and chapels in the course of his investigation, he made rough notes for himself to ensure that he was reporting comparable facts about each place visited. His purpose was ‘To ascertain the state of the Negro Education generally in the Colonies, the number of Negro children in attendance upon schools of any description and the existing means of instruction with reference to the Negro population’,66 and this was followed by a set of eleven questions to be asked of each parish, ranging from their source of financial support to the number of teachers and coloured inhabitants.67 La Trobe was keen to see a way forward to a better future for each of the coloured children. Almost as a soliloquy, he noted that ‘It will be well to ascertain how many if any, of the existing institutions have for their object, the union of necessary and religious instruction, with the instruction in trade or husbandry. To what do the majority of coloured children in the schools look forward?’68 La Trobe was convinced that the former slaves and the apprentices were equal to all men in God’s eyes, that religious education was the most important benefit any government could bestow upon them,



115

2/3/06 2:14:33 PM

and that such a gift must be bestowed in whatever way possible: ‘I have never forgotten that the special object aimed at by the measure adopted by Her Majesty’s Government was the Moral and religious improvement of the Negro population, and that provided that was attained, the precise manner was of secondary importance’.69 Insofar as his attitudes to the black population were concerned, La Trobe was a man of his social milieu. Like Wilberforce and other campaigners for abolition, he attached crucial importance to ending slavery, one last step being the establishment of educational facilities in the West Indies for everyone. Added to this was his Moravian missionary imperative that only through the benefits of education could the former slave achieve the necessary discipline which would open him to Christian redemption. He expressed this thought frequently in each of his three reports, and in similar terms: ‘in Jamaica, every class of schools must be considered a blessing as long as they tend to impress moral and religious principles upon the minds of the coloured population’.70 In the Windward and Leeward Islands, he spoke: of the necessity that exists for providing increased opportunities of religious instruction for the population of these islands by every practicable means, and for bringing the ordinances of the Church within the reach of all, there can be no doubt in your Lordship’s mind; and it is to this conviction … that the … chapel school mainly owes its rise;71 and in Jamaica, he espoused his theory that: it would be equally kind and wise … to never fail to inculcate the necessity of honest labour upon all classes under tuition, and that, wherever lessons of active industry can be united with other branches of instruction, they should be encouraged by every means in the power of those concerned in the success and real utility of the schools.72 La Trobe was convinced that slavery was a wicked system, designed only to promote the greed of the planters, and that of the British at home who had developed a taste for the tropical luxury goods which the West Indies could produce. His writing makes it clear

116



2/3/06 2:14:33 PM

that he possessed the attitude, prevalent among educated men of sensibility in the nineteenth century and even later, that there was a pressing need among ‘the labouring classes’,73 to appreciate the value of work. Only through discipline and application would they improve their station in life as free individuals. He described this as ‘the necessity of submitting to labour, not only as it yields the means of satisfying brute nature, but as it is conducive to social order, morality and happiness’.74 In other words, La Trobe meant that by working and contributing to the community in this particular way, the former slave would overcome or disarm what were considered his instinctive characteristics of indolence, and find contentment in an ordered society. La Trobe communicated in his reports his innate belief that, despite current social theory that the black races were inferior through slower evolution, discipline and education would have the power to elevate them: ‘The gift of education is what the Negro must claim, now that this of complete political freedom has been bestowed’.75 La Trobe here countered the prevailing attitude to the former slaves as exemplified by his contemporary, Joseph Barham II, a slaveholder in Jamaica, who asserted that his slaves were ‘dreadful idlers’, and that ‘the Negro race is so averse to labour, that without force we have hardly anywhere been able to obtain it, even from those who had been trained to work’.76 La Trobe was, however, convinced of the need, if not to coerce them, to strongly encourage the former slaves in their own best interests through compulsory education, so that they would come to see the benefits of discipline. In this, ‘the advantage of living a regular life … and of learning to submit to gentle discipline, to know and feel the value of time, and of a union between physical and mental labour would be of the greatest importance’.77 La Trobe believed that adoption of these four precepts would elevate the former slaves to true personal freedom. La Trobe’s three reports, tabled in the House of Commons between February 1838 and February 1839,78 were model examples of what the Colonial Office expected from its officers. His Jamaica report was published in the Times verbatim on 20 October 1838.79 La Trobe voiced criticism of the way the grants had been handled, and made constructive suggestions for the practical resolution of what he saw as a lack of even-handedness. In immense detail, he recounted his contact with religious groups of all denominations. The breadth of his



117

2/3/06 2:14:33 PM

knowledge and understanding, while still from the perspective of a nineteenth-century conservative who believed strongly in natural order and ranks in society, is soon illustrated by even a cursory glance at the reports of his assignment in the West Indies. The detail he provided for Colonial Office consumption was evidence of the probing nature of the questions he asked of officials and missionary society personnel in order to achieve a close understanding of the state of education in these colonial outpost. His thoroughness and persistence in pursuit of information or incompetence reveal the acuteness of his own mind and that attention to detail for which he was later renowned. La Trobe had no secretary to whom he could delegate the tedium of statistical returns, having to compile and analyse the evidence, write the narrative, and draw the conclusions without assistance. In short, he was able to analyse and synthesise the data he collected into cohesive reports which gave the Colonial Office the information required for future action in education in the West Indies. La Trobe reported in an unbiased manner on the educational activities of each of the diverse missionary societies he visited. He simply stated the fact that few, if any, had met the conditions to which they had agreed when accepting grants from the Colonial Office. His observations of each allowed him to summarise his findings about the reasons for non-compliance. He had ascertained that the delay in erecting schoolhouses was largely because applications for financial aid had been made in undue haste once the missionary societies knew that parliamentary grants were likely to become available. Lack of preparation had resulted in rushed and ill-considered submissions for impracticable buildings. The principal reason that building could not commence, once funds were provided, was the inability of most of the societies to comply with the government stipulation that schoolhouses had to be erected on land owned by the missionary bodies. Given the shortage of freehold land, this was clearly an obstacle most would not be able to overcome. This point was taken by Glenelg, and the strict requirement of freehold ownership before any school building could begin was lifted by the time La Trobe submitted his third and final report from British Guiana and Trinidad. His advice was sound, practical, and obtained at first-hand, and he was no doubt gratified that the points he made were accepted: ‘These modifications

118



2/3/06 2:14:33 PM

… are fully calculated to further the end proposed, and to remove difficulties hitherto productive of hesitation and delay’.80 Having himself benefited from an excellent liberal education, La Trobe was able to apply what he had experienced in the Moravian schools at Fulneck and Fairfield to arrive at a suitable benchmark for establishing a basic education for the West Indians. He had been asked by Glenelg to ‘furnish Her Majesty’s Government such remarks or suggestions on the subject of education in the colonies as my personal observation or experience may afford me the opportunity of making’,81 and he proferred a number of points of constructive criticism which, without doubt, provided the informed advice the Colonial Office needed for future policy decisions. La Trobe found that the schools already existing in 1837 were unevenly distributed, often clustered together, leaving many centres of population without schools at all. His practical suggestion was that smaller schools should be established close to settlements where they would be easily accessible to local children. He alerted Glenelg to that proportion of the population not able to access schooling at all, these comprising poor white people, free ‘coloured’ people and the Maroons.82 La Trobe observed what only an inspector actually there on the islands could observe, and that was that the really needy group on the plantations, the young apprentices, was ‘the one that enjoys the scantiest proportion of instruction, when the necessity for it in their case is taken into account’.83 In other words, the government had a particular responsibility for this large group, soon to be granted their absolute freedom, who would not have the benefit of schooling and training for their long future of freedom and self-reliance. In addition, La Trobe knew first-hand the effect the climate had on sustained education, having traversed the difficult terrain of the islands himself in all weathers. He had a clear understanding of ‘the unavoidable influence which these must exercise over the schools, or of the reasonableness of the apologies … principally in the mountain districts’.84 Modifying the system as it was set up would not be an easy task. Another problem to beset educational progress was an obvious one: ‘the uncertain attendance of the scholars’.85 La Trobe was able, by personal enquiry, to discover the prevailing support of parents for education for their children, but he could make no recommendation as to how their apathy in ensuring regular attendance at school should



119

2/3/06 2:14:34 PM

be overcome, unless it was by increasing the number of teachers who would have the time to take a personal interest in their students. His recommendation, ‘It is an idea, of which the advantages are so evident’,86 for overcoming irregular attendance—whether due to the climate, distance, sickness, or scarcity of provisions in the home—was the establishment of boarding schools, or dormitories attached to the schools. He also postulated the germ of an idea that education might become compulsory, proposing it ‘for the consideration of the Legislature’.87 La Trobe took great trouble to estimate the capabilities of the teaching force on the islands, discovering that ‘hardly one-fourth are fitted to conduct a school of any description beyond the mere rudiments’.88 Teachers were employed by the various impecunious missionary societies which had to pay for their services and their accommodation, with salaries being dependent upon fundraising and donations to the various missionary societies. They were either imported direct from Britain, or recruited from among the ‘coloured’ class on the islands who had benefited from their mixed parentage by receiving the rudiments of education. La Trobe’s pressing solicitation to the Home Government, as an interim solution, was that: if Her Majesty’s Government could by any means give some assistance; and I take the liberty of presenting the subject for your Lordship’s consideration, and that of Her Majesty’s Government, from a conviction that, next to the measure already adopted, none would conduce more to facilitate the purposes of education in the island than one that should relieve the parties of any position of this burthen and cause for future anxiety.89 However, his long-term recommendation, since ‘there are but few of the number whose capacity for the discharge of their duty extends sufficiently far’, was ‘an urgent call … for the institution of proper Normal schools for the education of teachers’.90 The Home Government took note of La Trobe’s plea for the financial maintenance of teachers which was ‘perhaps the greatest cause of anxiety to the conductors of the majority of the schools maintained by the missionary societies, and especially so with reference to such as have availed themselves of

120



2/3/06 2:14:34 PM

the Government aid’.91 Although it took somewhat longer to institute proper teacher training facilities, by the time La Trobe came to submit his second report from the Windward and Leeward Islands, his recommendation had been heeded and it was ‘decided to give some assistance from the parliamentary grant of 1837 towards the maintenance of teachers’.92 In each report, La Trobe showed a consciousness of his subservience to his Colonial Office superiors, an attitude he was to hold throughout his career. He was a competent, efficient individual who had met the needs of the assignment. He had done the work well, and yet he was still apologetic. Despite the primitive conditions in which he had to live and work, he constantly apologised for the time taken to fulfil his brief: ‘It is a subject of regret to me that so much more time has been required for the proper performance of the duty with which I have been charged by your Lordship than I had originally calculated upon’.93 This attitude was a little more than just politeness; it indicates a certain insecurity or lack of self-esteem which dogged him all his life. It reflected his inbuilt need to justify his actions through most of the future difficult situations he was to encounter. Although there was not much time away from his official duties for relaxation, and despite the engrossing nature of his duties, he made time to document some of his observations in pencil sketches, a few of which survive. His view of Kingston Harbour from the Port Royal Mountains to the south-east of the settlement was a cursory impression locating the principal elements of the landscape. The view of the Spring Garden Plantation,94 a coffee-growing estate where La Trobe inspected the educational facilities provided by the Established Church for the freed slaves, still apprenticed, who worked on that particular property, was another impression of the landscape and the colonial buildings he sketched at this time. He had come to the West Indies with humanitarian attitudes towards those he met. Evangelism was not an afterthought to the Moravian faith; it was at the heart of the Church’s identity and purpose, and this attitude was inbred in La Trobe. He was convinced of the benefits to all who embraced the Christian faith and, in particular, to the former West Indian slaves. For them, La Trobe considered religion and education were two sides of the same question. The missionaries held both sides in their hands—the ability to be able to



121

2/3/06 2:14:34 PM

impart or share Christian principles with those in their congregations, and the trust of the Colonial Office that they would educate the people too. La Trobe stated clearly that, in his view, ‘the education given should be a sound and a religious one … above all, an education not merely based upon worldly morality, but built upon the Holy Scriptures’.95 This had been his own experience and he was satisfied that such an education would suit these new British subjects well in both a practical and a spiritual sense. He knew the Christian faith to be more than just a material or temporal assistance to those who heard the missionaries speak. He believed it transcended every aspect of politics and economics, pointing to a life after death. As shown in his reports, La Trobe found the various missionary groups, including the Missionary Society of the Established Church, the Scottish Missionary Society, the Wesleyan Missionary Society, the Mico Charity, the Ladies’ Negro Missionary Society, and many others, similar in their approach to their congregations and in their general inefficiency. La Trobe assessed all their systems of moral and religious instruction to be sound, but he regretted that so few of the principals of the missionary societies had gone the next step and erected the schools for which they had been so ready to accept grants. He found that they had applied for funds ‘with anxious precipitation’ based on ‘illdigested or sanguine plans which time has proved to be impracticable’,96 and had not met their responsibilities either to the former slaves or to the Home Government. The reader senses La Trobe’s exasperation that he had ‘found it totally impossible to obtain credible information from any source’97 to help him document the activities of the various religious groups. He reported on ‘the utter impossibility that exists of procuring correct information by any means, however plausible, short of personal inspection’.98 He understood when extenuating circumstances, such as weather or economic need, presented obstacles, but his tone when reporting on the various groups and their ‘utter ignorance of each other’s proceedings’ causing ‘two and even three societies’ to have ‘an eye on the same locality or neighbourhood’,99 showed perhaps an impatience in his nature of which he was aware. In one of his two extant letters to Sophie, he wrote:

122



2/3/06 2:14:34 PM

I am forced to come to the conclusion that I could not have arrived in Jamaica at a moment more unfavourable for the speedy transaction of the business which brought me here, and have had occasion to learn at the very outset, a lesson of patience which doubtless God would not teach me if He did [not] know how much I stand in need of it.100 In speaking of the missions in Grenada, where ‘some of the children of Roman-Catholic parents attend without scruple upon the schools in connexion with the Established Church’,101 the early ecumenism of the Moravian Church is evidenced in his words from the report that ‘there can be no doubt of good being effected in consequence’.102 His straightforward viewpoint was that religion and education were inextricably entwined, and that ‘every class of schools must be considered a blessing as long as they tend to impress moral and religious principles upon the minds of the coloured population’.103 As has been mentioned, his view of the quality of teaching in the West Indies was not particularly favourable but, to him, attitudes and intentions were more important than pedagogical methods: ‘Sound moral character and correct religious views are of far greater importance than the possession of any great degree of ability or proficiency, in the instructors of the children of the labouring class’.104 La Trobe’s attitude to race and social class must be considered in the context of his time. He used terms and expressions when discussing the black population which would be unacceptable today. However, this does not mean that he was racially prejudiced. In fact, just the opposite was the case. He believed in the presence of ranks and orders within society and, as we have seen, his philosophy based on his Moravian background embraced the doctrine of philanthropic benevolence to those less privileged than himself. He was distressed by the continued presence of ‘the prejudices of the old time’105 held by influential residents and by the authorities. However, even among these groups, hope was to be found in the lessening of these attitudes with the advent of ‘a far better organized social system … where less of the unhappy internal jarring and bickering of parties is to be observed … in full confidence of its healthy influence on the future’.106 His idea was that better education for all blacks and whites would result in that ‘better organized social system’ and lead



123

2/3/06 2:14:35 PM

naturally to harmony among the population in general. La Trobe reflected sadly on the terrible history of the islands, but his positive philosophy, inspired by his religious faith, allowed him hope for these badly treated people: There would be but little justice or wisdom in exaggerating the darkness of the past, in order to give the greater éclat to the dawn which appears to be rising over these colonies; or, in forgetting that, whether the chain of servitude galled the body of the slave to the degree which some will believe or not, there can be no dispute as to the abasing moral influence which its presence exercised, more or less, over every class of society in the countries where its existence was endured.107 La Trobe did not believe that the terrible past should hamper the advancement of a newly liberated people. This grim history would be forever a reminder of the gross inhumanity perpetrated on the former slaves: ‘It must never be forgotten what the Negro has been in these colonies. If he is considered by many to rank, in his natural state, low on the scale of human intellect, he has been certainly placed in circumstances to depress him yet lower’.108 However, for La Trobe, education was the key to the future, and it was the right of these newly liberated people, as British citizens, to grasp ‘the gift of education’, this key to the future. He did not advocate just secular instruction: ‘the education given should be a sound and religious one … a sober education … an education not merely based upon worldly morality, but built upon the Holy Scriptures’.109 This was in line with Colonial Office thinking in the persons of Glenelg and Stephen, in keeping with the ideas of the Clapham Sect, and in agreement with La Trobe’s Moravian principles and educational experience. La Trobe’s seventeen-month mission in the British West Indies on behalf of the Colonial Office was a highly significant one with wide ramifications, and his personal and family attributes contributed to the success of his task. The assiduous and organised way in which he approached the West Indian assignment exemplified his work pattern for the rest of his career. Perhaps these administrative abilities, so ably demonstrated in the West Indian reports, owe much to the

124



2/3/06 2:14:35 PM

observation of a man he greatly admired, Judge Henry Ellsworth, a perceptive and conscientious documenter of Indian life and customs, with whom he had travelled in North America. Besides providing the required reports which set out exactly how British capital was being spent on educational facilities, La Trobe’s views on religion, race, class and education itself, as revealed in the reports, were perfectly in tune with the prevailing attitudes of the administrators to whom he reported. Lord Glenelg wrote of the Jamaica report as being ‘highly valuable, and does credit to the talents and industry of its author’.110 This indicated his complete satisfaction with the way in which the data was reported, the attitudes expressed, and the reliability of La Trobe to recommend changes where they could be made, while still keeping to government policies, and providing reports which proved the wisdom of those policies. La Trobe’s life was vastly altered by these events between 1835 and 1838. Firstly, he made the decision to marry, and then married an appropriate wife. Soon after, he secured paid employment which gave him the necessary foothold in the Colonial Office for notice by the decision-makers when it came to future work. Finally, he carried out his assignment in the West Indies in an exemplary fashion, the Colonial Secretary being so pleased with a job well done that La Trobe moved rapidly into a new position of far greater importance and responsibility. In the West Indies, La Trobe reported on how funds allocated by the British government for educational facilities were being spent. Not only did he do this thoroughly, but he also provided the social background in his reports which allowed the Colonial Office to become aware of all the ramifications for the former slaves in trying, and being encouraged, to better their status. Most importantly, however, La Trobe’s recommendations provided a framework for future action on the part of government sponsorship in Britain for the future care of the West Indian population. It was the performance of this mission which brought him more prominently to government attention, and which led directly to his appointment as Superintendent of the Port Phillip District of New South Wales. The senior officers of the Colonial Office had an established pattern of selecting men of whom they had previous experience for postings to important colonies, men who had performed well, and



125

2/3/06 2:14:35 PM

on whom they felt they could rely to provide accurate, well-documented and astute reports on the colonies in their care.111 It was thus not untoward that, having acquitted himself well in the West Indies, and having gained useful practical experience of native peoples and of administration, La Trobe should have been offered the job of Superintendent. La Trobe could have had little idea of what awaited him in his new assignment in the Port Phillip District of New South Wales: searching questions of race relations, self-government and the cataclysmic impact of the gold discoveries. The momentous events of the next fifteen years would change him totally from the youthful dilettante who, apart from one official appointment, had indulged his passion for rambling and suiting himself, to the careworn LieutenantGovernor who departed Australia in 1854.

Notes 1

2 3 4 5

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14

15

16

17 18 19

126

Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Private Memoranda’, 20 July 1834, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 43, Dossier 43(b), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchatel. ibid., 21 August 1834. ibid., 6 September 1834 to 2 May 1835. ibid., 6 June 1835. Nous verrons … = We shall see! Charles Joseph La Trobe, Fairfield, to the Comtesse de Pourtalès, Berlin, 8 August 1834, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 43, Dossier 45(b), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Agnes La Trobe, 30 August 1851, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 22(b), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ibid., Charles Joseph La Trobe, Private Memoranda, 25 June 1835. ibid., 17 July 1835. ibid. ibid., 25 July 1835. ibid., 26 July 1835. ibid., 31 July 1835. Charles Joseph La Trobe to John Murray, 1 September 1835, John Murray Archive, London. Parish Records, St Andrew’s, Holborn, 1835, copy held in Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Marriage Certificate, 16 September 1835, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Maurice de Tribolet, Archiviste de Neuchâtel, to Marguerite Hancock, Melbourne, 17 June 2000, private correspondence. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Private Memoranda, 16 September 1835. ibid. je n’ai pas d’illusion = I have no illusions. According to Bryan’s Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (G. Bell, London, 1920, pp. 197–8), William Brockedon was born in Devonshire



2/3/06 2:14:35 PM

20

21

22

23 24

25

26 27

28 29 30

31

32

1787. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Academy, and became a member of the Academies of Rome and Florence. A celebrated portraitpainter, he also published various series of landscapes such as The Passes of the Alps, Illustrated Road-Book from London to Naples, Excursions in the Alps, and Murray’s Handbook for Switzerland. His self-portrait is in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. Brockedon died in London in 1854. My own use of Athenaeum Club archives reveals that, with the publisher John Murray, Brockedon proposed La Trobe for membership of the Athenaeum Club, Pall Mall, in November1853. La Trobe was elected after his return from Australia on 27 March 1855. Carlotta Blake, great-grand-daughter of Charles Joseph La Trobe, Hove, England, to Dianne Reilly, Melbourne, 25 October 1999, private correspondence. Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon, Viscount Goderich of Nocton (1782–1859) was Prime Minister of Great Britain for only six months from August 1827 to January 1828 when he was dismissed for incompetence. He held other positions of power in the government, including Secretary for War and the Colonies. (Sidney Lee (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, Smith, Elder & Co., London, 1890) Charles Joseph La Trobe, Fairfield, to Comtesse de Pourtalès, Berlin, 8 August 1834. ibid. My conversations, in 1999 at Neuchâtel with John Henry and Renate de La Trobe of Hamburg, Germany, and in 2001 with Carlotta La Trobe Blake of Hove, England. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Fairfield, to Comtesse de Pourtalès, Berlin, 8 August 1834. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès, London, 23 September, 1834, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 45(c), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ibid., London, 11 April 1835. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Greng, to Charlotte La Trobe, Bridlington, Yorkshire, 28 August 1836, Fonds Petitpierre, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Fairfield near Manchester, to Comtesse de Pourtalès, Berlin, 20 December 1835, Fonds Petitpierre, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Grant, Baron Glenelg (1778–1866), statesman and Colonial Secretary from 1835 to 1839 in Lord Melbourne’s second ministry, had made a large fortune in his dealings with the East India Company. A prominent member of the Clapham Sect, it was he who introduced the parliamentary Bill in 1833 which led to the abolition of West Indian slavery by the suppression of ‘apprenticeship’, a probationary period before freedom was granted. (Stephen (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, vol. XXI, p. 381)



127

2/3/06 2:14:35 PM

33

34 35

36

37 38 39

128

James Stephen (1789–1859), Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, had a high reputation for his wide knowledge of constitutional law. His father was James Stephen, an ardent member of the Clapham Sect whose second wife was the sister of William Wilberforce and who had in 1826 written the thought-provoking pamphlet England Enslaved by Her Own Slave Colonies. James Stephen, the younger, was a devoted member of the Clapham Sect himself, and a decided administrator. It was said by his colleague in the civil service, Sir Henry Taylor, that for many years ‘he literally ruled the colonial empire’. (Dictionary of National Biography, vol. LVI, pp. 162–3) Hall, The Colonial Office: A History, annotation to frontispiece. Clapham Sect, a group which existed from about 1790 to 1830, of wealthy lay persons prominent in England, William Wilberforce being their acknowledged leader. Wilberforce had been approached in 1787 by the anti-slavery advocate, Thomas Clarkson, an associate of the abolitionist lawyer Granville Sharp. ‘The three formed the nucleus of a group ridiculed as the “Clapham Sect” after the location of the house in which they held meetings’. The group, in fact, met at the home of John Venn, Rector of Clapham, other members including such committed opponents to slavery as John Newton, Hannah More, Henry Thornton, Zachary Macaulay, Charles Grant and James Stephen. (Encyclopedia of World Biography, Gale, Detroit, 1998, p. 270) The Clapham Sect had a number of objectives, including prison reform, the prevention of cruel sports, and the suspension of the game laws and the lottery, but their principal aim was the abolition of the slave trade and an end to slavery. The Sect comprised mostly wealthy and politically conservative Anglicans who supported several missionary and Bible societies, publishing pamphlets and their own journal, The Christian Observer. Nicknamed ‘The Saints’, they were largely responsible for the end of slavery in the British Empire. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1997, vol. III, p. 344) William Wilberforce (1759–1833), English politician, humanitarian and philanthropist, was first elected to the House of Commons in 1780. The Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was established in1787, mostly by Quakers, and had little public profile. In 1787, Wilberforce became the parliamentary spokesman for the Committee. He converted to evangelical Christianity in 1884–85, thereafter devoting himself to philanthropic causes, principally the abolition of the slave trade. After struggling to have his views accepted for twenty years, his Bill was finally carried in 1807. His next goal was the abolition of slavery itself, but he died a month before the Act of Abolition was passed in 1833. He helped form the Church Missionary Society (1798), the Bible Society (1803) and the Anti-Slavery Society (1825). (Wintle, Makers of Nineteenth Century Culture, 1804–1914, pp. 674–5) ibid., p. 674. Handler and Lange, Plantation Slavery in Barbados, p. 178. Wilberforce, A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of



2/3/06 2:14:36 PM

40 41

42 43 44 45 46 47

48

49

50 51 52

53

54 55 56 57 58 59

60

61 62

63 64 65

Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in this Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity, pp. 79–80. Manington, The West Indies, p. 223. Professor Brian Lewis Papers, 1941–1970, MS 9244, Folder 20, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ibid. Musical Times, p. 4. Wintle, Makers of Nineteenth Century Culture, p. 674. Hall, The Colonial Office, p. 254. ibid., p. 101. Benjamin Frederic La Trobe died of yellow fever in Jamaica in 1841. (The Breaking of the Dawn, Kingston, Jamaica, 1905, p. 77.) Colonial Office, Great Britain, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, 1837–38, House of Commons, vol. 48, 61ff., no. 113, p. 3. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Kingston, Jamaica, to Sophie La Trobe, Neuchâtel, 20 April 1837, p. 25, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 25, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ibid., p. 26. Il ne faut pas penser = It doesn’t bear thinking about. ibid., p. 29. Charles Joseph La Trobe, St Iago de la Vega, Spanish Town, to Sophie La Trobe, Neuchâtel, 3 May 1837, p. 44, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 25, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. La Trobe to Albert de Pourtalès, Kingston, 26 April 1837, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 25(a), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. que faire? = What is to be done? ibid. par théorie = theoretically. ibid. Hamshere, The British in the Caribbean, p. 147. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 3. ibid., p. 4. La Trobe to Albert de Pourtalès, from Kingston, Jamaica, 17 April 1837, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 25, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Colonial Office, Great Britain, Report on Negro Education: Negro Education, Jamaica, 19 October 1837, House of Commons, 1837–38, vol. 48, no. 113. Negro Education, Windward & Leeward Islands, 14 April 1838, House of Commons, 1837–38, vol. 48, no. 520. Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad, 14 August 1838, House of Commons, 1839, vol. 34, no. 35. Manington, The West Indies, pp. 223–4. Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Private Journal of Matters and Memoranda connected with my Mission to visit the West Indies—1837’, La Trobe Archive, MS 13003, Box 76/3(a) & (b), La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 4. Manington, The West Indies, p. 275. ‘Private Journal’, MS 13003, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV.



129

2/3/06 2:14:36 PM

66 67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74

75

76 77

78

79

80

81 82

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

91 92

93 94 95

96 97 98

130

ibid. ibid. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 7. ibid., p. 14. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Windward and Leeward Islands, p. 3. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 15. ibid., p. 4. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Windward and Leeward Islands, p. 13. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad, p. 11. Quoted in Dunn, ‘The Slave Labor Pattern’, p. 168. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad, p. 10. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, dispatched from St Thomas 19 October 1837, tabled 5 February 1838. Windward and Leeward Islands, dispatched from Bridge Tower, Barbados 14 April 1838, tabled 20 June 1838. British Guiana and Trinidad, completed on 14 August 1838 after La Trobe’s return to London, tabled 14 February 1839. ‘C.J. La Trobe on Negro Education’, The Times, London, 20 October 1838, p. 7. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad, p. 7. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 10. The Maroons were a class of Blacks, originally fugitive slaves, living in the mountains and forests of the West Indies. Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, ibid., p. 11. ibid., p. 12. ibid. ibid., p. 13. ibid. ibid., p. 14. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Windward and Leeward Islands, p. 14. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 14. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Windward and Leeward Islands, p. 14. ibid., p. 3. Spring Garden estate was located about 144 kilometres from Kingston. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad, p. 11. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, pp. 4–5. ibid., p. 15. ibid., p. 4.



2/3/06 2:14:36 PM

99 100

101

102 103 104

105 106

107

108 109 110

111

ibid., p. 5. Charles Joseph La Trobe, St Iago de la Vega, Spanish Town, to Sophie La Trobe, Neuchâtel, 3 May 1837, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 25, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Windward and Leeward Islands, p. 9. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 14. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad, p. 9. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 11. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, Windward and Leeward Islands, p. 9. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Report on Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad, p. 6. ibid., p. 11. ibid. Glenelg to Lieutenant-General Sir Lionel Smith, KCB, Governor of Jamaica, 15 January 1838, Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, p. 94. These reports have long provided a solitary reliable survey of education and of social conditions in the West Indies for the immediate post-slavery period, and are still highly regarded in Caribbean history circles. It is interesting to note that this tradition continued throughout the nineteenth century, and three former West Indian Governors followed in La Trobe’s footsteps in the role of Governor of Victoria, viz. Sir Henry Barkly (1856–1863), Sir Charles Darling (1863–1866), and Charles Manners-Sutton, Viscount Canterbury (1866–1873).



131

2/3/06 2:14:37 PM

chapter 5

A Position ‘Not Without Its Difficulties’:1 La Trobe Encounters the Port Phillip District

La Trobe’s new posting to an unknown and remote country was, without doubt, a daunting one for him. It was a type of banishment, even though he went to Port Phillip willingly and for a purpose in which he believed. He had already experienced seventeen months alone in the West Indies as an agent of the British government. There, he had had no obligations other than the compilation of the results of his fact-finding mission as reports for the Colonial Office. He was responsible for no personal decisions other than those affecting his own wellbeing. When La Trobe returned to London from British Guiana and Trinidad in July 1838, he had accomplished his commission to the satisfaction of his employers, and this reflected well on him. Moreover, his homecoming was perfectly timed, coinciding as it did with the decision being made at the Colonial Office to create the position of Superintendent for the Port Phillip District of New South Wales. In accepting the position, La Trobe could have had no idea of the toughness of his new assignment. He could not have grasped the difficulty of achieving even insignificant public works and utilities for the colony, even though he had had protracted dealings before arriving in Melbourne with the Governor in Sydney, Sir George Gipps,


2/3/06 2:14:37 PM

who was obsessed with financial exactitude. Communications between Melbourne and Sydney were hopelessly slow, mail deliveries in 1839 being weekly, and passengers and goods taking more than a fortnight by sea to travel the distance. In fact, at that time Launceston was more of a commercial centre for Port Phillip than Sydney.2 La Trobe would find this a difficult situation to manage, especially since remoteness engendered a certain indifference in Sydney to the affairs of Melbourne. This posting was to be an entirely different and more tumultuous situation, than he had hitherto encountered, involving infinitely more responsibility for La Trobe in matters large and small. Two years earlier, in 1837, the then Governor of New South Wales, Sir Richard Bourke, had visited the southern portion of his colony to see for himself how ‘the settlement’ was progressing. He toured the hinterland, and decided on ‘Melbourne’, after Lord Melbourne, the then British Prime Minister, as a suitable name for the centre of population of the District. He approved of Robert Hoddle’s survey of the township, himself selecting the names of the streets. He wrote to his son: ‘I have had the pleasure of affixing Whig names in the Bush. Melbourne is a beautiful site for a Town and there will soon be a very pretty one erected’.3 Despite his appreciation of the natural features of the locality, Bourke was concerned about the encroachment into the territory of squatters from Van Diemen’s Land, and about their unethical dealings with the Aboriginal people. In his official dispatches to the Colonial Secretary, he recommended, as support in monitoring the province, the appointment of ‘a LieutenantGovernor with civil and military authority over all the southern districts of the colony’.4 Following Bourke’s resignation, and his replacement by Sir George Gipps as Governor in February 1838, Colonial Office attention was again turned to the troublesome Port Phillip District, and the decision was made to appoint a Superintendent, an official with lesser rank than the LieutenantGovernor favoured by Bourke. The southern district of New South Wales had become a burden for the Crown. This was because of its remoteness from the seat of government in Sydney, the lack of a local government to manage day-to-day affairs, and the obvious need of a guiding hand in authority to assess and influence demands from a very mixed population. The position of managing this encumbrance was offered to La Trobe who had no hesitation in accepting it.5 He had

La Trobe Encounters the Port Phillip District


133

2/3/06 2:14:37 PM

had a chequered employment history to date, and was now, more than ever, in need of an ongoing position. Although he had been married for nearly four years, he had spent only a little over half that time with his wife, and he now had the added responsibility of Agnes, their first child. The offer of the Port Phillip position was an unexpected and welcome opportunity to advance his career and secure his family’s future. The decision to select La Trobe for the position was made by Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies at that time, and by Sir George Grey and James Stephen, the permanent Under-Secretaries of State, both of whom were well acquainted with La Trobe’s father through their mutual evangelical and anti-slavery activities. They knew Charles Joseph to be serious-minded, reliable and ambitious for employment which would indulge his passion for adventure. In addition, he had done what had been required of him in the West Indies by producing in his reports analytical evidence of Colonial Office expenditure on education there. Glenelg, Grey and Stephen were thus confident of his appropriateness for the position. Nevertheless, La Trobe was an unusual choice for the newly created position of Superintendent of the Port Phillip District of New South Wales. He had very little of the background, training or experience usually considered appropriate by the British Colonial Office for its senior postings to valuable colonies. He was not from the aristocracy; he was not a military or naval officer; he was not a civil servant with years of experience behind him; in fact, he was not a typical Englishman, despite the fact that he could have been described as a Cockney, having been born ‘within the sound of Bow Bells’.6 Not only was the La Trobe family of Huguenot descent, its members were nonconformist evangelical Protestants of an unusual orientation. Although the Moravian Church to which they belonged had been recognised by an Act of Parliament in 1749 as ‘an ancient Protestant and episcopal Church’,7 the La Trobes were not members of the Established Church, as might have been expected of a representative of the Queen. Although they were very well educated, even their schooling at Fulneck, the remote Yorkshire village of the exclusive Moravian sect, was different from the norm. Added to these characteristics, the La Trobe family were deeply cultured, and had influential connections among intellectuals in England and in Europe. They were of the

134



2/3/06 2:14:37 PM

middle class, in that they had little, if any, hereditary wealth, yet they were different from most of the middle class in their interests and attitudes. La Trobe had grown up within a family which had strong intellectual and philosophical sympathies with that group of influential social reformers and philosophers in London, the Clapham Sect. His education was a thorough, religious, disciplined and humane one. It encompassed the necessity of responsibility for one’s actions and the application of Christian tolerance to all dealings with others, and to every aspect of life in general. But what did he bring to a job such as the superintendency? La Trobe had values and attitudes typical of his class and perfectly in accord with those that were affirmed by the Colonial Office. He was endowed with a deep spirituality, seeing the hand of God in everything and everyone about him. This was not, however, to deny his automatic acceptance of the superiority of the British over other races, and of the class distinctions which prevailed in that period. He was also convinced that, until native people were educated and had come to acknowledge Christianity as the one true path, they could not be considered civilised. In his new posting, he believed that it was his role to bring civilisation to them. Besides a reliability and sense of responsibility emanating from his heritage and education, he brought fifteen years’ practical adult experience of life and exposure to circumstances in which he had shown his mettle. Since 1824 La Trobe had been a traveller, firstly in Switzerland, then in the Tyrol and Italy, followed by a long period in North America and Mexico. The Pourtalès family, by whom he had been employed, could only have praised his reflective nature, reliability and genuineness if they were asked to speak for him, since his positive influence on their son had been considerable. His tour of duty in the West Indies had given him an additional appreciation, unusual for that time, of other cultures and a world outside Britain. He had acted cautiously yet positively during his West Indian assignment, demonstrating his integrity and prudence. These experiences cultivated in him a depth of knowledge and considerable understanding of the native people he had encountered and, together with proof of personal perseverance in often difficult circumstances, in this respect he was suitably equipped for his work at Port Phillip. His diverse experience of the indigenous peoples of North America and Mexico, and of the recently liberated slaves in the



135

2/3/06 2:14:37 PM

West Indies and his attitudes towards them, would have been considered useful by the Colonial Office in informing his dealings with the Aboriginal people of the Port Phillip District. La Trobe was a faithful subject of the Crown and typical of his generation and milieu. He was comfortable with the British class structure, and accepted as a ‘given’ the natural superiority of the educated over those who were not. The man who shook the hand of Governor Gipps in 1839 brought with him a keen intelligence as well as a useful practicality. He had a fervent religious faith instilled into him from birth, a definite sense of the importance of his role, a strong acceptance of his duty to the Governor of New South Wales and to the Colonial Office, and a willingness to deal honestly and caringly with the residents of Port Philip . On the negative side, his administrative experience was limited, and he showed a certain lack of decisiveness, or perhaps an over-conscientiousness, which may be viewed as a byproduct of the consensus methods of decision-making employed in his Moravian education. Nevertheless, he was a complex and sensitive man who would seek to carry out his duties to the best of his considerable abilities. After a journey of 123 days from London, La Trobe and his family arrived on 25 July 1839 in Sydney where he underwent an intensive briefing from Governor Gipps, on what was expected of him in Melbourne, and the various procedures that he should follow in dayto-day government. No doubt, Gipps and La Trobe would have discussed the Port Phillip Aboriginal Protectorate, and La Trobe would have learned of the Governor’s displeasure with the unpredictable Chief Protector, George Augustus Robinson. By the time it came for La Trobe to leave Sydney to assume officially his role of Superintendent at Port Phillip, he was fully conversant with what Gipps expected of him. Unlike La Trobe, Sir George Gipps possessed the qualifications which traditionally belonged to those selected by the Colonial Office to oversee the operations of Britain’s colonial outposts. His had been a distinguished army career, serving on the Spanish Peninsula against Napoleon in 1810, fighting gallantly in several actions, in particular at the blockade of Barcelona. He had served under Wellington in Flanders and had been promoted to captain. In common with La Trobe, he had undertaken a civilian mission to the West Indies in the

136



2/3/06 2:14:38 PM

1820s. His reports on slavery to the Colonial Office were so satisfactory that he was appointed to two commissions of inquiry on electoral boundaries in England and Ireland where his administrative skills were used to good effect. His career thereafter focused on the civil service where he became Private Secretary to Lord Auckland, First Lord of the Admiralty. Gipps was then sent to Canada from where he wrote an astute and able memorandum revealing him as politically liberal and unusually even-handed for that time towards the French Canadians. On the strength of these assignments, he was knighted, promoted to major, and appointed Bourke’s successor as Governor of New South Wales.8 He arrived in Sydney on 24 February 1838 with his wife and only son. The hallmark of his administration was his ability to manage the colony’s finances. Many thought the new administrator was parsimonious and he soon earned the sobriquet ‘Prince of all skinflints’.9 He stated his philosophy in a letter to La Trobe: ‘My whole official experience teaches me that in Downing Street at least, the Governor who keeps his government out of debt is the best’.10 It was obvious that he expected La Trobe to follow his example. Three major problems confronted Gipps with that far-flung outpost of New South Wales, the Port Phillip District. These were the problem of protecting the Aboriginal people from oppression and devastation by the colonists; Port Phillip’s demands for representation in the New South Wales Legislative Council; and the land question in relation to the squatters. Gipps welcomed La Trobe as the trusted subordinate who would manage the day-to-day administration of these matters and others in Melbourne, with careful reference to himself before any final decisions were made. Gipps and La Trobe quickly developed an excellent relationship based on friendship and mutual respect, the Governor acting as guide and mentor to the Superintendent, particularly in the vital connection with their superiors at the Colonial Office. Gipps’ detailed and frequent correspondence with La Trobe indicated his concern about Colonial Office reactions to his decisions, and fear that these reactions would be adverse to both them and the territory they administered. The Governor had to adhere strictly to his instructions from the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London, and thus instilled in La Trobe a strict code by which he was to operate in Port Phillip. On numerous potentially contentious subjects, such as the



137

2/3/06 2:14:38 PM

land question, Aboriginal welfare, official administration and expenditure, and separation, Gipps gave frequent and useful counsel. For example, La Trobe was to be particularly grateful to Gipps for advice on how to handle the difficult situation regarding the eccentric Resident Judge, John Walpole Willis. Circumstances in and outside the Port Phillip court system became so awkward during his régime that, in answer to La Trobe’s call for assistance, Gipps responded supportively: I wish you to understand, that if you send me a pressing official representation of the late conduct of the Resident Judge—and of the consequent state of Excitement in the District—I will again consult the Ex: Council, as to the propriety of suspending him.11

The Boundaries of the Superintendent Position La Trobe had had minimal training and experience for this new role, and he was reliant on the Governor’s direction. His character was radically different from that of the typical administrator: he was a refined and sensitive man who had spent years as something of a dilettante, imbibing all that was cultural and learned, and answerable to no one but himself. He was in need of advice from one so experienced in the colonial sphere as Sir George Gipps. As one educated from a very early age in the Moravian manner of taking direction and seeking consensus, this was what he expected his relationship towards his superior officer to be. Apart from his limited teaching and tutoring experience, La Trobe had never been in a position of managing people. He had acted alone on his assignment in the West Indies, but no doubt his acquaintance with these islands and the attendant dealings with the Colonial Office, a background he had in common with Gipps, was an excellent foundation for discussion, and a springboard for their future work together in New South Wales. Gipps was to sum up the feelings he had for his offsider some years later when, before his return to Britain, he wrote to La Trobe: You have during the long period of more than seven years, been in the uninterrupted possession of my entire

138



2/3/06 2:14:38 PM

confidence; and I hope, trust and believe, that you have entertained towards me equally kind and confidential Feelings … If I can do anything in England for you or for your children—write to me;—or write to me at any rate and address me at the Colonial Office: I will not fail to serve you if I can in that Quarter.12 His final letter from Sydney similarly demonstrated his fondness for La Trobe: These are really my last words—they must be few but they are sincere. You have my perfect esteem & confidence— and to you, Mrs. La Trobe and your children, I wish every good that the Almighty can send you.13 La Trobe’s appointment to the position of Superintendent appeared in the Sydney Gazette on 30 July 1839,14 and he received his commission, took the oaths of office and was sworn in on Thursday, 10 September.15 La Trobe recorded the event in his personal diary in typically laconic style: ‘Sworn in before the Governor and Executive Council at 12, & received my Commission. Stormy weather. I dine with a large gentlemen’s party at Government house’.16 The La Trobes sailed from Sydney on board the barque Pyramus, arriving in Melbourne two weeks later on 30 September, having encountered ferocious gales in Bass Strait. On the following morning, the Superintendent was rowed ashore to Liardet’s Beach, now Port Melbourne, where he ‘landed on the beach. Waited on Captain Lonsdale. Saw divers genl. & returned on Pyramus’.17 Despite the incessant heavy rain, he had walked into town for a first unofficial view of his new domain. The next day, 2 October, the weather was so bad that passengers were unable to go ashore. However, on 3 October: ‘Landed with family, 1 p.m. Land Sale 3 p.m. Received and answered address of inhabitants’.18 This embryonic city must have presented an amazing contrast to a sophisticated man who was accustomed to the elegance and size of London, New York, Baltimore and even Neuchâtel. In 1839 Melbourne was only four years old, with a European population of about 3000,19 a figure that was to jump to 11 700 in the census of



139

2/3/06 2:14:38 PM

March 1841,20 and thereafter, to multiply in leaps and bounds to reach 77 345 for the whole of Port Phillip in 1851.21 However, despite the town’s promise, La Trobe realised, when he arrived to take up his post, that he was unprepared for what he found and had quite some adjustment to make. As ‘Garryowen’ later described it, Melbourne was then, physically, in a rudimentary stage of its existence: It was a kind of big ‘settlement’ … with houses, sheds and tents in clusters, or scattered in ones and twos. There were streets marked out, but … so dispersed that after dark residents incurred not only trouble but danger in moving about … There were several brick-built houses and a few weatherboard cottages, with some, though not much, pretension to comfort, but the majority of the business or residential tenements were made up of colonial ‘wattle-and-daub’, roofed with sheets of bark or coarse shingle …22 Even so, the townspeople of Melbourne were enormously proud of all that had been achieved in such a short time-span, and of what the settlement had to offer newcomers, including La Trobe. A week after his arrival, a local newspaper preened itself at the settlement’s amazing growth: Already Melbourne, which eighteen months ago possessed only three brick houses, is a flourishing town, with a population of between two and three thousand souls, and containing most of the appendages of an advanced civilization. It has five places of worship of different denominations of Christians, a Court of Justice, two Schools, two Banks, one Club with sixty members, a Fire and Marine Assurance Company, and two Newspapers are efficiently supported. Of the learned professions there are six Clergymen, twelve Medical Men, and five Lawyers. Such is the present state of Melbourne.23 However, when La Trobe surveyed the scene, he would have observed that Collins Street was the only street worthy of the name, while Elizabeth Street followed a frequently flooded creek bed, and Flinders

140



2/3/06 2:14:38 PM

Street was little better than a bog. The water supply from the Yarra River was increasingly inadequate and polluted. There was no town council before 1842 to take care of local affairs. All revenue was allocated by the government in far-off Sydney, a distance of 576 miles (872 kilometres). The only building of note was the gaol. Such was the metropolis of the domain he had come to administer. After being rowed up the Yarra River from the port on 3 October 1839 in poor weather to a makeshift landing stage, the Superintendent and his family were warmly welcomed by hundreds of Melburnians in a sales room, ‘the mart of Mr. Charles Williams, a well-known auctioneer’,24 at the south-west corner of William and Collins streets. La Trobe was hastily sworn in during an interval in the colony’s third auction of town and country land. He was then accompanied to the ten-month-old Melbourne Club which, at that time, occupied the former hotel building of founding colonist John Pascoe Fawkner.25 In accordance with Gipps’ instructions, La Trobe’s commission from Queen Victoria was read aloud to those assembled by Robert Saunders Webb, the Collector of Customs, so that the Superintendent’s responsibilities in the colony would be known to all.26 In addition to receiving a set of handwritten instructions, La Trobe had also been given by Gipps copies of the commission just read to the local inhabitants, specially printed at the Sydney Herald office, to be distributed to the public ‘for general information and guidance’.27 The significance of this commission was that it gave La Trobe a clear framework as the basis of his every action as Superintendent. The very public reading of the Commission and the wide distribution of copies of it also gave those in government employment and the general population of Port Phillip a clear understanding of his role as quite definitely subordinate to the position of the Governor of New South Wales. Despite the fact that, as Superintendent, he was not of the same standing as a Lieutenant-Governor, his instructions specifically stated that: You will exercise the powers of Lieutenant-Governor, and will stand in the same position in respect to the Governor of New South Wales, as the Governor himself stands in with respect to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.28



141

2/3/06 2:14:39 PM

As Superintendent, he had to adhere to the employment guidelines for civil servants which were clearly spelled out. He was only responsible for recruitment for positions where salaries did not exceed £100 per annum. He was responsible for those military personnel appointed under the colonial government, but not for those with British appointments. He could not expand the civil service by creating new positions and, most importantly, he could not incur expenditure without approval from Gipps. La Trobe relieved Captain William Lonsdale, the first Police Magistrate of Port Phillip, who was in effect the first administrator of the Port Phillip District, having been sent in September 1836 to ‘Bearbrass’, or ‘The Settlement’—early alternative names for Melbourne—to maintain law and order in that outpost of the colony. Lonsdale’s commission had required him also to safeguard the interests of the Aboriginal people. Lonsdale had the full confidence of Governor Bourke and the New South Wales government who relied on his military reputation as one accustomed to following orders to the letter. He was required to refer any matters of importance to Bourke for decision. As the historian Ernest Scott noted: He was still the regimental officer, conscious that the colonel’s eye was upon him. In no case do we find him asking for a larger endowment of discretion. He was content to work under strict authority, and never to trespass beyond his instructions.29 Like Lonsdale, La Trobe was to act as a filter of information received for the Governor’s attention, and was instructed to give advice where appropriate. With regard to financial matters, his instructions were perfectly clear: no expenses were to be entered into which could not be met locally; funds allocated from Sydney for one purpose were not interchangeable with another; and savings should be made whenever possible. In fact, he was directed to run his administration as economically as possible. When it came to the organisation of the few convicts in Port Phillip, La Trobe was required to assume ‘all the functions of the Governor’,30 and to accept any applications for mercy which might be brought forward. La Trobe’s attention was drawn particularly ‘to the treatment of the Aborigines, and to the prevention as far as possible

142



2/3/06 2:14:39 PM

of collisions between them and the Colonists … in this very important part of your duty’.31 There was another notable aspect of the commission which La Trobe took up: it contained the first official recognition of the region south of the Murray River as a separate district within the Colony of New South Wales, later to become Victoria: The District to which you are appointed is considered as consisting of that part of the Territory of New South Wales, which lies to the south of the thirty-sixth degree of south latitude, and between the one hundred and forty-first and one hundred and forty-sixth degrees of east longitude.32 These instructions placed La Trobe in a particular position in the hierarchy of administration and necessarily constrained his independence. It was emphasised in the clearest way possible that he was required to administer the Port Phillip District, reporting to the Governor of New South Wales, and obeying all his commands. For La Trobe, the commission was reassuring. It was clearly stated that he had access to Gipps for advice whenever necessary. However, as he was to discover, weeks and often months would pass before the sought-after advice was forthcoming. This was largely because of delays caused by distance and slow methods of transport, but also because of the pre-eminence of demands for the Governor’s attention in Sydney. At the same time that his commission was prescriptive, it made no mention of, or was vague about, policies. This allowed La Trobe a certain scope, in reality freedom to formulate recommendations which would become the basis for the colony’s directions. In so doing, it will be seen that this expression of his own attitudes did much to shape the future of his District.

Demands for an Independent Colony (Separation) On arrival, La Trobe was presented with a fulsome address, signed by 236 residents, which hailed him as ‘the harbinger of our increased prosperity … a gentleman of whose high intellectual powers, rightmindedness, firmness, courtesy and talents for business, report speaks so favourably’ under whose enlightened administration ‘Australia Felix must soon have become one of the most important



143

2/3/06 2:14:39 PM

possessions of Britain’.33 The ‘Austral Felicians’34 were convinced that La Trobe would rapidly advance their plea for separation from New South Wales for which they had already been clamouring. In jubilant tones, it was declared in anticipation that ‘The long wished for and happy day has at length arrived—the day earnestly prayed for by every intelligent and enlightened mind’.35 This enthusiastic welcome given to the Superintendent by the townspeople of Melbourne was full of hope, as shown in the hyperbole with which they greeted him. As reported in the press, La Trobe made a good initial impression on the citizens of Melbourne. The Port Phillip Patriot proclaimed: ‘he comes to us as our good genius, to assist to develop our resources, and place us high in the scale of Colonies’.36 He was a striking figure of a man, at thirty-eight in the prime of life, athletic in build and well over six feet tall. His features were strong and gave indications of his intelligence and certain judgement. He imbued his people with hope for a bright and prosperous future. While his role representing the Crown had been spelled out clearly enough to guide his actions, a man of La Trobe’s sensitive and somewhat introspective temperament must have been apprehensive at the difficulty of the assignment ahead of him. He had arrived in a makeshift town with few basic services. He soon discovered that, apart from one or two bureaucrats, such as Captain William Lonsdale who had held the post as acting Superintendent until La Trobe’s arrival, there were very few settlers with whom he had much in common. There was a small ‘official class’37 of military men and government officers, a number of merchants and tradespeople, and an increasing number of squatters who had settled on grazing land to the west of Melbourne. It took some time for La Trobe to strike up a relationship with any of them since, not only was he a naturally reserved man, he was particularly conscious of his official role in the colony and of his weighty responsibilities. He wrote to a friend, the publisher John Murray: You, my dear Sir, have never been transported 16,000 miles from civilization, and cannot imagine what it is to be cast so far beyond the reach of the thousand daily means of improvement and enjoyment which they possess who

144



2/3/06 2:14:39 PM

breathe the air of Europe … I have called our present position Exile, and so it is, to all intents and purposes … Society here is, of course as you may suppose, in its infancy. The arts and sciences are unborn. Nature itself seems to be only in her swaddling clothes.38 He was, seemingly, in deep shock after his initial encounter with Melbourne and its inhabitants. It was all so alien to him after the cultural experiences of day-to-day life in Europe. His confidence in his ability to achieve a successful and economically viable colony would have been seriously challenged by the settlers’ proclamation of welcome so that: the name La Trobe will then ever be mentioned with respect, as having belonged to a man who, by the wisdom of his suggestions, and the powerful influence of his own character, contributed most to the political, religious, and social advancement of AUSTRALIA FELIX.39 This was surely a hymn of praise to La Trobe, but with an implicit menace. The local residents were antagonistic to the military rule of Sydney from where the affairs of Port Phillip were directed. Part of their exultation when La Trobe arrived was their conviction that he would understand their animosity and do something about ensuring separation from what they viewed as a tyrannical rule. The colonists’ main complaint was that all Port Phillip revenue was sent to Sydney where most of it was spent. The solution to this far from equitable situation could only be separation of the Port Phillip District from New South Wales and, eventually, complete autonomy. La Trobe’s cautious and rather pious response was a sign of the restraining influence he was to exert during his term of office. Having thanked those present for the flattering address, he sounded a note of caution, which showed some trepidation that he might not be able to live up to their expectations: ‘I … fear that the wishes of the inhabitants of the district may have led them to over-rate both my official and my personal powers’.40 Most importantly, he expressed those philosophical and moral principles he wished to inculcate into the inhabitants of the infant colony. With these words, he was signalling



145

2/3/06 2:14:39 PM

to those present the direction he proposed to take in his administration. In fact, this statement provided the key to his attitudes and to his vision for the colony: I pray to God, to whom I look for strength and power, that whether my stay among you as chief organ of the Government be long or short, I may be enabled, through His Grace, to know my duty, and to do my duty, diligently, temperately and fearlessly … It will not be by individual aggrandizement, by the possession of numerous flocks and herds, or of costly acres, that we shall secure for the country enduring prosperity and happiness; but by the acquisition and maintenance of sound religious and moral institutions, without which no country can become truly great.41 La Trobe thus made known at the outset his intention of building an orderly, God-fearing and hardworking community, whose attainment of all that he considered good—religion, education and industriousness—would result in ‘enduring prosperity and happiness’. Moderation, as the best precept for a happy and successful life, was the lesson he had preached to Pourtalès during their long tour of North America and Mexico. In the West Indies, he saw religion, education and personal discipline as the way forward for a previously disenfranchised people. Now, in Port Phillip, he was advocating the same ‘sound religious and moral institutions’ as the means to achieve the ‘boundless career of prosperity’42 so earnestly desired by his welcomers. By contrast, the materialism of the early settlers came through in every sentence of their address. After all, these were people who had left their homelands in search of a better material life and greater opportunities. La Trobe, on the other hand, perceived his mission at Port Phillip in the light of almost a religious vocation, certainly a mission to the ‘heathen’ whom he was destined to direct onto the road to salvation, by educating them in all that was worthy. As a Moravian, evangelism was never far from the forefront of his actions and words. Harmony and energy would, in his very strong view, result in a society where ‘increasing prosperity’ would be achieved:

146



2/3/06 2:14:40 PM

Let us remember, that religion is the only great preventive of crime, and contributes more, in a far more endurable manner, to the peace and good order of society, than the Judge and the Sheriff—the gaol and the gibbet united.43 The colonists—or most of them—would have found his words strange or even irrelevant. Achievement for them meant an improvement in the material prosperity of the Port Phillip District, the installation of services and facilities, and general reform of the policies, decreed in Sydney, which affected their lives. Such pious utterances would have automatically alienated or bewildered many of those in the welcoming party. They soon earned for La Trobe the impudent nickname ‘Praise God Barebones’ from one of his listeners who described his speech as ‘partaking more of a moral essay or sermon than a political address’.44 In fact, La Trobe had seriously misjudged his audience. Those listening to him would have been puzzled by what he was saying, and he certainly did not understand them. He had pitched his words on too elevated a level for a celebratory occasion which should have had some lightheartedness about it. However, La Trobe acquitted himself well enough on his first public duty, after which he received a nine-gun salute as befitted a representative of the Crown. The Port Phillip Patriot was especially lavish in its praise and expectation, heralding his arrival as though he were a conquering hero: ‘he comes to found a mighty empire’.45 La Trobe had been eagerly anticipated by the local population who expected him, particularly, to promote their desire for separation from the controlling powers in Sydney. The Port Phillip colonists wished for autonomy from the rule of the Governor in Sydney for very good reasons which were accentuated as the years passed. Revenue from Port Phillip, especially considerable during the boom period of land speculation from January 1839 to June 1841,46 had apparently all gone into Sydney coffers with little return for public works in Melbourne. Added to this, pleas for a fairer share in the number of assisted immigrants to help in the development of the Port Phillip District went virtually unheard. Passions on the separation question were thus running high from the time of La Trobe’s arrival. He was hailed as ‘our Ruler’47 but Melburnians failed to recognise that La Trobe would, at all costs, do his duty by Governor Gipps in Sydney,



147

2/3/06 2:14:40 PM

and by the Colonial Office in London. Their expectations of La Trobe were misguided. So intent were the colonists that they misread his position. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Glenelg, had created La Trobe’s role as Superintendent so that he could supervise activities in the far smaller colony, and refer any real decision-making to Sydney. La Trobe’s instructions placed him strictly under the control of the Governor of New South Wales. After his initial dismay at the enormity of the general administration and the particular problems that lay ahead of him, La Trobe was able to view his role with courage and resilience, to which he was soon able to add a little humour. In his first letter to Gipps, he described the reaction of the local population to his arrival at the official reception on 3 October: The first scene of the first act of the drama is over. The welcome which the good people of this portion of your territories gave me, was as the papers would say enthusiastic: that is to say, the grave among them got up grave addresses and received grave answers—the gay made bonfires, put lights in their casements and fired off fowling pieces:—and the lower class got jovially drunk & were fined—all in my honor.48 Such a witty comment—of which there are more than a few in his private correspondence—points to the humorous, or lighter, side of his character, not apparent in formal situations. On reaching Melbourne, La Trobe’s first domestic task was to find shelter for a short period for his family until the portable cottage49 he had brought with him from London could be erected. At this stage, the La Trobes had only one child, Agnes, their other three children (Eleanora Sophia, Mary Cecilia and Charles Albert) being born in Melbourne subsequently. The family with their two servants moved temporarily into Captain Lonsdale’s home in the Government Paddock, opposite the southern end of Spring Street, now the Jolimont Railway Yards, and awaited the construction of their own dwelling. La Trobe’s modest salary of £800 a year included a rental allowance, in lieu of a residence provided by the Colonial Office. To conserve his limited funds, he preferred to lodge his family in their own house. He

148



2/3/06 2:14:40 PM

had, in fact, ordered a second, larger house but, rather than using it to accommodate his family, or selling it, La Trobe took the opportunity to become a landlord himself, and to supplement his income. ‘Upper Jolimont’, as it was known, was occupied by several tenants over subsequent years, including Melbourne’s first Bishop, Charles Perry,50 and H. C. E. Childers,51 Auditor-General of Victoria in 1852 and later, first Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. Before leaving Sydney, La Trobe had obtained permission from Governor Gipps to set up his cottage temporarily on vacant Crown land. He chose an allotment in the Government Paddock in the vicinity of Captain Lonsdale’s home, but further to the east, with a clear view of the Yarra River, on the south-eastern extremity of the town. Gipps himself was strongly of the opinion that La Trobe should have been provided with a suitable house which would become the Superintendent’s official residence. However, since La Trobe’s contract had deliberately excluded accommodation, the Governor did not, until the question of La Trobe bidding at auction to purchase land arose, consider it his role to confront the Colonial Office over the matter. La Trobe was persistent in his efforts to have the land on which he squatted—‘I know that I am there on sufferance & not of right’52—placed on the market along with other Crown land, so as to reduce inflated prices and to have his own more or less illegal selection of land resolved. This was despite his ‘determination to seek from you no advantage or indulgence in selecting and purchasing what might suit me, beyond what you might accord to any other’.53 The colonists were irritated that in most colonies, the administration was furnished with a home and grounds at public expense. The Port Phillip Herald reported that: When it first became known in Melbourne that the allotment on which Mr. La Trobe’s residence is erected was to be brought into the market, and that His Honour was to be, as it were, turned adrift, a strong feeling of indignation was excited in the minds of the community.54 It was evident that, in 1840, the local press was still positive about the Superintendent. They were enthusiastic for the promise he held, and for all it was hoped he would do for the Port Phillip District



149

2/3/06 2:14:40 PM

by way of increasing public works, finding more funding for infrastructure, and gaining from Sydney a share of the assisted immigrants from Britain to populate the region. When the portion of the Government Paddock on which he had erected his portable cottage came up for auction on 10 June 1840,55 the colonists assisted their impecunious new Superintendent by not bidding against him. The result was that he bought 12.5 acres (5 hectares) at the ‘upset’ or exceptionally low price of £20 an acre. The purchase of this land turned out to be an excellent and canny investment on La Trobe’s part, and it was to be his main financial support in retirement. La Trobe was delighted with the outcome of the auction: ‘I should have been quite willing to pay hundreds where I have paid tens,’ he wrote to Gipps.56 But the scrupulous Gipps was not quite so sanguine. To him the transaction appeared dishonest. He pointed out to his subordinate that such a deal, favouring a government officer, might bring criticism and claims of malpractice to the administration, both from the colonists and from the Colonial Office. Although there had been no criticism of the purchase in the press, only delight that the new Superintendent should have been the sole bidder, Gipps’ concern was justified: It seems to me that we may be attacked, first for letting under any circumstances land go for £20, which according to the opinions I now hear very generally expressed, is worth £500 per acre, and secondly, that the transaction is on the whole equivalent to the acceptance of a present, which every Governor is within the limits of his Government forbidden to take.57 La Trobe was offended, responding instantly that he was: surprised at the view which you are inclined to take of my acquisition of the land without opposition at the upset price: & distressed in the idea that any proceeding in which I am concerned should tend in your opinion, either now or at any future time, to embarrass the Government which I serve.58

150



2/3/06 2:14:40 PM

This was the reaction of someone used to having his own way. La Trobe was petulant, and disappointed that he may have betrayed, before his much-admired superior, what might be seen as a flaw in his character, a willingness to sacrifice honesty to self-interest. In reality, he was still somewhat naïve, still inclined to be defensive when he considered that anyone, in particular his senior officer, could entertain the idea that he had been less than honest. His letter was full of justifications of his good intent in all his dealings with the government in Sydney and with Gipps in particular. His education had given him in-depth experience of debate, and of the underpinning desire of reaching by consensus an agreeable outcome to every question—a strong Moravian methodology. These two characteristics again came to the fore in seeking rapid resolution to his discomfort on the issue: ‘the discharge of my official duties is rendered doubly difficult when the head and heart are a prey to anxiety on private, as well as public grounds’.59 Demonstrating a fundamental weakness, La Trobe absolved himself by passing the resolution of the situation back to Gipps, his authority figure: ‘I leave the matter in your hands’.60 In La Trobe’s defence, it should be said that land in adjacent Richmond, Collingwood and Fitzroy had been sold as recently as 1839 for £20–25 per acre,61 and this, no doubt, allowed him to justify in his own mind the legitimacy of the low upset price as the sum paid for his land purchase. The La Trobes named their home, erected on this contentious land, ‘Jolimont’, after a residence belonging to the Pourtalès cousins of the Montmollin family at Cerlier (Erlach) on Lake Bienne, not far from Neuchâtel. La Trobe and Sophie had honeymooned there four years previously. His delight in the new home is apparent in his letter to his sister Charlotte: ‘Small as our establishment is, I assure you that there is not a more comfortable, well regulated and more lasting one in this part of the world, both without and within’.62 Throughout their fifteen years in Melbourne, the La Trobes lived modestly in this cottage. Although as head of government and society, La Trobe was obliged to be hospitable and generous to worthy causes, his meagre salary did not allow for extravagance or entertaining on a grand scale, and no larger or more impressive residence was sought.



151

2/3/06 2:14:41 PM

George Alexander Gilbert (1815–?), View of Jolimont, the residence of C. J. La Trobe, 1843–44, pastel, La Trobe Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria

Establishing a Public Infrastructure During La Trobe’s period of administration, development and expenditure on public works were high priorities. The colonists clamoured for the services which would improve their standard of living and assist in the development of their business interests. La Trobe himself instigated the construction of numerous functional buildings for the operations of government. Many more structures were built following his strong representations to the Governor in Sydney and his persistent follow-up. The extent of his application to the task of actually having any of the desired buildings erected was, however, little known or understood by the colonists. The correspondence between La Trobe and Deas Thomson, the Colonial Secretary in Sydney, in an effort to obtain any sort of commitment to a building program was constant and voluminous. However, the colonists considered La Trobe slow to move on their behalf and became impatient with what they perceived as his inactivity. While the historian, journalist and coproprietor of the Port Phillip Gazette, Thomas McCombie,63 branded him ‘a red-tapist’, and ‘wanting in the necessary energy’,64 the historian William Westgarth had the more moderate but still critical view

152



2/3/06 2:14:43 PM

that ‘while either from constitutional character or his view of his official duty, he placed himself in the way of the people’s yearnings for increasing political privileges and self-government’.65 It would be fair to say that the frustrations of the colonists were due, to a large extent, to the dilatory manner in which La Trobe approached important decision-making. He wanted to be sure that a building was fully necessary before he approached the Sydney administration for funding for its construction. In line with Gipps’ tutelage, he had to be certain that government expenditure was justified. In retrospect, his record in acquiring the public buildings and other structures necessary for good communications, health and safety was admirable. However, at the time, disappointment and dissatisfaction caused by the slowness of the process, with hopes seemingly unrealised for months and even years for the growth of the colony, severely dented La Trobe’s standing in the settlers’ eyes. The development of Melbourne and the problems associated with referring all decision-making to the Governor in Sydney were difficulties which enflamed the already-resentful colonists who were more and more convinced of the necessity for separation and the desirability of independence. La Trobe came to Port Phillip when well-constructed buildings of any type were virtually non-existent. His arrival had introduced to the District the promise of autonomy hitherto unknown. Within the first two years, with Lonsdale’s help, he had established a new centre of administration on Batman’s Hill and a temporary brick gaol in Collins Street West. However, it was important for La Trobe to oversee the construction of buildings as symbols of government authority and for the practical day-to-day business of his administration. The roles designated by customised buildings enabled the various functions of government to be easily identified throughout the community. Public works at Port Phillip depended on costed proposals being included on the Estimates presented to the Legislative Council of New South Wales. Success was largely dependent on the initiative and persuasion exercised by La Trobe with the Governor and the Colonial Secretary in Sydney. The difficulties of Sydney’s ignorance of, and indifference to the needs of Port Phillip resulted in many projects being delayed or simply not happening. One example of frustrating inefficiency which pointed out the awkwardness of the system was the provision of a set of buoys to delineate a safe channel for shipping



153

2/3/06 2:14:43 PM

in Port Phillip Bay. The buoys arrived, but no mooring tackle was sent. Further delays thus ensued. The colonists blamed La Trobe for numerous similar bungles which occurred. On a larger scale, the construction of the Custom House, the first government building to be made in stone, had commenced in 1838 before La Trobe’s arrival, but had come to an abrupt halt because of trouble in finding a suitable builder and building materials. Such drawn-out negotiations pointed to the problems of building when the centre of administration and financial control was so far removed in Sydney. However, La Trobe overcame these and other hindrances by his strong representations to Gipps and called for new tenders, the work being completed in October 1841. Early in his superintendency, La Trobe saw the need to strategically place lighthouses along the coast as an essential service for shipping. He personally oversaw the installation of lights at Gellibrand’s Point, now Williamstown, and at Shortland’s Bluff, present-day Queenscliff. For many years, colonists had urged the placement of a lighthouse on Cape Otway, the southernmost point of Western Victoria, in order to prevent another disastrous shipwreck with which that part of the coast was littered. However, expenditure for such a light was not high on the list of priorities in Sydney for government expenditure. It was only in 1845, following the tragic loss of 360 lives in the wreck of the Cataraqui in Bass Strait, that La Trobe petitioned for funds to be set aside in the Estimates to pay for such a beacon. This was just the start of a long drawn-out procedure in which the Superintendent himself headed an exploration party to find a route to the cape on which the necessary lighthouse could be built. He made two bids to blaze a trail to the point designated for the lighthouse, being turned back by the impenetrable Otway Forest. On his third attempt in April 1846, he discovered a land route from the west to the tip of the cape, locating there a suitable plateau for the erection of the lighthouse. La Trobe’s exploration was a decisive response to community outrage over the failure of the government in Sydney to indicate the pitfalls of this treacherous coast to mariners. The terrain was too difficult for building supplies to be brought in by land, and La Trobe had to make alternative arrangements to deliver the building components from the sea. Even so, the process took much longer than he would have wished. Disgruntled colonists

154



2/3/06 2:14:43 PM

complained of the more than two years it took to complete the lighthouse. However, when it began operating on 29 August 1848, it was acclaimed as a boon to sea captains bringing new settlers to Port Phillip, and an important part of La Trobe’s plan to mark the safest route to harbour. Under great difficulties, La Trobe had displayed enormous determination to achieve the goal and, despite delays beyond his personal control, had courageously pursued the plan to illuminate the coast at Cape Otway. Other buildings for which La Trobe was responsible included the Supreme Court in Melbourne, the construction of which he pursued doggedly since the design was considered by the Colonial Architect as unnecessarily large for a court in provincial Melbourne. Because La Trobe had stood up to the opposition from the Sydney administration, his actions rated him local approval, even if it was of short duration, and the court building became a political symbol of the struggle for separation. La Trobe also had the foresight to realise that Melbourne would need a substantial postal facility as the population increased. He had a general post office erected in less than six months in 1841. Other substantial administrative buildings which La Trobe proposed and saw to completion were the Immigration Barracks, the Government Offices, the Lunatic Asylum at Yarra Bend, the Melbourne Police Court, and the Melbourne Hospital. All this was pioneering work. La Trobe fully understood the need for public works in the new colony, but convincing the authorities in Sydney was the hurdle which had to be overcome before any of the desired infrastructure and facilities could begin to be put in place. Such issues, many of a petty nature, were distractions for La Trobe from the real business for which he, as a dedicated Moravian and a loyal servant of the Crown, felt designated: that of bringing the rule of British law, religion, education and culture to the colony. Not only did relatively insignificant issues impede his progress on these important issues but, as we shall see, so too did totally unforeseen and, at times, catastrophic problems.



155

2/3/06 2:14:43 PM

Notes 1

2

3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11

12 13 14 15 16

17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

27 28 29 30 31

Charles Joseph La Trobe to John Murray, 15 December 1840, John Murray Archives, London. Also quoted in Smiles, A Publisher and His Friends: Memoir and Correspondence of the Late John Murray, p. 457. Shaw, ‘Separation and Federation: The Relationship of Port Phillip with the Government of New South Wales’, pp. 4–5. Quoted in King, ‘Sir Richard Bourke’, p. 132. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 168. Sir George Grey to Charles Joseph La Trobe, 4 February 1839, in Watson, Historical Records of Australia, Series I, vol. XIX, pp. 785–6. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 7. Langton, History of the Moravian Church, p. 133. McCulloch. George Gipps. Gipps, Every Inch a Governor, p. 43. Gipps to La Trobe, 12 November 1843, Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, H7174, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Gipps to La Trobe, 15 May 1843, Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, H7205, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ibid., Gipps to La Trobe, 7 July 1846. ibid., Gipps to La Trobe, 10 July 1846. Sydney Gazette, 30 July 1839, p. 2. ibid., 12 September 1839, p. 3. Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Private MemorandaNew South Wales Diary, 1839’, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 25(c), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe’s Minute Book, 5 October 1839, VPRS4, Unit 7, No. 188, PROV. (‘genl.’ = ‘gentlemen’ in La Trobe’s shorthand) ibid. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 244. Archer, Statistical Register of Victoria. Vamplew (ed.), Australians: Historical Statistics, p. 26. ‘Garryowen’ [Edmund Finn], Chronicles of Early Melbourne, p. 108. Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 7 October 1839, p. 3. ‘Garryowen’, Chronicles of Early Melbourne, p. 41. Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 174. The Melbourne Club was established in 1839, to be run on London principles, as a home away from home for squatters when they came to town. La Trobe joined the Club in 1844. Charles Joseph La Trobe—Commission, 10 September 1839, VPRS 19/P/1, Unit 1, File 39/3, PROV; and Gipps’ Instructions to La Trobe on His Appointment (encl. Gipps to Normanby, 4 November 1839, p. 143), CO 201/288, Public Record Office, Kew. ibid. ibid. Scott, ‘The Administration of Captain Lonsdale’, p. 543. ibid. ibid.

156



2/3/06 2:14:44 PM

32 33

34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

49

50 51 52

53 54 55

56

57 58 59 60 61 62

63

ibid. Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 7 October 1839, p. 3. Reprinted as Letter of Welcome with Signatories to Charles Joseph La Trobe. Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 21 October 1839, p. 5. ibid., 3 October 1839, p. 4. ibid., p. 3. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 244. Charles Joseph La Trobe to John Murray, 15 December 1840, John Murray Archives, London. Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 7 October 1839, p. 3. ibid., p. 4. ibid. ibid. ibid. McCombie, History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 62. Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 3 October 1839, p. 4. Shaw, The Port Phillip District, p. 153. Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 3 October 1839, p. 4. La Trobe to Gipps, 19 October 1839, Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, H7205, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. La Trobe had had his cottage manufactured by the leading house prefabricator Manning of London. (See Lewis, La Trobe’s Cottage: A Conservation Analysis, p. 28.) Perry, Australian Sketches, p. 70. Uhl, A Woman of Importance, p. 49. La Trobe to Gipps, 19 October 1839, Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, H7205, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ibid. Port Phillip Herald, 12 June 1840, p. 3. Following the survey of the township of Melbourne by Robert Hoddle in 1837, official government land sales took place immediately, the first and second being held on 1 June and 1 November 1837. Liardet’s painting shows the sale of 10 June 1840, at which La Trobe purchased his Jolimont estate unopposed for the exceptionally low price of £20 an acre. La Trobe to Gipps, 12 June 1840, Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, H7205, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ibid., 11 July 1840. ibid., 24 July 1840. ibid. ibid. Shaw, Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, 1839–1846, p. 33. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Charlotte La Trobe, 2 March 1840, La Trobe Papers, M5148-5168, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Thomas McCombie (1819–1869), a Scottish journalist, merchant and politician, arrived in Melbourne in March 1841. After a short period as a squatter, he was editor and part-owner of the Port Phillip Gazette from



157

2/3/06 2:14:44 PM

64 65

1844 to 1851. He was a Melbourne Town Councillor from 1846 to 1851. His motion in June 1846, and again in August of that year, for the removal of Superintendent La Trobe was carried, as was his nomination in 1848 of Earl Grey as a Port Phillip representative on the Legislative Council in Sydney. He served several terms in the Victorian Legislative Council from 1856 to 1869. (ADB, vol. 5 (1851–1890), pp. 132–3) McCombie, The History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 262. Westgarth, The Colony of Victoria, p. 75.

158



2/3/06 2:14:44 PM

chapter 6

A Cultured European in a Distant Colony: La Trobe’s Civilising Mission

La Trobe was very much a man of his specific social milieu. His attitudes reflected an unusual blend of humanitarianism and evangelicalism which was a by-product of his background, and which coloured his view of his role in Port Phillip. His aim was to spread a commitment to Christian religious principles in the new colony, and the means he saw to do this was by cultivating an appreciation among the colonists of all that was morally and intellectually stimulating and improving. While La Trobe found the challenge of Aboriginal policy and manoeuvring between the Colonial Office and the increasingly insistent demands of popular opinion ultimately overwhelming, he did not waver from the particular civilising mission with which his upbringing and social background had imbued him. La Trobe had been born into an intellectual family with distinctive attitudes and behaviours reflecting a certain philosophy of life. Theirs was a total commitment to the Christian faith, but it was a particular style of Christianity. Their Moravian strain of non-conformist Protestantism implied evangelicalism. Their clear goal was to spread the word of the saving power of Christianity, to bring others to a knowledge of the fallen state of mankind, and to ensure that non-Christians


2/3/06 2:14:44 PM

realised that only through Christ could they hope for salvation in the life to come.

Evangelicalism and the Civilising Mission The decades from the 1790s, immediately preceding La Trobe’s birth in 1801, until the 1830s, delineated a discrete period in evangelical history which was instrumental in forming many of Charles Joseph’s ideas and his way of life. Beginning with the death of John Wesley in 1791 and ending with the death of William Wilberforce in 1833,1 this timespan was one of great turmoil during which many Christians reacted to the secularism of the Enlightenment of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, was a European intellectual movement, and central to its thought was the idea that, by the use of reason, man had the power to understand the universe and improve his own condition. Ideas concerning God, reason, nature and humanity were thought about in such a radical way as to give prominence to rational man, capable of propounding totally new concepts in philosophy, politics and art which were not based on religious precepts. Particularly forceful in their reaction to this movement were the non-conformist Protestant denominations holding Calvinistic tenets. There were some evangelicals within the Anglican Church, but they were not generally of a puritanical persuasion. The Calvinistic evangelicals, however, ‘gave far more weight to original sin and the need for redemption than did … other non-evangelical Christians.’2 The underlying doctrine of evangelicalism was the belief that man was ‘positively bad, estranged from God and under his condemnation’3 until, by conversion through a realisation of the healing power of Christ’s death on the cross, atonement was possible and redemption was assured. The evangelical tradition considered such a spiritual process essential if human beings were to be saved. For this to come about, emphasis was placed on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whose influence would reveal the truth to ‘the sincere reader of the Old and New Testaments’.4 This was the basis of the Moravian faith to which the La Trobe family subscribed but, as will be shown, Moravianism also had a worldliness, or a more secular dimension to it, that set it apart from other Protestant sects. One criticism levelled against evangelicalism was its antiintellectualism. James Stephen, Under-Secretary of State for the

160



2/3/06 2:14:44 PM

Colonies, member of the Clapham Sect, friend of Christian Ignatius La Trobe, and devoted Anglican, while approving of many of the missionary activities of the non-conformists, condemned attitudes among many evangelicals which crushed interest in intellectual pursuits. He described as ‘intellectual barrenness’ the period when evangelicalism was strongest within the Church of England: her most popular teachers had not merely been satisfied to tread the narrow circle of the ‘Evangelical’ theology, but had exulted in that bondage as indicating their possession of a purer light than had visited the other ministers of the Gospel.5 In the same vein, a leading non-conformist, R. W. Dale, also complained that ‘the intellectual earnestness … disappeared’6 from the approach to thinking and philosophy of many evangelicals. There was no interest in incorporating all that art, science and literature and politics and business had to offer into the philosophy of their faith. The rationale for this was that, by focusing on the Bible, men and women could dispense with the distractions of a more and more complex world, and would concentrate on all they needed to know to ensure salvation. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the prevailing view in society in general was that evangelicals were people oppressed by ‘their world-denying theology’,7 who kept strictly to themselves. There was also the view, which had some merit, that evangelicals were prejudiced against learning, as a reaction ‘against the intellectualism of much eighteenth century religion’.8 An increasingly unbending and firm attitude to worldly ways did stereotype many, though certainly not all, evangelicals in the period when La Trobe was a child and a young adult. However, as Doreen Rosman has pointed out in her detailed study of evangelicalism, ‘the traditional depiction of evangelicalism as anti-intellectual, ascetic and philistine … may be open to dispute’.9 There is some evidence to show that more evangelicals of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries than has previously been thought enjoyed the culture of the period in which they lived, appreciating art and valuing science quite as much as many of their non-evangelical contemporaries. The Moravians fitted into this category. While their faith was based on a

A Cultured European in a Distant Colony


161

2/3/06 2:14:44 PM

firm conviction that truth and wisdom were to be found by faith in God, they were influenced by the Enlightenment to the extent that the new trends in philosophy, science, education and art were vitally interesting to them. Although the very term ‘Moravian’ implies an evangelical faith, this faith owed as much to the philosophy of the Enlightenment and its continental origins as to Christian theology. As illustrated earlier, the tradition in which the La Trobe children were raised was, indeed, one of exclusiveness. They were sent to the Moravian boarding school at Fulneck in Yorkshire at very young ages, Charles Joseph when he was just six, but his father and uncles when they were even younger. There they received an education quite unlike the narrowly focused and puritanical schooling which many other evangelical children underwent in search of ‘the one thing needful’.10 This severe form of schooling was aligned to the contemporary Protestant belief that, since Christians merely passed through the world, ‘temporal happiness was an irrelevance’ for those ‘whose one task was to prepare for heaven, and who should live with death and eternity constantly in view’.11 By contrast, the strong liberal educational thrust within the Moravian Church had originated with Bishop John Amos Comenius,12 a renowned statesman of the Church whose main concern was education. A pioneering and prolific writer on the subject, he favoured ‘Free and compulsory education for children of all classes, cheerful classrooms, illustrated textbooks, visual aids, hygiene and, not least though last, school prayers’, thus earning for himself the title ‘Father of Modern Education’.13 Comenius believed that the spiritual development of a soul was not only based on prescribed disciplines of practical Christianity, but also on a recognition of the value of a comprehensive and efficient system of education. Comenius was certainly well ahead of his time in the concepts and teaching methods he proposed. He advocated learning by experience, the acquisition of knowledge being based on discussion of activities, with moral and pious practices being ‘based on habituation, imitation and the avoidance of evil’.14 La Trobe benefited from the practical interpretation of these policies as a student at Fulneck. The idea of a broad, general education put forward in Comenius’s writings was well and truly part of the curriculum throughout La Trobe’s schooldays. The purpose of such an education was to build character and to imbue the students with strong Christian principles

162



2/3/06 2:14:45 PM

for their everyday life as expounded in the motto of the Church: ‘In essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; in all things, Charity’.15 La Trobe’s schooling coincided with the dawn of a period in England of strong missionary activity directed towards ‘the heathen’. In the last decade of the eighteenth century, three new missionary societies16 were established, marking ‘the beginning of the modern British missionary movement … that led to the expansion of Protestant Christianity to all parts of the empire and beyond’.17 As the historian Brian Stanley has noted, ‘the missionary awakening in Britain is conventionally dated from the publication in 1792 of William Carey’s ‘An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians, To Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens’.18 Such missionary activity had been strongly influenced by the successful role the Moravian Church, in the vanguard, was already playing in its mission fields,19 and by the new-found respect held for Moravians and their activities by other evangelicals and by those in authority in the Colonial Office. The Moravian Church had no missionary society attached to it. Its former name conveyed all: Unitas Fratrum. Its purpose for existence lay in its missionary activities to spread the gospel to all. By his notable preaching, publications and wide network of contacts, Benjamin La Trobe, Charles Joseph’s grandfather, had influenced the reclamation of the reputation of the Moravian Church after a slump in its standing. The rise in awareness of and interest in books concerned with travel and exploration by a public ‘curious in voyages’20 also drew attention to the good work being done by Moravian missionaries in remote corners of the world. The historian John Mason cited one example of this when he quoted the zoologist and travel writer Thomas Pennant referring to these pious people [who] have penetrated almost into every part of the known world. They endeavour to humanize the savages of Greenland, and improve the morals of the soft inhabitants … of Bengal. They are not activated by ambition, political views, or avarice.21 It was, thus, under the strong religious and educational auspices of the Moravian Church that Charles Joseph was prepared for his future life. As a small boy, he was alone within his class to the extent



163

2/3/06 2:14:45 PM

that, while entering into school activities, he was still thrown back on his own inner resources when they were over. This no doubt developed in him scholarly inclinations and accustomed him to an enjoyment of his own company which were to be predominant features of his character all his life. Reserved in adulthood, he was undoubtedly shy as a boy, a natural characteristic enhanced perhaps by homesickness and loneliness. If La Trobe wrote of his feelings while at school, no diary, notes or correspondence on the subject remains today. However, with the probability of such speculation on his formative years, it is not inappropriate to infer that such an education led him to be a well-informed, sincerely religious man, not naturally outgoing, who took for granted that he belonged to an elevated class of society by virtue of his background and cultivation. It was a natural class distinction adhered to almost subconsciously by those with similarly cultivated tastes and education. This sense of privilege bred in La Trobe a strong desire to carry out his duty to his fellow men, to encourage a high moral tone wherever he went. This sense of privilege was thus part of the cultural baggage which La Trobe carried when he arrived at Port Phillip in 1839. He had added to it perhaps since his schooldays by allowing an inbred caution or indecisiveness to gain the upper hand as he searched for some purpose in life. La Trobe was the son of a talented, witty and gregarious father, a gentleman welcomed in elevated and intellectual society. As an educated son of a gentleman, this was Charles Joseph’s natural milieu too. Had he been endowed with a fortune, perhaps the life of a country squire doing good works in the community and supporting evangelical activities abroad might have appealed to him. Since he was far from wealthy, he sought employment at a sufficiently elevated level to suit his class. His tour of the West Indies on behalf of the Colonial Office suited him perfectly. He succeeded in it because he could offer a serious mind, demonstrating an intellectual awareness of the complexities of the environment with which to address the task. He could be single-minded about such a defined commission, his only obligation being to report to the House of Commons on time. He was content to be solitary on the project for an extended period of seventeen months, being responsible for no one but himself. His next appointment was rather more onerous.

164



2/3/06 2:14:45 PM

La Trobe was offered the position of Superintendent of the Port Phillip District because he fitted the position’s requirements. He was from a cultured background; he was educated; he was in favour with those powerful evangelical Christians of the Clapham Sect who had so much influence at the Colonial Office; and he subscribed to the superiority of Britain as an expanding imperial power. He accepted the posting because he believed that he was fitted for the task, both intellectually and from the point of view of social background. Not only that, but he was aware that it brought him an opportunity to be instrumental in the spreading of the word of God to the ‘uncivilised’ Aboriginal people and to those common people who had settled in the District. He believed in the natural superiority of the British over all other races, creeds and powers within the Empire, and he genuinely would have been excited at the prospect of spreading British culture abroad. What he did not know was how great a challenge this would prove to be.

At Cross-Purposes: The Superintendent and his Colonists La Trobe approached his new duties and responsibilities with great earnestness and fervour. He had the willingness and determination to do a good job. However, when composing his inaugural address to ‘his’ people, he made his first miscalculation. As the ruler of this part of the British Empire, he spoke as a potentate. He missed the mark by offering the gathered populace a sermon, an evangelical oration on how to live as good Christians. Those many colonists, who had braved the elements of a Melbourne spring day in their enthusiasm to see, hear and welcome their new administrator, would surely have been surprised by what they heard. They had no way of understanding the message of the Superintendent. It was as if he had come from another world, speaking an alien language, so irrelevant to their situation did his words sound. These were, for the most part, ordinary working people who had left their homelands in search of a better life. Uneducated and certainly uncultured in a formal sense, their focus was on material improvement. They believed that better economic status would automatically be theirs with the momentum generated by their own hard work and, now, by the Superintendent, their own advocate in power. They did not understand La Trobe, and he,



165

2/3/06 2:14:45 PM

certainly, misread the calibre of those he was addressing. He spoke to them as a missionary, trying to convey the higher principles to which he adhered, but he also invoked them in a paternalistic way from his superior position as a representative of the Queen. Perhaps a realisation that he had missed his mark dawned on La Trobe when he heard the extravagant praise heaped on him in reply by representatives of a people who knew nothing of him or his abilities. The lack of understanding between the parties was reciprocal. The day after his arrival, ‘Founding Father’, John Pascoe Fawkner, in an editorial in his Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser newspaper, wrote: Citizens, Rally round your Governor. Evince to him your feelings of respect and congratulations and let him see at once, that he is fortunate in being appointed to rule over a body of ardent, intelligent, persevering and enterprising men who have commenced a powerful colony, not only without any Government assistance, but who have gone on improving it, in defiance of all the impediments thrown in their way by the influence of rich and designing landed proprietors of Sydney who, to enhance the value of their lands, in the near neighbourhood of that capital, have done their utmost to ruin Port Phillip. We want no help, we only want to be permitted to use our own funds, our own resources and under our talented Lt. Governor we boldly say we will soon eclipse the present seat of Government.22 The editorial was a good example of Fawkner at his most forceful, and it no doubt conveyed the general optimism of a community dreaming of freedom from the perceived yoke of oppression from Sydney. Carried away by enthusiasm, Fawkner, with the stroke of a pen, perhaps clairvoyantly elevated Superintendent La Trobe to LieutenantGovernor. His panegyric continued: He comes to us as our good genius, to assist to develop our resources, and place us high in the scale of Colonies. Colonies! nay, he comes here to found a mighty Empire! And if his conduct here may be judged of by his former life, then he comes determined to perform for this country

166



2/3/06 2:14:45 PM

those services which will hand him down to posterity as a patriotic founder of a new state.23 To be described as a ‘genius’ come to ‘found a mighty Empire’ would have been daunting to the most confident of administrators. Despite the wide circulation of his commission, the settlers obviously did not comprehend La Trobe’s place in the hierarchy and the limitations this placed on his ability to exercise power. A more experienced, less sensitive administrator would have received such high praise in a positive manner, recognising an opportunity both to promote himself, by explaining the reality of his situation, and his ideals among the citizens of Port Phillip, and to look to his future career. Instead, La Trobe was over-burdened by what he saw before him: the primitiveness of conditions in the town; the lack of any sort of comfort—whether in the houses or in the means of getting about; the wildness of the population—most being adventurers intent upon their own gain; the total lack of elevated culture among them; and the absence of any kindred spirits. He must have been reminded of the settlers he had encountered in Tampico during his Mexican journey in 1833 whom he had labelled ‘canaille’. When he arrived in Melbourne, not one of those elevating activities or societies to which he was accustomed in Europe, and which Melburnians today take for granted, existed—no musical society, library, art gallery or scientific association had been contemplated. Society, such as he was used to, had not yet been born. Despite such a shocking discovery, the statesman in La Trobe should have taken some confidence in the possibilities of future development in the cultural sphere from the fact that, even before he arrived in Melbourne, the local press expressed outrage at his paltry salary of £800 a year, with an allowance of £225 for a secretary and expenses. They would not be satisfied until he was paid £2000 a year as befitted the leader of such an important territory. Given the venom expressed against him only five years later in the press, it was hard to believe ‘that they are dealing with the same man’,24 as one historian, Henry Gyles Turner, wrote later. The message to him was that his colonists would back him to the utmost, provided he acted according to their perception of what was appropriate; in other words, so long as he pursued their interests. Turner’s powerful skills of observation allowed him to graphically appraise La Trobe and his rustic



167

2/3/06 2:14:46 PM

community from the moment he set foot on shore for his official welcome to Melbourne on 2 October 1839: Though by no means an orator, he spoke well and feelingly on this occasion, framing his remarks, upon a higher moral plane than most of his audience were accustomed to. The shabbiness of the surroundings, emphasised by the dismal weather and the general air of makeshift, contrasted with the high-flown language of the address of welcome, which assured him that Melbourne contained ‘most of the appendages of an advanced civilization’, probably accounted for his concluding words, that ‘our energy as a people must make up for our want of means.’25 Turner was astute enough to realise that many of the colonists, although they had listened to La Trobe’s message that he would do his duty ‘diligently, temperately and fearlessly’, seeking for them ‘the acquisition and maintenance of sound religious and moral institutions’,26 had not understood what he was saying. This was borne out by the fact that, after the early celebrations, they demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of the limitations imposed on La Trobe’s powers. They proceeded: by petition, deputation and otherwise to call his attention to the many wants which they had vainly represented to the Sydney authorities. Among the most pressing requirements, they demanded a lighthouse at Williamstown to guide vessels in reaching the river, and something in the shape of a wharf for their reception in Melbourne. Further, that the wharf should be connected with the business part of the town by one good street, traversable in all weathers; that the tree-trunks and stumps should be cleared out of the principal thoroughfares; and that Collins Street at least should be provided with continuous footpaths.27 This mutual mystification, then, established the scene for their future relationship. It was as though the Superintendent on the one hand,

168



2/3/06 2:14:46 PM

and the local population on the other, had set their courses with few points of convergence. La Trobe pursued what he saw as his duty to provide for the citizens of his domain. Duty to one’s fellow men was an accepted part of his faith, and this was compounded by his motivation to serve his monarch well as her representative in the colony. No task he tackled was done carelessly. His training among leaders in his family and educational circles made him acutely aware of the importance of his role. While he frequently deliberated too long over matters large and small but all of importance to the colonists, thus exhibiting a ponderous trait in his character, he ultimately had their best interests at heart. He attempted to strike a balance between the requirements of the Colonial Office and of the Governor in Sydney, and those local concerns.

Exploring the Natural Environment At times, however, it all became too much for him. The constant demands and the criticism of his every move or lack of action made him seek an alternative to the daily tediousness of Melbourne. His love of the outdoors, exemplified so often in Switzerland, the Tyrol, North America and Mexico when he was often quite alone and at one with nature, had revealed a certain enjoyment of escapism. In his youth, he had vacillated over his future career directions by spending months ‘rambling’ in the Alps. In a fit of enthusiasm, he had enrolled at Magdalene College, Cambridge, but had had second thoughts and had again sought the solitude of the Alps. He had, in effect, removed himself from the discomfort of having to make decisions. This same characteristic again came to the fore when he felt besieged by the administration of the colony. He would avoid his responsibilities in town by riding out into the bush for days at a time until, no doubt, he felt his energy recharged enough to resume his official function. In fact, it would seem that he found more personal fulfilment on such excursions than in the restricted and responsible environment of Melbourne. These were periods when he deliberately withdrew from his duties, perhaps to give himself time to think through, in his typically meditative way, resolutions to the weighty decisions he was required to make. Perhaps they weighed too heavily, and he was suffering some form of depression which led to further inaction.



169

2/3/06 2:14:46 PM

In the fifteen years he spent as administrator of the colony, La Trobe made ninety-four major journeys through country Victoria which he carefully documented in his private diary.28 Apart from respite from the stress of administration, his enthusiasm for the world around him, as well as his official regional responsibilities, provided the necessary impetus for these exploratory journeys. Port Phillip was still partly undiscovered by Europeans and La Trobe was no stranger to finding his way in unfamiliar territory in many parts of the world. By touring in this way, he obtained a first-hand impression of the country he had to manage. While in the colony, La Trobe covered more territory in his country ‘rambles’ on foot and on horseback than many of his successors have done in more comfortable conditions.29 From 1840 to 1854, he visited Geelong on horseback forty-five times, Cape Otway and Cape Schanck—to the far west and far east of his domain—five times each, Gippsland twice, mapping in December 1845 the route to Gippsland from Melbourne in the reverse direction from Strzelecki’s chart, the Mount Macedon district on ten occasions and, after 1851, the goldfields of Ballarat, Bendigo and Castlemaine and its environs several times each. He was clearly, almost all his life, a physically fit man, unafraid of the wilderness. He was an explorer who charted routes, notably to Gippsland30 to investigate a report of coal deposits, and to Cape Otway where, after two abortive attempts, he blazed the trail to, and was responsible for the erection of the essential lighthouse on a most dangerous rocky promontory. He took the opportunity often to camp out or to stay at the homes of squatters, developing en route in his sketchbook a great appreciation of the native landscape. Everything he saw, from the exotic new plant and animal species, to the awe-inspiring vastness of the landscape, to the prevalence of the hitherto unknown Eucalyptus trees, was, after the first shock of countryside so unlike anything he had ever seen, a source of great fascination. Here was yet further evidence for him of the magnificence and infinite variety of God’s creation. La Trobe had often used his artistic talent in his earlier travels to describe visually the places he visited and the scenery about him. It is fortunate that 437 images of his opus are still in existence today. Of these, 168 watercolours and sketches record his fifteen years in Australia, touring Victoria and visiting Tasmania and Sydney. In each picturesque location, La Trobe sketched his surroundings to record

170



2/3/06 2:14:46 PM

the scenery and to retain an impression for future reflection. In Victoria, his sketches on these tours documented the landscape in the earliest period of European settlement and, as such, provide rare and valuable first-hand evidence of the topography at that time. On his journeys, La Trobe was often the guest of squatter Captain Richard Bunbury at his property near Mount William to the west of Melbourne. Like Bunbury, La Trobe was entranced by the ‘new and exceedingly beautiful’31 botanical discoveries he made, and both men took pleasure in drawing what they saw. La Trobe’s fine sketch of Rose’s Gap in the nearby Grampian Mountains had allowed him to indulge his passion for climbing as he sought locations from which to record the geological origins of his surroundings. Rose’s Gap is a prime example of La Trobe’s employment of the artistic conventions to landscape representation. The result is an imaginative work in which composition, colour, light and shade are skilfully employed to express the character of the scene before him.

Charles Joseph La Trobe, Rose’s Gap, The Grampians, 1850, sepia wash on paper, National Trust of Australia (Victoria) collection. Deposited on long-term loan in the La Trobe Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria.


Reilly Lat Trobe colour.indd 171

171

6/3/06 1:18:30 PM

Another beauty spot which appealed to La Trobe was the Yarra Valley to the east of Melbourne. He visited Yering homestead on five occasions, and his sketches of the view from the house convey his attraction to mountain beauty and his deep appreciation of the sublime panorama before his eyes. He also conjured up the wild scenery of Cape Schanck in a number of coastal views. However, it was in his splendid representation of Pulpit Rock that he was able to contrast what he viewed as the strength of God’s creation in the solidity of the rock and the ephemeral nature of man and his endeavours in the transitory wisp of the distant yacht. La Trobe found fascinating the novelty of the extraordinary landscapes and the unexplored nature of the land masses he encountered. Australia provided stark contrasts to the picturesque scenery and the generally more diminutive scale of European views. He was particularly passionate about mountains, climbing them and sketching them at every opportunity. These activities were the external signs of his great longing, in common with many landscape artists in the nineteenth century, to transcend all that was ordinary and experience the sublime. The unspoiled scenery of the ‘new world’ and, at this particular period in his life, Australian scenery in its vastness and pristine state, embodied for La Trobe great promise and a natural quality that transported his ‘mind with reverence to the source of all that is glorious around us’.32 La Trobe was one of those artists for whom ‘nature assumed a religious mantle and was seen … metaphorically’.33 Charles Joseph’s keen eye and fine hand have provided a legacy of an early period in Australia which helps to illuminate his primary role as administrator in the region. His past experience of other cultures and his knowledge of the natural world set the framework for his appreciation of what was an alien environment in this new colony. His sketches and watercolours place the artist as one of the key recorders and investigators of the southern part of the continent during its early colonial period. In addition, the fine craftsmanship and delicacy of the execution in these artworks allow the modern viewer to appreciate an aesthetic quality in the works which greatly adds to their importance.

172



2/3/06 2:14:47 PM

Addressing the Cultural Vacuum La Trobe’s representation in his art of the unusual and awesome features in the landscape provided evidence of his continuing interest in geology and the natural sciences evident from his youthful travels in Switzerland. After his initial shock at the barrenness of the intellectual landscape, it was not long before he sought out men of scientific mind through whom the cultural vacuum could begin to be redressed. These were the catalysts for the documentation of a new and exciting natural environment. They included the physicians and naturalists Dr Edmund Hobson and Dr Godfrey Howitt; the geologist Alfred Selwyn who was for many years to direct the Victorian Geological Survey; the botanist Ronald Campbell Gunn of Tasmania, and later, Baron Ferdinand von Mueller whom La Trobe appointed in 1853 as Government Botanist. He was acquainted as well with many amateur scientists and botanists who filled an important role in recording scientific discoveries as they occurred in the progressive exploration of the Australian continent. La Trobe had come to a colony bereft of any form of the formal culture so necessary for the nurturing of scientific interest, but had discovered the vital intellectual stamina which existed there, and on which he could draw to ensure a continuing interest in, and documentation of, the natural environment. Obviously, La Trobe relied on friends and capitalised on their ideas and abilities to bring about the development of basic amenities and, thus, his civilising mission in the territory over which he presided. Dr Howitt, for instance, was the first Vice-President of the Philosophical Society of Victoria,34 initiated in 1854, with La Trobe as inaugural patron. This association was the forerunner of the Royal Society of Victoria, established in 1854. Howitt was also the first President and Honorary Physician of the Melbourne Benevolent Asylum, an institution for the aged and destitute of the colony, first proposed by the Melbourne Town Council in 1848. La Trobe made various representations to Governor FitzRoy in Sydney, achieving a commitment to a site of 10 acres on the border of North and West Melbourne, and a grant of £1000 towards the building ‘conditional upon a similar sum being raised by subscribers in Melbourne’.35 The stated purpose for the establishment of the asylum fitted perfectly with La Trobe’s Moravian edifying philosophy, and with his role as Superintendent of safeguarding all the population in the colony:



173

2/3/06 2:14:47 PM

The Melbourne Benevolent Asylum succours those who have failed in the effort to help themselves while helping onwards, by their labours, the progress of the Colony of Victoria … That they have broken down in the battle is their misfortune, and it is now for the more fortunate to help those whom old age and sickness prevent from any longer helping themselves and us.36 La Trobe laid the foundation stone for a fine building in a prime location in June 1850,37 and the residence received its first occupants on 27 November 1851.38 Early in his superintendency of Port Phillip, La Trobe was aware of the need to establish a hospital to better care for the population under his aegis. A temporary hospital, adjacent to both the barracks and the gaol at the Flagstaff Hill end of the town, had already been established in 1839. As the settlement continued to expand more and more rapidly, there was an increasing need to provide facilities for those in the population unable to afford private medical attention. La Trobe was aware of the need for a suitable enlarged hospital and he chaired ‘a public meeting called by fourteen leading men of the settlement on 1 March 1841’ which passed a resolution: … that the rapid increase of population in Melbourne and the surrounding country, naturally involving a proportionate increase of cases of sickness, accidents and distress, renders necessary the immediate establishment of a Public Hospital, for the purpose of affording to patients clean and comfortable accommodation, regular medical attendance, and the means of attention to diet and regimen.39 La Trobe presented this to Governor Gipps in Sydney who was empowered by the Home Government to grant funds, subject to the obligatory matching funds being raised by the community. The local medical fraternity and the general population pressed urgently for the rapid establishment of the hospital. La Trobe requested permission for the building to go ahead in advance of raising the necessary funds, perceiving that a healthy community was essential for the development of his colony. In 1844, he wrote to Gipps urging additional funds to

174



2/3/06 2:14:48 PM

those thought necessary, and requesting a grant of land for the proposed facility.40 Eventually, with this strong support from the Superintendent, a deputation was sent to Governor Gipps and the project was approved. La Trobe and Gipps led the fundraising campaign by donating £50 apiece. Various sites for the location of the hospital were suggested, the final central position being approved at the corner of Swanston and Lonsdale streets. The Melbourne Hospital opened its doors to patients on 15 April 1848.41 La Trobe continued his active participation in the promotion of the institution as a Life Governor, although he did not become involved in its day-to-day administration.42 He was, however, a continuing donor, highly respected as a founder of improved health services in the colony. The Melbourne Mechanics’ Institute, later the Melbourne Athenaeum, was an institution promoted by La Trobe as one which would improve the education of the working class in Melbourne. Having observed the mechanics’ institute movement in Britain, he had seen the benefit these organisations brought to the leisure-time activities of local communities. Not only could working men participate in organised sporting activities, but mental stimulation and improvement were accessible through classes after working hours, as well as musical and theatrical productions, and the amenity of a good library. The Melbourne Mechanics’ Institute was formed on 12 November 1839 with Captain Lonsdale as its first President and La Trobe presiding as Patron.43 It progressed from strength to strength, its role as an educator only being taken over by the new Trades Hall and Literary Institute in 1859, and by the Melbourne Workingmen’s College, now Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, subsequently.44 Melbourne’s Botanic Gardens, later the Royal Botanic Gardens, established in 1845, grew out of a nineteenth-century philosophy to which La Trobe wholeheartedly subscribed. The scientific appraisal of both the social and the natural worlds, and classification of them according to certain scientific laws, fitted well with his own interests. Evangelicals, such as La Trobe, stressed the importance of profitably spending leisure in pursuit of moral and physical improvement. In an environment such as the Gardens, scientific investigation and the Picturesque in garden design came together in harmony. As well as this, those of a more spiritual bent could, in the Gardens, contemplate God in the perfection of nature:



175

2/3/06 2:14:48 PM

The botanic garden was envisaged as a spiritual environment, a place in which one could feel close to God. Since the beauty of nature was held to be a reflection of the Almighty, to study nature was, in effect, to study God.45 Theresa Wyborn has encapsulated La Trobe’s underlying philosophy as he considered improvements in the city under his superintendence for the betterment of those who lived there: ‘The idea of the botanic garden signified humanity’s reverence for nature and its simultaneous desire to understand and subdue it’.46 The Gardens would provide wholesome surroundings in which leisure could profitably be spent. They were part of La Trobe’s ‘grand plan’ for the Melbourne metropolis. In addition, green spaces were set aside on the perimeter of Robert Hoddle’s grid of what is now the central business district. Huge expanses were allocated to public gardens such as La Trobe had known in central London and in the residential districts along the shores of Lake Neuchâtel. So it was that the Fitzroy, Flagstaff and Treasury gardens, as well as the vast expanses of Royal Park, came into existence. La Trobe’s vision for Melbourne encompassed open spaces and freely accessible gardens offering respite from daily cares, where all could observe the cultivation of what was then exotic native flora, as well as familiar plants from home. The historian Weston Bate effectively summed up La Trobe’s intention that ‘scientific botany would be served by the introduction and testing of exotic species as well as by research into the classification and usefulness of Australian flora’.47 Data and specimens supplied from the Gardens to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in England, especially after the appointment of Ferdinand von Mueller as Government Botanist and subsequently, as Director of the Gardens, achieved the research purpose La Trobe envisaged. As well as this, the Gardens fulfilled for Melbourne the need of a meeting place and, as the historian Paul de Serville pointed out, they became ‘the site of some of society’s rituals’,48 such as picnics, promenades and concerts. Part of La Trobe’s impetus for the establishment of a Botanic Gardens in Melbourne was that they would provide a venue for official entertaining for him, given that it was impossible to have large-scale celebrations at his modest home. La Trobe himself had selected the site for the Gardens, describing it as ‘a veritable Garden of Eden’.49 Gardens, then and now,

176



2/3/06 2:14:48 PM

have often been thought of as civilising a city. La Trobe’s great interest in the natural world, and his past experience of open spaces for healthy exercise and reverie were partly instrumental in civilising this newest of the British Empire’s capitals. Coming from such a musical family whose members included a number of performers and composers such as his father Christian Ignatius, and his brother, John Antes, Charles Joseph must have felt the lack in Melbourne of the soirées musicales so readily available for the enjoyment of all in his class in England and Switzerland. To be sure, by-products of a botanic gardens open for the amusement of all were the regular open-air band performances, reminding those present of the music they had known ‘at home’. On a more elevated level, the Melbourne Philharmonic Society, later the Royal Melbourne Philharmonic Society, was begun in October 1853. There had been some attempts over the years to begin musical societies, and the concerts of visiting singers and musical performers were greatly welcomed. However, it was only after the huge influx of population in search of gold in the 1850s that a musical society on an official footing was established. The founders were a group of early settlers, including Acting Chief Justice, Redmond Barry, as its first president, David Mitchell, father of soprano Dame Nellie Melba and builder of Scot’s Church, businessman Sir Frederick Sargood, and G. L. Allan, a singingmaster, and founder of the music publishing company Allan and Co.50 In the first prospectus of the Society, ‘His Excellency the Lieut.Governor, C.J. La Trobe, Esq.’ was listed as patron51 and, no doubt, he attended the first subscription concert performance of Handel’s Messiah on 24 December 1853 in the Mechanics’ Institute in Collins Street.52 Elevation of the minds of Melbourne’s citizens through music was a logical extension of La Trobe’s own experience, and a progressive step for Melbourne of which he heartily approved. Rated of such value to the community, the Royal Melbourne Philharmonic Society, actively supported by La Trobe at its inception, is still firmly ensconced as a local institution nearly one hundred and fifty years later. Geoffrey Serle has stated that the founding colonists of Victoria established ‘a new, large, self-governing country, automatically recreating British institutions and re-forming familiar clubs and societies’.53 This is certainly true of many of La Trobe’s activities. His vision for the colony brought him into contact with its leading citizens who were,



177

2/3/06 2:14:48 PM

according to the historian David McVilly ‘cultural evangelists’.54 The most prominent of them were High Court judge Redmond Barry and politician Hugh Culling Eardley Childers, with whom La Trobe found great commonality of interest. All three were instrumental in the establishment of a public library, now the State Library of Victoria, and of the University of Melbourne. In the interests of the universal education he espoused, La Trobe was a strong supporter of the concept of founding both a public library and a university which ‘would cultivate science and morality in the colony’.55 Barry and Childers had similar views. Not only did all three consider that the newly separated colony of Victoria warranted a university just as much as did Sydney, but the gold discoveries provided the wherewithal for the establishment of both the University and the Library. The trio set about the formation of both ‘in tandem’.56 Geoffrey Blainey, in discussing the question of who was the actual instigator of the University, reasonably summed up the founding process: The foundation of the university may reasonably be attributed to the growth of an influential body of opinion which decreed that a university was an essential amenity of a civilized country … La Trobe, Childers and Barry, and other leading citizens gave enthusiasm and intellect to the consummation of this idea, but in no sense can any individual be called the founder.57 Childers, as Chairman of a Select Committee of the Legislative Council on the feasibility of a university, recommended to the Council in January 1853, that £20 000 be placed on the estimates for the building of the University. The establishment of a free public library in Victoria, fully supported by the State and open to all over the age of fourteen: was made the subject of early consideration by our first Governor, Mr. La Trobe. Fully impressed with the importance of the influence likely to arise from voluntary adult mental improvement, as well as of the intellectual and moral elevation to be created by a cultivation of the works by standard authors, he placed upon the Estimates of the

178



2/3/06 2:14:48 PM

year 1853 a sum of three thousand pounds, £3000, for the purchase of books, and ten thousand pounds, £10,000, towards the erection of a suitable building to contain them.58 The Appropriation Bill for both sums of money was given the Royal Assent on 20 January 1853.59 Barry was both first Chancellor of the University and first Chairman of Trustees of the Library, and Childers, the new University’s Vice-Chancellor and the colony’s AuditorGeneral. Thanks to the efforts of three visionaries in La Trobe, Barry and Childers, Melbourne was one of the first cities in the world to enjoy a State-supported, truly free, public library.’60 Such a concept fitted perfectly with La Trobe’s Moravian principles of education, whether at the University or through the volumes contained in an excellent library. La Trobe had arrived in Port Phillip with a certainty about his civilising mission and the institutions through which it would be expressed. By 1853, he could look back on an extraordinary catalogue of achievements. At the time, however, these achievements were only grudgingly accepted. He had alienated a sector of the colonists by appearing timid, slow to act, indecisive and subservient. He had not won them over by the use of his charm. La Trobe was too conscious of his position to unbend to the average man in the street, and this fostered a reputation for elitism which had much to do with his natural shyness. His behaviour was the direct result of his natural reticence and of his lack of experience in the responsible wielding of power, and it affected the reactions of those who relied on him. These facets of his character when dealing with some of the major issues of his administration are the subject of the next chapter.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rosman, Evangelicals and Culture, p. 9. ibid., p. 10. ibid., p. 11. ibid., p. 13. Stephen, James, Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography, p. 169. Dale, History of English Congregationalism, pp. 590–1. Rosman, Evangelicals and Culture, p. 43. ibid., p. 206.



179

2/3/06 2:14:49 PM

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17

18

19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30

31

ibid., p. 5. ibid., p. 55. ibid., pp. 54–5. John Amos Comenius, (1592–1672), was born in Trivnitz, Moravia, part of what is now the Czech Republic. A son of parents belonging to the Unitas Fratrum (later Moravians), he suffered greatly in his efforts to keep the faith alive when exiled from his homeland. He was a bishop of the Church and headmaster of the Fulneck School in Moravia. In exile in Sweden, Comenius was author of several texts on an innovative and comprehensive educational system still in force today in Moravian schools, the principles of which have been widely adopted by other school systems. Comenius, ‘Great Men of the Church’, p. 5. Cooper and Cooper (eds), Schools and Scholars, p. 4. Speake and Witty, A History of Droylsden, p. 149. The Particular Baptist Missionary Society was founded in 1792, but adopted the title ‘Baptist Missionary Society’ in 1795. The Missionary Society was established in London as an interdenominational society in 1795, adopting a new name, the London Missionary Society, in 1818. The Society for Missions to Africa and the East was created in 1799 as part of the Established Church, changing its name to the Church Missionary Society in 1812. Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, 1760–1800, p. 1. Stanley, The Bible and the Flag: Protestant Missions and British Imperialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, p. 56. Podmore, The Moravian Church in England, 1728–60, passim. Langford, A Polite and Commercial People: England, 1727–83, pp. 90–5. Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, p. 68. Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 3 October 1839, p. 3. ibid. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 242. ibid. Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 7 October 1839, p. 4. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 246. Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Australian Notes: Memoranda of Journeys, Excursions and Absences, 1839–54’, H7567, Box 79/1, No. 26, 1844, MS 10913, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. (See Appendix 3 for details of these journeys.) McCaughey, Perkins and Trumble, Victoria’s Colonial Governors, p. 35. In 1840, Strzelecki was the first to explore and map the route from Gippsland to Melbourne, as opposed to exploring in the other direction. (See Paszkowski, Sir Paul Edmund de Strzelecki, p. 116.) Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Australian Notes: Memoranda of Journeys, Excursions and Absences 1839–54’, H7567, Box 79/1, No. 26, 1844, MS 10913, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV.

180



2/3/06 2:14:49 PM

32

33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55 56

57 58 59 60

James Fenimore Cooper, 1868, quoted in Driscoll, All That is Glorious Around Us, p. vii. ibid., p. 4. Prospectus of the Philosophical Society of Victoria, p. 5. Kehoe, The Melbourne Benevolent Asylum: Hotham’s Premier Building, p. 14. ibid. ibid., p. 20. ibid., p. 22. Quoted in Gregory, The Ever Open Door, p. 5. Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, Letter 282, 23 September 1844, H69447059, p. 290, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Gregory, The Ever Open Door, p. 18. ibid., p. 23. Baragwanath, If the Walls Could Speak, p. 196. ibid., p. 198. Wyborn, ‘In Pursuit of Useful Knowledge: The Nineteenth-Century Concept of the Botanic Garden’, p. 23. ibid., p. 26. Bate, ‘Perceptions of Melbourne’s “Pride and Glory” ’, p. 4. Serville, Pounds and Pedigrees, p. 146. Pescott, The Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, p. 10. Carne, A Century of Harmony: The Official Centenary History of the Royal Melbourne Philharmonic Society, pp. 24–33. Melbourne Philharmonic Society, Prospectus. Carne, A Century of Harmony, p. 49. Serle, The Golden Age, p. 381. McVilly, ‘A History of the State Library of Victoria’, MA thesis. Blainey, A Centenary History of the University of Melbourne, p. 3. Dunstan, True Civilisation: The Establishment of the Melbourne Public Library, p. 1. Blainey, A Centenary History of the University of Melbourne, 209. Public Library of Victoria, Catalogue of 1861, preface, p. xxi. McVilly, ‘A History of the State Library of Victoria’, MA thesis, p. 2. Barry’s ‘Great Emporium’, Catalogue of an exhibition to mark the 125th anniversary of the opening of the Melbourne Public Library on 11 February 1856, p. 1.



181

2/3/06 2:14:49 PM

chapter 7

‘Duties of No Ordinary Difficulty’:1 La Trobe as Administrator, 1839–1854

La Trobe had come to Port Phillip imbued with enthusiasm, vigour and excitement for what lay ahead of him. These characteristics of the man are apparent in the lifelike watercolour portrait (see page ii), probably by the German artist Johann Friedrich Dietler, which is more or less contemporaneous with his departure for Australia. He had secured a prestigious government posting which would enable him to provide adequately for his family. His position as Superintendent would make him a man of considerable standing in the young settlement to which he had been assigned. For years, he had been searching for some way in which to make his mark in the world, to make some contribution to humanity. As we have seen, this sentiment was obvious as early as 1829 when, ‘rambling’ in the Tyrol, he was struck by the thought that he might one day come to the conclusion that ‘Alas—I have spent my strength for naught’.2 So it is clear that he had ‘nobler aims and nobler purposes’3 when he accepted the commission to represent the British Crown at Port Phillip. His evangelical Moravian background had equipped him for this. On a less high-minded plane, La Trobe was, to be sure, responding once again to the call of adventure. The ‘new world’ held great appeal for him, and he certainly would have hoped for opportunities to


2/3/06 2:14:49 PM

explore the hinterland of this new country, to take up his ‘rambling’ again. La Trobe’s activities and responsibilities during his fifteen years at Port Phillip and in Victoria were so many and varied that it seems a sensible approach to examine four diverse aspects of his administration in some detail as case studies. This will allow an understanding of how his policies and behaviours clearly reflected his formation and previous experience. These case studies are his relations with the colonists; his policy towards the Aboriginal people; the issue of separation; and the gold rushes. Taken together, they illuminate this book’s central argument: that La Trobe’s behaviour and policies during the years 1839–54 are best understood through the prism of the first four decades of his life.

Relations with the Colonists As we have seen, La Trobe certainly had massive issues to grapple with from the moment he arrived at Port Phillip. Saluted as ‘our good genius’ and ‘the patriotic founder of a new state’,4 he had a lot to live up to. There were constant deputations seeking his patronage for many causes and innumerable practical purposes of importance to the colonists. They, who had greeted him with such high hopes as a means of an immediate release from the yoke of New South Wales, their greatest desire, had years of disappointment ahead of them before separation was realised. Their frustration at the continuing economic disadvantage of the District simmered below the surface, dissatisfaction being vented from time to time in gross hyperbole in the press. A large proportion of the population did not understand the mechanics of colonial government—that progress on the legalities of the issue would be exceedingly slow. La Trobe’s role in the achievement of separation was necessarily behind the scenes, and his active manoeuvres on behalf of a future independent colony were not known to all. It therefore stood to reason that the delay in achieving the goal of liberation caused many of the colonists to be displeased with their Superintendent. In general, La Trobe was not understood by those he had been sent to govern, and he was not at his best when receiving petitioners. In these relations between the Superintendent and the colonists, there was a yawning gulf of family background, sensibilities and values

La Trobe as Administrator


183

2/3/06 2:14:51 PM

which meant that La Trobe was commonly seen as haughty, unapproachable, and vulnerable to ceremonial and self-interest. Thomas McCombie, politician, journalist and proprietor of the Port Phillip Gazette, described in his memoirs La Trobe’s reaction to the settlers: Many of the colonists were plain men of business, unused to courtly modes of address, who, considering his sedulous attention and insinuating manner equivalent to a direct promise, left his presence in full expectation of having their requests granted. It is more than probable that Mr. La Trobe forgot that they were in existence an hour after they had left his room of audience.5 McCombie was one of the most vituperative of the journalists whose disdain for the Superintendent dominated newspapers in the colony. His comments barely concealed his contempt, as in his reference to La Trobe’s appointment: It has been asserted that Glenelg had only intended Mr. La Trobe to be the Superintendent and Protector of the Aborigines … but that he was induced to nominate him the Chief Administrative Officer of the new settlement.6 There may have been some truth in this speculation, and maybe La Trobe would have had more success in ‘civilising’ the Aboriginal people, had that been his sole focus. It was through sheer venom, since he did not know of La Trobe’s endeavours behind the scenes on behalf of the colony, that McCombie made insinuations against the defenceless administrator. He defamed La Trobe in the columns of his newspaper, the Port Phillip Gazette, where his editorials accused the Superintendent of deceitfulness with regard to separation and expenditure on services. He dismissed La Trobe’s contribution to the colony in a damning sentence in his memoirs: La Trobe was a red-tapist, plodding enough in composing dispatches to the Colonial Office, but wanting in the necessary energy to grapple with such an accumulation of abuses as had grown up within a few years.7

184



2/3/06 2:14:51 PM

Another of La Trobe’s greatest traducers was Edward Wilson,8 an English journalist of radical views, who bought the Argus newspaper in 1848. As Geoffrey Serle has noted, ‘For over five years, Wilson provided the most influential opposition to the government of C.J. La Trobe and the Colonial Office’.9 He lost no chance to reduce the Superintendent in the eyes of his readership, calling him ‘so intolerable an incubus’,10 and popularising the derogatory nickname ‘The Hat and Feathers’ in his columns. He pilloried and libelled La Trobe at every opportunity, challenging his honesty in the acquisition of land: That the Superintendent is commonly reputed to be deeply engaged in sheep and cattle holding and jobbing which is not only … highly unbecoming conduct in the head of the Executive, but that it operates as an incentive to other officers in the service of the Colonial Government to engage in the same irregular pursuits.11 He went on to appeal to the agricultural interest of many of his readers by depicting the Superintendent as a deliberately careless and cruel shepherd: Who else could stand before a community fleeced and oppressed as this has been, and offer a defence for the willing agent in the foul wrong. Defence, in fact, is out of the question, for who can excuse the shepherd who stands tamely by and suffers the wolf to ravage his flock.12 In the lead-up to separation, Wilson insulted La Trobe’s manner of fulfilling his role as a representative of the Crown, calling him ‘that ruler with whom Providence has thought proper to afflict us … this caricature of Royalty!’13 The venom was worse in the following week when, implying that La Trobe was a traitor, his scurrility reached greater depths: ‘They must know that his very name stinks in the nostrils of every man in this neighbourhood’.14 In 1850, Wilson’s aim was to convince his readership that ‘Mr. La Trobe is not a man to whom we ought to leave the formation of an infant nation’.15 Wilson more than hinted that La Trobe was a tool of the squatters, accusing him of nepotism and corruption. He lambasted him as ‘a squatters’ man’16 in



185

2/3/06 2:14:51 PM

the pages of his widely read journal. The height of the persecution of La Trobe was reached in April and May 1853 when Wilson ran a serial advertisement in the Argus: ‘Wanted a Governor. Apply to the People of Victoria’.17 In a poem, ‘The Landing—A Nursery Rhyme,’ published in the Port Phillip Gazette to coincide with La Trobe’s return from his installation in Sydney as Lieutenant-Governor in 1851, McCombie parodied the former Superintendent’s new role, with obvious reference to the ‘hat and feathers’ nickname: There walks in great state, On board the brave ship Charles Joseph elate, From whom all patronage must emanate Who’s his Excellency? I, said Charles Joseph, With my hat so spicy I’m his Excellency. Here is his Excellency With his hat so spicy The rhyme continued, each verse presenting a quandary which it supposed would be difficult to resolve: Who’ll fire the salute? I, said Captain Dana We won’t receive him mute, I’ll fire the salute. Here is Captain Dana Who fired the salute. Who’ll best act the toady? … Who’ll give the first cheer? … and so on, until the last verse, which concluded that there was no popular support for the new Governor:

186



2/3/06 2:14:51 PM

Now, who’ll lead the hurra! I said the smiling wall Hip! Hip—but no hurray (From the Vox Populi ’tall)18 La Trobe did not dignify these assaults on him with a reply. He simply had to rise above the criticism of his administration and of him personally, which confronted him every time he opened a newspaper. As his friend Richard Hanmer Bunbury wrote to his stepmother in England in 1844, reporting on the severe criticism of the Superintendent: The newspapers here always talk of him as the ‘Swiss Usher,’ the ‘German Rambler,’ the ‘Second Fiddle,’ etc. etc. but the attacks on him have been generally little more than vulgar abuse & he either took no notice at all of them or was rather amused … the ‘galled jude’ winced sorely and did not recover his usual good humour for some days.19 It is true that La Trobe seemed to favour the squatters. He knew a number of them personally, especially after he was elected to the Melbourne Club in 1844, where many of them were members. However, despite the imperial policy which protected squatters’ rights, La Trobe was concerned that this group in the community had a virtual monopoly on land tenure and wished to redress this anomaly. His innate desire for equity for all the colonists, and a recognition of his enabling role in implementing an effective policy which would respond to the needs of many settlers, inspired him. He set about creating 7 000 000 acres of rural land reserves,20 thus making provision for space for towns and roads, land for sale to small-holders, and allotments of natural bush for the enjoyment of all. Nearer to Melbourne, the public reserves he set aside included the site of the Royal Botanic Gardens, begun in 1846; the Fitzroy Gardens and Royal Park, proclaimed in 1849; and huge blocks of Crown land in country areas. Such vision, while it resulted in the provision of a lasting legacy in publicly owned lands for the people of Victoria, did not endear him to the squatters. Even Bunbury, with whom he had enjoyed many rides and hiking expeditions in the Grampians, wrote disparagingly of



187

2/3/06 2:14:51 PM

La Trobe when there was a hint that the squatters’ monopoly might be threatened: … In person he is tall & awkwardly made, with very long legs, a small head & as ugly a phizz as one would wish to see, indeed about the ugliest in the province except his wife’s; unlike tall men in general he is particularly perpendicular & stiff in his movements, which gives him certainly an ‘A Division’ appearance for he always wears his uniform … a quiet sensible man … in the small Governor line … he is an awful screw, his salary is £1500 a year & … he only gives a small dinner party about two or three times a month, & has never given an evening party since I have been out.21 Certainly, La Trobe’s sensitive nature would have suffered from the invective poured on him, and no doubt it was difficult for him to ignore the fact that he was not universally popular. Such scurrilous abuse would surely have made him turn inwards to that small group of family and friends who could offer him the support that his underlying timidity needed. By 1848, he had arrived at a philosophy about the Port Phillip press which helped him deal with the common wild slander. He wrote to Deas Thomson, the Colonial Secretary, in Sydney: In plain words, ignorance, disregard of truth and a reckless and studied spirit of misrepresentation, often amounting to the most malevolent libel, have been hitherto more or less the distinguishing characteristics of all the principal papers of Port Phillip, whether under their present or past management. No certain dependence can be placed upon the Statements they contain, or safe deductions drawn from their contents. Still more hazardous would it be to infer that the opinions or views or statements they promulgate, were in the majority of cases an index of ‘public opinion’.22 Those colonists who later wrote accounts of their experiences in the colony and their recollections of La Trobe’s administration fell

188



2/3/06 2:14:51 PM

into two camps. There were those, such as McCombie and John Pascoe Fawkner, who were either totally dismissive of him and downright abusive about his actions, or else damned him with faint praise. Their comments were their opinions, but were indicative of the view of a large part of the community. McCombie was direct and unforgiving when summing up of La Trobe’s administration: ‘He displayed few qualities likely to inspire confidence. His administration was notoriously vacillating and pusillanimous.’23 By far the majority of writers, though, demonstrated some comprehension of La Trobe’s position and made allowances for the difficulties of the era. It seems as though the time to reflect on La Trobe’s years in authority gave these writers a more detached and understanding view of his term and of the man himself. George Rusden, a contemporary historian at one time appointed by La Trobe as Clerk of the Executive Council, had personal experience. He wrote of his friend Edward Wilson, the Argus proprietor, that ‘he lent his great energy to the disastrous task of lowering respect for lawful authority’.24 William Westgarth, writing in 1861 and referring to McCombie’s accusation of treachery on La Trobe’s part stated: ‘It never crossed my mind to associate anything approaching to crime with the exemplary relations of our late governor’.25 The approaches of Rusden and Westgarth may have been better and, certainly, more reasoned indicators of the attitude of the general population than the extreme rhetoric of McCombie and Fawkner. The historian Henry Gyles Turner arrived in Melbourne in 1854, the year La Trobe left. His scholarly two-volume history of the colony revealed a thoughtfulness and a reasoned approach to La Trobe’s role. He found that: Nearly all the criticism was of the destructive order, it is so easy to find fault, and out of the hundreds of columns of journalistic nagging which he had to endure it would be scarcely possible to pick out any really practical suggestions of beneficial reform.26 La Trobe’s friend, Hubert de Castella, could only praise his honesty and inventiveness in turning ‘a wild country into a civilized one’. Castella assured the readers of his memoirs that:



189

2/3/06 2:14:52 PM

His name has remained revered in the colony by good people of all parties … Mr. La Trobe, thanks to an admirable scrupulousness very rare in our time, did not allot himself a single station (which he could have done without breaking the law), did not speculate on an inch of land and, when he departed from the colony, left only the one dwelling which had been his during the whole time of his government.27 However, although largely understanding of the hindrances in La Trobe’s path, almost all the writers mention his indecision and nervous approach to his duties. ‘Garryowen’ (Edmund Finn) depicted him as someone who ‘always endeavoured to do right under difficulties of no ordinary kind … His chief fault was an unsteadfastness of disposition, and a good nature which forced him at times to say “yes” instead of “no” ’.28 Like most of the commentators on La Trobe, ‘Garryowen’ described what he saw of La Trobe’s administration, without any comprehension of the difficulties inherent in a remote and hierarchical management system, and with no understanding of the Lieutenant-Governor’s acquiescence and submission to directions from above. While it is true that La Trobe had his supporters, it is also true that, not only in the press, there was a substantial amount of criticism of his personality and his policies. Some contemporaries, like the historian George Henry Wathen, praised his integrity and his private life, but were more skeptical about his contribution to the development of the colony: His difficulties were great, and he was often assailed with undeserved reproach and charges as bitter as they were unfounded; but he was too slow in seeking counsel out of the official pale, too jealous of animadversion, and too ready to believe that all censure and opposition must spring from corrupt, interested, or vindictive motives.29 Wathen was surely gifted with foresight when he wrote: ‘His memory will probably be more popular than his presence’.30

190



2/3/06 2:14:52 PM

Policy Towards the Aboriginal People La Trobe had some experience of another culture, having worked as an agent of the Colonial Office in the West Indies. In those colonies, his ideas on the ‘civilising’ of native people by educating them to make them conform to the British norm, had been embodied in his reports accepted by the Colonial Office. Moreover, his earlier experience with the North American Indians as they were pushed to the west was still fresh in his mind. There, it had become very clear to him that ‘The white man and the Indian cannot be near neighbours. They never will and never can amalgamate.’31 Although he commiserated with a people to whom white man’s ‘evil is now done, and [is] unfortunately irreparable’,32 he was at all times convinced of the sincerity and justice of the policies of colonialism. No doubt, he was clear that his role in Australia in carrying out such policies would be an edifying one. He could, and would, sow the seeds of culture in this outpost of civilisation. The choice of La Trobe for the position of Port Phillip Superintendent had been based, at least in part, on his past experience with problems caused to native populations by the arrival of colonists. His Colonial Office superiors knew of his sojourn in North America and his observations in his book The Rambler in North America on the treatment of indigenous people there. They had firsthand experience of his diligence and understanding in reporting on a subject people in the West Indies. The Colonial Office now expected of La Trobe in his new posting an improvement in relations between white settlers and the Aboriginal people. In his commission, it was emphasised to La Trobe that the care of the indigenous inhabitants of Port Phillip was a ‘very important part of your duty’.33 In his policies towards race relations, La Trobe was to reveal the ways in which his North American and Caribbean experiences had marked him. These policies were, however benevolent, to be a source of frustration because they were full of contradictions. In an effort to assert the power of Christianity and of civilisation over the European population, La Trobe had arrived in Port Phillip with a consignment of 100 Bibles and 300 New Testaments.34 These had been given to him by the British and Foreign Bible Society in London as a departure gift. He handed the volumes over to the newly formed Auxiliary Bible Society of Australia Felix when he presided at



191

2/3/06 2:14:52 PM

its inaugural meeting as patron on 14 July 1840.35 In addition to his evangelical role with the white settlers, La Trobe saw his direction as attempting to bring Christianity to the indigenous population and to induce them to realise the value of disciplined labour. He had formulated these clear and unquestionable views while working with the West Indians, and now brought them to bear on his work in Port Phillip. In line with Colonial Office policy, based on the reports of the House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines in British Settlements, 1836–37, one of La Trobe’s key roles was to oversee the Port Phillip Aboriginal Protectorate, which the imperial government had established in 1838. It had appointed a Chief Protector, George Augustus Robinson, and four assistants who, in charge of their separate districts, were expected to roam with the Aboriginal tribes, conciliate their rivalries, and protect them from attacks by settlers. In addition, the Protectors were to establish stations on small reserves, where Aboriginal people might be taught to read and write, learn how to cultivate the land, and come to know the elements of Christianity. La Trobe was generally sympathetic towards the indigenous people. He opposed the brutality of some of the colonists, and relied on the Protectors to steer the Aboriginal people away from harm. However, he had to protect the settlers, too. That was his dilemma. The Port Phillip Aboriginal Protectorate was already in place when La Trobe arrived. The idea for such a system had an historical basis. After the British government had abolished slavery throughout the Empire in 1833, the cause of indigenous peoples was taken up by the campaigners previously involved in the anti-slavery movement. The immediate result was that, in July 1834, the Colonial Office was required by the House of Commons to instruct ‘its officers to protect the natives’ rights and to try to “civilise” them and convert them to Christianity’.36 The House of Commons had set up the Select Committee on Aborigines in 1835 to enquire into their conditions and treatment, in an effort to avoid the catastrophes with indigenous people which had occurred in British colonies in the past. The report of the Committee, which appeared in 1837, recognised that the Aboriginal people were ‘subjects of the Queen’ and recommended that, at least, ‘they should be protected; they should also be educated, given religious instruction and “civilized” ’.37 This was the background

192



2/3/06 2:14:52 PM

to La Trobe’s instructions regarding the Aboriginal people in the Port Phillip District. La Trobe had been warned by Gipps about Robinson’s inefficient administration of the Protectorate, and about his unpleasant and overbearing attitude, particularly to his staff. La Trobe decided to take the upper hand in their relationship from the start. Robinson recorded their first startling encounter in the Superintendent’s office on 10 October 1839: Supt La Trobe began a strain of bitter invective—for what he called my over-reaching … with a variety of severe remarks the like I had not received from the Govt of V.D.L. during my long connection with them—said I must have only one object in view the blacks and the blacks alone—or I should never succeed if he was sure I had only such object he would support me—and said if I was activated by any other object I should not have come here or accepted the appointment.38 Immediately on arrival in Melbourne, La Trobe could not have failed to notice the groups of Aboriginal people in proximity, observing all that was happening in the settlement. Only a few days after coming ashore, he went with the Chief Protector and one of his assistants, William Thomas, to meet some of the Wurundjeri tribesmen who were preparing for a corroboree on the banks of the Yarra. He described the occasion rather acerbically in his private diary, obviously showing signs of his impatience with Robinson: 15 October. At 4p.m. went across the river in the rain to see the entertainment given by the Aborigines in my honour. Two tribes. Messrs. Robinson and Thomas. Touched on various topics with the former—mentions now for the first time that his object in wishing to get Mr. Langhorne’s place [Marginal Note: Set up a stock yard for his son’s cattle in the mean time!] was to set up an Infant Establishment. Captain Lonsdale never heard of this and he never mentioned it to me in our former conversation. Weather bad—did not remain for the corroboree.39



193

2/3/06 2:14:52 PM

These remarks, made so early in his association with Robinson, were an omen of their increasingly tense relationship, as La Trobe endeavoured to carry out his duties responsibly. La Trobe continued to handle Robinson firmly, tiring of the endless flow of paperwork from the Chief Protector, and of his reluctance to leave Melbourne to carry out the fieldwork he was employed to do. Although he suspected Robinson of dishonesty, he kept him on as Chief Protector because, as Vivienne Rae-Ellis has argued, ‘his understanding of the Aborigine was far superior to that of any other man employed in the Protectorate’.40 However, early in his administration, La Trobe had Robinson report directly to him rather than to Gipps in Sydney, thus giving the Chief Protector far less freedom than he was accustomed to. He was required to go on regular expeditions to oversee the welfare of local tribes. He was in a position to know of the atrocities committed by white settlers against Aborigines and to make recommendations to La Trobe on how best to deal with the perpetrators. La Trobe was, in a rare display of authoritarianism, taking charge of the management of the Protectorate and thereby carrying out what he had been instructed to do. He was constantly occupied in overseeing, as far as he was able from Melbourne, the affairs of the Protectorate. He found that all the Assistant Protectors were unsuitable in one way or another. When they had first arrived in Melbourne, the local press was contemptuous of the wisdom of the Colonial Office in ‘sending forth characters upon a mission so totally unfit for their avocations’.41 They had been poorly chosen in England: middle-aged men with no experience of native peoples, nor of a harsh climate in a remote country; they were encumbered by wives and families and needed to earn a substantial living to make the excursion worth their while. In general, they had none of the stamina and selfless devotion to others that the task required. They all had personal characteristics which affected their work and required a great deal of input from Robinson and, when he proved ineffectual in this role, from La Trobe directly. With Robinson being problem enough, La Trobe had to spend a great deal of time on their management. Dredge, Parker, Sievwright, Le Soeuf and Thomas were all considered, at various times, unsatisfactory. Le Soeuf and Sievwright were dismissed by La Trobe for incompetence, Parker resigned of his own accord, and Dredge and

194



2/3/06 2:14:53 PM

Thomas, more deeply committed to the Aboriginal people, and more susceptible to taking instructions about their work, remained in Victoria after the Protectorate system had collapsed. La Trobe’s role was to ensure that the Protectorate operated as well as possible in guaranteeing the safety of the indigenous peoples. However, he was a believer in what has been described as ‘enlightened colonialism’.42 Like so many missionaries, settlers and the Home Government, his philosophy was that the advent of British civilisation could bring only good to those colonised. In other words, the superior British culture was universally beneficial. The historian, Henry Gyles Turner, whose attitude was probably similar in some respects to La Trobe’s, saw the Aboriginal people only as a ‘hindrance to settlement’. Reflecting in 1904 over fifty years’ residence in Victoria, he contrasted the way in which other native peoples had died out, as a result of violent warfare, and drew comfort from the relatively benevolent manner in which Victorian Aboriginal people were treated: The wars which our American cousins waged for two hundred years against the brave and crafty redskins; the long struggles in Canada against the confederated six nations; the storming by British troops of native Pahs in New Zealand; the protracted wars, so costly in blood and treasure, involved in the subjugation of the Kaffirs and Zulus in South Africa; nay, even the more circumscribed, but still bloody ‘Black War’ in Tasmania, had no counterpart in the settlement of the colony of Victoria. The reason is not far to seek … They were comparatively few in number, and they were dispersed … there was no possible basis of federation to resist the invader.43 Like La Trobe, Turner was convinced that right was on the side of British imperialism, to the detriment of other races who happened to create an impediment. Both, though, espoused peaceful colonisation as beneficial for all concerned. As a Christian, La Trobe was committed to the physical welfare of the Aboriginal people and because of this attitude, his policy towards them was embraced within the concept of the Protectorate. He was convinced that it was vital to eliminate violence from the



195

2/3/06 2:14:53 PM

white colonists’ dealings with them. When this was achieved, he believed a humane form of colonisation would result. In that era, the inhumanity of colonisation was not understood, the colonisers being convinced only of the benefits in it for the colonised. It is only in relatively recent times that it has been realised that ‘colonisation was everywhere exploitative’.44 That adventurous traveller, William Howitt, gave his enlightened view, so different from most of his contempories, in 1838: We have now followed the Europeans to every region of the globe & seen them planting colonies and peopling new lands, and everywhere we have found them the same—a lawless and domineering race, seizing on the earth as if they were the first-born of creation, and having a presumptive right to murder and dispossess all other people … Many are the evils that are done under the sun; but there is and can be no evil like that monstrous and earth-encompassing evil which the Europeans have committed against the Aborigines of every country in which they settled.45 La Trobe may have agreed, but he would not have put his feelings on the subject so strongly. He was an agent of the Crown, a diplomat in the service of the British Empire. He was convinced of the superiority, the desirability, of British culture and the Christian religion. And yet, the pain, or sorrow, he had indicated in his statement on the demise of the North American Indians, and now, his persistent efforts towards ensuring that the Protectorate was in place in an attempt to preserve the native people in his charge, might indicate a qualm of conscience, or a degree of regret at the passing of another race. Having seen the last remnants of the eastern Indian tribes in North America driven from their homelands into the far west, La Trobe must have believed that, here at Port Phillip, he was again witnessing the disintegration of another race of people before the incursion of European ‘civilisation’. In fact, when commenting in his diary about trouble between the mounted police and Aboriginal tribes in the Geelong area, La Trobe indicated his perhaps already formed opinion of the Australian Aboriginal people as a doomed race when he actually confused them with the North American Indians:

196



2/3/06 2:14:53 PM

5 October. Mr. Sievwright’s charge against Mr. Walker’s men for violently ejecting certain Indian blacks, seemingly extremely ex-parte and ill-founded.46 The Protectorate idea was never very successful and by 1848, La Trobe had come to the conclusion that it should be abolished. Aboriginal people had their own religion and codes of behaviour, and did not receive gratefully the imposition of Christ’s message. Aboriginal patterns of land use and nomadic behaviour made the small reserves allotted to them totally unsatisfactory. The Rev. Joseph Orton, a Wesleyan Methodist missionary who visited the Port Phillip District in 1836 and 1842, felt that the concern of such fair-minded individuals as La Trobe was totally ineffectual against the barely camouflaged racial hatred of the majority of settlers. Orton considered that the Aboriginal race was in grave danger of extinction, and that ‘the experiment was too “extravagantly expensive and inefficient” to survive in its existing form’.47 His ideal solution to the problem posed by these disenfranchised people was one in which British law was modified to assist in their eventual assimilation: Admitting, ‘for the sake of argument’, that the British had the right to colonise Australia, he insisted that the Aborigines should be governed in accordance with what he called ‘the basic principles of British law—Truth—Righteousness— Justice—Humanity’. If these were observed, the Aboriginal people as ‘original occupants of the soil’ would have to be given at least an equivalent of what they had possessed when their lands were occupied by the settlers.48 Orton recognised that the land was sacred to the Aboriginal people, and that they had rights as hunter-gatherers to what the land produced. La Trobe subscribed to the assimilationist theory of the time, believing that, like the North American Indians, the time of the Aboriginal people as owners and sole occupants of the land was over, and that it was for their own good to bow before the mighty imperialism of Britain. He was like those ‘sympathetic commentators’, described by historian David Goodman,



197

2/3/06 2:14:53 PM

who often mixed humanitarian concern with a diagnosis which blamed the Aboriginal people for their own displacement. They argued that, if only the Aborigines could become a little more sober and industrious, they would succeed in colonial society—quietly cultivating patches of the land which had once been all theirs.49 La Trobe was clearly convinced of the Colonial Office view that, left unprotected, the Aboriginal people were a doomed race. Despite the humanitarian attempts to create a buffer between the new settlers and the indigenous people in the form of Protectorates, the inevitable impending destruction of the native rights to their country was predicted by James Stephen, then Under-Secretary in the Colonial Office, when he wrote a marginal note in one of Gipps’ reports to Glenelg in 1839: The tendency of these collisions with the Blacks is unhappily too clear for doubt. They will ere long cease to be numbered among the Races of the Earth. I can imagine no law effective enough to avoid this result … All this is most deplorable but I fear it is also inevitable.50 As the historian Henry Reynolds has noted: ‘What Stephen said over and over again was that the frontier settlers were in the process of exterminating the Aborigines; they were guilty of what, since the 1940s, has been called genocide and that the government was powerless to stop them’.51 In retrospect, La Trobe failed greatly in his handling of the Aboriginal people. He accepted that his power—the power of the law—was impotent against the hatred of ‘squatters of bad character’52 and, although he tried to bring them to justice, he eventually just gave up. He did not succeed in christianising the indigenous peoples since they were mostly not interested in changing their belief systems which had, until now, satisfactorily governed their lives. He did not succeed in creating good relations between them and the white settlers: raids and reprisals continued throughout the first ten years of his administration with disastrous effects. He clearly did not think to ask the Aboriginal people what their requirements were, now that

198



2/3/06 2:14:53 PM

Europeans had taken over their land. The failure of the Protectorate system must have been a bitter result for La Trobe who wanted peace in his colony at almost any price. His comment in 1848 showed his disappointment: ‘I have hitherto in vain looked to the Chief Protector for assistance in establishing serene and friendly relations with the aborigines’.53 La Trobe could not ignore the fact that the Protectorate was not financially viable. The instability, and often the fraudulent behaviour, of the Protectors caused constant anxiety, added to which the colonists in general viewed the system as too costly and ineffective. On 31 December 1849 La Trobe closed the Protectorate54 on the grounds that everything that had been done to benefit the Aboriginal people had failed, and there was no evidence of congenial relations between them and the white settlers. He considered the main reason for failure had been the ‘incongruous and ill assorted character of the machinery employed’55 in the Protectorate. However, despite past experience and opposing evidence, La Trobe did not entirely lose hope of achieving his aim of converting the native population to Christianity. As late as 1851, he encouraged, through the agency of his brother Peter, the Secretary of the Moravian Mission Board in London, the establishment of a mission at Lake Boga, north of Melbourne, near Swan Hill in the Southern Riverina. Two missionaries, the Rev. C. F. Spieseker and Rev. A. Taeger,56 were sent out from the headquarters of the Moravian Church in Germany. Although the Lake Boga mission did not endure, due mostly to the lack of interest of those for whom it had been established, its replacement in the late 1850s at Lake Tyers met with some degree of success in the conversion of the local people. The Aboriginal Protectorate system was, thus, a total failure. Despite the fact that, soon after La Trobe’s arrival in 1839, the Rev. Joseph Orton had found him to be ‘a most amicable person … well disposed towards all Missy operations particularly those of an Aboriginal character’,57 Orton did not believe, even then, that the Superintendent could protect the native people from the predations of white settlers. Orton could see, in sharp relief, the predicament of the defenceless native Australians. He was to write in January 1841 that: a system of colonization which deprives the poor creatures of their food & land makes them mendicants & marauders,



199

2/3/06 2:14:53 PM

exposes them to abuses … as well as driving tribe upon tribe, and thus bringing them into barbarous exterminating collision with each other.58 The situation was markedly similar to what La Trobe had seen in the far west of North America while travelling with the Commissioner for the Indians, Henry Leavitt Ellsworth. The Protectorate was, in a less formalised way, comparable in intention with the United States Indian Removal Act of 1830, at least in its effect, and this must have been obvious to La Trobe. Nothing could stop the onslaught of white occupation of Aboriginal territory. Indeed, the historian Lyndall Ryan has asserted, with some justification, that by as early as 1838, squatters were virtually beyond government control.59 Any Colonial Office policies to protect the Aboriginal people were useless against the status quo of landholders which, while not blessed by law, was an acceptable and enduring situation. La Trobe’s good intentions were absolutely ineffectual in the face of the obvious racial hatred of the colonists. He deplored the too-frequent outrages committed against the native people in many parts of his district. He made efforts to bring the perpetrators to trial, but was powerless to stop them. As Assistant Protector Dredge wrote in his 1845 memoir: ‘Cruelty and vice may vary in their modes of attack, but annihilation is their end. The confidence of the savage is often won by deceit, and then his life becomes an easy prey.’60 La Trobe had neither the resources nor, probably, the belief that his efforts could reverse the tide of extinction. He was powerless to defend the Aboriginal people against their oppressors. The essential causes for the destruction of the tribes must have been all too clear to him. The dispossession of their land before an indomitable force of white supremacists who had the backing of Colonial Office policies was first and foremost. La Trobe was in charge of imposing these policies, and all he could do, in the face of the problems they caused, was to endeavour to keep the peace between black and white. In this, he and the system failed abysmally. Day-to-day contact with the white population was another factor contributing to the demise of the Protectorate. From the mid-1840s, La Trobe sought to minimise the effects of European diseases and alcohol on the native population by enlisting the efforts of the Protectors in keeping them out of

200



2/3/06 2:14:54 PM

Melbourne. This policy, too, was doomed to failure due to La Trobe’s inconsistency in managing the Chief Protector and his assistants, and by the inability of these men to convince the black population to remain within Protectorate boundaries. After closing the Protectorate, La Trobe’s action was to appoint former Assistant Protector Thomas to the new position of Guardian of Aborigines in June 1850, with the express purpose of maintaining ‘friendly control and surveillance’ of the natives and to ‘keep them altogether out of the town’.61 This was, no doubt, a token salve to his own and to the public conscience about the degraded state of a once-proud people. The historian Michael Christie has aptly and succinctly phrased the core of the problem implicit in the sentiment of ‘humane colonisation’, the policy that the Colonial Office, in the person of La Trobe, was attempting to achieve: What the philanthropists failed to grasp and the politicians refused to admit, was that the terms ‘humane’ and ‘colonization’ were antithetical … colonialism was essentially an exploitative process, one that was motivated not by altruism, but by a desire for political and economic aggrandizement.62 Thus, La Trobe had a personal dilemma to deal with. He had all the ‘sentiment’ of the political philanthropists, the Clapham Sect, to whom, as we have seen, he could, to some extent, attribute his position as Superintendent. He was, however, required to do all in his power to advance the colony of which he was in charge. In his own mind, he was, as a man of his time, convinced of the desirability of assimilation as being in the best interests of the Aboriginal people. He decided to do what was practical and to move on to other matters. He was aided in his course of action by a preoccupation with events going on around him. This distraction took the form of two issues which assumed greater importance than dealing with matters relating to the care of the vulnerable native population. They were the advent of separation, the much-longed-for hope of the colonists, and the discovery of gold, a phenomenon requiring almost superhuman management skills. Expediency, therefore, governed his priorities, to the detriment of those whom he had been specially



201

2/3/06 2:14:54 PM

designated to protect. Against such odds, the Protectorate disappeared without trace. The failure of the Port Phillip Protectorate was a source of concern to La Trobe. He was presiding over the demise of a native people and he was constantly reminded of the tragedy he had witnessed with the extinction of the North American Indians. His conscience was not easy about his handling of the impact of European colonists on these innocent people. However, he coped by assuming the prevailing attitude that assimilation was the best way of carrying out the civilising process. He could not edify the Aboriginal people as he had wished. He had seen the West Indians morally improved in the best British tradition. Even a people who had been enslaved had responded to Christ’s message, but not the native Australians. He came to the conclusion that they were beyond civilisation and beyond his help.

Separation Soon after the welcoming early weeks of his governorship, La Trobe was faced with a major difficulty. This time, however, by the close of 1850 he was to find that his efforts to resolve the predicament were about to be rewarded. The people of Port Phillip had long considered themselves victims of unacceptable control from Sydney. With La Trobe’s arrival, they were confident that the restrictive policies, especially the severe limitations on public expenditure for services and facilities, were about to end. In a welcoming address signed by numerous Port Phillip colonists, there was no hesitation in advising the new Superintendent of the many difficulties caused by the unequal treatment of the District in comparison ‘with the other Crown Colonies of Australasia’.63 La Trobe was alerted to an impending deputation of gentlemen who would immediately discuss the untenable position with him. This perceived inequality was, perhaps, the genesis of the Melbourne/ Sydney rivalry which still exists, albeit in jocular fashion, today. The colonists’ grievances were numerous, among them the need for increased recognition of Port Phillip in Sydney, additional finance for public works, and a fairer share of assisted immigrants. However, like most Melburnians, these gentlemen failed to comprehend that La Trobe’s position was very much subordinate to Gipps. He would always abide by instructions from the Governor, but once fully

202



2/3/06 2:14:54 PM

comprehending and convinced by the logic of this issue, he became the medium for local agitation for separation and for the responses from the Colonial Office in London. The settlers of Port Phillip had long wanted separation from the colony of New South Wales because grave disadvantages were observed in the unevenness and the inequity of the administration of the District. As early as 1836, George Mercer, one of the members of the Port Phillip Association,64 had advocated a separate colony to the then Colonial Secretary, Lord Glenelg. His Under-Secretary, Sir George Grey, put the petition to one side unresolved, since the matter was ‘one of great importance and difficulty’, needing to be postponed ‘until it should have been maturely considered’.65 This consideration was to take a further fourteen years to mature, during which time the representatives of the Crown in Australia, and the Colonial Office itself, were subjected to a fairly constant barrage of demands and, at times, even abuse from the colonists. The campaign for separation really got underway in 1839 with La Trobe’s arrival, and the agitation accelerated with three ‘memorials’, or written submissions, sent by the settlers to the Colonial Office during 1840 and 1841. These did not achieve the desired result, the Colonial Office maintaining that the citizens of Port Phillip were not yet ready to stand alone. This position may well have been the result of advice given by Gipps who, well before any thought of a gold-induced prosperity, was determined that Port Phillip would not be made a separate entity until it was proven to be economically viable. He, though, had predicted separation as early as 1840 and was never opposed to the general principle. La Trobe was also convinced of the inevitability of the creation of a separate colony, based on his observations of the strong economic growth especially in rural areas of the District, but also evident in Melbourne itself. The Imperial Act of 1842 contained provisions for Port Phillip representation on the Legislative Council in Sydney. Six seats were allocated but, because of the great distance, and the expense and the time taken to travel to Sydney, Port Philip was rarely represented and no better off. The depression of the 1840s took the pressure off the separation issue. However, Gipps was convinced of the sense and the inevitability of a separate colony and, in 1845, stated in a confidential letter to La Trobe:



203

2/3/06 2:14:54 PM

I cannot exactly authorize you to speak in my name—but you can in your own name say, if you like, as our friends the Yankees say, that you guess or you calculate, that such must be my opinions—and that I am not averse to separation.66 He understood that the colonists of Port Phillip could not be satisfied with the way they were supposedly represented, but did not wish to declare his support for the separation movement prematurely. Gipps did not believe that Port Phillip had suffered financially by being part of New South Wales: it can easily be shewn that as far as the distribution of the ordinary Revenue is concerned, they have nothing to complain of; and in respect of the Land Fund, they argue on principles which are erroneous.67 However, La Trobe, by constant statement in his official reports of local needs and demands, eventually convinced Gipps that the District needed a workable form of representative government, and that convicts, until then not a major factor in the population of Port Phillip, were not wanted in the southern areas once they were emancipated. Just before leaving Sydney to go into retirement in 1846, Gipps sent a dispatch to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Stanley, formally recommending that separation of the Port Phillip District should proceed. This was his parting gesture of confidence in La Trobe as administrator, and in the future colony of Victoria. La Trobe had every reason to be glad that his persistence and reasoned arguments for separation had at last prevailed upon the Governor, although the act of separation would not be proclaimed for another five years. La Trobe had not been opposed to the separation of the Port Phillip District from the beginning but, like his superior officer, Sir George Gipps, he considered in his early years that the timing was not right. La Trobe was premature when he wrote at the end of 1840 that ‘recent intelligence from home’68 indicated separation in the near future. It was to be a long, slow process to self-determination and he was perfectly comfortable with progress in this way. His character predisposed him to gradual, orderly change; it was, however, easy for

204



2/3/06 2:14:54 PM

the colonists to interpret his gradualism as lethargy. Apart from his requirement of financial viability for the establishment of a new colony, Gipps’ secondary cause for delay was his wish to retain Port Phillip revenue under his control. La Trobe was in the position of gobetween. The colonists, however, interpreted what they saw as La Trobe’s lethargy on the subject, as disinclination. Their grievances were very real, and they urgently needed resolution: Port Phillip revenue was being siphoned off to public works and administration in Sydney; Governor Gipps refused to authorise public works requested for Melbourne, due to a deficit in the accounts of the colony as a whole; the difficulty of having Port Phillip representation on the Legislative Council in distant Sydney was frustrating; failure of the Council to spend enough of the land revenue on immigration to Port Phillip thwarted the expressed needs of the colonists. Despite the fact that agitation for separation had begun during Lonsdale’s administration and had accelerated in the first few years that La Trobe was resident, the desired goal was no closer to achievement. Residents were antagonistic to La Trobe for not apparently advocating their demands forcefully enough. Petitions were sent directly to the Colonial Office from the Melbourne Town Council and still separation eluded Port Phillip. The result of all the agitation, however, was that in 1845 Gipps was asked for a detailed report on the question by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Glenelg.69 At this time too, Gipps relaxed his hold on finance for Port Phillip public works, and funds were voted for road-building, a powder magazine, an insane asylum, a botanic garden, and wharves at Corio and Portland, and improvements to Queen’s Wharf.70 By the beginning of January 1846, Gipps was totally persuaded that Port Phillip should be allowed a separate identity, since it was by then obvious to him that it could achieve financial independence and, in any case, the district was ‘in a great degree distinct from the rest of the colony’.71 A further complicating issue in 1846 was that of the fixing of boundaries between the proposed new colony and the rest of New South Wales. The Murray River had been set as the natural barrier between them in 1841–42, but it was now suggested that perhaps the Murrumbidgee River should be the new frontier. La Trobe, through Gipps, did not support such a notion; nor did the Executive Council



205

2/3/06 2:14:54 PM

in Sydney, nor the Colonial Office in London. The proposal was then allowed to slip. The question of a representative form of government was frequently on the agenda from about 1843. Gipps favoured, at this stage, a wholly nominated Legislative Council, as had previously existed in New South Wales, as suitable and ‘what seemed to be looked for by all!’72 He agreed, however, that a representative body would be appropriate when the Port Phillip District population reached 50 000, and when a system of local government had been set in place. La Trobe was in agreement with this decision, having previously suffered the problems of election and sectarian riots in Melbourne in 1843.73 It was at this point that he made a mistake, either from naïveté or arrogance, the repercussions of which resounded for some colonists until he left Victoria in 1854. In support of Gipps, he wrote to Deas Thomson, Colonial Secretary, in Sydney: The classes were wanting here, who at home are at the disposal of the Public for public objects, there being in the colony too many whose character and understanding do not harmonise with the position they have assumed.74 As A. G. L. Shaw has stated, this ‘tallies with the Superintendent’s fear of “democracy”, nourished as it was by many of his “subjects” and by the outpourings of the local press’.75 La Trobe’s inbred élite attitude to social class, and to education as pre-requisites for office, predisposed him to recoil at the hint of anarchy. When news of his attitude became known, it caused great offence to the local population because of the implied snobbery of the Superintendent who seemed to be impeding the arrival of separation, so ardently sought by all. Following great outcry and denunciation in the Melbourne Town Council, which petitioned for his recall, the Executive Council in Sydney on 1 April 1846 voted for separation with a Nominee Council. However, unexpected delays due to political turmoil in Europe from 1848 and to other pressing business in the Colonial Office delayed the event. At about the same time, the creation of a new position of Governor-General was accorded to Gipps’ replacement, the Governor in Sydney, Sir Charles FitzRoy, the idea being to ensure agreement in

206



2/3/06 2:14:55 PM

the legislation of all the Australian colonies. This was of little interest to the residents of Port Phillip who were keen to shake off the everpresent ‘Sydney thraldom’76 which still beset them. The continued delay in separation worsened the opposition between La Trobe and the Melbourne Town Council. The Councillors were not aware of his repeated requests to Sydney for action, considering him too ready to agree with every pronouncement of the Governor. Memories were too ready to recall his remark made some years before that he would always be happy to play ‘second fiddle’ to Governor Gipps.77 John Pascoe Fawkner had commented that La Trobe had only ‘one aim: to please the “first Fiddle”.’78 He would never live down this pathetic effort at light-hearted humour. However, six years later, the Colonial Secretary in Sydney, Deas Thomson, minuted that La Trobe often wanted ‘to avoid taking responsibility’, and criticised ‘his constant reference to the Head of the Government on points which he ought to settle at his discretion’.79 This appears to point to a certain timidity in La Trobe or, perhaps, a throw-back to the indecisiveness that we have observed which dogged his early manhood. It would be quite understandable that the rough pioneers who constituted the first Melbourne Town Council took some handling, and it might have been that La Trobe was intimidated by them. After all, he was not accustomed to mixing with those whose frankness and bluntness left no room for what he viewed as good manners. La Trobe did not have the experience of dealing with those who ‘called a spade a spade’ when making their needs known. And they, in turn, did not comprehend his civility. In fact, they misinterpreted it, with disastrous ramifications for their future relationship with their administrator. Examples of this occurred early in their association, when he showed politeness in equal degree to all who called on him. Thomas McCombie described his manner as one of great amiability and conciliation. However, used as he was to courtly manners in Neuchâtel and in his family’s circles in England, La Trobe misjudged his acquaintances in Melbourne. If McCombie was accurate in his assessment of La Trobe as doing his best to conciliate all classes, it is no wonder that: the charge that may with justice be brought forward against him is that of insincerity. He was too free with his



207

2/3/06 2:14:55 PM

professions, and too tardy in fulfilling them; he avowed too eagerly his desire to satisfy such suitors as were compelled to wait upon him, without having the slightest wish or intention of granting their requests.80 The trials and stresses of La Trobe’s first eleven years in Australia as representative of the Crown at Port Phillip may be seen to have affected him personally in a number of ways. On the one hand, he gained in confidence, becoming more certain of his role and more capable of dealing with issues in the colony as they arose. On the other hand, the burden of his responsibilities was beginning to take its toll, and he was often completely worn down by them and despondent about managing them well. To some extent, this may be related to his natural insecurity, and his innate desire to acquit himself well. To be sure, this dejection was certainly a side-effect of having to grapple for extended periods with major issues which arose constantly as the colony was establishing itself. However, as he said of himself, he was in great need of rest and recuperation, having had no leave for the whole period of his time in Australia. He wrote to his friend Ronald Gunn in Tasmania: You will have seen that political agitation is not confined to the other end of the world: but that the Port Phillip people have [been] trying their hand at something extraordinary. The Town Council votes the Superintendent a bore, the cause of all the mischief that has taken place in the world to the S. of the Tropic of Capricorn for the last 9 years, or something like it—and request Her Majesty to turn him out neck & crop … one gets a little tired of all this—but after all must stick to it, & do one’s duty as well as may be.81 And again, he referred to his fatigue: ‘Sometimes I think I am a little jaded!’82 This was something of an understatement, given the pressures under which he was working. La Trobe was secure in his relationship with Sir George Gipps. They appeared, throughout their extensive correspondence, to have been like minds, and La Trobe could always rely on advice and support from the Governor. However, his relationship with FitzRoy from

208



2/3/06 2:14:55 PM

1846 was completely different. The new Governor brought to New South Wales the arrogance of the aristocracy, enormous selfconfidence and ‘an obvious preference for peace at any nottoo-unreasonable price’.83 He would have been impatient with La Trobe’s tentative approach to government, and he certainly did not create any extra work for himself by maintaining the voluminous correspondence with the southern part of his colony in the way that Gipps had done. FitzRoy was a sportsman who enjoyed great popularity in New South Wales, and was determined not to complicate his life by involvement in difficult decision-making in far-off Port Phillip. FitzRoy was very much guided by his capable and experienced Colonial Secretary, Deas Thomson, on matters of policy. Thomson, who knew the Superintendent well and was considered by him a friend, was of the view that La Trobe preferred ‘to avoid taking responsibility’, and that ‘his constant reference to the Head of the Government on points which he ought to settle at his discretion’84 was a weakness in his management style. This was the basis for FitzRoy’s attitude to La Trobe and, after the close working relationship with Gipps, La Trobe must have felt almost abandoned. This lack of kindred spirit in Sydney, even though he never commented on it, must have had the result of throwing La Trobe more on his own resources, and would have added to his stress. One of La Trobe’s strongest characteristics was his deference to authority and, under FitzRoy’s governorship, this manifested itself as a weakness. It was, in fact, more than that. He relied on explicit instructions from Gipps and FitzRoy and, when these were not forthcoming, he floundered. Certainly, the directions he sought were forthcoming when Gipps was his superior officer, and perhaps he would have been able to give the colonists the appearance of greater decisiveness had the closeness he had experienced with Gipps been maintained. However, FitzRoy had a different management style. He was unwilling to involve himself in the resolution of difficult questions, and expected his subordinates to get on with the job instead of seeking his imprimatur on decisions great and small. He was primarily occupied with New South Wales concerns to the detriment of Port Phillip. It was by chance that he was regarded as having resolved the strife over land policy which had so dogged his predecessor. Earl Grey, as Colonial Secretary, had introduced legislation which gave



209

2/3/06 2:14:55 PM

squatters the long leases, rights to select more land and other privileges, at the very time that FitzRoy assumed office in 1846. He, and to some extent, La Trobe, therefore had a reliable and lawful basis for dealing with the squatters and those opposed to their tenure of the country. Governor-General from 1851, FitzRoy had matters of some gravity, such as goldfields management, on his mind. Nevertheless, even with such a vexing question affecting both New South Wales and Victoria from 1851, La Trobe found that he was largely on his own. With agitation for separation again gaining momentum in 1848, separationists managed to persuade voters not to nominate Port Phillip District representatives for the Legislative Council in Sydney. This rendered the election void and some responsibility for this was laid on La Trobe. FitzRoy, demonstrating a certain lack of support for the Superintendent, wrote to Earl Grey at the Colonial Office that ‘A community where such an act of folly is allowed to be gravely and deliberately committed is scarcely fit to be trusted with the rights of a representative system of government’.85 Soon after, La Trobe, though still apprehensive of the ‘common herd’, now showed his agreement with the wishes of the local population, and offered advice to Governor FitzRoy which would act as an expedient to the cause: The longer separation is delayed, the more difficult becomes the task of governing the district. Separation will remedy much, but any constitution which takes government away from a Governor, Executive Council and nominee Legislative Council (and substitutes a representative body for the latter) is unsuitable to the colony and will render its administration a task of great difficulty.86 However, despite his affirmation, separation was still to remain a slow, drawn-out process, made all the more tortuous by the deliberations of the Colonial Office. Eventually, though, the stratagems and advice of La Trobe and the Governor in Sydney were heeded, and the appropriate arrangements were made in London for the colony of Victoria to become a separate unit of government from the parent colony of New South Wales. Although, as we have seen, La Trobe had had differences of opinion and perspective from many of those he had been sent to

210



2/3/06 2:14:55 PM

govern, all animosity was swept away in the euphoria of a dream come true when separation was first announced. Melburnians first heard the long-awaited ‘Glorious news!’ in an ‘extraordinary’ evening edition of the Melbourne Morning Herald on 11 November 1850.87 Some days earlier, rumours had come by way of Adelaide, first landfall with the British news, that Queen Victoria had given her assent to the Australian Colonies Bill, and now, on 11 November, the vessel Lysander had brought London newspapers to Melbourne with the advice that this was, indeed, a fact.88 Georgiana McCrae89 recorded in her diary the very moment when La Trobe received the news that separation had been granted and Port Phillip was to become a separate colony: Jolimont, Sunday, November 11th, 1850. At dinner, Mr. Harding was telling us about plantain leaves used for plates in India, when there came the sound of wheels grating on the carriage-way, followed by the noise of at least two sticks hammering on the door. Mr. La Trobe sent his servant to answer the summons, and, while he arranged his neckerchief, hinted at the possible arrival of a new governor in search of a night’s lodging! Enter the mayor, Nicholson the grocer, also the ex-mayor, Augustus Frederick Adolphus Greeves … Nicholson, with one of his fingers tied in a rag, holding an Adelaide newspaper. ‘Your Honour, allow me to draw your attention to the fact that the Separation Bill has passed through both Houses. The news is spreading quickly, and I shall be unable to restrain the people—’ Here, Augustus Frederick coughed, as though he would like to add something, when Mr. La Trobe quizzically remarked: ‘The Bill is incomplete until it has the Royal Sign Manual’. Nevertheless, he gave the required permission to celebrate that night, and the mayor scuttled off to light his private bonfire which is to be the signal for general jubilation.90 Georgiana’s humorous assessment of the situation was in stark contrast to La Trobe’s reception of the news. The impression gathered



211

2/3/06 2:14:55 PM

is that he could relax with his family and friends, of whom Georgiana was one, to the extent of loosening his necktie, but once other colonists were present, he immediately assumed the role of Superintendent. Not even the good news of separation could cause him to be more unbending. It was typical of him that, while acting in his official capacity, he always adopted an authoritative stance. This was exemplified in his pontificating speech to the colonists on arrival and, later, as we shall see, in his address to the gold miners presenting their petitions. In this instance, the weight of his position forced him to state the obvious—the Queen’s signature was still lacking—and throw a dash of cold water on the Mayor’s excitement. He was forever conscious of upholding his office, of ‘doing the right thing’, with the result that those who did not know him well did not warm to him. However, the colonists were greeted by the headline ‘Separation at Last!’ in the Argus the following morning, followed by an editorial, full of hyperbole, on the wonderful achievement.91 Their greatest desire had been achieved by their constant agitation and, also, although they were largely unaware of it, by the strong support of the Superintendent. Coincidentally, the announcement of separation came just as the new Prince’s Bridge over the Yarra River was about to be opened. The newspapers called for great rejoicing, ‘Illumination, Gymnastic Games and Dinner Committees’ being formed, the Mayor firing ‘the Beacon on the Flagstaff Hill’ and ‘Balloons containing Slips of Paper with the announcement of SEPARATION … dispatched at intervals of one hour’.92 La Trobe shared the colonists’ enthusiasm and proclaimed three days’ holiday, even though a formal severing of the link with New South Wales would not be official until 15 July 1851. The festivities were to culminate in the opening of the Prince’s Bridge on 15 November 1850 which was attended by fifteen thousand people. La Trobe was attuned to the need of the colonists for extravagant celebrations. So often over the last eleven years, they had been disheartened and fearful that their goal of autonomy would never be reached. Past discontent with their Superintendent was forgotten by most at the sight of La Trobe ‘dressed in the official uniform of Lieutenant-Governor’, and by many, he was very warmly received, and loudly and vociferously cheered as he rode through the different societies, and

212



2/3/06 2:14:56 PM

courteously acknowledged the several ebullitions of public feeling with which he was everywhere greeted.93 However, the Argus could never forgive what was viewed as his failure to promote the interests of the colony during the long years of his superintendency. Throughout its reporting of the rejoicings, La Trobe was consistently referred to as ‘the hat and feathers’: Solitary in the midst of this vast assemblage, there moved conspicuously down the street, a cocked hat and feathers, indicating rank unhonoured, position lost, and character despised: not one cheer greeted His Honour the Superintendent … It lingered for some time without company or notice and slinked off with its private shadow, Mr. Bell.94 The Melbourne Daily News concurred that ‘it was impossible to raise a cheer stronger than a canary’s chirrup, out of the mob’.95 La Trobe would certainly have needed to be very insensitive not to have been affected by such hostility. However, the Melbourne Morning Herald made an effort to bring reason to bear in a long editorial, ‘Our First Governor’, which referred to La Trobe’s fallibility but sought to do him justice: But though he may frequently have erred, may we not dispute his judgement without disputing his motives? … There may be freedom of speech, however, without scurrility, and the truth can be told without reviling; so that we may hope to influence by dispassionate reasoning, where we should only irritate by passionate abuse.96 A huge attraction on the procession to the opening of Prince’s Bridge was the float of the Melbourne printers. On board were John Pascoe Fawkner and his printing press, ‘ornamented with garlands’, from which he distributed thousands of copies of his leaflet Commemoration of the Boon of the Separation of the Province of Victoria from the Colony of New South Wales.97 This document lauded the contribution of the press in aiding the arrival of democracy.



213

2/3/06 2:14:56 PM

La Trobe himself had tired of waiting for separation to come. He found the daily administrative grind difficult and liked nothing better than to escape Melbourne on horseback for a ride in the country. To satisfy public impatience, he allowed the festivities marking separation to go ahead somewhat in advance of the official proclamation. The dispatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London advising the Governor of the passing of the Australian Colonies Act in the British Parliament only reached Sydney on 13 January 1851. A great deal still remained to be done before ‘Victoria’ could be proclaimed an independent colony. La Trobe anticipated this in a letter to his friend in Tasmania, Ronald Campbell Gunn: ‘I shall probably have to go up to Sydney for a few weeks shortly to assist in cooking the new dish for the Victorians—further I know not and ask nothing about future arrangements’.98 La Trobe had recognised what a handicap being part of the greater New South Wales was for progress in Port Phillip. The lack of effective representation in the Legislative Council in Sydney meant that southern colonists had little voice in the operations of their colony. La Trobe could now look forward to the support of an independent Legislative Council in Melbourne, and to the opportunity of ploughing Port Phillip revenue back into services for Port Phillip. Sir Charles FitzRoy summoned him to Sydney to take part in the preparation of legislation which would allow the future Victoria to stand alone. He was to remain there until after the prorogation of the Legislative Council on 2 May 1851,99 and his swearing-in as LieutenantGovernor of Victoria took place in Melbourne only on 16 July.100 Eleven elaborate illuminated addresses from various influential groups in the Victorian community, including the Officers of the Public Service, the Inhabitants of the City of Melbourne and its vicinity, and the Bishop of Melbourne and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland, were presented to La Trobe to celebrate his promotion to Lieutenant-Governor. These paid tribute to the efforts which La Trobe had made on behalf of the colony, and while they no doubt expressed the sincere gratitude of the signatories, they also contained veiled warnings that La Trobe should still be on his mettle to further ensure the interests of the new colony. The address from the Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors of the Town of Geelong stated, in no uncertain terms, their requirements for the future:

214



2/3/06 2:14:56 PM

Sir Francis Grant, Charles Joseph La Trobe, [1854], oil, La Trobe Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria

We shall regard with especial anxiety the recommendations which Your Excellency may consider it your duty to make, in reference to the regulations, for the management of the Crown Lands of the Colony, continuing as we do that every facility for the sale of Lands, should be afforded and that the Leasing of the Public Lands should be so regulated, as to ensure their most beneficial occupation at a sufficient



215

6/3/06 1:18:31 PM

rent, so that the revenue should be benefited, and equal burdens borne by the various classes of the Inhabitants, while the rapid development of the internal resources and general industry of the Country, would be promoted.101 Separation was a great achievement for La Trobe and cause for universal celebration in the new colony of Victoria. Despite his realisation that separation was inevitable, he had considered that the society over which he presided needed to have reached a stage in its maturity at which a separate organised form of government would be economically and intellectually sustainable. At last, it had come to pass. Now, the way was clear for a distinct advance in the new colony on much broader democratic principles where self-reliance and imaginative endeavour would be the catchcries of success. La Trobe would need to make adjustments himself to this new state in which he would have to exert greater independence in decision-making.

Goldfields Management No sooner had the news of separation been received, and the bridge over the Yarra River officially opened, than the single most revolutionary and momentous event in the history of the colony occurred. Gold in enormous quantities was discovered! Gold had been found in Port Phillip as early as 1849. In another letter to Ronald Gunn in Tasmania, La Trobe described this first significant discovery: You ask me what is the truth about the Port Phillip gold. Simply this—that specimens of gold ore, nearly in a pure state—overlaying or mixed with fragments of quartz of great beauty, have been brought into Melbourne and disposed of to one or two individuals by a shepherd, and I think there can be no doubt whereon the precise locality may be, that they were picked up on or near the surface, in one of the lower ranges between the Malden [sic] Hills and the Pyrenees, which in common with a large portion of the interior of the district, are composed of sandstone and quartz. The principal specimen I have examined, about 14oz in weight, gave me the impression of the ore in a fused

216



2/3/06 2:14:57 PM

state, having carried the quartz fragments along with it, or, having been dropped upon them.102 La Trobe was interested in the mineral at that time solely from a geological point of view. He did not consider that the discovery of gold would necessarily be an influence for good in his young community. These misgivings were borne out with the gold rush to Bathurst in New South Wales in May 1851 when there was a sudden exodus of the population in Melbourne to the gold diggings in the north. The result was that business slumped, the prices of commodities soared, and there was every appearance of a dramatic economic downturn in the newly created colony of Victoria. A group of concerned Melburnians formed a ‘Gold Discovery Committee’ on 9 June 1851, offering a ‘reward for the discovery of a profitable gold mine within two hundred miles of Melbourne’.103 There was a flurry of activity in response to the challenge, with a number of miners claiming the prize. Gold was discovered in several places almost simultaneously, with William Campbell finding specimens of gold-bearing quartz near Clunes prior to June 1851, Louis-Jean Michel locating the precious metal at Anderson’s Creek (Warrandyte) early in July, James Esmond also finding alluvial gold in the Clunes district later in July 1851, and Thomas Hiscock discovering gold at Buninyong near Ballarat in August of the same year. The actual winner was a matter of some contemporary dispute, the committee eventually awarding £1000 to each of these contenders.104 These finds led to the Ballarat discoveries later in the month, followed by the Mount Alexander and Bendigo rushes in September and December of that year respectively.105 Now, instead of evacuating Melbourne for New South Wales, prospectors moved from one goldfield to another in Victoria, seeking instantaneous fortunes. Not only did the local population become itinerant, but there was a massive influx of immigration as the great wealth of the colony became known at home in Britain, in Europe and in the United States. La Trobe was faced with responsibility for a suddenly expanded population which, in the twelve years he had been in the colony, had increased from 11 738 in 1841 to 77 345 in 1851, and was to rise to a massive 236 776 by 1854.106 At the very time that Port Phillip Bay was constantly full of sailing ships bringing new residents in the guise of gold-seekers to the colony,



217

2/3/06 2:14:57 PM

La Trobe was attempting to form his first Legislative Council. Victoria had been granted the form of government in force in New South Wales, Van Diemen’s Land and South Australia, with the passing of the Australian Colonies Government Act in 1850. As Lieutenant-Governor, La Trobe was to take on the role of chief executive, and to be advised by an Executive Council of four members appointed by the Crown. These were Captain William Lonsdale as Colonial Secretary, Charles Ebden as Auditor-General, William Stawell as Attorney-General, and Redmond Barry as Solicitor-General. These were men on whom he could rely. They came from educated and cultured backgrounds similar to his own, and they were of the same class in society. He was of the opinion that those colonists from whom the proposed Legislative Council was to be nominated, and whose advice he was required to take, were not of a sufficiently high calibre for such influential roles. Although five ‘non-official’ members, squatters and businessmen, were nominated to the Council in 1852, they changed so frequently as not to be a particular support to the Lieutenant-Governor, thus bearing out his prediction of their value. In the midst of such political turmoil, La Trobe had to find some way of dealing with the desertion of Melbourne by tradespeople and most of the police and the labouring population. Even his own civil servants left their posts, despite threats that they would never ‘be eligible for further employment by the State’.107 With the increase in population and consequent demands on the infrastructure, La Trobe saw government expenditure becoming unmanageable. Trained as he was by the previous Governor of New South Wales, Sir George Gipps, to operate strictly within budget so as not to alienate the Colonial Office and then suffer the consequences, he readily adopted the licence system already in place on the New South Wales goldfields to bring in revenue. This was a system he grasped as a model for his management of the financial crisis induced by gold in Victoria. Yet, despite this measure, Melbourne was in a deplorable state. It was described by the Sydney Morning Herald’s correspondent in very unflattering terms: I must say that a worse regulated, worse governed, worse drained, worse lighted, worse watered town of note is not on the face of the globe … in no other place are the

218



2/3/06 2:14:57 PM

administrative functions of Government so inefficiently managed; that, in a word, nowhere in the southern hemisphere does chaos reign so triumphant as in Melbourne.108 This was precisely what La Trobe had been striving to prevent. The lure of gold was like a beacon that no one could ignore, leaving Melbourne and its government to fare as best it could. Another first-hand observer of the effects of the irresistible attraction of the goldfields was the French journalist and photographer, Antoine Fauchery, who, a year later, described the continuing impetus to leave Melbourne: The mine! that is the one centre of attraction, the goal of all hopes, the dreamland where the sun rises! … It’s the goldfever; the fever for pure gold, virgin gold, gold hidden in the bowels of the earth;—a fever that is cold and held in check, but which is none the less active, driving all those who are stricken with it to throw up suddenly the most lucrative positions to run away and look for the uncertain. Only being chained to Melbourne by a really imperious material impossibility can stop one from going up to the mines to try one’s luck.109 The discovery of gold created problems which further exposed La Trobe’s limitations. The colony had not long recovered from the depression of the 1840s. It was only with the greatest of trouble that La Trobe could make any headway in establishing basic services in the centre of population, but there were none—not even roads—in the country districts where gold had been found. As early as 1849, La Trobe signalled in a letter to Gunn his premonitions of the difficulties this would cause: ‘The truth is, the discovery of a good vein of coal would give me more satisfaction’.110 Two years later, he complained that ‘never had young governor a stranger role to play or a more extraordinary crisis to meet as best he may’.111 In three years, the population had trebled to 284 000 by December 1854.112 For a man like La Trobe, with his profound mistrust of social disorder and democracy, such social instability was intractable and baffling. The gold discoveries were to derail his planned gradual development of the colony



219

2/3/06 2:14:57 PM

along sound religious and moral traditions, and to create unstable conditions for the remaining time he spent in Australia. On 15 August 1851, La Trobe issued a proclamation in the Government Gazette asserting the rights of the Crown to all minerals discovered in Victoria, whether on private property or not, and stating that any person caught mining without permission would be prosecuted. On 18 August, the details of the licence system were announced. A licence fee of thirty shillings per month would be levied on every gold seeker from 1 September 1851. This was to apply whether or not the digger was successful. Gold Commissioners were to be appointed to enforce the licence system and to defuse any disputes on the goldfields. La Trobe hoped that, by such measures, he would accrue sufficient revenue from the licence fees to allow the necessary services, such as road-building and law enforcement, to proceed, while at the same time preventing the total dissolution of the civil service in Melbourne. Rather naïvely, he also hoped that the impact of the licence fee and the small size of 8 feet square allowed for each mining site113 would deter people from going to the diggings. No such result was achieved, and the goldfields population continued to increase rapidly. Because of his background and experience, La Trobe firmly believed in social order and stability, and conformity with Colonial Office wisdom on budgetary prudence. To his consternation, he was now having to grapple with a situation that threatened both. Although many miners were able to pay the required fee, many more were not, and the resentment they felt was expressed everywhere, including in the newspapers. La Trobe was described by the Geelong Advertiser as ‘our Victorian Czar’,114 a dictator imposing an unrealistic and impossible tax when no goldfield in 1851 had yet proven its wealth. By imposing the rule of law on all diggers alike, La Trobe acted in what he considered was an appropriate and fair-minded manner. He might have been implementing a system which found favour with the Colonial Office, but his background and limited experience in managing major projects, such as the goldfields presented, prevented him from seeing the outcomes of his actions as did the miners who struggled to earn a living. This reaction to the difficult situation of maintaining government in a radically changed colony was a desperate measure on La

220



2/3/06 2:14:57 PM

Trobe’s part which could only result in deep resentment and lawlessness. Diggers soon devised ways of avoiding the inspections of the Gold Commissioners, and a warning cry of ‘Charlie Joe’ or ‘Joe!’115 rang out at their approach to warn other diggers of the approach of the law. Charles Joseph La Trobe’s name appeared at the foot of so many proclamations regarding law and order on the goldfields that all government interference, as the miners saw it, was referred to by his nickname. Prior to the establishment of the Gold Commission in December 1851, the Native Police had toured the Buninyong diggings on 19 September116 to collect licence fees. The immediate result was an angry protest meeting where the miners determined that five shillings per month would be a more appropriate and just licence fee. La Trobe, no doubt with the benefit of the advice of Captain Dana, commandant of the Native Police, viewed this democratic assertiveness as a ‘slight show of opposition’ which ‘gave way at once to a general desire to secure licences’.117 In this instance, La Trobe could only be seen as despotic in the face of the reasoned arguments expressed by the miners against the cost imposed. As other goldfields opened up, the general body of miners experienced the privation caused by the licence system, and seethed at the injustice of so heavy a tax. La Trobe, meanwhile, struggled to provide shelter for immigrants using Melbourne as a resting place before setting out for the diggings. Accommodation was in short supply. ‘Canvas-Town’, an area to the west of St Kilda Road, was established as a place where new arrivals could pitch their tents for five shillings a night.118 Provisions had to be found for them. The rule of law also had to be upheld, especially when successful, and often unruly, diggers returned to Melbourne. In addition, the mass exodus from town and country to the goldfields had greatly weakened the pastoral production on which the economy was based. It appeared as though La Trobe was so preoccupied by these high level concerns that he was blinded to the miners’ discontent. On 1 December 1851, he placed a second notice in the Government Gazette, announcing an increase of 100 per cent in the licence fee. Effective from 1 January 1852, it would cost a hopeful digger £3 per month.119 The reaction to this announcement was uproar. The new licence was to apply equally to miners, shopkeepers and others providing services on the goldfields. Few could pay the



221

2/3/06 2:14:58 PM

sum, and most refused to. With eminent pragmatism, La Trobe decided to remove the increase, leaving the Gold Commissioners to collect the more reasonable original dues. The Colonial Office supported the licence fee and Sir John Pakington, Secretary of State for the Colonies at that time, suggested to La Trobe the idea of an additional export tax on gold.120 In strict accordance with what was perceived as a Colonial Office dictum, the government immediately introduced a bill, which passed the second reading stage before being thrown out, on the grounds that it was not possible to police inter-colony smuggling, and subsequent avoidance of the duty, on Victoria’s extensive borders with New South Wales and South Australia.121 In the meantime, the miners were agitating for better conditions on the goldfields, especially with regard to improved security for themselves and their gold, and better roads and bridges. They also expressed their frustrations at the present system and their desire for responsible government. In June 1853, an Anti-Gold Licence Association was formed at Bendigo where about 23 000, or nearly half the total number of diggers in the colony were located, gave voice to their many grievances, the central focus being the licence fee which, even at its original cost, all considered too stringent. The leaders of the Association were G. E. Thomson, Dr Jones and ‘Captain’ Edward Brown. These three drew up a petition which articulated the diggers’ grievances, and made a number of demands of the government, notably a reduction in the licence fee, improved law and order, the right to vote, and the right for miners to buy land. The petition was signed by miners at Bendigo, Ballarat, Castlemaine, McIvor (Heathcote), Mount Alexander and other diggings, and sent to La Trobe. Although it was claimed at the time that 30 000 signatures had been collected, in fact, the petition was signed by only 5000. The 1853 Goldfields Petition was 13 metres long, and bound in green silk for its presentation to the Lieutenant-Governor. Besides the high cost of the gold licence, miners were protesting about the Gold Commissioners and the severity of their manner of collecting the monthly fee. The historian G. W. Rusden described the force so often employed: ‘It was raised like a poll-tax; and it was raised at the point of the sword, or the barrel of a pistol’.122 The reasonable tone of each of the points made by the miners in the petition is striking:

222



2/3/06 2:14:58 PM

For these reasons and others which could be enumerated Your Petitioners pray Your Excellency to Grant the following Petition First

To direct that the Licence Fee be reduced to Ten Shillings a Month. Secondly To direct that Monthly or Quarterly Licences be issued at the option of the Applicants. Thirdly To direct that new arrivals or invalids be allowed on registering their names at the Commissioners Office fifteen clear days residence on the Gold Fields before the Licence be enforced. Fourthly To afford greater facility to Diggers and others resident on the Gold Fields who wish to engage in Agricultural Pursuits for investing their earnings in small allotments of land. Fifthly To direct that the Penalty of Five Pounds for non-possession of Licence be reduced to One Pound. Sixthly To direct that (as the Diggers and other residents on the Gold Fields of the Colony have uniformly developed a love of law and order) the sending of an Armed Force to enforce the Licence Tax be discontinued. Your Petitioners would respectfully submit to Your Excellency’s consideration in favour of the reduction of the Licence Fee that many Diggers and other residents on the Goldfields who are debarred from taking a Licence under the present System would if the Tax were reduced to Ten Shillings a Month cheerfully comply with the law so that the Licence Fund instead of being diminished would be increased. Your Petitioners would also remind your Excellency that a Petition is the only mode by which they can submit their wants to your Excellency’s consideration as although they contribute more to the Exchequer than half the Revenue of the Colony they are the largest class of Her Majesty’s Subjects in the Colony unrepresented.



223

2/3/06 2:14:58 PM

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.123 The deputation met La Trobe in his office on 1 August 1853. The meeting was not a success. La Trobe responded defensively and coldly to each of the clauses put forward. He was aloof from the miners partly because of his own attitude regarding his position of authority as Lieutenant-Governor, but also because of his fear of the ‘mob’, the ‘canaille’ he had scorned in his earlier travels. He was the person in command, and by distancing himself from the miners, he maintained his authority. This moment of meeting with the miners could have changed history. Had La Trobe been able to act differently, perhaps the tragedy of Eureka would have been averted. But La Trobe could not put himself in the miners’ shoes. He could not feel for them in their struggle for basic acknowledgement and rights. He did not have the force of personality, the experience of what it was like to really struggle to stay alive, nor the ability to place himself on their level— man to man. At this point in his career, he felt out of his depth, and resorted to the only mode of behaviour he knew to uphold what he saw as law and order and the rule of the Crown. He, himself, to an exaggerated extent, had always respected those in authority, simply by reason of their positions. This had been bred into him through the Moravian ethos of his family and education. He believed that authority carried with it rights—of respect, of precedence, of power—but it also bore with it the weight of duty. In his case, he was very conscious of his responsibilities, and always addressed them in a sober and judicious manner. This was the only way he knew of carrying out his weighty, official duty. On 12 August, La Trobe issued a formal written reply to the petition to counteract a very erroneous impression likely to be conveyed in various important particulars, by the publication of what purports to be a detailed report of the interview, and of the conversation which followed the presentation of the Petition.124 La Trobe challenged the description of the licence fee as a tax, arguing that it was simply a charge levied on those diggers who appropriated

224



2/3/06 2:14:58 PM

public property to their own advantage. He noted that the licence fee was sanctioned by the legislature and could only be reviewed when the Act, under which it was approved, was reviewed later in the year. In responding to the miners’ request for a reduced fee, he justified the thirty shillings per month by pointing out that the expenditure necessary to manage the goldfields and to provide amenities for the miners had to be offset by the raising of revenue in this manner. He indicated a willingness to put the proposal to the legislature for direct representation of the mining population. He also conceded the request that licences could be paid on a monthly or quarterly basis, at the convenience of the applicant, and agreed that new arrivals could have fifteen days’ grace before a licence became necessary. Of the miners’ fourth request to have the ability to purchase small parcels of land for agricultural purposes, referring to proposed land surveys, he promised ‘that I am doing everything that lies in my power to comply’ with this wish.125 He refused to abide by the request to reduce the fine for not taking out a licence, on the grounds that concessions should not be made to lawbreakers, but agreed with the miners that it was mostly unnecessary for the police to carry arms when enforcing the licence fee. The tone of La Trobe’s response was firm and, to a certain extent, conciliatory. However, he concluded his response with a very revealing paragraph which showed a mistrust of the democratic process and his firm belief in the power of authority: The deputation informed me that the sole object which they personally had in view in moving in the matter was the public good. I differ from them however in their estimate of the means and machinery by which the public good and social prosperity are to be secured. I am no enemy to free and honest discussion of any subject of public interest … [However] I do not think the public advantage to be promoted by the loose and intemperate popular discussion of questions of importance as they arise or by an agitation which however plausibly defined, may be shewn to be in sober fact questionable or uncalled for.126 Again, he was asserting himself as the authority figure. As LieutenantGovernor, the figure at the head of government, he believed that his



225

2/3/06 2:14:58 PM

was the correct overview of what would comprise ‘the public good.’ Debate had no place, in his mind, when decisions had already been made by those, such as himself, in authority. In fact, La Trobe was something of an autocrat in the sphere where he could make the decisions. The deputation left him, disappointed that their principal request for a reduction in the licence fee had been refused point blank. The miners returned to the mines totally dissatisfied with their interview, and La Trobe, too, was less than pleased with the outcome. He was fearful of anarchy on the goldfields, which was why he presented such a cold, autocratic face to the miners. However, he could also see that the miners had come to him to express their very real problems with the licensing system, and their desires for the future, in a reasoned way. The sensitive side of La Trobe could understand some of the privations which had been expressed to him. He still needed, however, an alternative method of raising the necessary government revenue to keep the colony afloat. At the opening of the next session of the Victorian Legislative Council on 30 August 1853, La Trobe proposed legislation to totally abolish the licence system, in its place imposing an export duty on gold. In this way, taxation on the precious metal would only be paid according to the actual earnings of a miner. A select committee was set up to consider the matter, but it resolved to maintain the licence fee, albeit on a reduced and sliding scale: £1 for one month, £2 for three months and £5 for a year. The Goldfields Management Act was proclaimed in November 1853 after poorly handled debate in the Legislative Council which decided to introduce a sliding scale of fees from £1 for one month to £8 for twelve months, and gave the franchise only to miners who took out annual licences.127 Geoffrey Serle described the outcome as ‘barefaced trickery, for as things stood almost no one was taking an annual licence as there was no financial incentive to do so’.128 The licence fee, destined to become one of the major factors leading to events at the Eureka Stockade in 1854 during the governorship of Sir Charles Hotham, was to remain in place, and public opinion on the injustice of it escalated. All this confusion reflected very badly on La Trobe. He had not taken the lead in discussion of the miners’ licence fee in the Legislative Council, he had vacillated from his publicly stated position of

226



2/3/06 2:14:58 PM

replacing the fee with an export tax, and he had created a bad impression of the administration in the eyes of the colonists, the press and the Colonial Office. Due to sheer mismanagement on his part, two conflicting notices were sent out to the goldfields at the very same time, one advising that miners would not be required to pay a licence fee for the month of September 1853 while the Select Committee considered the question of abolition of the fee, and a second notice stating that the fee should be paid.129 The Geelong Advertiser described the cause of the disorder: ‘Madness is the only plea left … the only charitable construction’,130 while the Argus took great delight in torturing La Trobe mercilessly.131 The London press condemned the unfortunate Lieutenant-Governor in no uncertain terms: the Spectator described his actions as ‘an example of vacillation, obstinacy and pliancy, almost unparalleled’,132 while The Times proclaimed ‘The Government of Victoria is humbled in the dust before a lawless mob’.133 There were rumours that the Governor-General, Sir Charles FitzRoy, was planning to arrange La Trobe’s recall over his ineptitude.134 La Trobe had been made distinctly nervous by the turmoil generated by the discovery of gold. The aftermath engendered in him ‘a sense of the gold rushes as dangerous, edgy events with unpredictable outcomes’.135 He was left virtually alone by the exodus to the mines to undertake the day-to-day activities of government. There were few civil servants on whom he could rely to issue government advice; the resources needed for the influx of immigrants simply were not available; he had few, if any, advisers to whom he could turn. In fact, it could be said that La Trobe panicked before ‘the mob’. He had a fear of disorder in his public as well as his private life. He wanted his decisions to be based on thoughtful consideration as evidence to his superiors of his able rule. The time was not there for him to deliberate. He had to make decisions, and sometimes these were the wrong decisions. It is not surprising that the press vilified him, but the criticism was based on an imperfect understanding of his situation. The situation brought out two opposing traits in La Trobe’s character: timidity and authoritarianism. He was afraid of making decisions which might be wrong in the eyes of FitzRoy in Sydney and the Colonial Office in London, and he believed sincerely in the authority with which he had been invested. The result was that, with no



227

2/3/06 2:14:59 PM

support, he lost confidence in ever being able to resolve the situation and gave up as the decision-maker. Well before her husband received the 1853 deputation, Sophie La Trobe wrote to their daughter Agnes, at school in Neuchâtel, of the personal anxiety the management of the goldfields was causing her husband: I suppose he [Papa] tells you how much those gold discoveries have given him to do—how harrassed [sic] and worried he feels at times—but thank God who keeps him in good health and in strength of mind & heart. For a week towards the end of the year I got very anxious about him— he had lost his appetite, his sleep, in part— and for a week, or a fortnight we never saw a smile on his face—you know, that is not at all like him—but thanks be to God—he seems quite himself again—and goes to his work with courage— though he is surrounded by difficulties on every side … 136 Six months later, Sophie was still troubled for Charles Joseph. She, who knew him better than anyone else, could observe the great toll his responsibilities were taking on him. Without Gipps as his mentor and confidant, it would seem that he suffered great stress over the running of the colony: Your dear papa is still as busy as ever he can be. His head gets but little rest even in the night, so much he has to think about official business—most of the time of an unpleasant kind—and I see so little of him that sometimes it makes me quite unhappy—and every year I am hoping that if it is God’s will, it will be the last of that kind of life in this country and so far from all those who are dear to us.137 La Trobe admitted, himself, that he was feeling the tension of his situation. He wrote to his friend, Deas Thomson, in distant Sydney: Such constant wear and tear and strain cannot be borne with impunity long—and I feel that I must take the first proper opportunity of asking some relief … on public

228



2/3/06 2:14:59 PM

grounds, I think the time is coming when a change would be advantageous to the community. Both Governor and governed have been exposed to some trial of patience by my long reign.138 La Trobe was well aware of his unpopularity with so many of the colonists, his every word and action being criticised by those elected to the Legislative Council, by the press and by the man in the street. A sensitive person, he was conscious of his isolation, and this together with the strain of having a wife now in extremely poor health and a young family to care for, helped him rationalise his plans for the future. Despite his successes in forging a distinct and affluent colony from the bush, and his conviction that he was ‘in a position in which God’s providence and not my own will and efforts’139 had placed him, La Trobe submitted his resignation to the Secretary of State in London on 31 December 1852. He wrote: I must at length acknowledge that I feel the necessity of seeking to secure, as soon as may be, some breathing time and some degree of complete relaxation from that constant strain upon the mind more than the body, which the weight and character of my public duty, particularly of late, have brought with them. But beyond this, I think that the time has now arrived when a change in the head of the Executive Government of the Colony would be no disadvantage to the community.140 Although the resignation was accepted, his successor did not arrive to relieve him until June 1854, by which time La Trobe had already left the colony. He recognised and regretted that the discovery of gold had marked the end of the steady progress he wished for the community. ‘I would to God’, he lamented to Deas Thomson, ‘that not a grain had ever been found’.141 Despite some lack of judgement and undoubted miscalculations on his part, aggravated by lack of support from Governor FitzRoy in Sydney and the Colonial Office in London, he had done his best to uphold his office and to manage the colony of Victoria. Geoffrey Serle concluded that, when faced with the appalling difficulties of the times, La Trobe had tried to ‘govern chaos on a scale



229

2/3/06 2:14:59 PM

to which there are few or no parallels in British colonial history’.142 He had, in fact, managed to keep the colony for which he was responsible operating in circumstances ‘in which the archangel Gabriel might have been found wanting’.143 These were tumultuous times for the colony. It is probably true to say that not even the most experienced of Governors could have handled the situation in a Victoria beset by gold-induced havoc any better than had La Trobe. However, he coped the way he did because of his personal characteristics. He was sure of his position in command of the colony, but he was constantly worried about the ramifications of his actions in the eyes of his superiors. He was an organised man who quailed before the chaos of an administration which had lost its bureaucracy. He was conscious of his responsibility for the colony and its residents, but confused when it became evident that gold induced an impetus that was beyond his control. Despite the inundation of Victoria, despite the demands of Governor FitzRoy, despite the requirements of the Colonial Office, or perhaps because of all of these, La Trobe felt alone. He did not have the will to go on. La Trobe had never found the administration of the colony easy, due mainly to his personal characteristics. His reserved nature, and his conviction that, by virtue of his office, he was superior to those he had to govern, did not allow him to associate freely with the colonists. The constant battery of the press and criticism from the colonists had worn him down to the point where his confidence was shattered. His was not an engaging personality which attracted support, and so many of his decisions were contrary to popular approbation. His management of the goldfields certainly did not reflect well on La Trobe. This phase of his administration was the weakest part of his management of the colony. Turbulent times, and a constantly changing focus for his attention as more and more problems came before him for resolution, eroded any decision-making ability he had remaining, and destabilised his judgement. After thirteen years of creating and juggling the governance and infrastructure, he was exhausted and demoralised. He wrote to the Colonial Secretary in Sydney of his mixed feelings in December 1852: I feel that I deserve very different treatment … I look upon the heavy spirits of the year that is soon to close with

230



2/3/06 2:14:59 PM

wonder. I am not afraid but when the day comes that men can strain the gold dust out of their eyes and look upon things calmly, some credit will befall to the place of the Gov. which neither lost its head nor its temper under such circumstances … But on public grounds, I think the time is coming when a change would be advantageous to the community. Both Governor and governed have been exposed to some trial of patience by my long reign.144 When La Trobe had arrived in his Port Phillip exile, he had found science unborn, the arts non-existent, and the country largely unexplored. He left it, knowing that the scientific and cultural interests he had pursued as his dream for the future stature of Victoria, and the edifying effects these would have on its citizenry, would bear worthwhile fruits well into the future. This was compensation for the fatigue and sense of failure he felt in his inability to solve problems of race relations and popular opinion in his administration. Like his attitudes to indigenous inhabitants and those who had invaded their lands, however, his activities and attitudes in the establishment of the institutions of an elevating public culture were marked by the values he brought with him in 1839.

Notes 1

2

3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10

Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to Herman Merivale, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, 23 March 1853, CO 309/9, 86284, No. 183, Public Record Office, Kew. Journal of a Journey in the Tyrol, 1829–30, La Trobe Archive, MS 13003, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ibid. Port Phillip Patriot, 3 October 1839, p. 3. McCombie, The History of the Colony of Victoria, pp. 57–8. ibid., p. 57. ibid., p. 262. Edward Wilson (1813–1878), an English journalist and philanthropist, arrived in Melbourne in 1841. He purchased the Argus newspaper in 1848, after a short period as a grazier. He remained its editor until late 1853. Despite his immoderate radicalism, he was ‘an outstanding journalist who was briefly of crucial importance and commanding influence’. (Serle, ‘Edward Wilson’, pp. 412–15) ibid., p. 412. Argus, 9 June 1848, p. 2.



231

2/3/06 2:14:59 PM

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35

36 37 38

39 40 41 42

43 44 45

232

ibid., 14 May 1847, p. 4. ibid., 30 June 1848, p. 2. ibid., 20 September 1849, p. 2. ibid., 25 September 1849, p. 2. ibid., 18 December 1850, p. 2. ibid., 9 December 1850, p. 2. ibid., daily through April and May 1853. The Times (later Port Phillip Gazette), 15 May 1851, p. 2. Richard Hanmer Bunbury to Lady Emily Bunbury, 5 August 1844, PA 98/14, Bunbury Family Papers, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 203. Richard Hanmer Bunbury to Lady Emily Bunbury, 5 August 1844. Charles Joseph La Trobe to E. Deas Thomson, Colonial Secretary, 20 January 1848, and sent by Fitzroy as an enclosure in the report on the Australian press to Earl Grey. In Watson, Historical Records of Australia, vol. XXVI, p. 172. McCombie, The History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 59. Quoted in Serle, ‘Edward Wilson’, p. 412. Westgarth, The Colony of Victoria, p. 103. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, pp. 387–8. Castella, Australian Squatters, pp. 45–6. ‘Garryowen’, Chronicles of Early Melbourne, p. 41. Wathen, The Golden Colony: Or Victoria in 1854, p. 196. ibid., p. 195. Charles Joseph La Trobe, The Rambler in North America, vol. I, p. 168. ibid., p. 166. Charles Joseph La Trobe—Commission, PROV. Invoice for 400 Bibles to Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, London, for grant to C. J. Latrobe [sic] Esq., 5 March 1839. In La Trobe’s handwriting: ‘Handed over to the Branch Society, Port Phillip 14 July 1840’. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Miscellaneous Papers, Box 136/6(b), La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. British and Foreign Bible Society Victoria. Established 100 Years Ago, 1840– 1940, p. 1. Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 116. ibid. George Augustus Robinson, Journal, 10 October 1839, ML A7035, 14, Mitchell Library, SLNSW; quoted in Rae-Ellis, Black Robinson, pp. 194–5. Charles Joseph La Trobe’s Minute Book, 5 October 1839, PROV. Rae-Ellis, Black Robinson, p. 183. Port Phillip Gazette, 3 July 1839, p. 3. Harris, One Blood: 200 Years of Aboriginal Encounter with Christianity, p. 180. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 216. ibid., p. 181. Howitt, Colonization and Christianity, pp. 499–501.



2/3/06 2:15:00 PM

46 47

48 49 50

51

52 53 54 55

56 57

58

59 60

61 62 63 64

65 66

67 68

69

70 71

72

Charles Joseph La Trobe’s Minute Book, 5 October 1839, PROV. Tyrrell, A Sphere of Benevolence: The Life of Joseph Orton, Wesleyan Methodist Missionary (1795–1842), p. 193, quoting Orton’s journal (1840– 42). ibid. Goodman, ‘Making an Edgier History of Gold’, p. 33. James Stephen—marginal note on Gipps’ report to Glenelg, 22 July 1839, CO 201/309, Public Record Office, Kew. Reynolds, An Indelible Stain: The Question of Genocide in Australia’s History, p. 91. ibid. Gross, Alan, Charles Joseph La Trobe, p. 54. Lakic and Wrench, Through Their Eyes, p. 16. La Trobe to Colonial Secretary, 18 November 1848, Votes and Proceedings, Legislative Council, New South Wales, vol. 2, 1849, pp. 423–30. ‘The Moravian Mission’, pp. 87–8. Tyrrell, A Sphere of Benevolence, p. 189, quoting letter from Joseph Orton to Rev. Benjamin Hurst, 10 October 1839. ibid., quoting letter from Joseph Orton to Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society Secretaries, 5 January 1841. Ryan, ‘Aboriginal Policy in Australia—1838—A Watershed?’, pp. 20–2. Dredge, Brief Notices of the Aborigines of New South Wales including Port Phillip, p. 27. Cannon, Who Killed the Koories?, p. 258. Christie, Aborigines in Colonial Victoria, 1835–86, pp. 134–5. Port Phillip Patriot, 7 October 1839, p. 3. The Port Phillip Association was an organisation formed in 1835 in Van Diemen’s Land to establish a settlement across Bass Strait at Port Phillip. John Batman, the instigator of the scheme, concluded a treaty with the Aboriginal people for the cession of 500 000 acres of land known as Dutigalla, and 100 000 acres known as Geelong. The fifteen original members of the Association included Joseph Tice Gellibrand, a lawyer of Hobart Town, Charles Swanston, a banker of Hobart Town, and John Helder Wedge, a surveyor. Their aim was to open up profitable grazing land in Port Phillip. (Trespassers and Intruders, Exhibition catalogue) Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 237. George Gipps to Charles Joseph La Trobe, 25 December 1845, H7318, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe to John Murray, 15 December 1840, John Murray Archives, London. Stanley to Gipps, 12 June and 22 August 1845, in Watson, Historical Records of Australia, vol. XXIV, pp. 370, 482–3. Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 240. Gipps to Stanley, 23 January 1846, in Watson, Historical Records of Australia, vol. XXIV, p. 727. ibid.



233

2/3/06 2:15:00 PM

73 74

75 76 77

78 79

80 81

82 83 84

85

86

87 88 89

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

98

99 100

Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 243. La Trobe to Thomson, 20 January 1848, in Watson, Historical Records of Australia, vol. XXVI, p. 172. Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 432. Argus, 3 March 1848, p. 5. La Trobe quoted in Billot, The Life and Times of John Pascoe Fawkner, p. 229. Eastwood, Charles Joseph La Trobe, p. 15. La Trobe to Colonial Secretary, 7 June 1841, NSW Archives Office, 4/2823, 48/466. McCombie, The History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 57. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Ronald Campbell Gunn, 17 August 1848, MS Q641, Mitchell Library, SLNSW. ibid., 10 December 1850. Ward, ‘Sir Charles Augustus FitzRoy,’ ADB, vol. 2, p. 384. Minute of Deas Thomson on La Trobe to Colonial Secretary, 7 June 1848, NSW Archives Office, 4/2823, 48/466. FitzRoy to Grey, 22 September 1848, in Watson, Historical Records of Australia, vol. XXVI, pp. 609–10, 4729–31. Parliamentary Papers, 1848–49 [XXXV, 1074, 25], House of Commons, Great Britain. Correspondence re Constitutions, La Trobe to FitzRoy, 10 August 1849, Port Phillip, XXXV, 1074, p. 25. Melbourne Morning Herald Extraordinary, 11 November 1850. Cannon, Old Melbourne Town, p. 460. Georgiana Huntly McCrae (1804–1890) was a Scottish artist and diarist. The natural daughter of George, Marquis of Huntly, afterwards fifth Duke of Gordon, and Jane Graham, she was educated in London by French refugee nuns. An accomplished linguist, talented musician and gifted artist she studied at the Royal Academy, London. In 1830, she married Andrew Murison McCrae, an Edinburgh lawyer. They arrived in Melbourne on 1 March 1841. During their fifteen years in Victoria, Georgiana was a close friend of Charles Joseph and Sophie La Trobe. One of her diaries was published by her grandson, Hugh McCrae, in 1934. (ADB, vol. 2, pp. 160–1) McCrae, Georgiana’s Journal, pp. 176–7. Argus, 12 November 1850, p. 2. ibid. Melbourne Morning Herald, 19 November 1850, p. 3. Argus, 19 November 1850, p. 4. Melbourne Daily News, 19 November 1850, p. 4. Melbourne Morning Herald, 14 November 1850, p. 4. Fawkner, Commemoration of the Boon of the Separation of the Province of Victoria from the Colony of New South Wales, 15 November 1850. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Ronald Campbell Gunn, 10 December 1850, DL DOC40, Mitchell Library, SLNSW. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 301. McCombie, The History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 214.

234



2/3/06 2:15:00 PM

101

102

103

104 105 106 107 108 109 110

111 112 113 114

115 116 117

118 119 120 121 122 123

124

125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

133 134

Addresses presented to C. J. La Trobe on his appointment as LieutenantGovernor of Victoria, 15 July 1851, MS 10106, MC3, Dr. 1, Bag 2, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Ronald Campbell Gunn, 2 March 1849, MS Q641, Mitchell Library, SLNSW. Serle, The Golden Age, pp. 9–10. The Committee comprised many who would exert great influence over future public affairs in Melbourne. McCombie listed them in his History of the Colony of Victoria as ‘Messrs. Nicholson, Westgarth, Hodgson, Russel, McCombie, O’Shanassy, Greeves, Fawkner, Grice, Davis, Hood, Bell, Hart, Heales, and Gumbiner’. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, pp. 2–5. Serle, The Golden Age, p. 23. Vamplew, Australians: Historical Statistics, p. 26. Turner, Henry, A History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 343. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 November 1852, p. 8. Fauchery, Letters from a Miner in Australia, p. 33. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Ronald Campbell Gunn, 2 March 1849, MS Q641, Mitchell Library, SLNSW. ibid., 6 February 1852. Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District, p. 249. Dingle, The Victorians: Settling, p. 47. Geelong Advertiser, 26 August 1851, quoted in Serle, The Golden Age, p. 20. Howitt, Land, Labour and Gold: Or Two Years in Victoria, p. 220. Serle, The Golden Age, p. 20. La Trobe to Pakington, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 10 October 1851, CO 309/9, Public Record Office, Kew. Dingle, The Victorians: Settling, p. 53. McCombie, The History of the Colony of Victoria, p. 221. Serle, The Golden Age, p. 101. ibid., p. 102. Rusden, History of Australia, p. 618. Goldfields Petition 1853, H7570, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe’s Reply to the Diggers’, H7570, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. ibid. ibid. Inglis, Australian Colonists, p. 228. Serle, The Golden Age, pp. 116–17. Howitt, Land, Labour and Gold, p. 230. Geelong Advertiser, 17 December 1853, p. 6. Argus, 9 December 1853, p. 5. Spectator, London, 17 December 1853, quoted in Serle, The Golden Age, p. 112. The Times, London, 17 December 1853, p. 7. Serle, The Golden Age, p. 112.



235

2/3/06 2:15:00 PM

135 136

137 138

139 140

141

142 143 144

236

Goodman, ‘Making an Edgier History of Gold’, p. 34. Sophie La Trobe to Agnes La Trobe, 23 January 1852, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 22(b), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ibid., 12 July 1852. Charles Joseph La Trobe to E. Deas Thomson, Colonial Secretary, New South Wales, 13 December 1852, private correspondence, Deas Thomson Papers, ML A1531-7, Mitchell Library, SLNSW. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Sir John Pakington, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 31 December 1852, CO 309/9, 86284, No. 185, Public Record Office, Kew. La Trobe to Deas Thomson, 25 June 1852, Deas Thomson Papers, ML A1531-7, Mitchell Library, SLNSW. Serle, ‘Noble Vision and Harsh Realities’, p. 276. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Deas Thomson, 13 December 1852, Deas Thomson Papers, ML A1531-7, Mitchell Library, SLNSW.



2/3/06 2:15:00 PM

chapter 8

The Aftermath of Office: ‘The Hedger’s Glove’1

Charles Joseph La Trobe, Superintendent of the Port Phillip District of New South Wales and, later, first Lieutenant-Governor of the new colony of Victoria, was and remains a profoundly controversial figure. From the day he set foot on the soil of Port Phillip, there was a distance between him and the colonists because they did not understand each other. Fundamental to all the Superintendent’s thoughts, words and actions were his spirituality and his evangelicalism. He was certain about his civilising mission in this outpost of Empire, while the colonists had one major preoccupation—to improve their material lot in life. Not only was La Trobe on a different mental plane, his perceived aloofness and the timidity or procrastination which overtook him in times of crisis set him apart from those he had come to administer. His distant manner was interpreted as unsociability and snobbishness. La Trobe’s policies were also controversial, provoking discontent and suspicion on the part of the settlers who demanded instantaneous satisfaction of their needs. The first half of the nineteenth century was a time of unsettling and rapid change for Great Britain. Not only were established colonies going through major changes, but new ones such as Port Phillip faced in their development challenges


2/3/06 2:15:01 PM

that had never been encountered before by the Colonial Office or its senior officers. La Trobe, then, was pioneering the role of government in this far-off territory. His slowness to act on the separation question was totally misunderstood by those clamouring for it. He, in the meantime, was pursuing the issue cautiously but vigorously, believing constantly that the timing of its adoption was all-important. His administration of the goldfields caused conflict, because of his failure to exert strong leadership when it was needed over the licensing question. Inexperience led to near-chaos. He had the misfortune of being placed in authority over a colony where he had to face the rise of democracy, a movement he found distasteful, which he barely understood and was unable to master. He was fearful of what he saw as ‘anarchy’ and wanted to avoid that above all. So La Trobe grappled with what he knew—infrastructure had to be maintained, and it was, despite the confusion all around him. Despite the problems, despite the radical hurdles he had to surmount in his administration, La Trobe did not lose sight of his vision for the developing and increasingly prosperous colony. This vision bore no immediate relevance for the contemporary period or for those who lived in Port Phillip and Victoria at that time. His long-term vision for the colony was that it should be not only Christian but a highly educated community, well versed in the arts and sciences. These heartfelt objectives were slow to progress and, although he played a significant role in the establishment of Victoria’s cultural institutions, he was not to see their achievement. In marked contrast to the vigorous young man sketched by Brockedon in 1835, only a few years before he assumed the post of Superintendent of the Port Phillip District, a portrait of La Trobe at the time of his departure from Australia in 1854 shows a careworn, fatigued and defeated man. He had suffered in the role of administrator of the restive colony because of the ramifications of his own inbuilt caution and vacillation in decision-making and his overdependence on his superiors. He was continually constrained by a flood of instructions, queries and orders from London and Sydney. On the other hand, there had been times when he had not been given the support he needed by Governor FitzRoy or by the Colonial Office. If he did not understand the few delegations permitted to him, they equally had no comprehension of his need of support, of back-up

238



2/3/06 2:15:01 PM

when he was in doubt about what course of action to take. It appeared to be a situation of ‘out of sight, out of mind’ when he sought permission for much-needed building programs, and he was left totally on his own to manage the mass immigration and the chaos of the goldfields. It is unsurprising that he was downcast when he relinquished his post. At that point, he did not have a sense that his good services had been valued, nor later in 1863, when he reminded the Colonial Office that he was still without the pension due to him: Ten to one, the only fate which awaits us is that of the hedger’s glove; employed as long as circumstances or convenience suits, to protect the hand against the too close contact with the thorny asperities of distant colonial rule, only, when worn out, or the call for such employment may have passed away, to be thrown aside to moulder on the bank.2 The apt analogy of the ‘hedger’s glove’, a mere piece of disposable equipment in the hands of the Colonial Office, was indicative of his bitterness after giving his utmost over fifteen years’ service. Added to this mental and emotional fatigue, La Trobe was increasingly beset by a physical problem—the gradual degradation of his sight—which was probably caused in August 1832 when he was involved in a carriage accident, injuring his right eye severely, while on a visit to Saratoga Springs in New York State.3 After departing Melbourne in 1854, aged fifty-three, La Trobe had many years before him. It is unlikely that he would have anticipated not working again in the service of his country. In fact, however, he was to have no further opportunities for employment and, for ten years, he was to receive no pension or recognition of his years of service for the British government. La Trobe left Melbourne with mixed feelings in early May 1854,4 after nearly fifteen years in the colony as Queen Victoria’s representative. Certainly, he must have had some personal satisfaction in seeing the rough outpost he had first encountered in 1839 showing distinct signs of the culture and elegance which he and far-sighted colonists had planned. The rudiments of government were in place, with the Governor since 16 July 18515 being advised by an Executive Council of four members. As well, a ‘Legislative Council “of ten

The Aftermath of Office


239

2/3/06 2:15:01 PM

Crown-nominated members” and twenty elected representatives chosen on a restricted franchise’6 of largely freehold landowners had been created in 1851 to give a more democratic approach to the management of the colony. La Trobe had a number of friends of his own class in the colony, but he had been largely misunderstood and unappreciated by those less familiar with the machinations of colonial government. To most colonists, he had appeared indecisive and procrastinating on the issues which really concerned them in their daily lives. They had no way of recognising the predicament of a representative of the Crown who was subject to two masters—the Governor in Sydney and the Colonial Office in London. Nor did they appreciate the inbuilt characteristics of this particular administrator, beset by a lack of management experience and bearing a predisposition to introspection and conservative deliberation. They, therefore, wrote him off as a procrastinator in whom they had no faith. As early as 1848, La Trobe had begun to show the signs of mounting stress engendered by his difficult position as Superintendent of a vocal and opiniated group of colonists. He wrote to his Tasmanian friend, Ronald Gunn, in a style reminiscent of his earlier witty comments in his travel books, indicating the weariness he felt as a consequence of the constant barrage against him. Two years later, he wrote to Gunn that ‘I think I am a little jaded’, in reference to the separation issue and his strong efforts in ‘cooking the new dish for the Victorians’.7 Despite his strong efforts towards separation and the creation of the new colony of Victoria, the constant barrage of the press against him continued. The hurtful effect of the continual criticism was to make him more reserved and withdrawn, and unable to approach decision-making with any flexibility. The stress and strain of so many years of pressure without any relief led him to submit his resignation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 31 December 1852 so as to secure ‘some breathing time and some degree of complete relaxation from that constant strain upon the mind more than the body’.8 Soon after his discomforting interview in August 1853 with the deputation of gold miners, La Trobe concluded that his period of effectiveness in Victoria had come to an end. In September of that year he wrote to his brother:

240



2/3/06 2:15:01 PM

I have … had a very anxious time of it with my goldfields population, have had to get over from Van Diemen’s Land more military strength … Let me work as I will, my successor will have plenty to do. I have been fully up to my work so far but not without the feeling that under the strain I could not keep it up long without giving in.9 However, he was required to remain at his post until May 1854, pending the selection and arrival of his successor. In the meantime, La Trobe sent his children and ailing wife home to Neuchâtel via England on the Blackwall, which departed Melbourne on 25 February 1853.10 The closeness of the relationship between the La Trobes was evident in two letters written at the time to their eldest daughter, Agnes, by her parents. Sophie had very mixed feelings about leaving: I need not tell you, dear child, that if the joy to see you will be great—the prospect of having to leave your dear papa, on this side of the world, is a very sorrowful and grievous one to me—and if I had been allowed to choose, I would have much prefered [sic] waiting for him that we might all meet again together—but it [is] not to be …11 La Trobe felt the separation from his wife acutely. He wrote to Agnes: Dear Mamma has left many many friends who are very sorry that she has gone & who feel the value which her example as a good Christian wife and mother has been in the community.12 Always constitutionally strong himself, La Trobe believed that the long sea voyage and access to experienced physicians at home would ensure her recovery.13 Sophie herself, though, had grave fears about any improvement in her health. On her arrival in London, she wrote to her mother: I tremble so much that I can scarcely manage my pen; I was already like this towards the end of my sojourn in Australia,



241

2/3/06 2:15:01 PM

and it has become worse during the voyage, and now it is worse than ever … If my dear husband were only with us, I know I would be much better.14 Sophie La Trobe had long had a delicate constitution. There are frequent references in La Trobe’s ‘Private Memoranda’ of 1834 to 1836,15 and in his letters to the Comtesse de Pourtalès for the same period, to Sophie being ‘far from well’, ‘S. ill and I in the depths’, and ‘tolerable as to health and would be better if she were a little more patient’.16 She suffered frequently from agonising headaches, probably migraines, which incapacitated her for days at a time. Health problems and the difficulties inherent in settling in a new country, a totally alien environment after the great comforts of life in Neuchâtel, were compounded by the overwhelming sensations of homesickness she inevitably felt. Soon after her arrival in Melbourne in 1841, the Scottish artist and diarist, Georgiana McCrae, had befriended Sophie La Trobe, finding her ‘très aimable pour moi’.17 Georgiana could clearly sympathise with the feelings of cultural exile that La Trobe had expressed early in his residency at Port Phillip, and the interests they had in common, such as sketching, music and gardening, as well as facility with the French language, brought the two families together. Georgiana found Sophie to be constitutionally delicate, referring to Sophie’s ‘neuralgic headache’18 at a time when she was too ill to support her husband at the ceremonial opening of Prince’s Bridge. The strong friendship between them allowed Sophie to ask Georgiana to deputise for her, and makes any romance between Charles Joseph and Mrs McCrae highly improbable. Speculation of this nature was fuelled by Hugh McCrae, Georgiana’s grandson, who added explanatory notes to Georgiana’s manuscript diary when editing it for publication in 1934. As Georgiana’s biographer, Brenda Niall, has pointed out, Georgiana’s original journal contained none of the titillating detail added by her grandson, such as La Trobe appearing on the verandah at Jolimont in his ‘embroidered dressing gown’ and ‘holding my [Georgiana’s] sleeve’19 early on the morning the bridge was officially opened: The fact that she could accept the La Trobes’ hospitality and enjoy playing the role of La Trobe’s wife in public

242



2/3/06 2:15:01 PM

suggests an unselfconscious ease in the relationship which is hard to reconcile with illicit love. And although the McCraes’ marriage was a troubled one, all that is known of the La Trobes points to a tranquil mutual devotion.20 Sophie’s constant physical weakness was further adversely affected by a fall she had from a carriage in 1848 when she was possibly expecting a fifth child.21 Her continued ill-health, therefore, was the reason Sophie left her husband in Melbourne to await the imminent arrival of his successor, and returned to her family home in Switzerland. Despite the best medical attention, she died at her mother’s house in Neuchâtel on 30 January 1854, just before her forty-fourth birthday. The death certificate states the cause of her death as ‘chronic inflammation of the liver and apoplexy’,22 symptoms which, today, might indicate a complaint such as hepatic encephalopathy, a liverrelated disease of the brain,23 followed by a stroke. In the meantime, so far away, La Trobe acted unilaterally, without approval from Sydney or London, and abandoned his post before his relief had arrived. This was totally uncharacteristic behaviour for one who had always relied on directions from a higher authority. It suggests a profound depression and stress level almost to the point of desperation of someone at the end of his tether. He wrote to Agnes: I not only felt myself at liberty to anticipate the arrival of my successor, Sir Charles Hotham, by a few weeks, but having changed my intention of returning by the Horn, and resolved to return by the Isthmus of Panama and the West Indies, I have been favoured with a very prompt and fortunate return.24 This atypical behaviour was certainly a reaction to his situation in Port Phillip and his anxiety for his family so far away. His critics had no conception of the turmoil going on in his mind. He appears to have given up on the welfare of the colony for which he had had such high hopes. Nevertheless, grateful citizens presented him with farewell gifts, numerous illuminated addresses, a magnificent silver centrepiece designed on Australian themes, and a gold vase weighing 100 ounces25 at a valedictory ball in the Old Treasury Buildings on



243

2/3/06 2:15:02 PM

28 November 1853. He sailed for Europe on 6 May 1854 on the Golden Age, a new and luxurious American steamship. La Trobe returned to England to pick up the pieces of his life. On reaching Southhampton on 17 July, La Trobe wrote immediately to Agnes in Neuchâtel, announcing his arrival: My dearest Agnes, It is not two hours since I set foot on the soil of old England again, and I feel that I must for my own sake if not for that of my dear children employ some of the first moments of my return from my long exile, in calling upon you to bless God with me that I have been thus greatly favoured.26 Typically, his first response on reaching home was to give thanks to God for his safe passage. In the same letter to Agnes, he reveals the pain and the poignancy of learning from a newspaper report of his wife’s death, just as he was about to leave Port Phillip forever: Alas, alas, that I am no longer to be welcomed by their dear Mother. I received the intelligence of my irreparable loss, first by newspaper report, on the 27 April—and a few days later (1st May) by the arrival of the mail by the Bosphorus with your letters and those of my kind relatives, Swiss and English.27 It must have been a shattering experience for him, on picking up the newspaper from home, to read the heartbreaking news. Only his firm belief that this loss was the will of God and his Moravian stoicism could sustain him. This is exemplified in his final diary entry on leaving Port Phillip, having just received the tragic news: ‘What shall I render him to the Lord for all his benefits toward me’.28 La Trobe then, on his return to Europe, was facing the reality of life as the sole parent of an adolescent family. In a state of deep bereavement, he had to set about reclaiming his children, finding a family home for them and seeing to their education. His humanity and depth of feeling, never to the fore in a public sense, are best demonstrated, in this time of deep loss, in his private writings:

244



2/3/06 2:15:02 PM

How I have mourned her I cannot tell … But the wound is yet green, and I dare not indulge in brooding upon it. May this great trial be sanctified both to me and my dear Children.29 His great religious faith, a product of his formation from earliest years and ever a comfort to him, was his strength and did not permit him to indulge in self-pity. La Trobe did not remain a widower for very long. He needed a partner, primarily to undertake the upbringing of his children and, as was typical of the era, he turned to the woman who had had much to do with the successful raising of his eldest child, Agnes. This was his sister-in-law, Rose Isabelle de Meuron, the youngest of Sophie’s siblings, who herself had been a widow for the last twelve years. Charles Joseph La Trobe and Rose de Meuron were married in Neuchâtel on 3 October 1855.30 Following his second marriage, two children were born: Margaret Rose, known as ‘Daisy’, in September 1856 at Addington in England,31 and Isabelle Castellane, in 1859 at the Château de Greng, one of the Pourtalès’ houses in Switzerland. Isabelle died at the age of eighteen, while Daisy survived until 1932 when she died in Neuchâtel.32 At the time of La Trobe’s second marriage, it was illegal in England for a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister. This was one of the many ‘Prohibited Degrees of Marriage and Incest’ under British law which prevented marriages between those connected through affinity, that is, by marriage but not by blood, including both relations in-law and step relations.33 La Trobe was in a real predicament. He had decided that marriage to Rose was the sensible and, quite probably, the desirable course of action, but it would create major problems for him. He must have been aware that such a marriage would be considered incestuous in Britain and that it would make him a virtual outcast from British society. Why did he decide to marry Rose? There are likely to have been a number of reasons. Foremost on his mind would have been the need to have someone to care for his children and, to some extent, the marriage would have been one of convenience. No doubt, he himself wanted a companion to share his life, and it is quite conceivable, especially when their marriage was a happy one for nearly twenty years, that Rose was a second great love in his



245

2/3/06 2:15:02 PM

life. If that was the case, was his affection for her so overpowering that he forgot, or ignored, the consequences? For one who had acted cautiously throughout fifteen years of service in Australia, this would seem out of character. In fact, his behaviour in quitting his post without being relieved and in marrying against British law in Switzerland was totally uncharacteristic. These actions would seem to be those of a desperate man, or of one who had temporarily lost his senses. Then again, he may have married Rose without thinking through the ramifications. La Trobe’s widowerhood and remarriage coincided with a crossroads in British legal history. Among the La Trobe Archive in Neuchâtel is an envelope marked ‘Private Papers’ in Charles Joseph’s own handwriting. It is much like many others in the collection, the difference being that it was sealed and bound with a ribbon, and had obviously not been opened before by curious researchers. It revealed a resource which allows a valuable insight into La Trobe’s state of mind at the time he was contemplating his second marriage. These ‘private papers’ are numerous, and cover the period immediately before and after his second marriage. They include drafts of letters he wrote seeking legal advice which would help him overcome the dilemma in which he found himself. Included in the dossier is a letter from Joseph Stansbury, MA, Honorary Secretary of the Committee of the Marriage Law Reform Association.34 While this does not refer to La Trobe’s personal situation, it indicates a correspondence with the Association on the topic at the forefront of his mind. The file also includes clippings from The Times35 which had run regular leading articles on the subject of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister which had brought the question into the public arena. Even though such marriages were, at that time, sanctioned in Switzerland and in some other parts of the world, La Trobe was obviously in some consternation over reactions to what was considered an incestuous marriage in England. The private dossier also includes twenty-one supportive letters from friends and relatives, all containing opinions on the legal process prohibiting such a marriage in Britain, and supporting La Trobe in his decision to go ahead anyway, despite the obvious anguish and personal turmoil. These letters of support came from a diverse group of La Trobe’s friends, in England, Australia and Switzerland, including Frances Perry, wife of Melbourne’s first Bishop Charles Perry, Melbourne

246



2/3/06 2:15:02 PM

merchant Octavius Browne, and the wife of his former private secretary Edward Bell. His brother, John Antes La Trobe, an Anglican clergyman at Kendal in the Lake District, was at great pains to ‘renew after the event the assurances I gave you before the event’.36 Mrs Bell, who knew Sophie in Melbourne, was only astonished that I should never have thought of the connexion you are about to form before as the most natural one you could possibly make. Religiously, I have no scruples on the subject, and who will love your last wife’s children so much and so truly as her sister?37 Octavius Browne, a friend of La Trobe and of Georgiana McCrae, could only ‘hope and believe that God’s blessing will greatly prosper you and your children of this union’.38 The consequence of their marriage was that La Trobe was never again offered a position with the Colonial Office. He had requested a change of position when he sent in his resignation in 1853. At the time, this was acknowledged in a letter from the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State, who recognised fully the justice of that hope of further reemployment which your dispatch expresses, whenever it is found possible to satisfy it consistently with other engagements and claims of Her Majesty’s Government.39 However, there was no way that Queen Victoria, in whose name British law was made, and who was head of the Church of England, could give her approval for La Trobe, who had defied the law, to act on her behalf anywhere in the British Empire. La Trobe must have realised the hopelessness of pursuing such an application, and no doubt resigned himself to enforced early retirement. That was all he could do. It was, therefore, all the more surprising, given the official view of his marital status, that he was awarded the Order of the Bath in 1858. The citation read rather grudgingly: With regard to his administration of the Government of Victoria, if it was not marked by any very brilliant results,



247

2/3/06 2:15:02 PM

he carried the colony through unprecedented difficulties with safety and laid the way for future success.40 Financial matters were important for a man in his situation. He was never a property owner in England, he and his family residing in one leased house or another for the rest of his life. The most notable was Ightham Mote in Kent, built in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and one of the few remaining moated manor houses in England, which he rented from Sir William Selby for a short period from the end of 1856. Having made the judicious purchase of 12.5 acres of land at Jolimont in Melbourne in 1840, he was now in the position of gaining an income by subdividing his property and gradually, through his Melbourne agents, selling off parcels of land.41 It was just as well, since it was more than ten years before the House of Commons saw fit, after much haggling, to approve payment to him of a partial pension. In the early 1860s, La Trobe had to lobby his various contacts in Treasury and Colonial Office circles to bring his particular case for entitlements to the fore. His eyesight had by now deteriorated to the stage where he was almost totally blind, but his tenaciousness in striving for his due reward never deserted him. The skills of negotiation that he had honed at Fulneck in his schooldays, and later, enabled him to put forward, quite clearly and with certainty, in a letter to the Colonial Office from the Athenaeum Club,42 his belief that he was entitled to a pension of the first class: it ought to be borne in mind that the most conclusive proof may be adduced that the amount of provision made in the case of the Province over which I presided, for the remuneration of the officers administering the government, was from first to last, owing to exceptional circumstances which cannot be paralleled in the case of any other Colony, quite inadequate. From first to last, my private resources were taxed to furnish the means of creditably filling and meeting the exigencies of my official and social position, and I am unwilling to admit that I ought now to be underpensioned for no other reason but that I may be seen to have been underpaid.43

248



2/3/06 2:15:02 PM

It was the injustice of the situation which rankled most with La Trobe, in addition to his financial need. Not only did he feel justified in claiming a pension on the grounds of the expenses he had had to incur while in office, but he also took credit for managing the surge of prosperity in a colony which had increased so enormously in every dimension. When La Trobe had arrived in Melbourne in 1839 as Superintendent of the Port Phillip District of New South Wales, he had a vast area of pastoral land to manage and a mere few thousand inhabitants. The infant settlement of Melbourne was just four years old and lacked the infrastructure and culture which permeated even the smallest city in Europe from which most immigrants had come. By the time La Trobe retired from his post in 1854, the backwater of the Port Phillip District had become the affluent Colony of Victoria. As he himself described it: The entire population in the year of my arrival may have numbered but a few thousands. The first census, of 1841, gave it as 12,000. Five years later the Town of Melbourne alone held not far short of 11,000 inhabitants, and the Census of 1851 gave upwards of 77,000 for the whole district, and 23,000 for the principal town. This year, that of the separation of the Colony from New South Wales, the district contained 6,000,000 sheep, and 400,000 head of cattle, a number exceeding that registered in the parent Colony at that time … The year of the Separation was also that of the great Gold discoveries; and in 1854, the year of my departure, the population had risen to 236,798, while in the preceding year the sum of the Revenue was far in excess of £3,000,000—and the value of Imports and Exports stood at £15,842,637 and £11,061,548 respectively.44 Despite the tumult which had characterised most of his time in Australia, it was certainly to La Trobe’s credit that he had maintained the rule of law for most of the period, had established infrastructure and services, and had had the satisfaction of overseeing the foundation of cultural and religious institutions. His early statement of the character of the colonists summed them up well for the full term of his office:



249

2/3/06 2:15:03 PM

My people are rapidly increasing in number, a goodnatured, busy, speculative, impatient set, giving me three cheers one day and abusing me like a pickpocket the next, with equally poor reasons for their praise or their blame.45 Gordon Gairdner, a Colonial Office official, had summarised the claim for recognition when he noted on file that La Trobe had all the responsibilities of a distinct Government and in a rapidly rising Province which required constant vigilance and care to adapt the provisions of Government to the growing wants of the Society; and finally, his responsibilities were very great.46 The London press, in recording the debate leading up to the passing of the Colonial Governors (Pensions) Bill, recorded La Trobe’s just claim, since he had discharged his duties with great judgement and was well entitled to the consideration of the house.47 Eventually, the Bill was passed on 5 July 1865,48 making special provision for La Trobe. He was granted a small pension of £333 6s 8d per annum.49 The ungenerous nature of the pension had nothing to do with any dissatisfaction on the part of the government with La Trobe’s performance while in Australia. All the debate preceding the passing of the Bill praised his administration. However, as the Secretary of State stated in his letter to La Trobe, the provisions of the Act simply did not allow for the payment of any higher amount: But those provisions are, as it appears to me, imperative: and I consider that I am only at liberty to grant a pension based on the lowest salary (£1500) received by you during the last four years of your Administration of Victoria.50 If La Trobe was disappointed by the inadequacy of his pension, no record of his feelings exists. Soon after, he and his family retired to Clapham House in the village of Litlington in Sussex, a residence which ‘has a simple and sufficiently aristocratic dignity, and seems to know its place as the manor house of the village’.51 La Trobe, as evidenced in the hundreds of family letters of this period, continued his

250



2/3/06 2:15:03 PM

usual familial pursuits, visiting friends and family in England and in Switzerland, and, in turn, receiving guests himself. Despite his nowtotal blindness, he still showed some signs of that independence of spirit which allowed him to experience the joys of the garden he had always appreciated. Writing to a cousin in Germany, Agnes La Trobe described her father’s activities: Papa va très bien, et malgré son infirmité, il peut aller et venir avec plaisir. Il ne distingue pas même le jour de la nuit, mais par le toucher, il se promène seul dans tout le jardin, et est très independent dans la maison. Il se rase même tout seul!52 It was in this peaceful location that Charles Joseph La Trobe died on 4 December 1875 at the age of seventy-four. He was buried in the churchyard of the local parish church of St Michael the Archangel, where a white marble cross marks his grave. After his death, his wife retired to Neuchâtel. There she had a picturesque chapel, the Chapelle de l’Hermitage, built to his memory. Examination of the voluminous correspondence of La Trobe and his family circle in the Archives of Neuchâtel, discloses a man greatly loved by his family and ably sustained by his second wife and the adult children who lived with him. The family was a close-knit entity from which he derived much support and interest in life. Yet, photographs of La Trobe in later life show an intense sorrow where once there was buoyancy and vigour. Of course, encroaching blindness was a catastrophic blow to one who had been active and athletic all his life, and whose greatest pleasure lay in admiring the creations of the natural world. However, perhaps the greatest disquiet he had to bear following his retirement lay with the moral dilemma created by his second marriage, and with his lack of recognition by what he saw as an ungrateful employer, the Colonial Office.

Notes 1

Kathleen Fitzpatrick Papers, ACC 91/9, University of Melbourne Archives. ‘The Hedger’s Glove’ was the title proposed by Prof. Fitzpatrick, History Department, University of Melbourne, for a ‘biographical memoir of La Trobe. Sadly this study never eventuated.



251

2/3/06 2:15:03 PM

2 3

4

5 6 7

8

9

10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 19 20

21

22

23

24

La Trobe Papers, H7589, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès, 10 August 1832, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 45(c), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Australian Notes: Memoranda of Journeys’, 5 May 1854, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Wright, A Blended House: The Legislative Council of Victoria, 1851–1856. ibid., p. 3. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Ronald Campbell Gunn,10 December 1850, MS Q641, Mitchell Library, SLNSW. Despatches from Governor to Secretary of State, Charles Joseph La Trobe to Sir John Pakington, 31 December 1852, VPRS 1084, PROV; and CO 309/9, 80284, No. 185, Public Record Office, Kew. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Peter La Trobe, 24 September 1853, La Trobe Archive, MS 13003, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Passenger List, Blackwall, February 1853, PROV. Sophie La Trobe to Agnes La Trobe, 1 January 1853, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 20, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Agnes La Trobe, 10 March 1853, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 20, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Peter La Trobe, 24 September 1853, La Trobe Papers, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Sophie La Trobe to Rose-Augustine de Montmollin-Meuron, 11 June 1853, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 22, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. (My translation) Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Private Memoranda’, July 1834–September 1836, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. The ‘Private Memoranda’ was La Trobe’s personal diary compiled during these years. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Comtesse de Pourtalès at Berlin, 20 December 1835, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 45(b), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Georgiana McCrae, Manuscript Journal, 18 March 1841, McCrae Family Papers, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Très aimable pour moi = very likeable for me. ibid., 16 November 1850. McCrae, Georgiana’s Journal. Niall, Georgiana: A Biography of Georgiana McCrae, Painter, Diarist, Pioneer, pp. 188–9. Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Australian Notes: Memoranda of Journeys, Excursions and Absences 1839–54’, Safe 3, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Extrait du Registre des Actes de Decès de Neuchâtel, 1 Février 1854, Neuchâtel Archives. Ogilvie and Evans (eds), Chamberlain’s Symptoms and Signs in Clinical Medicine, p. 80. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Agnes La Trobe, 17 July 1854, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 22, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel.

252



2/3/06 2:15:03 PM

25

26 27 28

29 30

31 32 33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

The Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV, houses fifteen of these addresses, the National Gallery of Victoria is custodian of the silver centrepiece, and the whereabouts of the gold cup is unknown. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Agnes La Trobe, 17 July 1854. ibid. Charles Joseph La Trobe, ‘Australian Notes: Memoranda of Journeys …’, 6 May 1854. Charles Joseph La Trobe to Agnes La Trobe, 17 July 1854. Etat Civil de Neuchâtel, Acte de Mariage de Latrobe [sic] Charles-Joseph, avec de Meuron née de Montmollin Rose-Isabelle, 3 Octobre 1855, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Birth Certificate, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Death Certificate, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Prior to the Marriage Act 1949, legal precedent had established that the Table of Kindred and Affinity, dating from the Act of Uniformity 1662, based on interpretations of relationships referred to in Leviticus 18, and which formed part of the Book of Common Prayer, was the prescriptive list for illegal unions between the sexes. Significant changes to the law relating to affinity did not take place until the first half of the twentieth century. One of these was the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act 1907, and there were other aspects of the law as it applied to marriage, which underwent major revision both before and after this. The Statute was passed, allowing a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister, only after what has been described as ‘one of the most protracted struggles in British Parliamentary history,’ this reform lasting sixty-five years. Up to 1949, the law relating to marriage had been changed in segments, and in that year, the consolidation of various parts of the Marriage Act included the revised sections. (No Just Cause. The Law of Affinity in England & Wales: Some Suggestions for Change, a report by a group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, chaired by Baroness Seear, passim; and Wolfram, In-laws and Outlaws:Kinship and Marriage in England, p. 30) Joseph Stansbury to Charles Joseph La Trobe, 18 September 1855, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archive de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. The Times (London), 10 April 1855, p. 11a; 25 April 1856, p. 12e; 29 May 1856, p. 12c. John Antes La Trobe to Charles Joseph La Trobe, 17 October 1855, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. S. E. H. Bell to Charles Joseph La Trobe, 25 September 1855, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Octavius Browne to Charles Joseph La Trobe, 11 October 1855, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Duke of Newcastle to Charles Joseph La Trobe, 6 April 1853, CO 449.1, Public Record Office, Kew. CO 448-IA Colonial Office, Australian Division, C. B. Claims, 3 September 1858, draft in Public Record Office, Kew; original at MS Box 78/6, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV.



253

2/3/06 2:15:03 PM

41

42

43

44

45

46

47 48

49

50 51

52

James Graham—La Trobe correspondence and legal papers, Graham Brothers & Co. Records, ACC 61/14, University of Melbourne Archives. La Trobe was proposed for membership of the Athenaeum Club in Pall Mall on 8 November 1853 by his friends the publisher John Murray and the portrait painter William Brockedon. He was elected by the Committee on 27 March 1855. There are no portraits of La Trobe in the possession of the Athenaeum Club in London. (Athenaeum Club’s Book of Candidates in the private collection of the Club) Charles Joseph La Trobe to Sir Frederic Rogers, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, 27 August 1865, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Memorandum to Colonial Office, 4 May 1864, CO 449.1, Public Record Office, Kew. Charles Joseph La Trobe to John Murray, 15 December 1840, John Murray Archive, London. Gordon Gairdner to Sir Frederic Rogers, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Minute, 5 May 1864, CO 449, Public Record Office, Kew. The Telegraph (London), 23 June 1865, p. 3. Colonial Governors (Pensions) Bill, 5 July 1865, Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, Great Britain. Edward Cardwell, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to Charles Joseph La Trobe, 5 December 1865. Original, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 17, Dossier 27, Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel; copy, CO 449.1, Public Record Office, Kew. ibid. Keith Macartney (Assoc. Prof. of English, University of Melbourne, at the time of this letter) to Kathleen Fitzpatrick, 6 February 1950, Kathleen Fitzpatrick Papers, ACC 91/9, Box 8, University of Melbourne Archives. Agnes La Trobe to Louise de La Trobe, 31 May 1870, Fonds Petitpierre, Carton 18, Dossier 31(b), Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel. ‘Papa is very well, and in spite of his infirmity, he is able to come and go with pleasure. He cannot even distinguish between day and night, but by touch, he walks alone all about the garden, and is very independent in the house. He even shaves himself unaided!’ (My translation)

254



2/3/06 2:15:03 PM

appendix 1

La Trobe’s Instructions

The following instructions1 were issued by Sir George Gipps, Governor of New South Wales, and read aloud to the assembled populace on 3 October 1839 on the occasion Charles Joseph La Trobe’s arrival in Melbourne to take up his appointment as Superintendent of the Port Phillip District. They were signed by Deas Thomson who was Colonial Secretary for New South Wales under the administrations of Governors Sir George Gipps and Sir Charles FitzRoy. Colonial Secretary’s Office, Sydney, New South Wales, 10th September, 1839

SIR, Her Majesty having been pleased to appoint you to be Superintendent of Port Phillip, I am directed by His Excellency the Governor to transmit the accompanying Commission, containing such appointment under the Great Seal of the Territory, and to request that you will proceed by the earliest opportunity, and assume the command of the District. The Police Magistrate, Captain Lonsdale, who has hitherto been in charge, has been instructed that


2/3/06 2:15:04 PM

from the date of your arrival his duties will be confined to such as properly belong to his own office, and a similar notification will be inserted in the Government Gazette. 2.—The District to which you are appointed is considered as consisting of that part of the Territory of New South Wales, which lies to the south of the thirty-sixth degree of south latitude, and between the one hundred and fortyfirst and one hundred and forty-sixth degrees of east longitude. Within these limits you will exercise the powers of Lieutenant-Governor, and will stand in the same position in respect to the Governor of New South Wales, as the Governor himself stands in with respect to the Right Honorable the Secretary of State for the Colonies. 3.—All Public Officers within the District of Port Phillip, as above described, whose appointments are strictly of a local nature, will look only to you for instructions. 4.—Public Officers at Port Phillip, belonging to Departments of which the Heads are established at Sydney, or who receive instructions from the head of any Department in Sydney, will stand in the same relation to you as the Heads of certain Departments in Sydney (as for instance, the Ordnance and Commissariat) stand to the Governor of the Colony. They will carry into effect the orders which they receive from the Heads of their respective Departments in the same way as the Commanding Royal Engineer and the Deputy Commissary-General carry into effect the orders which they receive from the Ordnance or Treasury, but are nevertheless bound always to communicate to the Head of the Local Government the nature of those instructions, as well as the nature of the measures which they themselves suggest, and also bound to give their assistance to the Head of the Local Government in any matter whatsoever wherein he may require it. 5.—All Officers of the Civil Government, without exception, will look upon you as their immediate Head. 6.—On the occurrence of vacancies, you are at liberty to make appointments where the salaries or emoluments do not exceed one hundred pounds per annum; but all above

256

Appendix 1


2/3/06 2:15:04 PM

that amount must be reported for the approval of the Governor, and on no account is the authorized establishment to be exceeded in any way without His Excellency’s previous sanction. 7.—In cases of necessity you are empowered to suspend, until the pleasure of the Governor shall be known, any Officer appointed in the Colony, but not such as hold appointments from Her Majesty’s Government. If, however, you shall have occasion to disapprove of the conduct of any of the latter, you will immediately report the circumstance for His Excellency’s information and decision, with a full detail of the particulars, and the grounds of any recommendation which you may think it necessary to make in the case. 8.—With respect to the Senior Officer of Her Majesty’s troops in the District, you will stand in the same relation as the Governor stands to the Major-General Commanding in the Colony. In all cases wherein the preservation of the peace is concerned, or the enforcement of Convict discipline, you will be entitled to call for his assistance; but you will carefully avoid interference in matters purely Military, and you will have no control whatever over expenses defrayed out of the Military Chest. Military Officers however, holding appointments under the Colonial Government, will be responsible to you for the performance of their Civil duties, and in this class all Officers of the Mounted Police are included. 9.—All letters and returns intended for the Governor’s information, instead of being addressed to the Colonial Secretary, will be addressed to you. 10.—You will forward to the Colonial Secretary as many of these letters, or extracts from them as you may think necessary, expressing your own opinion in a separate letter when the subject is important; in others or ordinary cases making a Minute on the margin; and at all times, for the sake of avoiding confusion, confining each communication to a single subject. 11.—The rules to be observed in all matters of Revenue

Appendix 1


257

2/3/06 2:15:04 PM

and Expenditure will form the subject of a separate instruction. 12.—In cases which are not met by those rules, you will act on your own discretion, adhering, however, to the general principles which govern the expenditure of the public money, in this as well as in all other parts of the British Empire, viz.— (1)—That no expense can be incurred which has not been provided for by the Local Legislature, or expressly charged upon the Land Revenue, and specifically authorized by the Governor. (2)—That funds provided for one service cannot be expended on another, neither can savings on one item of any service be applied to another. (3)—That savings are to be made whenever practicable; and that because a certain sum of money has been provided for any particular service, it does not follow that it must necessarily be expended. (4)—That any person who authorizes a departure from any one of the three foregoing rules, does so on his own responsibility. 13.—In all matters of Convict discipline, or in the distribution of Convict labour, you will exercise all the functions of the Governor; subject, however, to confirmation or disallowance by His Excellency, and with this exception rendered necessary by the law, namely, that you will not be authorized to withdraw Convicts from the service of any individual without the express order of the Governor. In cases, therefore, when Assigned Servants are taken from their Masters, either for Police purposes, or for any infraction of the regulations, they are to be kept in Government employment until an order for their final disposal may be received from Sydney. 14.—The Convicts so kept are to be considered as under the Police Magistrate as far as their custody and discipline are concerned. But the direction of their labour will rest with the Clerk of Works, or other Officer in charge of any Department, to which you may desire them to be attached.

258

Appendix 1


2/3/06 2:15:04 PM

15.—In further compliance with the law, you will not be authorized to exercise the prerogative of the Crown in the pardoning of offenders, or the remission of punishments. The practice, however, of sending petitions or applications for mercy or remission through you is to be adopted as far as possible, and in all such cases you will be pleased to express your own opinion on them, obtaining, if practicable, the opinion or report of the Judge, Chairman of Quarter Sessions, or Magistrate before whom the case may have been tried or decided. 16.—Cases will probably arise, wherein it may be desirable for you to put yourself in direct communication with the Heads of Departments in Sydney, especially perhaps the Heads of the Convict and Emigration Departments. The general rule to guide such communications is that they relate only to the detail or fulfilment of instructions previously conveyed through the Colonial Secretary; and that they be continued so long as the dispatch of public business is facilitated by them, without disturbing the harmony of the service; but that they be discontinued, and the subject brought through the Colonial Secretary before the Governor, the moment a difference of opinion or anything likely to lead to a difference of opinion arises. 17.—I am directed in a particular manner to invite your attention to the treatment of the Aborigines, and to the prevention as far as possible of collisions between them and the Colonists. For your information and guidance in this very important part of your duty, I enclose copies of the principal Government orders now in force respecting them, as also of the instructions which have been issued to the Chief Protector of Aborigines, and the Commissioners of Crown Lands. 18.—In conclusion I am directed to inform you that extracts of the foregoing instructions have been communicated to the several Departments, accompanied by the Governor’s commands that strict attention be paid thereto, and His Excellency suggests that, upon your assuming charge, it will be expedient to cause the whole of the present

Appendix 1


259

2/3/06 2:15:04 PM

communication to be read in public, for general information and guidance. Further instructions will be transmitted to you, from time to time, as the exigencies of the service may require, and I am commanded to add, His Excellency Sir George Gipps will at all times be happy to receive every information and suggestion connected with your duties, or the welfare of the District entrusted to your control, which it may be in your power to offer. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your Honor’s most obedient servant E. DEAS THOMSON HIS HONOR, CHARLES JOSEPH LA TROBE, Esq., &c. &c. &c.

Notes 1

Charles Joseph La Trobe—Commission, 10 September 1839, VPRS 19/8/1, Unit 1, File 39/3, PROV.

260

Appendix 1


2/3/06 2:15:04 PM

appendix 2

La Trobe’s Art

As an artist, La Trobe was virtually unrecognised until the publication in 1999 by the State Library of Victoria and the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) of all his known extant sketches and watercolours in the volume Charles Joseph La Trobe: Landscapes and Sketches.1 Before his arrival in Australia in 1839, La Trobe had travelled extensively, recording for his own pleasure and as examples of the wonderment of creation the scenery he encountered. No doubt, he began drawing and painting as a student at Fulneck School in Yorkshire, but none of his early efforts have been located. Fortunately, however, 437 of his sketches and paintings still exist. The State Library of Victoria is custodian of seven folios of La Trobe’s art. Of these, four folios comprising 277 works—Switzerland-Italy, North America, Mexico and Port Phillip—belong to the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) which placed them with the Library on longterm loan in 1976 for safekeeping. These had been donated to the Trust in 1960 by Captain Charles La Trobe and Mrs Victoria La Trobe Shea-Simonds, the children of Charles Albert La Trobe, the only son of Charles Joseph. The remaining 160 images in three folios—Home [England], Tahiti and Tasmania—are held in trust for the people of Victoria at the State Library. Of these, some pictures were presented to the Library in 1934 by the Baronne de Blonay, daughter of Agnes La


2/3/06 2:15:04 PM

Trobe, Charles Joseph’s eldest daughter, together with manuscripts and correspondence relating to her grandfather. The bulk of these three folios, however, was acquired by the Library in 1992 from an antiquarian dealer in London as part of the collection known as the ‘La Trobe Archive’.2 Because La Trobe sketched as he travelled, with little time available to finish his works, many of his pictures are incomplete. Mostly, they are pencil sketches overlaid with a sepia wash. There are, though, a number of completed paintings which demonstrate how accomplished La Trobe was as an artist. The majority of the works are postcard-size, while some of the more detailed are approximately twice that dimension. The value of La Trobe’s impressions of the landscape he saw lies in the fact that he recorded scenes very early in the European history of the places he visited. Examples of this phenomenon are his view of the site of the city of Chicago in 1832 as a tent encampment, and the church at Port Arthur in Tasmania, complete with the roof which was destroyed by fire a year after his visit in 1847. In addition, La Trobe’s views of Port Phillip were some of the earliest executed after the arrival of European colonists in the southern part of the Australian continent. Not only do his sketches and watercolours document the colonising spirit of the first half of the nineteenth century, but they show the contribution made to art and history in many parts of the rambler’s world by the ‘sketcher of no mean pretensions’,3 Charles Joseph La Trobe.

Notes 1 2

3

Reilly, Charles Joseph La Trobe: Landscapes and Sketches. La Trobe Archive, MS 13003, La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV. Irving, A Tour on the Prairies, p. 5.

262

Appendix 2


2/3/06 2:15:05 PM

appendix 3

Charles Joseph La Trobe: Journeys and Excursions in Australia

1840 14–19 February

Geelong, Corio, Barwon Mission Station, Point Henry, Point Lonsdale

16–18 March

Yering

25 July–1 August

Dandenong, Western Port

30 August–3 September

Arthur’s Seat, Cape Schanck, Point Nepean

25–28 October

Mt Macedon, Tallarook, Kilmore

23–24 November

Station Peak

1841 2–4, 27–30 January

Geelong, Indented Head, Shortland’s Bluff (Queenscliff ), Cape Schanck, Western Port

13–25 May

Portland

2–6 July

Barwon Mission Station, Geelong

25–30 September

Campaspe, Kilmore

26 October

Geelong

23 November–9 December

Holiday at Williamstown

1842 16–20 January

Geelong, Colac, Weatherboard, Station Peak

21–24 July

Goulburn, Kilmore, Mitchellstonen, Mt Macedon

17–20 October

Geelong, Shortland’s Bluff

31 October–5 November

Loddon District, Mt Alexander


2/3/06 2:15:05 PM

1843 27 February–11 March

Port Fairy, Portland, Stony Rises, Mt Rouse, Grampians

17–20 April

Geelong and the Heads

11–16 August

Point Nepean, Western Port

19–25 December

Loddon District

1844 18–22 January

Geelong

3–9, 17–23 February

Geelong and The Heads

10 April

Dandenong

30 April–15 May

Geelong, Colac, Port Fairy, Portland, Mt Gambier, Merino Downs, The Grange, Mt Rouse, The Elephant

6–9 August

Geelong

17–22 October

Geelong

9–22 November

Cheviot Hills, Kilmore, Grampians, Mt William

10–13 December

Geelong

1845 14–22 January


28 February–14 March

Gippsland—Dandenong to Wilson’s Promontory

15–19 March


3–17 May

Port Fairy, Portland, Warrnambool

24–28 June

Geelong

7–13 October

Geelong, 1st attempt to reach Cape Otway, Timboon, Terang

1–4 November

Cape Schanck, Arthur’s Seat

2–9 December

Geelong, 2nd attempt to reach Cape Otway, Port Campbell

1846 26–29 January

Geelong

22–29 February


27 March–12 April

Geelong, Cape Otway, Lubras’ Cave

17–20 April


12–13 July

Dandenong

28 July–3 August

Buntingdale Mission Station

24 August–6 October

Twofold Bay, Eden, Sydney

9 October

To Van Diemen’s Land Visits to: Launceston, Norfolk Plain, Deloraine, Avoca,Tallegroim, Fingal, Falmouth, Tasman’s Peninsula, Eaglehawk Neck, Cascades, Port Arthur, Hobart, D’Entrecasteau Channel, Recherche Bay, Huon, Bruny Island, Fluted Cape, Maria Island, Schouten Island, Mt Wellington

264

Appendix 3


2/3/06 2:15:05 PM

1847 24 February

Return to Port Phillip

10–14 June

Geelong

3 July

Dandenong

16–24 July

Mt Rouse

10–15 September

Geelong


Gippsland

11–16 December

Geelong, Trawallo, Pentland Hills, Bacchus Marsh, Keilor

1848 10–12 January

Mt Macedon District

31 January–2 February

Geelong

10–23 March

The Grampians, Portland, Port Fairy, Warrnambool

14–17 April

Geelong

22–25 August

Geelong

26–30 September

Mt Macedon, Mt Aitken, Keilor

1–4 December

Geelong

1849 20 January–5 February

Geelong, Cape Otway, Warrnambool, Portland, Trawallo, Bacchus Marsh

2–25 May

Geelong

29–31 August

Dandenong

17–24 October

Loddon Station, Mt Macedon, Kyneton

23–29 November

The Heads and Geelong

20–23 December

Mt Macedon District

1850 12–13 January

Geelong

17 January–1 February

Murray River, Swan Hill, Terrick Terrick, Seymour, Kilmore

20–22 February

Dandenong

8–19 March

The Grampians, Horsham, Buninyong, Ballan, Bacchus Marsh

20 April–5 June


29 July–1 August

Mt Macedon

9–11 October

Geelong, The Heads

24–29 October

Dandenong, Cape Schanck, Arthur’s Seat


Mt Macedon, Goulburn River

1851 9–11 January

Plenty Ranges, Yering

22–26 February

Twofold Bay, Sydney

12–18 April

Brownlow Hill, Kiama, Wollongong, Sydney

3–10 May

Return to Melbourne

Appendix 3


265

2/3/06 2:15:05 PM

2–5 September

Geelong

2–8 October

Bunninyong, Ballarat, Geelong—1st visit to goldfields

22–28 October

Mt Alexander, Forest Creek, Kyneton


Yering

13 April–5 May

Bacchus Marsh, Ballarat, Buninyong, Clunes, Castlemaine, Kyneton, Mt Alexander, Bendigo, Avenel, Benalla, Wangaratta, May Day Hills, Seymour

19–27 November

Bacchus Marsh, Ballarat, Creswick, Mt Alexander, Bendigo

16–23 December

Carlsruhe, Shortland’s Bluff, Point Lonsdale, Mordialloc


The Heads

18–21 March

Yering

2–5 April

Geelong

15 April–2 May

Bacchus Marsh, Ballarat, Creswick, Ballarat, Kerang, Bendigo, Kilmore, Broad Meadows

20–21 September

Geelong

28 October–1 November

Shortland’s Bluff, Capel Sound

26–30 November

Capel Sound, Arthur’s Seat

1854 21–23 January

Yering

28–31 January

Geelong

17–21 February

Capel Sound

6 March

Yan Yean, Mt Disappointment

266

Appendix 3


2/3/06 2:15:06 PM

Bibliography

The Bibliography is arranged as follows: 1 Published Works by Charles Joseph La Trobe 2 Archives and Manuscripts 3 Theses 4 Unpublished Conference Papers 5 Newspapers 6 Monographs 7 Periodical Articles 1 Published Works by Charles Joseph La Trobe The Alpenstock: Or, Sketches of Swiss Scenery and Manners, 1825–1826, R. B. Seeley & W. Burnside, London, 1829; 2nd edn, R. B. Seeley & W. Burnside, London, 1830(?). ‘C.J. La Trobe on Negro Education’, The Times, London, 20 October 1838, p. 7. The Pedestrian: A Summer’s Ramble in the Tyrol and Some of the Adjacent Provinces, 1830, R. B. Seeley & W. Burnside, London, 1832. The Rambler in Mexico, 1834, R. B. Seeley & W. Burnside, London, 1836. The Rambler in North America, 1832–1833, 2 vols, R. B. Seeley & W. Burnside, London, 1835. The Rambler in Oklahoma: La Trobe’s Tour with Washington Irving. Reprinted from The Rambler in North America, eds Muriel H. Wright and George H. Shir, Harlow, Oklahoma City, 1955. Report on Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad, 1839, Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, Great Britain, 1839, vol. 34, Accounts and Papers, No. 35. Report on Negro Education, Jamaica, 1837–38, Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, Great Britain, 1837–38, vol. 48, Accounts and Papers, No. 113.


2/3/06 2:15:06 PM

Report on Negro Education, Windward and Leeward Islands, 1837–38, Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, Great Britain, 1837–38, vol. 48, Accounts and Papers, No. 520. Report on the Convict Establishment of Van Diemen’s Land, 31 May 1847, Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, Great Britain, 1847–48, Accounts and Papers, No. 941. 2 Archives and Manuscripts Archives de l’Etat, Neuchâtel, Switzerland Fonds Petitpierre. ‘Inventaire’ gives an annotated listing of this extensive archive. Copy held in La Trobe Australian Manuscripts Collection, SLV: MS 13354. John Murray Archives, London Correspondence between Charles Joseph La Trobe and John Murray, 1835–55. La Trobe Library, State Library of Victoria Australian Manuscripts Collection Addresses presented to C. J. La Trobe on his appointment as LieutenantGovernor of Victoria, 15 July 1851, MS 10106, MC3, Dr. 1, Bag 2. Bunbury Family Papers, PA 98/14. Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, H7205. Goldfields Petition, 1853, H7570. Gross, Alan, ‘C. J. La Trobe, 1839–54: A Study in Heredity and Character.’ Miscellaneous papers related to C. J. La Trobe, MS 5255, Box 111/5. La Trobe Archive, MS 13003. La Trobe, Charles Joseph, ‘Australian Notes: Memoranda of Journeys, Excursions and Absences, 1839–54’, MS 10913. La Trobe, Charles Joseph,‘Private Journal of Matters and Memoranda connected with my Mission to visit the West Indies—1837’, MS 13003, Box 76/3(a) and (b). La Trobe, Charles Joseph, Reply to the Diggers, H7570. La Trobe, Christian Ignatius, ‘Letters to my children, written at sea during a Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope, 1815’, MS 13240. La Trobe Papers, MS 7868-7873. Letters from Victorian Pioneers, MS 10749. McCrae Family Papers, MS10614. Vaughan, Samual Bradford, Shipboard Diary on board the Fergusson to Melbourne, 1839, MS 9369. Vaughan, Samual Bradford, Shipboard Diary on board the Medway to Melbourne, 1852, MS 9369. Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales La Trobe, Charles Joseph, Letters to E. Deas Thomson, private correspondence, Deas Thomson Papers, ML A1531-7. La Trobe, Charles Joseph, Letters to Ronald Campbell Gunn, MS Q641. Northcote, Stafford H., ‘The case of Sir Eardley-Wilmot, considered in a letter

268

Bibliography


2/3/06 2:15:06 PM

to a friend, 21 June 1847’, ML 996/1. Robinson, George Augustus, Journal, 1839, ML A7035. Moravian Archives, Fulneck, Yorkshire, England Moravian Archives, Muswell Hill, London New South Wales Archives Office Minute of Deas Thomson to Colonial Secretary, 7 June 1848, 4/2823, 48/466. Public Record Office, Kew, England Colonial Office, Correspondence 1839–54, CO 309, 448, 449. Colonial Office, Inwards Correspondence of the Secretary of State, from Victoria, with minutes and occasional draft replies, 1839–54, CO 309/9. Colonial Office, Outward Despatches to New South Wales, 1854, CO 202/63. Colonial Office, Outward Despatches to Victoria, 1839–54, CO 411. ‘Register of the Moravian Chapel, Fetter Lane, Holborn, London, 1824’, RG4/4392. Public Record Office Victoria Charles Joseph La Trobe—Commission, 10 September 1839, VPRS 19/8/1, Unit 1, File 39/3. ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe’s Minute Book, 5 October–November 1839’, VPRS 4, Unit 7, No. 188. Circular Despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor, vols 1–5, 1851–54, VPRS 1088. Confidential Despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor La Trobe—Consignment P, vol. 1, VPRS 1090. Correspondence La Trobe to Grey, Pakington, vols 1–2, VPRS 1084. Despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor, vols 1–5, VPRS 1087. Governors’ Letter Books, vol. 1, VPRS 1092. Register of Despatches from the Governor to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, vol. 1, 1851–54, VPRS 1083. Register of Despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor, vols 1–2, 1851–54, VPRS 1404. Returns to the Governor’s Office, 1839–54, VPRS 8. Royal Historical Society of Victoria Pohlman, Robert William, Diary, Manuscript Collection, MS 000026. University of Melbourne Archives Fitzpatrick, Kathleen, Papers, ACC 91/9. Graham Brothers & Co. Records, ACC 61/14. La Trobe, Charles Joseph, Last Will and Testament, in Graham Brothers & Co. Records, ACC 61/14.

Bibliography


269

2/3/06 2:15:06 PM

Privately Held Archives Marguerite Hancock, Melbourne Maurice de Tribolet, Archiviste de Neuchâtel, to Marguerite Hancock, 17 June 2000, private correspondence. Anne and Bernard Latrobe Kirchner, Gif-sur-Yvette, France ‘Livre de Famille’, unpublished manuscript by Le Chevalier Latrobe, Varennes, March 1830. Charles Hazlehurst Latrobe III, Baltimore, USA Charles Joseph La Trobe, Vera Cruz, to Mrs Benjamin Henry La Trobe, née Mary Elizabeth Hazlehurst, New York, 29 March 1834. John Henry de La Trobe, Hamburg, Germany ‘Jean Latrobe in Ireland’, unpublished manuscript by John Henry de La Trobe, 1998. ‘Notes on the “Latrobe” Family Genealogy’, including ‘Waterford’, unpublished manuscript by John Henry de La Trobe, 1997. Pierre and Janine Latrobe, Sotteville-les-Rouen, France ‘Deriving the Family Connections’, unpublished manuscript by Pierre and Janine Latrobe, 1999. Rev. Basil MacLeavy, Leominster, UK ‘Remnant of a Schoolboy Diary’, unpublished manuscript by Samuel Hazard La Trobe, 1848. Dianne Reilly, Melbourne Carlotta Blake to Dianne Reilly, 25 October 1999–March 2002, private correspondence. 3 Theses Blaskett, Beverley, ‘The Aboriginal Response to White Settlement in Port Phillip, 1835–50’. University of Melbourne, MA thesis, 1979. McVilly, David, ‘A History of the State Library of Victoria’, Monash University, MA thesis, 1975. Ritchie, Joan M., ‘A Study of Charles Joseph La Trobe, Superintendent of the Port Phillip District of New South Wales from 1839 to 1851’, University of Melbourne, MA thesis, 1966. 4 Unpublished Conference Papers Brett, Judith, ‘Robert Menzies: Psychobiography and the Public Man’, unpublished proceedings of The History Institute, Vic., Seminar on Biography, 1993. Davidson, Jim, ‘Louise Hanson-Dyer’, unpublished proceedings of The History Institute, Vic., Seminar on Biography, 1993. Isaac, Rhys, ‘Historians, Power, Meaning and Exploration’, postgraduate seminar, History Department, University of Melbourne, 16 May 1994. 5 Newspapers Argus, 1848–54 Colonial Times and Tasmanian, Hobart, 22 November 1853 Cornwall Chronicle, 1847–54

270

Bibliography


2/3/06 2:15:06 PM

Geelong Advertiser, 1845–54 London Morning Post, 8 February 1854 Melbourne Advertiser, 1839–45 Melbourne Daily News, 1848–51 Melbourne Morning Herald, 1849–52 Port Phillip Gazette, 1839–51 Port Phillip Herald, 1840–48 Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser, 1839–45 Spectator, London, 17 December 1853 The Standard (London), 23 June 1865 The Star (London), 23 June 1865 Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, 1839 Sydney Morning Herald, 4 November 1852 The Telegraph (London), 23 June 1865 The Times (London), 17 December 1853, 10 April 1855, 25 April 1856, 29 May 1856 6 Monographs Archer, W. H., Statistical Register of Victoria, Government Printer, Melbourne, 1854. Arkley, Lindsey, The Hated Protector, Orbit Press, Melbourne, 2000. Association Latrobe International Symposium, Les Latrobe dans le Monde, ed. Maïté Chevalier, Proceedings of the Latrobe International Symposium, Paris, 7–11 May 1997, ALIS, Versailles, France, 1998. Baragwanath, Pam, If the Walls Could Speak, Mechanics’ Institute, Windsor, Vic., 2000. Barry’s ‘Great Emporium’, Catalogue of an exhibition to mark the 125th anniversary of the opening of the Melbourne Public Library on 11 February 1856, Library Council of Victoria, Melbourne, 1981. Bassett, Marnie, The Hentys, Oxford University Press, London, 1954. Bate, W. A. (ed.), Liardet’s Water-colours of Early Melbourne, Library Council of Victoria, Melbourne, 1972. Berthelsdorf Synod, Papers, Moravian Church, Herrnhut, Germany, 1782. Billot, C. P., Melbourne: An Annotated Bibliography to 1850, Rippleside Press, Geelong, Vic., 1970. ——, The Life and Times of John Pascoe Fawkner, Hyland House, Melbourne, 1985. Blainey, Geoffrey, A Centenary History of the University of Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1957. ——, The Rush that Never Ended: A History of Australian Mining, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1963. Blair, David (‘Caustic’), The Anatomy of the Argus, Hough, Melbourne, 1854. ——, Cyclopaedia of Australasia: Or, Directory of Facts, Events, Dates, Persons and Places, Fergusson & Moore, Melbourne, 1881. Blake, L. J. (ed.), Letters of Charles Joseph La Trobe, Government Printer, Melbourne, 1975. Bolton, G. C., Edmund Barton, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, 2000.

Bibliography


271

2/3/06 2:15:07 PM

Bonwick, James, The Discovery and Settlement of Port Phillip, George Robertson, Melbourne, 1856. ——, Port Phillip Settlement, Sampson Low, London, 1883. Boswell, James, Boswell on the Grand Tour: Germany and Switzerland, ed. Frederick A. Pottle, Heinemann, London, 1953. ——, Boswell on the Grand Tour: Italy, Corsica and France, ed. Frank Brady and Frederick A. Pottle, Heinemann, London, 1955. Boys, R. D., First Years at Port Phillip, Robertson & Mullen, Melbourne, 1935. The Breaking of the Dawn: Or, Moravian Work in Jamaica, 1754–1904, Moravian Church, Kingston, Jamaica, 1905. Bride, Thomas Francis (ed.), Letters from Victorian Pioneers, Trustees of the Public Library, Melbourne, 1898. British and Foreign Bible Society Victoria. Established 100 Years Ago, 1840– 1940, British and Foreign Bible Society (Vic.), Melbourne, 1940. Broome, Richard, The Victorians: Arriving, Fairfax, Syme & Weldon, Sydney, 1984. Brown, J. H., Lamb’s Biographical Dictionary of the United States, James H. Lamb, Boston, Mass., 1901. Brown, Philip L. (ed.), The Narrative of George Russell, Oxford University Press, London, 1935. ——,Clyde Company Papers, Oxford University Press, London, 1941–1971. Cannon, Michael, Who Killed the Koories?, William Heinemann, Melbourne, 1990. ——, Old Melbourne Town before the Gold Rush, Loch Haven Books, Main Ridge, Vic., 1991. Cannon, Michael and McFarlane, Ian, Historical Records of Victoria, Foundation Series, 7 vols, Victorian Government Printer, Melbourne, 1981– 2001. Carne, W. A., A Century of Harmony: The Official Centenary History of the Royal Melbourne Philharmonic Society, The Society, Melbourne, 1954. Carter, Edward C. II, ‘Benjamin Henry Latrobe (1764–1820), Père de l’Architecture et du Génie Civil Professionnels Americains, et Peintre du Paysage de la Nouvelle Nation’, in Les Latrobe dans le Monde, ALIS, Versailles, France, 1998, pp. 132–51. Carter, Edward C., Van Horne, John C. and Brownell, Charles E. (eds), Latrobe’s View of America, 1795–1820: Selections from the Watercolors and Sketches, Yale University Press for the Maryland Historical Society, New Haven, 1985. Carter, Edward C., Van Horne, John C. and Formwalt, Lee W. (eds), The Journals of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1799–1820: From Philadelphia to New Orleans, Yale University Press for the Maryland Historical Society, New Haven, 1980. Carter, Edward C. (ed.), The Virginian Journals of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1795–1798, Yale University Press for the Maryland Historical Society, New Haven, 1977. Castella, Hubert de, Australian Squatters, first published as Les Squatters Australiens, 1861. Trans. C. B. Thornton-Smith, Melbourne University

272

Bibliography


2/3/06 2:15:07 PM

Press, Melbourne, 1987. Centenary Council of Victoria, Victoria, the First Century, Robertson & Mullen, Melbourne, 1934. Christie, Michael F., Aborigines in Colonial Victoria, 1835–86, Sydney University Press, Sydney, 1979. Clark, Manning, A History of Australia, 6 vols, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1962–87. Clarke, I. D., The Port Phillip Journals of George Augustus Robinson, 1842– 1843, Monash Publications in Geography, no. 34, Clayton, Vic., 1988. Comenius, Johann Amos, The Great Didactic of John Amos Comenius, trans. & ed. M. W. Keatinge, Russell & Russell, New York, 1967. Comenius, John Amos, ‘Great Men of the Church’ Series, no. 3, Moravian Book Room, London, n.d. Cooper, Joe and Edna Cooper (eds), Schools and Scholars, Moravian History Magazine, Newtownabbey, Ireland, 2000. Coupland, R., ‘The Abolition of the Slave Trade’, in J. Holland Rose, A. P. Newton and E. A. Benians (eds), Cambridge History of the British Empire, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, London, 1929–1936, chap. 5. Court, Jean, Charles Joseph La Trobe, Traralgon and District Historical Society, Traralgon, Vic., 1975. ——, Penetration into Gippsland during the early 1840s, Traralgon and District Historical Society, Traralgon, Vic., 1975. Curr, E. M., Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, George Robertson, Melbourne, 1883. Dale, Robert William, History of English Congregationalism, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1907. Davidson, Jim, Lyrebird Rising: Louise Hanson-Dyer of l’Oiseau-Lyre, 1884– 1962, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1994. Digby, Anne and Peter Searby, Children, School and Society in NineteenthCentury England, Macmillan, London, 1981. Dingle, Tony, The Victorians: Settling, Fairfax, Syme & Weldon, Sydney, 1984. Drayton, Richard, Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain and the ‘Improvement’ of the World, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2000. Dredge, James, Brief Notices of the Aborigines of New South Wales including Port Phillip, James Harrison, Geelong, Vic., 1845. Driscoll, John Paul, All That is Glorious Around Us: Paintings from the Hudson River School, Museum of Art, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1981. Drummond, Henry, The New Evangelism and Other Papers, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1899. Dunlap, Thomas R., Nature and the English Diaspora: Environment and History in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999. Dunn, N. A., A History of Point Lonsdale, Hawthorn Press, Melbourne, 1970. Dunn, Richard S., ‘The Slave Labor Pattern’, in British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987. Dunstan, David, Governing the Metropolis, Melbourne University Press,

Bibliography


273

2/3/06 2:15:07 PM

Melbourne, 1984. Dunstan, Ralph, A Cyclopaedic Dictionary of Music, Da Capo, New York, 1973. Eastwood, Jennifer Jill, ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe’, in Douglas Pike (ed.), Australian Dictionary of Biography, 1788–1850, vol. 2, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1967, pp. 89–93. ——, Charles Joseph La Trobe, Great Australians Series, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1972. Edel, Leon, Writing Lives, Norton, New York, 1984. Eddy, J. J., Britain and the Australian Colonies, 1818–1831: The Technique of Government, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1969. Ellsworth, Henry Leavitt, Washington Irving on the Prairie: Or, A Narrative of a Tour of the Southwest in the Year 1832, ed. Stanley T. Williams and Barbara D. Simison, American Book Company, New York, 1937. Eminent Persons: Biographies Reprinted from The Times, 1870–1894, Macmillan, London, 1882–95. Farber, Paul Lawrence, Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E. O. Wilson, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2000. Fauchery, Antoine, Letters from a Miner in Australia, first published as Lettres d’un Mineur en Australie, 1857, trans. A. R. Chisholm, Georgian House, Melbourne, 1965. Fawkner, John Pascoe, Commemoration of the Boon of the Separation of the Province of Victoria from the Colony of New South Wales, 15 November 1850. Reprinted by Rodney Davidson, Melbourne, 2000. Flett, James, The History of Gold Discovery in Victoria, Hawthorn Press, Melbourne, 1970. Fox, Paul, ‘Discovering Port Phillip’, in La Trobe and His Circle, State Library of Victoria, Melbourne, 1989, pp. 41–51. Garden, Don, Victoria, A History, Nelson, Melbourne, 1984. Garraty, John A., The Nature of Biography, Cape, London, 1958. Garrisson, Janine, ‘Montauban ou la Ville Résistante’, in Les Latrobe dans le Monde, ALIS, Versailles, France, 1998, pp. 60–73. ‘Garryowen’ (Finn, Edmund), Chronicles of Early Melbourne, 1835–1852, Ferguson & Mitchell, Melbourne, 1888. Gipps, John, Every Inch a Governor, Hobson’s Bay Publishing, Melbourne, 1996. Goodman, David, Gold Seeking: Victoria and California in the 1850s, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1994. ——, ‘Making an Edgier History of Gold’, in Iain McCalman, Alexander Cook and Andrew Reeves (eds), Gold: Forgotten Histories and Lost Objects of Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001. Graham, Sally, Pioneer Merchant: The Letters of James Graham, 1839–54, Hyland House, Melbourne, 1985. Gregory, Alan, The Ever Open Door, Hyland House, South Melbourne, 1998. Griffiths, Tom, Hunters and Collectors: The Antiquarian Imagination in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/Melbourne; 1996. Gross, Alan, Charles Joseph La Trobe, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1956.

274

Bibliography


2/3/06 2:15:07 PM

Guedes, Pedro (ed.), Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architecture and Technological Change, Macmillan, London, 1979. Gunson, Niel, Messengers of Grace: Evangelical Missionaries in the South Seas, 1797–1860, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1978. Hagenauer, F. A., Mission Work Among the Aborigines of Victoria, Diocesan Book Society, Melbourne, c. 1880. Hall, Henry L., The Colonial Office: A History, Longmans, Green, Melbourne, 1937. Hamshere, Cyril, The British in the Caribbean, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1972. Handler, Jerome S. and Frederick W. Lange, Plantation Slavery in Barbados, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1978. Harris, John, One Blood: 200 Years of Aboriginal Encounter with Christianity, Albatross Books, Sutherland, NSW, 1990. Hastings, S. U. and B. L. MacLeavy, Seedtime and Harvest: A Brief History of the Moravian Church in Jamaica, 1754–1979, Moravian Church Corporation, Kingston, 1979. Hayward, Jack, Out of Slavery: Abolition and After, Frank Cass, London, 1985. Hedges, William L., ‘Washington Irving’, in Encyclopedia Americana, Grolier, Danbury, Conn., 1996, pp. 479–80. ‘Henri IV’ in Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse, vol. 5, Larousse, Paris, 1983, pp. 5223–4. Hodgson, Godfrey, A New Grand Tour: How Europe’s Great Cities Made our World, Viking, London, 1995. Holmes, John, History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, 2 vols, T. Inkersley, London, 1825–1830. Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version), New Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989. Home, R. W. (ed.), Australian Science in the Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/Melbourne, 1988. Howitt, William, Colonization and Christianity, Longman, London, 1838. ——, Land, Labour and Gold, Or Two Years in Victoria, Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, London, 1855. Hutton, R. B. M., Through Two Centuries: An Account of the Origin and Growth of Fulneck School, 1753–1953, School of Bicentenary Committee, Fulneck, Yorkshire, 1953. Hutton, Robin, ‘Distinguished Old Boys of Fulneck’, in Schools and Scholars, Moravian History Magazine, Newtownabbey, Ireland, 2000. Inglis, K. S., Australian Colonists, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1993. Ingram, K. E., Jamaica, World Bibliography Series, vol. 45, Clio Press, Oxford, 1984. Irving, Washington, A Tour on the Prairies, John Murray, London, 1835. ——, Journals and Notebooks, vol. V, 1832–59, Twayne, Boston, 1986. Isaac, Rhys, ‘Power and Meaning’, in Donna Merwick (ed.), Dangerous Liaisons: Essays in Honour of Greg Dening, History Department, University of Melbourne, 1994.

Bibliography


275

2/3/06 2:15:08 PM

——, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740–1790, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, c. 1982. Johnson, Joseph, Famous Boys: And How They Became Great Men, Ward Lock, London, 1879. Kehoe, Mary, The Melbourne Benevolent Asylum: Hotham’s Premier Building, Hotham History Project, Melbourne, 1998. Kelly, William, Life in Victoria, Chapman & Hall, London, 1860. Kendall, Paul, The Art of Biography, Allen & Unwin, London, 1965. Kimball, Fiske, ‘Benjamin Henry Latrobe’, in Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1961, p. 24. ——, Concise Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1977. King, Hazel, ‘Sir Richard Bourke’, in Douglas Pike (ed.), Australian Dictionary of Biography, 1788–1850, vol. 1, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1966, pp. 129–33. Knox, S. J., Ireland’s Debt to the Huguenots, APCK, Dublin, 1959. Lakic, Mira and Rosemary Wrench, Through Their Eyes: An Historical Record of Aboriginal People of Victoria as Documented by the Officials of the Port Phillip Protectorate 1839–1841, Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, 1994. Langford, Paul, A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727–1783, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992. Langton, Edward, History of the Moravian Church, Allen & Unwin, London, 1956. Lassels, Richard, The Voyage of Italy, London, 1670. La Trobe, Christian Ignatius, Journal of a Visit to South Africa in 1815 and 1816, with some Account of the Missionary Settlements of the United Brethren near the Cape of Good Hope, Seeley, London, 1818. Reprinted in facsimile by C. Struik, Cape Town, 1969. ——, Letters to My Children Written at Sea during a Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope. Seeley, London, 1851. La Trobe, John Henry de, ‘Histoire de Jean le Réfugié et de ses Descendants, XVIIIe et XIXe siècles’, in Les Latrobe dans le Monde, ALIS, Versailles, France, 1998, pp. 82–111. Latrobe, Pierre, ‘Le Patronyme’, in Les Latrobe dans le Monde, ALIS, Versailles, France, 1998, pp. 28–9. Lawson, Will, Pacific Steamers, Brown & Ferguson, Glasgow, 1927. Les Latrobe dans le Monde, ALIS, Versailles, France, 1998. Letter of Welcome with Signatories to Charles Joseph La Trobe, Australian Genealogies, Melbourne, 1979. Letters from an English Traveller in France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy, London, 1781. Lewis, Miles, La Trobe’s Cottage: A Conservation Analysis, National Trust of Australia (Vic.), Melbourne, 1994. McCallum, Colin Alexander, The Public Library of Victoria, The Library, Melbourne, 1956. McCaughey, J. Davis, Naomi Perkins and Angus Trumble, Victoria’s Colonial Governors, 1839–1900, The Miegunyah Press, Carlton, Vic., 1993.

276

Bibliography


2/3/06 2:15:08 PM

McCombie, Thomas, The History of the Colony of Victoria from its Settlement to the Death of Sir Charles Hotham, Sands & Kenny, Melbourne; Chapman & Hall, London, 1858. McCracken, Donal P., Gardens of Empire: Botanical Institutions of the Victorian British Empire, Leicester University Press, London, 1997. McCrae, Georgiana, Georgiana’s Journal: Melbourne a Hundred Years Ago, ed. Hugh McCrae, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1934. McCulloch, S. C., George Gipps, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1966. McNicoll, R. R., Early Years of the Melbourne Club, The Club, Melbourne, 1976. ——, 36 Collins Street, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1988. McPhee, Peter, A Social History of France, 1780–1880, Routledge, London, 1992. ——, Pansy: A Life of Roy Douglas Wright, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999. Manington, George, The West Indies, Leonard Parsons, London, 1925. Marcus, Steven, Freud and the Culture of Psychoanalysis, Allen & Unwin, London, 1984. Maritain, Jacques, Religion and Culture, trans. J. F. Scanlan, Sheed & Ward, London, 1931. Mason, John, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, 1760–1800, Studies in History New Series, Royal Historical Society, London, 2002. Mason, John and Lucy Torode, Three Generations of the La Trobe Family in the Moravian Church, Moravian History Magazine, Newtownabbey, Ireland, 1997. Mathieson, W. L., ‘The Emancipation of the Slaves’, in Cambridge History of the British Empire, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, London, 1929–36, chap. 9. Melbourne Athenaeum: A Short History, Melbourne Athenaeum, Melbourne, 2000. Melbourne Philharmonic Society, Prospectus, The Argus, Melbourne, 1853. Miller, David Philip and Peter Hans Reill, Visions of Empire, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. Morgan, John, Life and Adventures of William Buckley, Archibald MacDougall, Hobart, 1852. Mornet, Daniel, Le Sentiment de la Nature, Hachette, Paris, 1907. Morrell, W. P., British Colonial Policy in the Mid-Victorian Age, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1969. Morrison, Jeffrey, Winckelmann and the Notion of Aesthetic Education, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996. Moyal, Ann, A Bright and Savage Land, Penguin, Ringwood, Vic., 1993. Moyal, Ann, (ed.), Scientists in Nineteenth Century Australia: A Documentary History, Cassell, Melbourne, 1976. Murphy, Francis (ed.), The Book of Nature: American Painters and the Natural Sublime, Hudson River Museum, New York, 1983. Murtagh, Hugh, ‘Huguenots and the Irish Jacobite War, 1689–1691’, in The Huguenots and Ulster, 1685–1985, Military History Society of Ireland, Lisburn, 1985.

Bibliography


277

2/3/06 2:15:08 PM

‘My Heart is Breaking’: A Joint Guide to Records about Aboriginal People in the Public Record Office of Victoria and the Australian Archives, Victorian Regional Office, Australian Archives and the Public Record Office of Victoria, Melbourne, 1993. Nadel, Ira Bruce, Biography: Fiction, Fact and Form, St Martin’s Press, London, 1984. Nash, Gary B. and Julie Roy Jeffrey, The American People, HarperCollins, New York, 1994. Niall, Brenda, Georgiana: A Biography of Georgiana McCrae, Painter, Diarist, Pioneer. Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1996. Nicholson, Ian Hawkins, Log of Logs: A Catalogue of Logs, Journals, Shipboard Diaries, Letters and All Forms Of Voyage Narratives, 1788 to 1988, for Australia and New Zealand and Surrounding Oceans, I. H. Nicholson, Yaroomba, Qld, 1990–98. Nicolson, Harold, The Development of English Biography, Hogarth Press, London, 1927. Nugent, Thomas, The Grand Tour, 4 vols, London, 1778. Ogilvie, Colin and Christopher C. Evans (eds), Chamberlain’s Symptoms and Signs in Clinical Medicine, 12th edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1997. Ormond, Richard, National Portrait Gallery: Early Victorian Portraits, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1973. Osterwald, J-F., Description des Montagnes et des Vallées qui font partie de la Principauté de Neufchâtel et de Valengin, Neuchâtel, 1766. Paszkowski, Lech, Sir Paul Edmund de Strzelecki: Reflections on His Life, Arcadia/Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, 1997. Penny, B. R., ‘William Lonsdale’, in Douglas Pike (ed.), Australian Dictionary of Biography, 1788–1850, vol. 2, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1967, pp. 124–6. Perry, Frances, Australian Sketches, ed. A. de Q. Robin, Queensberry Hill Press, Melbourne, 1984. Pescott, R. T. M., The Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1982. Podmore, Colin, The Moravian Church in England, 1728–1760, Oxford Historical Monographs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998. Pourtalès, Albert-Alexandre de, On the Western Tour with Washington Irving: The Journal and Letters of Count de Pourtalès, ed. George F. Spaulding, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1968. Prescott, William H., History of the Conquest of Mexico, 2 vols, 7th edn, Richard Bentley, London, 1855. Presland, Gary, The Land of the Kulin, McPhee Gribble, Melbourne, 1985. ——, Aboriginal Melbourne, McPhee Gribble, Ringwood, Vic., 1994. Priestley, Susan, ‘Melbourne, A Kangaroo Advance’, in Pamela Statham (ed.), The Origins of Australia’s Capital Cities, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 1989, pp. 216–32. Prospectus of the Philosophical Society of Victoria, Goodhugh & Trembath, Melbourne, 1854.

278

Bibliography


2/3/06 2:15:09 PM

Raby, Peter, Bright Paradise, Chatto & Windus, London, 1996. Rae-Ellis, Vivienne, Black Robinson, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1988. Reilly, Dianne, ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe, Gouverneur Colonial,’ in Les Latrobe dans le Monde, ALIS, Versailles, France, 1998, pp. 174–99. ——, Charles Joseph La Trobe: Landscapes and Sketches, notes by Victoria Hammond, State Library of Victoria and National Trust of Australia (Vic.), Melbourne, 1999. ‘A Resident’, Glimpses of Life in Victoria, first published 1876. Introduction by Marguerite Hancock, The Miegunyah Press, Melbourne, 1996. Reynolds, Henry, Frontier: Aborigines, Settlers and Land, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1987. ——, The Law of the Land. Penguin, Melbourne, 1992. ——, An Indelible Stain: The Question of Genocide in Australia’s History, Viking, Melbourne, 2001. Rosman, Doreen M., Evangelicals and Culture, Croom Helm, London, 1984. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, La Nouvelle Héloïse, Hachette, Paris, 1764. Rusden, George W., Discovery, Survey and Settlement of Port Phillip, Queensberry Hill Press, Melbourne, 1985. ——, History of Australia, 3 vols, George Robertson, Melbourne, 1883. Russell, Penny, For Richer, For Poorer, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1994. Saint-Pierre, Bernardin de, Paul et Virginie, Garnier, Paris, 1788. Schiller, Friedrich, Historical Works, vol. I, trans. George Moir, Constable, Edinburgh, 1828. Schnegg, Alfred, La Chapelle de l’Ermitage à Neuchâtel, 1878–1978, H. Messeiller, Neuchâtel, 1978. Seear, Baroness, No Just Cause. The Law of Affinity in England and Wales: Some Suggestions for Change, report by a group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, chaired by Baroness Seear, CIO Publishing, London, 1984. Selby, Isaac, The Old Pioneers’ Memorial History of Melbourne, The Old Pioneers’ Memorial Fund, Melbourne, 1924. Seltzer, Leon E. (ed.), Columbia Gazetteer of the World, vol. 2, ‘Le Havre’, Columbia University Press, New York, 1998. Serle, Geoffrey, The Golden Age: A History of the Colony of Victoria, 1851–1861, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1963. —— ‘Edward Wilson’, in Bede Nairn (ed.), Australian Dictionary of Biography, 1851–1890, vol. 6, p. 412–15. Serville, Paul de, Port Phillip Gentlemen, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1980. ——, Pounds and Pedigrees: The Upper Class in Victoria, 1850–80, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1991. Shaw, A. G. L., A History of the Port Phillip District: Victoria before Separation, The Miegunyah Press, Melbourne, 1996. Shaw, A. G. L. (ed.), Gipps–La Trobe Correspondence, 1839–1846, The Miegunyah Press, Melbourne, 1989.

Bibliography


279

2/3/06 2:15:09 PM

Shaw, C. H., The Moravian Church and What It Stands For, Moravian Book Room, London, 1960. Smiles, Samuel, Huguenots in England and Ireland, Murray, London, 1876. ——, A Publisher and His Friends: Memoir and Correspondence of the Late John Murray, Murray, London, 1891. ——, Character, John Murray, London, 1902. Smith, Bernard, European Vision and the South Pacific, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 1989. ——, Imagining the Pacific in the Wake of the Cook Voyages, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1992. ——, Imagining the Antipodes, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997. Smollett, Tobias, Travels through France and Italy, ed. Frank Felsenstein, The World’s Classics, Oxford, 1981. Solow, Barbara L. and Stanley L. Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987. Speake, Robert and Frank Roy Witty, A History of Droylsden, Cloister Press, Stockport, England, 1953. Stanley, Brian, The Bible and the Flag: Protestant Missions and British Imperialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Apollos, Leicester, 1992. Statham, Pamela (ed.), Origins of Australia’s Capital Cities, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 1989. Stephen, James, Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography, Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, London, 1849. Stephen, Leslie (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, 22 vols, Smith, Elder & Co., London, 1885–1900. Stevens, Charles, Christian Ignatius La Trobe, 1758–1836, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C., n.d. ——, Three Sonatas for the Pianoforte, Opus III, by Christian Ignatius La Trobe, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C., 1997. Stewart, Garrett, Dear Reader: The Conscripted Audience in Nineteenth Century British Fiction, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1996. Stone, John Timothy, Winning Men: Studies in Soul-Winning, Fleming H. Revell, New York, 1946. Strachey, Lytton, Eminent Victorians, Chatto & Windus, London, 1918. Sullivan, Martin, Men and Women of Port Phillip, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, 1985. Sutherland, Alexander, Victoria and its Metropolis, Past and Present, McCarron, Bird, Melbourne, 1888. Temperley, Nicholas, ‘Christian Ignatius La Trobe’, in Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Macmillan, London, 1980, p. 535. Tompkins, Peter, Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids, Thames & Hudson, London, 1987. Train, George Francis, Young America Abroad: A Yankee Merchant in Goldrush Australia, Sampson Low, London, 1857.

280

Bibliography


2/3/06 2:15:09 PM

Trespassers and Intruders, Catalogue of an exhibition on the Port Phillip Association, State Library of Victoria, Melbourne, 1982. Turner, Henry Gyles, A History of the Colony of Victoria, from its Discovery to its Absorption into the Commonwealth of Australia, Longmans, Green, Melbourne, 1904. Turner, Mary, Slaves and Missionaries: The Disintegration of Jamaican Slave Society, 1787–1834, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1982. Tyrrell, Alex, A Sphere of Benevolence: The Life of Joseph Orton, Wesleyan Methodist Missionary (1793–1842), State Library of Victoria, Melbourne, 1993. Uhl, Jean, A Woman of Importance, The Bookprinter, Maryborough, Vic., 1992. Vamplew, Wray (ed.), Australians: Historical Statistics, Fairfax, Syme & Weldon, Sydney, 1987. Visitor’s Guide, The Moravian Church Centre, Chelsea, London, 1993. Walvin, James, England, Slaves and Freedom, 1776–1838, Macmillan, London, 1986. Ward, John M., Earl Grey and the Australian Colonies, 1846–1857, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1958. ——, ‘Sir Charles Augustus FitzRoy’, in Douglas Pike (ed.), Australian Dictionary of Biography, 1788–1850, vol. 2, p. 384. Wathen, George Henry, The Golden Colony, Or, Victoria in 1854, Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, London, 1855. Watson, Frederick, Historical Records of Australia, Series I, vols XIX, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI, XXXV, Library of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, Sydney, 1924–25. Waugh, W. T., A History of Fulneck School, Richard Jackson, Leeds, 1909. Welch, Edwin, ‘The Bedford Moravian Church in the Eighteenth Century’, in Bedfordshire Historical Record Society Publications, no. 68, The Society, Bedford, 1989, pp. 1–15. Westgarth, William, The Colony of Victoria: Its History, Commerce, and Gold Mining; Its Social and Political Institutions down to the end of 1863, Sampson Low, London, 1864. ——, Personal Recollections of Early Melbourne and Victoria, George Robertson, Melbourne, 1888. Whyte, Millicent, A Short History of Education in Jamaica, 2nd edn, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1983. Wilkins, John, The Life and Times of Captain William Lonsdale, 1799–1864, J. Wilkins, Doncaster East, Vic., 1991. Wilson, Samuel, ‘Benjamin H. Latrobe’, in Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architecture and Technological Change, Macmillan, London, 1979, pp. 613–14. Wintle, Justin, Makers of Nineteenth Century Culture, 1804–1914, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1982. Wolfram, Sybil, In-laws and Outlaws: Kinship and Marriage in England, Croom Helm, London, 1987. Wright, Ray, A Blended House: The Legislative Council of Victoria, 1851–1856,

Bibliography


281

2/3/06 2:15:09 PM

Department of the Legislative Council, Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, 2001. Zinn, Howard, A People’s History of the United States, Longman, London, 1980. 7 Periodical Articles Bate, Weston, ‘Perceptions of Melbourne’s “Pride and Glory” ’, Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 67, no. 1, 1996, pp. 4–16. Blainey, Geoffrey, ‘The Gold Rushes: The Year of Decision’, Historical Studies, vol. 10, no. 38, May 1962, pp. 129–40. Blake, L. B. J. and R. Gill, ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe: A Chronology’, The Genealogist, vol. 1, no. 8, December 1975, pp. 174–85. Bolton, Geoffrey, ‘The Idea of a Colonial Gentry’, Historical Studies, vol. 1, no. 51, October 1968, pp. 307–28. Carter, Edward C., ‘The Papers of Benjamin Henry Latrobe’, Maryland Historical Magazine, Winter 1971, pp. 436–45. ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe: Obituary’, The Athenaeum, 18 December 1875, p. 830. Dunstan, David, ‘True Civilisation: The Establishment of the Melbourne Public Library’. Reprinted from Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 58, no. 2, 1987, pp. 36–40. Ellis, M. H., ‘The Writing of Australian Biographies’, Historical Studies Australia and New Zealand, vol. 6, 1953–55, pp. 430–7. Fiering, N. S., ‘Irresistible Compassion’, Journal of the History of Ideas, April– June 1976, pp. 195–218. Fitzpatrick, Kathleen, ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe’, Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 47, 1976, pp. 253–64. Grant, D. W. M., ‘Genealogy of the La Trobe Family’, The Genealogist, vol. 1, no. 8, December 1975, pp. 186–207. Holmes, E., ‘The Rev. C. I. La Trobe’s Account of his First Introduction to Haydn’, Musical Times, 1 September 1851, pp. 249–56. Malcolm, Janet, ‘A House of One’s Own’, New Yorker, 5 June 1995, pp. 74–5. Moravian History Magazine, vol. 4, Spring 1993, p. 1. ‘The Moravian Mission’, Melbourne Church of England Messenger, 1854, pp. 87–8. Petitpierre, Jacques, ‘Les Deux Hymens Neuchâteloise’, in Patrie Neuchâteloise: IVe volume de Chroniques Indépendantes d’Histoire Régionale, Messeiller, Neuchâtel, 1955. ——, ‘Journal Colonel Pourtalès’, in Patrie Neuchâteloise: Ve volume de Chroniques Indépendantes d’Histoire Régionale, Messeiller, Neuchâtel, 1957. Review of The Rambler in Mexico, The Athenaeum, 6 August 1836, pp. 545–7. Review of The Rambler in Mexico, Dublin University Magazine, XLVI, October 1836, pp. 423–35. Review of The Rambler in North America, The Athenaeum, London, 1835, p. 639. Ritchie, Joan, ‘Charles Joseph La Trobe in Van Diemen’s Land, 1846’,

282

Bibliography


2/3/06 2:15:10 PM

Tasmanian Historical Records Association Papers and Proceedings, vol. 23, no. 1, 1976, pp. 21–4. Ryan, Lyndall, ‘Aboriginal Policy in Australia—1838—A Watershed ?’, The Push from the Bush : A Bulletin of Social History, no. 8, December 1980, pp. 20–2. Scott, Ernest, ‘The Administration of Captain Lonsdale’, Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 46, no. 4, November–December 1975, pp. 543–8. Serle, Geoffrey, ‘Noble Vision and Harsh Realities: C. J. La Trobe and Early Victoria’, Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 47, 1976, pp. 265–76. [La Trobe University Oration, 12 December 1975] Shaw, A. G. L., ‘Governor La Trobe’, Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 61, no. 1, 1990, pp. 17–32. ——, ‘Aborigines and Settlers in the Port Phillip District 1835–1850’, La Trobe Journal, no. 61, Autumn 1998, pp. 5–16. Turner, Henry Gyles, ‘A Day in 1839’, Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 46, no. 4, November–December 1975, pp. 519–29. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 4, 1846, p. 208. ‘The Victorian Press’, Victorian Review, vol. 3, no. 18, April 1881, pp. 683–90. Wyborn, Theresa, ‘In Pursuit of Useful Knowledge: The Nineteenth-Century Concept of the Botanic Garden’, Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 67, no. 1, 1996, pp. 17–27.

Bibliography


283

2/3/06 2:15:10 PM

Index

Aboriginal people 78, 93, 133, 136–7, 142–3, 159 Addington 245 Alabama 85 Albi 7, 8 Allan, G. L. 177 Alpine Clubs 39 Alps 39, 40 American West 71, 77, 196 Andermatt 57 Anderson’s Creek 217 Antes, Anna Margaretta 18 Antes, Henry 18 Anti-Gold Licence Association 222 anti-slavery movement 20, 192 Aquilegia alpina 42 ‘archangel Gabriel’ 230 Argus 185, 186, 227, 231 Arkansas River 79 Arqua 59 assimilation 197, 200, 202 Athenaeum Club, Pall Mall 127, 248, 254 Australian Colonies Bill, 1850 – ‘Separation Bill’ 211, 213 Australian Colonies Government Act, 1850 214, 220


Auxiliary Bible Society of Australia 191–2 Avenches 41, 43, 59 Aztecs 88, 90 Ballarat goldfields 217, 222 Baltimore 74, 84, 85, 139 Baltimore-Ohio Railroad 70, 74 Barham, Joseph 117 Barry, Sir Redmond 177–9, 218 Bathurst 217 Battle of the Boyne 14 ‘Bearbrass’ 142 Béarn 11, 12 Bell, Edward 213 Bell, Mrs Edward 247 Bendigo goldfields 217, 222 Berne 42 Berthier, Prince, Comte de Neuchâtel 38 Bienne 49, 103, 151 Blackwall ship 241 Bohemia 16–7 Bohemian Brethren 16, 24 Borcarderie 102 Bordeaux 8 Bosphorus ship 244

2/3/06 5:15:01 PM

Bourke, Sir Richard 133, 137, 142 British Guiana 113, 118 Brockedon, William 103, 126, 127, 238 Brown, ‘Captain’ Edward 222 Browne, Octavius 247 Brunig pass 42 buffalo hunting 78, 82, 83, 94 Bunbury, Captain Richard 171 Bunbury, Richard Hanmer 187 Buninyong 217, 221 Burney, Charles 19, 36 Byron, George Gordon, Lord 60 Calendar Stone 88 Calverly 100 Calvin, Jean 9 Campagna 56 Campbell, William 217 Canada 85 Canvas-Town 221 Castella, Hubert de 189–90 Castlemaine goldfields 222 Catherine de Medici 10 Catholic rituals 54, 55 Cecilia Matella’s tomb, Rome 59 Cennick, John 17 Cerlier 103, 151 Château de Greng 245 Childers, Hugh Culling Eardley 149, 178–9 cholera 71, 74, 86 Cholula 90 Clapham House 250 Clapham Sect 20, 107, 109, 124, 128, 135, 161, 165, 201 Clunes 217 Coffre de Perote 90 Colonial Governors (Pensions) Bill 250 Colonial Office 1, 110, 112, 114, 115, 118, 121–2, 124–5, 131–4, 135–7, 148–50, 159, 163–5, 169, 184–5, 191–2, 194, 198, 201, 203, 205–6, 210, 220, 227, 239–40, 238–9, 247–8, 250–1 Comenius, John Amos 162, 180

Contador 89 Convicts 142, 204 corroboree 193 Crommelin, Louis 15 Crown Lands 187, 215 cultural evangelists 178 cultural exile 242 culture 239 Czech Republic 16, 180 Dana, Captain 186, 221 Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act 245, 246, 253 democracy 238, 239, 240 depression of 1840s 203, 235 deputation of gold miners 224 Desierto 90 Dietler, Johann Friedrich 103, 182 diggers see miners dragonnades 12 Dredge, James 194–5 Droylsden 26 Ebden, Charles 218 Edict of Nantes 10–11 – Revocation 6, 11–13, 15, 38 Eiger 41, 42 Ellsworth, Henry Leavitt 75, 76, 78–80, 84, 93, 125, 200 employment 239 Enlightenment 160–2 Erlach 103, 151 Erlenbach 40, 44, 47–8, 50 Esmond, James 217 Eureka 224 evangelicalism 16, 20, 27, 146, 159–65, 175, 182, 191, 240, 245, 246, 253 Executive Council (Victoria) 218, 239 exile 231 eyesight 239, 248, 251 Ezzolino’s Tower, Padua 59 Fairfield 18, 26, 28–9, 100, 104 Fauchery, Antoine 219

Index


285

2/3/06 5:15:01 PM

Fawkner, John Pascoe 166, 141, 189, 213 Fetter Lane Society 16–7, 32, 131–2 Finn, Edmund 190 FitzRoy, Sir Charles 173, 207, 208–10, 214, 227, 229, 230, 238 Flagstaff Hill 212 Fort Gibson 76 Fulneck 17–18, 23–4, 26–7, 29, 35–6, 46, 100, 108, 134, 162, 180, 248 Furka Pass 42 Gairdner, Gordon 250 ‘Garryowen’ 190 Geelong Advertiser 220, 227 Geelong 196 Geneva 42 Geneva Rite 9 Georgia 85 Gipps, Sir George 1, 132–3, 136–8, 147, 149–51, 153–4, 174, 193, 194, 198, 202–9, 218, 228 Glenelg, Baron, Secretary of State for the Colonies 107, 109, 124, 125, 127, 134, 148, 184, 203, 205 Gletsch 42 Goderich, Frederick John Robinson, Viscount 104, 127 Gold discoveries – and immigration 217, 227 Gold Discovery Committee 217, 235 Gold Export Duty 222, 226 Gold Fever 219 Gold Licences 218–26 Golden Age ship 244 Goldfields Management Act, 1853 226 Goldfields Petition 222, 223 Governor-General 206, 210, 227 Grampians 187 Grand Tour 47–9, 63, 69 Great Canadian River 79 Great Glockner 56, 59 Great St. Bernard Pass 42 Greeves, Augustus Frederick Adolphus 211

286

Grenada 123 Grey, Sir George 134, 203, 209 Grindelwald 41 Guadeloupe 90 Guardian of Aboriginies 201 guidebooks 43, 44, 51, 65 Gunn, Ronald Campbell 173, 208, 214, 216, 219, 240 Halcyon ship 85, 94 Harding, Mr. 211 Havre-de-Grace 71, 82, 95 Haydn, Franz Josef 19–20, 36 ‘Hedger’s Glove’ 239 Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre 10 Henri IV 10 Herrnhut 16, 29 Hiscock, Thomas 217 Hobson, Edmund 173 Hoddle, Robert 133, 157, 176 Hotham, Sir Charles 226, 243 Howitt, Godfrey 173 Howitt, William 196 Huguenots 6, 10–12, 14–15, 28, 38 Hus, John 16, 29 Ightham Mote 248 Indian Removal Act, 1830 200 Indian Territory 75 Indians see Native Americans Irving, Washington 58, 71, 73–6, 80–4, 90, 104 Italy 47–9, 51, 54, 69 Jackson, President Andrew 75, 76, 79 Jalapa 90 Jamaica 111, 112, 116, 123 Jolimont 103, 151 Jones, Dr 222 Joséphine, Empress of France 38 Journal of a Visit to South Africa in 1815 and 1816 19, 34, 36, 40, 46 Jungfrau 41–3 Kansas 75 Kingston 110, 111, 113

Index


2/3/06 5:15:01 PM

La Rochelle 10 La Trobe, Agnes 111, 134, 148, 228, 243, 244, 245, 251 La Trobe, Anna Agnes 20, 26 La Trobe, Benjamin Frederic 20, 26, 32, 73, 86, 110 La Trobe, Benjamin 17, 18, 84, 163 La Trobe, Charles Albert 148, 241 La Trobe, Charles Joseph – biography – artist 41, 42, 52, 58–60, 80, 87, 90, 93, 121, 170–2, 249, 261–2 – birth 134 – books: – The Alpenstock (1829) 34, 35, 40–5, 52, 53, 59, 62 – The Pedestrian (1832) 50, 53, 59 – The Rambler in Mexico (1836) 39–43, 47, 70, 86, 91–2 – The Rambler in North America (1835) 70, 73, 77, 86, 91, 100 – class structure 135, 136, 144, 164 – culture 159, 167, 173–9, 191, 196 231 – education 23–7, 32–3, 135, 138, 151, 162–4 – family 159 – honeymoon 103 – humour 56, 57, 87, 111, 148 – income 105, 148, 150, 188, 248, 249 – indecision 61, 72, 136, 153, 164, 169, 179, 190, 207, 227, 230, 237, 240 – marriage 101–3 – banns 102 – ceremony 102–3 – proposal 102 – native peoples 126, 135–6, 191 – religious faith 61–3, 155, 159 – scientist 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 56, 57, 62, 63, 80, 85, 86, 171, 173, 191–202, 217, 249

– second marriage 245, 246, 251 – seeking preferment 104–7 – teacher 28 – tutor 34, 37, 38, 47, 68, 106 – view of education 123–4, 146, 179, 206 – writer 50 – in Australia 132–245 – administration 169, 187, 189, 195, 204, 207, 213, 230–1, 238, 240, 249, 250 – Aboriginal People 136, 159, 183, 184, 191–202,133, 141–3, 241 – Aboriginal Protectorate 136, 192–202 – arrival 136, 139, 141, 143–7 – assignment 136 – authority 225–6 – Bibles 191, 232 – British and Foreign Bible Society 191, 232 – ‘Cataraqui’ ship 154 – civilizing influence 189, 191, 192, 202 – class 206, 218, 230, 240 – colonialism 195–6, 201 – commission 139–41, 143, 182, 191–2, 255–60 – culture 173–9, 238, 249 – Custom House 154 – death 251 – departure 249 – duty 224 – ‘exile’ 144–5 – exploration 169–72 – Cape Otway 154 – gold discoveries 126, 178, 183, 201, 216, 249 – goldfields management 216–31, 238, 239, 241 – Government Offices 155 – hospital 155, 174–5 – house 148, 149, 157 – Immigration Barracks 155 – infrastructure 152–55, 218–22, 226, 238, 249

Index


287

2/3/06 5:15:02 PM

– instructions 255–60 – insincerity 207 – Jolimont 157, 211, 248 – journeys and excursions 170, 214, 263–6 – Yering 172 – Geelong 170 – Cape Otway 170 – Cape Schanck 170, 172 – Gippsland 170 – Mount Macedon 170 – lands sales 149–51, 157, 185 – Lieutenant-Governor 1, 5–6, 61, 126, 141, 186, 190, 214, 218, 224 – lighthouses 154 – Gellibrand’s Point 154, 168 – Shortland’s Bluff 154 – Cape Otway 154–5, 170 – Lunatic Asylum, Yarra Bend 155 – Melbourne 139, 144–5, 151, 153, 167–9 – nicknames: – ‘Charlie Joe 221 – ‘Galled Jude’ 187 – ‘Hat and Feathers’ 185, 186, 213 – ‘Joe’ 221 – ‘Our Victorian Czar’ 220 – ‘Praise God, Barebones’ 147 – ‘Red-tapist’ 152, 184 – ‘Second Fiddle’ 187, 207 – ‘The German Rambler’ 187 – physical description 188 – Police Court 155 – policies 237 – Port Phillip self-government 126 – post office 155 – Press 212–13, 227, 230, 240, 250 – public opinion 188 – race 165 – relationship with colonists 165–9, 183–90, 204–7, 209,

288

211, 212, 227, 230, 237, 239, 240, 243, 245, 250 – relationship with Gipps 138 – religion 135, 146, 147, 159, 249 – resignation 229, 240 – retirement 247 – Separation 138, 144, 145, 147, 153, 183, 184, 185, 202–16 – stress 240, 243 – superannuation 249 – Superintendent 1, 5, 6, 11, 125–6, 136, 141, 142, 148, 149, 164–9, 182, 183, 185, 191, 201, 212 – Supreme Court 155 – Sydney 136, 186 – The Landing : a Nursery Rhyme 186 – uniform 212 – vision 238, 249 – Yarra Valley 172 – in Mexico 85–94 – in North America 68–85 – in Switzerland 34–47 – in the Tyrol 47, 53, 54, 57, 60, 61, 69 – in the West Indies 99–126, 191 – apprenticeship 107–13, 119 – assignment 107, 170 – boarding schools 120 – climate and education 119 – Commission 110–13 – compulsory education 120 – education 119, 146 – Missionary Societies 122 – Parliamentary Grants for Negro Education 114–15 – Roman Catholic children 123 – reports 134 – Negro Education, British Guiana and Trinidad 129 – Negro Education, Jamaica 117, 125 – Negro Education, Windward and Leeward Islands 129

Index


6/3/06 1:18:31 PM

– survey of schools and chapels 115 – teacher training 120, 123 La Trobe, Charlotte 20, 36, 106, 151 La Trobe, Christian Ignatius 14, 18–21, 23, 26, 27, 32, 34, 44, 64, 100, 106, 108–10, 161, 177 La Trobe, Eleanora Sophia 148, 241 La Trobe, Frederick 14 La Trobe, Isabelle Castellane Hélène 245 La Trobe, James 16 La Trobe, John Antes 20, 26, 32, 177, 247 La Trobe, John Frederic 27 La Trobe, Margaret Rose, ‘Daisy’ 245 La Trobe, Mary Cecilia 148, 241 La Trobe, Peter 20, 26, 32–4, 44, 102, 199, 241 La Trobe, Sophie, née de Montmollin 101–3, 110, 113, 122, 151, 228, 241–4, 245, 247 La Trobe/Latrobe family motto 6, 28 La Trobe/Latrobe name 5–7 Lake Boga Moravian Mission 199 Lake Tyers 189 land sales 57, 149–51, 157, Langhorne, George 193 Latrobe, Benjamin Henry Jr. 70, 74 Latrobe, Benjamin Henry 24, 29, 52–3, 70, 84, 95 Latrobe, Jean (Le Réfugié) 13–15, 29 Latrobe, Jean-Joachim (Le Chevalier) 64 Latrobe, John Hazlehurst Boneval 70 Latrobe, Julia 70 Latrobe, Lydia 70, 84 Latrobe, Michel 13 Latrobe, Samuel Hazard 24, 25 Lauterbrunnen 41 Le Soeuf, William 194 Legislative Council, (New South Wales) 203, 205, 210, 214

Letters to my Children, Written at Sea during a Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope in 1815 20, 36 linen industry 15 Litlington, Sussex 250 Livre de Famille 33, 34, 63, 64 London 139, 241 London Missionary Society 180 Lonsdale, Captain William 139, 142, 144, 148, 149, 153, 175, 193, 218 Louis XIII 10, 11 Luther, Martin 9 Lutheranism 16 Lyra ship 111 Lysander ship 211 Macarthur, William 64 Magdalene College, Cambridge 47, 169 Maldon Hills 216 Malmaison 38 Maroons 119, 130 Marriage Law Reform Association 246 Mastodons 88 McCombie, Thomas 152, 157, 158, 184, 186, 189, 206, 207 McCrae, Georgiana 211–12, 234, 242, 247 McEuen, Mr 85, 89, 90, 97 McIvor (Heathcote) goldfields 222 Mechanics’ Institute 175, 177 Melbourne 239, 248, 249 Melbourne – naming 133 Melbourne Benevolent Asylum 173–4 Melbourne Club 141, 156, 187 Melbourne Daily News 213 Melbourne Morning Herald 211, 213 Melbourne Town Council 173, 205–6, 208 Melbourne Workingmen’s College 175 Melbourne/Sydney nexus 133, 143, 145, 147, 148, 153, 166–8, 183, 202

Index


289

2/3/06 5:15:02 PM

Mercer, George 203 Merveilleux family 38 Messiah 177 Meuron, Rose Isabelle de, née de Montmollin 245 Mexican ship 91 Mexico 85–94 Mexico City 88 Meyringen 45 Michel, Jean-Louis 217 miners 221–25 Miners’ Deputation 224 Mississippi River 75, 84 Missouri 75, 79 Mitchell, David 177 Monbartier 7 Monbéqui 7 Montauban 7–10, 12, 13 Montech 10 Montezuma 97 Montezuma’s Bath 88 Montezuma’s Gardens 89 Montezuma’s Watch 88 Montmirail 101 Montmollin family 38 Montmollin, Frédéric Auguste de 101 Montmollin, Mme de 106 Montreal 85 Montreux 42 Morat 41, 43, 45 Moravia 16–17 Moravian education 23–8, 32–3, 63, 94 Moravian Lot 33 Moravian Synod – Barby 22 – Berthelsdorf 33 Moravianism 16–17, 19, 21–3, 32–3, 160, 244, 245 mosquitoes 56 Mount Alexander goldfields 217 Mt. Washington 74 Mueller, Baron Ferdinand von 173, 176 Münch 42 Murray River 205

290

Murray, John 102, 127 Murrumbidgee River 205 Napoleon 19, 38 Native Americans 75–80, 93, 202 Native Police 221 ‘Natural Sublime’ 50–3, 75, 87, 93, 169–72, 175–6, 251 Neosho River 60, 63 Neuchâtel 34–41, 45–9, 51–2, 63, 68–9, 101, 139, 151, 176, 207, 228, 241–3 New Orleans 84 ‘New World’ 75, 77, 92, 99, 182 New York 71, 74, 81, 139 New York State 239 Newcastle, Duke of 247 Niagara Falls 74, 75 Nicholson, Mr. 211 Niesky 18, 27, 108 Nîmes 10 North Carolina 85 Oberland 41 Ockbrook 100 Oklahoma 75, 76, 80, 95 Order of the Bath 247 Orizaba 90 Orton, Rev. Joseph 197, 199–200 Osage Indian tribe 70, 82 Osterwald family 38, 47 Ottawa 85 Pachuca River 88 Padua 54, 59 Pakington, Sir John 222 Panama 243 Panuco River 87 Parker, Edward 194 Pawnee Indian tribe 82 pension 239, 248–50 Perry, Bishop Charles 149, 246 Perry, Frances 246 Petrarch’s House, Arqua 59, 60 Philadelphia 74 Philosophical Society of Victoria 173

Index


2/3/06 5:15:02 PM

poll-tax 222 Port Phillip 1, 182, 183, 204, 209 – population 1, 206 Port Phillip Association 203, 233 Port Phillip Bay 217 Port Phillip Gazette 152, 184, 186 Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser 166 Pourtalès family 34, 38, 68, 90, 245 Pourtalès, Comte Albert-Alexandre de 38, 39, 40, 48, 64, 68–70, 72–4, 101, 111, 113, 146 Pourtalès, Comte Frédéric de 28, 34, 38, 47, 48, 103 Pourtalès, Comte Louis 38 Pourtalès, Jérémie de 38 Pourtalès, Comtesse Marie– Louise-Elisabeth de Castellane-Norante de 38, 68–9, 71–2, 94, 101, 104–6, 242 Prescott, William H 88, 92 Prince’s Bridge 212–13, 242 printing press 213 Prohibited Degrees of Marriage and Incest 245, 246, 253 Protectors of Aborigines 184, 194–5, 199 public gardens 176 – Fitzroy 176, 187 – Flagstaff 176 – Royal Park 176, 187 – Treasury 176 Public Library of Victoria 178–9 public works 205 Pulpit Rock 172 Pury family 38 pyramids – Great Pyramid, Cholula 90 – ‘Moon’ 89 – San Juan Teotihuacan 89 – ‘Sun’ 90 Pyramus ship 139 Pyrenees 216 Quebec 85 Queen Victoria 211, 239, 247 Queen’s Wharf 205

race 231 Real del Monte 87 Reformation 9, 46 Regla Cascade 88 Regla silver mines 87, 88 Revenue 249 Rhône Glacier 42 Richelieu, Cardinal 11 Righi-Kulm 42 Rio de Cãnada 87 Robinson, George Augustus 136, 192–4 Rome 49, 56, 59 Royal Botanic Gardens 175, 187, 205 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 176 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University 175 Royal Melbourne Philharmonic Society 177 Royal Society of Victoria 173 Rusden, G. W. 189, 222 San Cristobal 90 San Francisco Monastery 90 San Juan Teotihuacan Pyramids 89 Saratoga Springs 74, 239 Sargood, Sir Frederick 177 Seeley, Robert Benton 40, 60 Selby, Sir William 248 Select Committee on Aborigines in British Settlements, 1836–1837 192 Selwyn, Alfred 173 separation 1, 138, 144, 145, 147, 153, 167–9, 201–16, 218–21, 238, 240, 249 ‘The Settlement’ 142 Sierra Madre Mountains 87, 88 Sievwright, Charles 194, 197 Silver Centrepice 243, 253 Simmenthal Valley 41, 42, 46, 52 Simplon Pass 42 slavery 20, 25, 107 – abolition 116, 192 – Colonial Office policy 110 – and Moravian Church 108–10 – and La Trobe family 108, 109

Index


291

2/3/06 5:15:03 PM

– and Charles Joseph’s view 116–17 – and Sir George Gipps 136–7 South Carolina 85 Spectator, London 227 Spieseker, Rev. C. F. 199 squatters 137, 218 St Michael the Archangel 251 St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre 10 St. Gotthard Pass St. Louis 75 St. Moritz 53 Stanley, Lord 204 Stansbury, Joseph 246 State boundaries 205 State Library of Victoria 178–9 Stawell, William 218 Stephen, James, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies 107, 124, 128, 134, 160, 198 Stockhorn 41, 42, 43 Strzelecki, Paul Edmond 170, 180 Studer family 46, 105 Sydney 136, 186, 214, 238, 240 Sydney Morning Herald 218 Syms, Hannah Benigna 19, 35–6, 68 Table of Kindred and Affinity 245, 253 Taeger, Rev. A. 199 Tammiagua 87 Tampico 85–8 Tarn River 7 Tennessee 85 Texcuco Lake 89, 90 Thomas, William 193, 194–5 Thomson, Edward Deas 152, 188, 206, 207, 209, 228, 229 Thomson, G. E. 222 Thun 41, 42, 101 Times 246 Toulouse 7, 8 Trades’ Hall and Literary Institute 175 Tribolet family 38

292

Trinidad 113, 118 Turner, Henry Gyles 167, 189, 195 Unitas Fratrum 16, 180 University of Melbourne 178–9 Van Diemen’s Land 133, 241 Varennes 7, 64 Venice 49, 55 Vera Cruz 86, 90, 91 Verlhac 7, 13 Versailles 8, 12 Victoria 183, 204, 214, 240, 247, 249 – population 7 Victorian Legislative Council 206, 214, 218, 226, 229, 239 Villars 59 Villemur 7, 13 ‘Villes Roses’ 7 Virginia 85 ‘Wanted a Governor’ 186 Warrandyte 217 Washington 74 Waterford 14–16 Wathen, George Henry 190 Wesley, John 16–17, 160 Westgarth, William 189 Wetterhorn 41 Wilberforce, William 20, 107–9, 116, 128, 160 William of Orange 14–15 Willis, Judge John Walpole 138 Wilson, Edward 185, 189, 212, 213, 231 Windward and Leeward Islands 113, 116, 121 Worgan, John Dawes 25 Wurundjeri tribe 193 Wyclif 16, 29 yellow fever 70, 71, 91, 129 Zinzendorf, Count Nikolaus 16, 18 Zurich 42

Index


2/3/06 5:15:03 PM

La Trobe: The Making of a Governor

Rise of the Governor

The Governor Of Glave

Awakening Of Lieutenant-Governor

Imperial Governor

The Walking Dead: Rise of The Governor

Effective School Governor

The Making of a Duchess

The Making Of A Fuhrer

The Making of a Confederate

The Making of a Duchess

The Making of a Duchess

The Making of a Counsellor

The Making of a Mage

The Making of a Mage

Ramage 04 - Governor Ramage

The Power of the Texas Governor: Connally to Bush

Kate: The Making of a Princess

The Making of India: A Historical Survey

Elminster: The Making of a Mage

Immunology: The Making of a Modern Science

Elminster The Making of a Mage

Kate: The Making of a Princess

Patrick Pearse: The Making of a Revolutionary

William Faulkner: The Making of a Modernist

Kate- The Making of a Princess

Elminster The Making of a Mage

The Making of India: A Historical Survey

Religious Studies : The Making of a Discipline

Religious Studies: the Making of a Discipline

La Trobe: The Making of a Governor

Rise of the Governor

The Governor Of Glave

Awakening Of Lieutenant-Governor

Imperial Governor

The Walking Dead: Rise of The Governor

Effective School Governor

The Making of a Duchess

The Making Of A Fuhrer

The Making of a Confederate

The Making of a Duchess

The Making of a Duchess

The Making of a Counsellor

The Making of a Mage

The Making of a Mage

Ramage 04 - Governor Ramage

The Power of the Texas Governor: Connally to Bush

Kate: The Making of a Princess

The Making of India: A Historical Survey

Elminster: The Making of a Mage

Immunology: The Making of a Modern Science

Elminster The Making of a Mage

Kate: The Making of a Princess

Patrick Pearse: The Making of a Revolutionary

William Faulkner: The Making of a Modernist

Kate- The Making of a Princess

Elminster The Making of a Mage

The Making of India: A Historical Survey

Religious Studies : The Making of a Discipline

Religious Studies: the Making of a Discipline

Recommend Documents