George Gipps. He also had a personal difference with the Governor respecting the admission to his entertainments by the latter of a guest of dubious reputation. He did not, however, resign his nominee seat until Mr. Roger Therry had denounced him in the Council as an adder which had stung to death the benefactor who had warmed it in his bosom. Before the commencement of the next session, Mr. Lowe was again a member of the Council, this time as the elected representative of the district of St. Vincent. His opposition to the action of the Governor and his condemnation of the squatting regulations had won him the support of squatters and settlers alike. His oratorical triumphs in the Assembly had brought him a considerable practice at the Bar. In defending the prisoner Knatchbull he made use of an argument which drew upon him the charge of fatalism, and the press attacked him for this somewhat unfairly. He defended himself with great spirit. In conjunction with William Forster and others, he started a weekly paper, the Atlas, which waged incessant war against the Government, and particularly against the Governor. Article after article full of constitutional learning, enriched with classical and historical allusions, assailed with relentless logic the unconstitutional position of the Governor and the Colonial Office. At length Sir George Gipps left the colony. Mr. Lowe in opposing him had allied himself with the squatting party; but when the new Governor arrived, the independent party who, in the first session of the Council, had joined with the squatters in demanding for them fixity of tenure as a protection from the encroachments and impositions of the Crown, were now equally loud in denouncing their threatened monopoly of the land of the colony. In truth, on the land question Mr. Lowe altered his views more than once, and thus incurred the charge of inconsistency. But he steadfastly opposed the squatting monopoly. Were the broad lands that could support millions to become a mere sheep-walk for the benefit of the few? This was the question which, supported by a small minority in the House and amid the indifference of the people outside, he propounded to his fellow-colonists with a vehemence, persistency, and eloquence that has never been surpassed. These efforts did not by any means absorb all Mr. Lowe's energies during the session of 1847. At its commencement he spoke with great effect on the bill for amalgamating the two branches of the legal profession. At the conclusion of the session he called attention to the incipient slave trade with the islands of the Pacific. Already employers of labour had begun the system of importing Polynesians, which subsequently led in some instances to deplorable results, calling for criminal prosecutions and legislative interference, In 1848 he opposed Earl Grey's proposal to constitute the Assembly by the election of local corporations or councils, and supported the bicameral system. At the general election he was triumphantly returned for Sydney as colleague to Wentworth, and amidst great rejoicings at the success of the popular party, of which he was now the acknowledged leader. Wentworth on this occasion attacked him on the hustings with great incisiveness, urging the electors to return Dr. Bland as his colleague in preference to Lowe, who had himself been a party to the compromise on the transportation system, which he then denounced. Mr. (now Sir Henry) Parkes was one of Lowe's warmest supporters. In 1849 he strenuously opposed Earl Grey's malign project for renewing transportation, and also the conduct of Sir Charles Fitzroy in seconding Earl Grey's efforts in spite of the repeated and passionate remonstrances of the people. On August 1st Mr. Lowe spoke at great length on the Budget, urging the House to use finance as the lever with which to force the British Parliament to grant them a responsible Government. The next month he brought up the report of a committee on the Sydney Corporation. The report proposed its abolition, and the speech in which Mr. Lowe moved the adoption of this recommendation manifested hostility not merely to the Sydney body, but to corporate institutions generally. The Land Committee's report was also drawn up during the session. It was palpably in the main Mr. Lowe's own composition, and pointed out that many of the positions taken up by the advisers or the Government were simply due to their
282
