Thursday, January 19, 2023

North and South

On Friday 13 February 1959, a gilded hatchet was buried in the pavement outside the entrance to the Launceston Hotel. The ceremony was presided over by the two respective Town Clerks of the cities of Launceston and Hobart. This event coincided with a joint conference of Launceston and Hobart Aldermen and associated officials being held on that day at the Town Hall. The local Lions club had organized the event to heal the rivalry between the two cities of Hobart and Launceston. The ritual was based on an indigenous American ceremony which was used to cease hostilities. A metal plaque was placed over the spot although in the succeeding decades it has since disappeared or been covered over.[1] 

So, what are the origins, extent and driving factors of the historic rivalry between the two cities of Launceston and Hobart? Is this rivalry limited to Launceston and Hobart or is it an aspect of a more general animosity between the Northern and Southern Tasmania?

 


George Frankland's map of Van Diemen's Land, Tasmania Archive and Heritage Office Commons, No restrictions, via Wikimedia Commons


In a 2011 Examiner article on the issue of the North South rivalry, Julian Burgess accurately attributed the rift to having been set during that early formative period but having been kept alive for political and commercial reasons.[2] For the origins of this North/South rivalry in Tasmania, we likely need to first examine the process of settlement. Between 1803 and 1804, three settlement parties were dispatched from Sydney to Van Diemen’s Land. The first two were established on the Derwent River (Risdon Cove and Sullivan’s Cove) and the third at what had been christened Port Dalrymple in the North.[3] The rivalry may have its roots in fact in an antagonism between Lt. Col. David Collins and Lt. Col. William Paterson, who found themselves in respective charge of the North and South bastions of Empire. Governor King had originally named Paterson as Lt. Governor of the Port Dalrymple settlement at a time when Collins was presiding over the aborted first Port Phillip settlement on the other side of Bass Strait (within the boundaries of what later became the colony of Victoria). When Collins shifted his colony to the Derwent he claimed control over the entire island and Paterson objected. To defuse the tension, King opted to partition the island.[4] The island was officially bisected at the 42nd parallel on 24 September 1804. The island then hosted two administrations representing the counties of Buckinghamshire in the South and Cornwall in the North.[5] These administrations were still officially part of the colony of New South Wales and reported independently to the Governor in Sydney. By the time the two were united under one Hobart based administration in 1813, Launceston had become accustomed to its independence.[6] Indeed in June of that year both Hobart Town and Port Dalrymple were both officially named free ports for imported goods—it was no longer necessary then for ships to call to Sydney first and have their merchandise assessed and fees processed there.[7]

 

In February 1807 a young officer in the New South Wales corps, Thomas Laycock, led a small party from famine ridden settlement of Port Dalrymple to the Derwent settlement to request supplies but on arrival, his request was denied.[8] The incident was recorded in the 11 February entry of the diary of the Reverend Robert Knopwood. To be fair this was not due to any rivalry but rather because the Hobart colony was itself suffering from shortages. The diary entries around this time also reflect increasing hostilities between the colonists and the natives—perhaps as a result of having to hunt deeper inland for supplies to compensate for the lack of stores.[9] Whatever rivalry between the settlements that may have existed at the time clearly operated only on an administrative level and not a popular one. Isolation and peril can actually be a unifying force and the early history of both settlements were that of collective struggle; and after all, on entering Port Jackson in January 1788 just after Captain Phillip had planted the British flag, French explorer and navigator Captain Jean-François de Galaup, Comte de La Pérouse even wrote: ‘Europeans are all fellow-countrymen at such a distance from home’![10]

 

The first actual rumblings of open conflict between North and South may have involved some territoriality with respect to their respective banking institutions. The Cornwall Bank was established in Launceston in 1828 but by 1832 it was in trouble. It proved necessary for the Bank of Van Diemen’s Land - formed and based in Hobart - to come to its aid. Hobart’s bank had opened a branch in Launceston during1830 on the site of the future Brisbane Hotel. In 1834 they offered to come to the Cornwall’s aid again if they abandoned their business. However, they proved to have insufficient capital necessary for the move and had to close themselves. Competition between Hobart and Launceston based banking institutions remained fierce for decades to come.[11]

 


Bank of Van Diemen's Land, 1834, Uncredited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons


The rivalry that manifested itself in the early press reflected a healthy sense of competition between the two settlements. In May 1835 the Cornwall Chronicle perhaps playfully (?) reported that the capital of the colony was to be moved to Launceston.[12] In 1849 when describing the enthusiastic response by the port of Hobart in responding to the Californian gold rush, an article in the same paper posed the question: ‘What are the Launcestonians doing in this business?’[13] The fact that this comment was made in a Launceston paper hints at awareness of a friendly rivalry by this time. Similarly, the question was asked in the Launceston local Daily Telegraph in 1911 as to why the drugs provided more expensive at the Launceston Friendly Societies dispensary than at its Hobart counterpart.[14] The construction of the Queen Victoria Clock Tower at Hobart in 1906 appears to have evoked an envious response from Launceston. By 1909 an arguably more impressive clock tower had been installed, a correspondent for the Mercury wryly noting that ‘the big bell is so big that the Hobart gong could easily be hidden away inside it.’[15] Even by the end of the century there was little evidence of mainstream animosity as one observer of the state in 1897 noted that: ‘Never a hard word did I hear from the north end of the island about the south end, and my respect for the Tasmanians rose considerably.’[16] During the Great Depression there was a noted ‘friendly rivalry’ between the Rotary clubs in the North and South in their efforts to raise money for the ‘spend for employment campaign’; it’s likely this was being played up in the media to create an atmosphere of healthy competition.[17] All these examples leave one with the distinct impression that the rivalry that exists between the two main cities of Tasmania on a mainstream level is mostly a friendly one that invites as much self-criticism on both sides and little actual negativity.

 


Duck Reach Power Station, Launceston, Tasmania, Uncredited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons


It is arguable that economic neglect of the North drove the Launceston City Council (LCC) to become very independent and from its inception, its municipality was to benefit from its own brand of ‘gas and water socialism’. The municipal administration in Launceston led the way in providing infrastructure and services including sewerage, water and electricity.[18] The LCC subsequently butted heads with the new Hydro-Electric Department in 1930 over its plans to extend electricity supply to Beaconsfield in competition with its own plans. At the time the corporation had its own hydro-electric facility and the right to supply power within a six-mile radius of the town which incorporated the suburban area of Beaconsfield. Although the LCC had not seriously considered expanding its business to that area, and there were concerns over available water resources being adequate to maintain and expand supply within the boundaries of the town, the corporate body was clearly threatened by this territorial threat. However, the fact that the LCC were taken to task over this ‘selfish’ approach by the local paper reflects that the bad feeling again existed at the administrative not the popular, mainstream level.[19] This arguably began a pattern of open conflict and resentment between Northern administrative bodies and the state government that continued as the role of the state continued to expand as the century unfolded.

 

To be properly understood, the rivalry between North and South (and particularly Launceston and Hobart) has to placed within the wider historical debate concerning the role of ‘the state’ in Tasmania. There was a sustained effort to reduce the state following the end of the penal era as while a strong centralized government had arguably been a necessity in the early development of the colony, it had also become synonymous with the convict system itself.[20] Subsequently Parliament resisted any wholesale expansion of executive power and the preferred arrangement was for local government to assume broad responsibilities.[21] During the Second World War there was a necessary centralisation, or recentralization, of power within the apparatus of the state which effectively re-familiarised the population of Tasmania with the practices of government regulation and intervention.[22] It is clear though that this process of centralisation further heightened distrust between North and South, at least on an official level. From the achievement of self-government in 1856, ‘the state’ had always been regarded as a Hobart based and Hobart-centric apparatus often favouring the interests of the South at the expense of the North. Therefore, when statutory bodies such as the LCC or the Launceston Marine Board (LMB) continued to resist government policy post-war, it’s likely that they genuinely felt that they were continuing to act not in self-interest but according to the long-term needs of their constituents.

 


Bill Thompson, former Tasmanian convict, John Watt Beattie, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons


The main source of resentment on the part of Launceston towards Hobart then appears to relate to the advantages the later has as the seat of government. Even before the return of centralisation, many state policies were regarded by the inhabitants of Launceston (and arguably the North in general) as arbitrary, heavy-handed, and unfair. One early example was the response to the removal of male invalids from the Launceston invalid depot to Hobart in 1894 which was seen as cruel (despite claims that the decision wasn’t being made for monetary benefit but rather because the residents had been somewhat neglected!).[23] When special railway rates charged on cargo delivered at Launceston were declared by the local press as an ‘injustice’ in 1894 it was because they were seen as a means to ‘benefit one portion of the colony at the expense of the other’.[24] A decision to adopt a policy recommended by the Chamber of Commerce to concentrate all shipping trade in the port of Hobart led to a protest at the Launceston Town Hall in June 1919.[25] Another typical example was when in 1947 the Northern Branch of the Tasmanian Road Transport Association (meeting in Launceston of course) accused the State Government of acquiring ‘plum’ road services by underhand methods or compulsory acquisition by stealth.[26] It is likely that it is only when Launcestonians (and perhaps Northerners in general) feel themselves to be the victims of insensitive policy decisions from the direction of Hobart and in turn their civic pride is dented, that the embers of animosity among the mainstream population are fanned.

 

In relation to the rivalry between Launceston and Hobart, sometimes the smaller the issue, the louder the fuss. Things came to a head between the LMB and the Nomenclature Board (NB) in 1968. The NB had decided that the term Port Dalrymple should be used while the local authority preferred the term ‘Port of Launceston.’ The NB was, according to Master Warden R. A. Ferrall, ‘composed in its entirety of Hobart citizens and effectively passed a by-law making their preference official.’ The LMB did this without consulting the NB. What’s more significant is that the local paper, the Examiner, declared its support noting that it would only refer to the waters past the Tamar Heads as the Port of Launceston. The decision was well received among the Tamar Valley municipalities.[27] From a Launceston perspective then, there was an enduring view among the administrative class at least, that Launceston traditions and interests needed to be protected against the intrusive influence of the capital, no matter how trivial.

 


Locomotive belonging to Tasmanian Government Railways, 1907, Andy Dingley, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons


Rivalries between familial cities is not a phenomenon unique to Tasmania: the rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney is infamous and long predated the conflict over the question of which should be the Commonwealth’s capital at the time of Federation.[28] There is also a distinct history of administrative tension between Launceston and Devonport despite both cities being located in the North. The LMB has played a major role in these conflicts. In 1863 the proposal for a railway to link Launceston to the Northwest highlighted opposing interests and views between the Launceston and Mersey Ports.  The Port of Launceston argued that it was vital that wheat be brought from the Northwest direct to Launceston for export as the trade was under threat from Port Phillip. Regardless, a proposed tram line that was to run from Latrobe to Deloraine was enabled by an Act of Parliament in 1864. The resultant line by 1871 was described as a track that ‘began nowhere and ended in the same place’. Promoters of the Launceston plan struggled through three parliaments to have their own Bill enacted. The proposal also brough the City Engineer Doyne into conflict with Government commissioners. Eventually the colonial Government intervened and implemented something similar to the original proposal to extend the Launceston and Western Railway line to Formby.  Contrastingly, a major line from Launceston to Hobart was achieved without similar conflict in 1876.[29] Likewise in 1906 when the chairman of the Devonport Council H. McFie stated that all Tasmanian mail should be landed at Devonport as a result of the Tamar tides, the Master Warden R. J. Sadler labelled the suggestion as ‘outrageous’. Like many administrative controversies in Tasmania, this one could be described as it was by R. A. Ferrall as nothing more than a ‘cyclonic disturbance in a cup of water.’[30]

 

In 2002 a controversy developed with the board of AFL Tasmania attempted to direct all local AFL games be played at Bellerive Oval in Hobart rather than York Park in Launceston. The Labor government had successfully attracted two AFL clubs (Hawthorn and St. Kilda) to play games in the North and South respectively. Recently re-elected Labor Premier Jim Bacon – perhaps partly with an eye towards a negative reaction in the North - declared that he no intention of bowing to the ‘Clarence based clique’. The chairman of the Board Peter Hodgman struck back at the Premier claiming that he had no right to insist that all games be played at York Park. The decision had been made even though York Park was at the time the only accredited ground for AFL games located in the state as significant funding having been diverted to upgrade it largely for that purpose and Launceston was a more central and convenient location for mainland tourists to visit to enjoy the games.[31] Hodgman was a former member of the opposition who had lost his seat in Legislative Council in 2001.[32] It is difficult to deny that there were both political and commercial agendas at play in this conflict and that North-South rivalry was being actively exploited by both sides of the political divide.

 


Tasmanian football map, Uncredited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons


The origins of the rivalry between Launceston and Hobart can be traced back to the period of European settlement in Tasmania.  While notorious, the rivalry is largely mythical and operates mostly at an administrative rather than a popular level. The media coverage of North-South tensions over the last two centuries supports this analysis and indicates that overall, there is a lack of jingoism within the mainstream population on either side of the 42nd parallel. The traditional rivalry is at its most mainstream when Northern residents (and particularly those in Launceston) feel they have been slighted or worse, ignored, by the state. In truth, the rivalry is an aspect of a wider historical tension between Northern and Southern residents and driven largely by political and commercial interests. A central factor in driving that rivalry has been the increasing centralization of the state post-war. This arguably inevitable shift during the Twentieth Century exacerbated tensions between ‘the state’ and its subordinate statutory bodies; as the reach of the state expanded, their own powers and influence contracted. Some of the resistance though is likely to have been reflective of a genuine concern on the part of those bodies for the interests of their constituents. The second driving factor has been conflicting commercial interests— originally restricted to banking interests, these expanded to include the regulation and operation of the shipping trade, the railways and later, sports tourism. Launceston has also had a sometimes-fraught relationship with rival Northern port city, Devonport, demonstrating that parochialism is a universal phenomenon and the North-South rivalry is not even unique within Tasmania. 

 

- Dr. Colin Woollcott Mallett, 24 December 2021 (revised 20 January 2023)

 

Bibliography

 

 

Primary Sources

 

Cornwall Chronicle

 

Daily Telegraph

 

Examiner

 

New South Wales, State Archives and Records, NRS 1045 – Colonial Secretary papers [SZ992], p. 109, Reel 6037. URL: https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/archives/magazine/24-sep-1804-%E2%80%93-king-divides-van-diemen%E2%80%99s-land accessed 30 June 2021.

 

North Coast Standard

 

Sydney Stock and Station Journal

 

Tasmanian

 

 

Secondary Sources

 

Boyce, J. Van Diemen’s Land (Melbourne, 2009).

 

Emmett, E. T. Tasmania by Road and Track (Carlton, 1952).

 

Ferrall, R. A. The Story of the Port of Launceston (Launceston, 1983).

 

Mallett, C. W. ‘ “A model among towns?”: A study of progressivism in Launceston during the interwar period’, unpublished PhD thesis (UTAS, 2006). URL: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/12488/ accessed 8 September 2021.

 

Reynolds, J. Launceston History of an Australian City (South Melbourne, 1969).

 

Robson, L. L. A History of Tasmania Vol. 2: Colony and State from 1856 to the 1980s (Melbourne, 1991).

 

Townsley, W. A. Tasmania: from colony to statehood, 1803-1945 (Hobart, 1991).

 

Bethell, L. S. The Story of Port Dalrymple: Life and Work in Northern Tasmania (Hobart, 1957).

 

 

 

Online Resources

 

Campbell, M. ‘Sydney vs. Melbourne: A History’ in Crikey, 25 Jul 2019. URL: https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/07/25/melbourne-sydney-rivalry-history/ accessed 21 July 2021

 

Hollingsworth, J. ‘North-South Relations’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History (2006). URL: https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/N/North-south.htm accessed 16 June 2021.

 

Knopwood, R. ‘The Diary of the Rev. Robert Knopwood 1805-1808 part 2’ as reproduced in Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, (UTAS eprints) pp. 72-4. URL: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/13563/1/1947-knopwood-diary.pdf  accessed 21 July 2021.

 

Maloney, S. & and Groz, C. ‘Captain Arthur Phillip and Captain Jean-François de Galaup, Comte de La Pérouse’ in Encounters, The Monthly, August 2011. URL: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/august/1316152462/shane-maloney/captain-arthur-phillip-jean-fran-ois-de-galaup-comte-de-l#mtr accessed 30 June 2021.

 

Stancombe, G. H. ‘Thomas Laycock (1786-1823)’ in the Australian Dictionary of Biography (2002-21). URL: https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/laycock-thomas-2340 accessed 30 June 2021.

 

Tanner, S. ‘Hodgman Family’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History (2006). URL: https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/H/Hodgman%20family.htm accessed on 22 September 2021.

 

Unknown Author, ‘Remarks by the Honourable Peter Underwood AC, Governor of Tasmania upon the opening of an interpretation site at the 42nd parallel’, Ross Tuesday 16th October 2012’ in Speeches, Government House, Tasmania. URL: https://www.govhouse.tas.gov.au/sites/default/files/speeches/42nd_parallel_commemoration.pdf accessed 16 June 2021.

 

 


[1] John Reynolds. Launceston History of an Australian City (South Melbourne, 1969), pp. 185-6.

[2] Julian Burgess, ‘Parochialism is far from dead and buried North-South divide runs deep’ in Examiner, 23 July 2011. URL: https://www.examiner.com.au/story/432180/parochialism-is-far-from-dead-and-buried-north-south-divide-runs-deep/ accessed 16 June 2021.

[3] James Boyce, Van Diemen’s Land (Melbourne, 2009), p. 20.

[4] Evelyn Temple Emmett, Tasmanian by Road and Track (Carlton, 1952) as quoted in ‘Remarks by the Honourable Peter Underwood AC, Governor of Tasmania upon the opening of an interpretation site at the 42nd parallel, Ross Tuesday 16th October 2012’ in Speeches, Government House, Tasmania. URL: https://www.govhouse.tas.gov.au/sites/default/files/speeches/42nd_parallel_commemoration.pdf accessed 16 June 2021.

[5] New South Wales, State Archives and Records, NRS 1045 – Colonial Secretary papers [SZ992], p. 109, Reel 6037. URL: https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/archives/magazine/24-sep-1804-%E2%80%93-king-divides-van-diemen%E2%80%99s-land accessed 30 June 2021.

[7] Llewelyn Slingsby Bethell, The Story of Port Dalrymple: Life and Work in Northern Tasmania (Hobart, 1957), p. 41.

[8] G. H. Stancombe, ‘Thomas Laycock (1786-1823)’ in the Australian Dictionary of Biography (2002-21). URL: https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/laycock-thomas-2340 accessed 30 June 2021.

[9] Indeed in his entry on the 24 February 1807, Knopwood bemoans the current price of goods. Robert Knopwood, ‘The Diary of the Rev. Robert Knopwood 1805-1808 part 2’ as reproduced in Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, (UTAS eprints) pp. 72-4. URL: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/13563/1/1947-knopwood-diary.pdf accessed 21 July 2021.

[10] Shane Maloney and Chris Groz, ‘Captain Arthur Phillip and Captain Jean-François de Galaup, Comte de La Pérouse’ in Encounters, The Monthly, August 2011. URL: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/august/1316152462/shane-maloney/captain-arthur-phillip-jean-fran-ois-de-galaup-comte-de-l#mtr accessed 30 June 2021.

[11] Llewelyn Slingsby Bethell, The Story of Port Dalrymple: Life and Work in Northern Tasmania (Hobart, 1957), p. 119. An associated consortium of the VDL Bank returned to Launceston again as the Tamar Bank based in George Street in 1835 and after being bailed out by Phillip Oakden of the Union Bank in London during 1838, survived the 1840s depression and were still operating in the 1850s. The Cornwall Bank was taken over by the Bank of Australasia in 1836 ensuring its longevity. The VDL Bank formally opened again in Launceston in 1859 but finally closed during the crash of 1891.

[12] Cornwall Chronicle, 1 May 1835 as described in Examiner, 21 November 1929, p. 7. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/51633152?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 30 June 2021.

[13] Cornwall Chronicle, 13 Jan 1849, p. 300. See: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/65979074?searchTerm=Gold%20California accessed 21 April 2021.

[16] Sydney Stock and Station Journal, 19 January 1897, p. 4. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/120771479?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 25 August 2021.

[18] Colin Woollcott Mallett, ‘ ”A model among towns?”: A study of progressivism in Launceston during the interwar period’, unpublished PhD thesis (UTAS, 2006), passim. URL: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/12488/ accessed 8 September 2021.

[20] Lloyd Robson, A History of Tasmania Vol. 2: Colony and State from 1856 to the 1980s (Melbourne, 1991), pp. 309-10.

[21] Wilfred Asquith Townsley, Tasmania from Colony to Statehood, 1803-1945 (Hobart, 1991), p. 179.

[22]  Lloyd Robson, A History of Tasmania Vol. 2: Colony and State from 1856 to the 1980s (Melbourne, 1991), p. 490.

 

[27] Raymond A. Ferrall, The Story of the Port of Launceston (Launceston, 1953), pp. 85-6.

[28] Mel Campbell, ‘Sydney vs. Melbourne: A History’ in Crikey, 25 Jul 2019. URL: https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/07/25/melbourne-sydney-rivalry-history/ accessed 21 July 2021.

[29] Llewelyn Slingsby Bethell, The Story of Port Dalrymple: Life and Work in Northern Tasmania (Hobart, 1957), pp. 138, 165-8.

[30] Raymond A. Ferrall, The Story of the Port of Launceston (Launceston, 1953), pp. 31-3.

[31] Examiner 24 July 2002, pp. 1 & 9. Clarence is a municipality within the greater Hobart area.

[32] Stephen Tanner, ‘Hodgman Family’ in The Companion to Tasmanian HIstory (2006). URL: https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/H/Hodgman%20family.htm accessed on 22 September 2021. In fact Peter’s brother Michael who also served as both an member of the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council was known as ‘the Mouth from the South’.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

The Tasmanian ‘49ers

  In his History of Tasmania , James Fenton reflected that from around 1849 the ‘newly discovered gold fields in California engaged much a...