In 1861, a group of landowners wanted to break free from the oppression of of the state governments and create a new state.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Princeland would have seen the Wimmera, Mallee and the Western District of Victoria join forces with the Limestone Coast and Riverland regions of South Australia.
Was this David vs Goliath or the rich trying to find a loophole in the system?
Prior reading:
Jealousy, sabotage chip away at the foundation of trust
Much like Shakespeare's historical play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, the Princeland separation movement was undermined from the start by power-hungry players.
One of Australia's foremost experts, Dr André Brett from the University of Wollongong, said the DNA of the movement was flawed.
"Put simply, it never built up enough support," Dr Brett said.
"It was undermined by local jealousies. A lot of people in Port Fairy and Warrnambool thought the movement was an attempt for Portland to gain at their expense.
"They were all rivals for the same seaborne trade."
Ultimately, southeastern South Australia never truly got on board.
- Dr André Brett
Gaining the support of the state governments was hampered by the fact Edward Henty had previously made enemies with the South Australian Government.
"The first squatters in the Mt Gambier area were the Henty brothers," University of SA Emeritus Professor Roger Harris said.
"They realised the SA government had little control over this far-flung extremity of the state and quickly moved sheep and cattle into the area from June 1839.
"So slow was the SA government to react that they managed to farm the area around the lakes for five years before they were ordered back to Victoria."
READ MORE:
In an ironic series of events, the land was officially named the Electoral District of Victoria.
The Border Watch turned against separation in 1862 and published many anti-separation letters to the editor.
Petitions began to flow to the respective governors to counteract the separation attempts.
"There was an Anti-Separation Memorial addressed to Governor Daly from 245 residents in the South-East beseeching him to persuade the Queen against 'Princeland'," Professor Harris said.
"He responded on May 24, 1862, that he would be 'recommending to the favorable consideration of Her Majesty's Government the prayer of the memorial, that no such separation may take place, so far as regards South Australia'."
A meeting in Mount Gambier on March 17, 1862, saw two highly respected citizens speak against separation.
James Umpherston, a future local member for the South East, took up the argument on behalf of the state.
"James Umpherston pressed the League speakers to declare what thraldom residents of Mount Gambier were to be delivered from," Professor Harris said.
"How they would be better off under the new colony and what would be gained from a new Constitution that was not already forthcoming, especially as the district was soon to be granted a second political representative."
READ MORE:
The second key opponent was George Pannell, a noted architect and builder in the region.
He questioned the accuracy of details in the case for separation, especially the map which portrayed 100 miles of the desert north of Mt Gambier and omitted Penola, Naracoorte and Robe Town, when there were many sheep runs there.
Later that evening, battles from the motherland clouded the purpose of the meeting, when Irish workers clashed with Scottish and English landowners.
"The presence of inebriated revellers out celebrating St Patrick's Day resulted in an unruly meeting and brought it to an untimely end," Professor Harris remarked.
"While the meeting started with 100, it swelled to 200.
"One might suspect that it may have been a case of 'rent-a-crowd' or even 'branch stacking, given the revellers would likely have been opponents of a movement led by wealthy landowners."
"Ultimately, southeastern South Australia never truly got on board," Dr Brett said.
"They were suspicious of western Victoria's advances."
'Insufferable fop' squashes the movement
Despite losing support, the campaigners persevered and petitioned Queen Victoria via the Governor of Victoria per standard procedure.
The Victorian Governor, Sir Henry Barkly, dispatched it in June 1862 with an unfavourable covering letter. The Duke of Newcastle, who was Secretary of State, predictably advised the Queen to reject the petition.
"The Duke felt he could not accede to the request without the consent of the VIC and SA parliaments unless there was intolerable hardship," Dr Brett said.
"The parliaments weren't going to consent in a hurry, and he felt the petitioners' grievances could be easily met by recourse to those same parliaments.
"They didn't need a new colony to get what they wanted."
Sir Barkly received a letter from the Duke just five months later, confirming the rejection.
Despite Edward Henty personally writing to the Duke of Newcastle, the Princeland movement died out by 1864.
"The secessionists were advised to seek protection through constitutional channels," Professor Harris said.
"The Duke of Newcastle was labelled 'an insufferable fop' in newspapers.
If you are seeing this message you are a loyal digital subscriber to The Wimmera Mail-Times, as we made this story available only to subscribers. Thank you very much for your support and allowing us to continue telling your stories. We appreciate your support of journalism in our great city.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.mailtimes.com.au/
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/Wim_Mail_Times
- Follow us on Instagram www.instagram.com/wimmeramailtimes/