Trevor WholohanSix-guns in Sunny Adelaide
August 12th 2008 09:00
As a rule, Australian politicians have not taken to settling their differences by shooting one another, but it once might well have happened in Adelaide.
In December, 1892 one member of the South Australian Colonial Parliament, the Honourable Charles Cameron Kingston Q.C. M.P. challenged another, the Honourable Richard Chaffey Baker M.L.C., to a duel. The two were at the time quite hostile opponents, although they had both served in the same ministry in the 1870s when John Colton was Colonial Premier.
As a result of a perceived slight in the parliament, Kingston purchased two revolvers and two cartons of ammunition, and sent one of each to Baker with a note demanding that they meet at 1:30pm in Victoria Square in Adelaide to settle their differences. Even in 1892, Victoria Square would have been, as it is today, part of the busy heart of the city.
Sensibly Baker decided that discretion was the better part of valour and informed the constabulary. His son, John Baker, was reported to have stood guard at Baker’s office, armed with a shotgun. Baker did, however, send word that he would keep the appointment and intended, if assaulted, to defend himself. He arrived at Victoria Square a minute before the required time, after having had lunch at his club. Kingston, by this time, had been stopped by the police, and had his revolver confiscated.
Press reports at the time told of Baker complaining that the revolver he was sent would not cock. Kingston was reported to have insisted that the two revolvers were identical and the one he sent to Baker “... was in first-class order, and excellently adapted to the purpose proposed”. A witness reported seeing Kingston enter Victoria Square with a revolver in his pocket, with the price tag dangling from it. This suggests that Kingston had not tried to fire the gun to test either the weapon or his own marksmanship.
Here I become a little technical. Revolvers were produced in two types, single action and double action. The single action style requires that the hammer be cocked before firing, and the gun is then fired by pulling the trigger. The double action is cocked and fired simply by pulling the trigger. To complicate matters, some double action revolvers can be cocked independently before the trigger is pulled, as is a single action model. Press reports at the time state that Kingston bought two British Bulldog model revolvers. I believe these would have been manufactured by Webley and Son, of Birmingham, England, and were in fact double action revolvers. I have been unable to determine if these were double action only, but from Baker’s complaint it would appear so. In any event neither Kingston nor Baker showed any great aptitude for using the firearms, and I would venture to say that had they tried they could not have hit the nearby Saint Francis Cathedral, much less one another.
After the confiscation of his revolver, Kingston was taken to the watch house, but subsequently released. He was reportedly disappointed at this release. After some political and legal to and fro, Kingston was charged with provoking a duel “against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity”, that is, breaching the peace by provoking Baker to shoot him! He was represented in court by Josiah Henry Symon Q.C., who asked that Kingston be bound over to keep the peace. The Crown Solicitor agreed, and presented no evidence, and it seems no conviction was recorded. Kingston was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months under his own recognisance for 500 pounds and with two sureties of 250 pounds each. Baker, naturally, felt this was inadequate, and indeed a cover-up, despite the extensive press coverage. (As an aside, J.H. Symon was later to take part, along with Kingston, in the campaign in support of federation, and to represent the State of South Australia in the Senate after federation).
The newspapers in Adelaide fully and seriously reported the incident the following day, the 24th of December. The South Australian Register of December 24th headed their report with “Vindicating a Legislator’s Honour” and “Mr. Kingston Taken with a Loaded Revolver”, and included eye-witness accounts of the events. The Adelaide Advertiser of the same date had the headings “A Political Duel” and “Government Action Contemplated”, and reported that rumours had swept Adelaide of a fiery confrontation between the two.
The later reports, starting further afield, included one in the Sydney Telegraph of December 26th, which, tongue-in-cheek, compared the events in Adelaide with the popularity of duelling in Paris, which was apparently a common occurrence, but where nobody was ever actually injured.
The Melbourne Argus of December 27th also adopted this light-hearted style, quoting an article by Mark Twain, who, in his splendid mock-serious style, wrote of a prominent French duellist who “will eventually endanger his life” if he continues duelling, as a result of colds caught in the damp morning air. This confirmed no great damage was done in Paris.
In an editorial on December 30th The Register piously drew attention to the idea that Kinston should face the full might of the law. The piece began “The ancients represented justice as blind.” And Continued “No matter who the man may be or may have been .... The more intelligent and influential the man the less, as a general rule, the excuse for his fault”. The editorial did deflate its high-flown style at the end by concluding that Kingston “...had happened upon one occasion to be phenomenally foolish”.
By January 7th the Adelaide Observer had picked up the silliness of the incident, and presented a poetic interpretation, starting out:
It was a politician great,
In South Australia fair,
Who gnashed his teeth and cursed his fate,
And tore his tawny hair.
“Shall I the cowards taunt endure,
While he unarmed goes?
No! better death?” Thus Kingston hurls
Defiance to his foes.
This delightful doggerel continued for another five stanzas.
There seems little doubt that Kingston had no real expectation that shots would be exchanged with Baker, and that the incident was a political stunt. This did not seem to do any harm to Kingston’s political career, as he was re-elected to the colonial parliament in the subsequent election in April 1893, and in May of that year moved a motion to adjourn the house before the motion to accept the address in reply was taken, effectively a no-confidence motion in the government of the day. As a result, the premier (Sir John Downer) resigned. Since Kingston’s supporters had the numbers on the floor of the house, The Governor invited Kingston to form a government, which he did, and served as Colonial Premier until 1899.
Both Kingston and Baker went on to represent their state in the first Commonwealth Parliament after Federation. Kingston was elected to the House of Representatives and served in Edmund Barton’s first ministry, and Baker was elected to the Senate, and served as the first president of that house.
This shows politics, as always, to be a mixture of the serious and the silly.
In December, 1892 one member of the South Australian Colonial Parliament, the Honourable Charles Cameron Kingston Q.C. M.P. challenged another, the Honourable Richard Chaffey Baker M.L.C., to a duel. The two were at the time quite hostile opponents, although they had both served in the same ministry in the 1870s when John Colton was Colonial Premier.
As a result of a perceived slight in the parliament, Kingston purchased two revolvers and two cartons of ammunition, and sent one of each to Baker with a note demanding that they meet at 1:30pm in Victoria Square in Adelaide to settle their differences. Even in 1892, Victoria Square would have been, as it is today, part of the busy heart of the city.
Sensibly Baker decided that discretion was the better part of valour and informed the constabulary. His son, John Baker, was reported to have stood guard at Baker’s office, armed with a shotgun. Baker did, however, send word that he would keep the appointment and intended, if assaulted, to defend himself. He arrived at Victoria Square a minute before the required time, after having had lunch at his club. Kingston, by this time, had been stopped by the police, and had his revolver confiscated.
Press reports at the time told of Baker complaining that the revolver he was sent would not cock. Kingston was reported to have insisted that the two revolvers were identical and the one he sent to Baker “... was in first-class order, and excellently adapted to the purpose proposed”. A witness reported seeing Kingston enter Victoria Square with a revolver in his pocket, with the price tag dangling from it. This suggests that Kingston had not tried to fire the gun to test either the weapon or his own marksmanship.
Here I become a little technical. Revolvers were produced in two types, single action and double action. The single action style requires that the hammer be cocked before firing, and the gun is then fired by pulling the trigger. The double action is cocked and fired simply by pulling the trigger. To complicate matters, some double action revolvers can be cocked independently before the trigger is pulled, as is a single action model. Press reports at the time state that Kingston bought two British Bulldog model revolvers. I believe these would have been manufactured by Webley and Son, of Birmingham, England, and were in fact double action revolvers. I have been unable to determine if these were double action only, but from Baker’s complaint it would appear so. In any event neither Kingston nor Baker showed any great aptitude for using the firearms, and I would venture to say that had they tried they could not have hit the nearby Saint Francis Cathedral, much less one another.
After the confiscation of his revolver, Kingston was taken to the watch house, but subsequently released. He was reportedly disappointed at this release. After some political and legal to and fro, Kingston was charged with provoking a duel “against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity”, that is, breaching the peace by provoking Baker to shoot him! He was represented in court by Josiah Henry Symon Q.C., who asked that Kingston be bound over to keep the peace. The Crown Solicitor agreed, and presented no evidence, and it seems no conviction was recorded. Kingston was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months under his own recognisance for 500 pounds and with two sureties of 250 pounds each. Baker, naturally, felt this was inadequate, and indeed a cover-up, despite the extensive press coverage. (As an aside, J.H. Symon was later to take part, along with Kingston, in the campaign in support of federation, and to represent the State of South Australia in the Senate after federation).
The newspapers in Adelaide fully and seriously reported the incident the following day, the 24th of December. The South Australian Register of December 24th headed their report with “Vindicating a Legislator’s Honour” and “Mr. Kingston Taken with a Loaded Revolver”, and included eye-witness accounts of the events. The Adelaide Advertiser of the same date had the headings “A Political Duel” and “Government Action Contemplated”, and reported that rumours had swept Adelaide of a fiery confrontation between the two.
The later reports, starting further afield, included one in the Sydney Telegraph of December 26th, which, tongue-in-cheek, compared the events in Adelaide with the popularity of duelling in Paris, which was apparently a common occurrence, but where nobody was ever actually injured.
The Melbourne Argus of December 27th also adopted this light-hearted style, quoting an article by Mark Twain, who, in his splendid mock-serious style, wrote of a prominent French duellist who “will eventually endanger his life” if he continues duelling, as a result of colds caught in the damp morning air. This confirmed no great damage was done in Paris.
In an editorial on December 30th The Register piously drew attention to the idea that Kinston should face the full might of the law. The piece began “The ancients represented justice as blind.” And Continued “No matter who the man may be or may have been .... The more intelligent and influential the man the less, as a general rule, the excuse for his fault”. The editorial did deflate its high-flown style at the end by concluding that Kingston “...had happened upon one occasion to be phenomenally foolish”.
By January 7th the Adelaide Observer had picked up the silliness of the incident, and presented a poetic interpretation, starting out:
It was a politician great,
In South Australia fair,
Who gnashed his teeth and cursed his fate,
And tore his tawny hair.
“Shall I the cowards taunt endure,
While he unarmed goes?
No! better death?” Thus Kingston hurls
Defiance to his foes.
This delightful doggerel continued for another five stanzas.
There seems little doubt that Kingston had no real expectation that shots would be exchanged with Baker, and that the incident was a political stunt. This did not seem to do any harm to Kingston’s political career, as he was re-elected to the colonial parliament in the subsequent election in April 1893, and in May of that year moved a motion to adjourn the house before the motion to accept the address in reply was taken, effectively a no-confidence motion in the government of the day. As a result, the premier (Sir John Downer) resigned. Since Kingston’s supporters had the numbers on the floor of the house, The Governor invited Kingston to form a government, which he did, and served as Colonial Premier until 1899.
Both Kingston and Baker went on to represent their state in the first Commonwealth Parliament after Federation. Kingston was elected to the House of Representatives and served in Edmund Barton’s first ministry, and Baker was elected to the Senate, and served as the first president of that house.
This shows politics, as always, to be a mixture of the serious and the silly.
| 39 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by TimmyH
Tech News
Can you HACK it?
Genyration