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.
[6] Judith Hollingsworth, ‘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.
[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.
[14] Daily Telegraph, 7 April 1911, p. 7. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/152368571?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict
accessed 30 June 2021.
[15] Mercury, 21 August 1909, p. 7. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/9991807?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict
accessed 25 August 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.
[17] Mercury, 4 July 1943, p. 6. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/24875114?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict
accessed 8 September 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.
[19] Examiner, 24 July 1930, p. 6. URL:L https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/51651125?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict
accessed 25 August 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.
[23] North Coast Standard, 2 June 1894, p. 3. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/212612685?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict
accessed 25 August 2021.
[24] Tasmanian, 30 June 1894, p. 26. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/199502238?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict
accessed 25 August 2021.
[25] Advertiser, 5 June 1919, p. 7. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5654547?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict
accessed 25 August 2021.
[26] Examiner, 28 July 1947, p. 2. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/52599059?searchTerm=Tasmanian%20State%20Government%20policy%20unfair%20bias%20North%20South%20Northern%20Southern
accessed 8 September 2021.
[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’.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'd love to hear any feedback. Thanks for commenting, Colin.