Gualter Soares, Rev

Before becoming a Reverend like his brother, the Rev. Canon Alberto Dias Soares, in the Adelong/Queanbeyan region, Gualter was living in Balmain, Sydney, and was a government employee (custom-house agent), postmaster and teacher.

His ordination was published in the "Queanbeyan Age" of Thursday 14 January 1869:

"ORDINATION.-Mr Gualter Soares, who formerly held the offices of postmaster and teacher of the Church of England denominational school in Queanbeyan, has, after a course of study at Moore college, been or-. dained by the Bishop of Melbourne, and appointed to a church on Ballarat. Mr Soares's family leave town next week for Ballarat."

After the death of his first wife, he remarried but was soon separated in a very public fashion, but seemingly with the full support of the Church Committee and his parish.

see: the "Queanbeyan Age" of Tuesday 29 June 1886:

"Local Intelligence. Troubles in a Parsonage. REFERRING to the late unpleasant affairs (as reported in a previous issue) in which the Rev. Gualter Soares (formerly of Queanbeyan) and the members of his family figured so conspicuously, the Tumut and Adelong Times reports :--The follow ing resolutions were carried at a meeting of St. Paul's Church Committee on Wed nesday last :-(1) " The committee ex press. their sympathy with the Rev. Gaulter Soares, vicar of the parish, in relation to the unpleasant position he was placed in through certain proceedings which occurred at the police court here on Tuesday, 8th June, and desire to evince their sorrow that such could not have been avoided. They beg to convey to the rev. gentleman their confidence in him as a minister, which has not in any way been impaired through the revelation of un happy family matters; but they would respectfully; point out to him: the ab solute necessity of immediately taking such steps as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of such painful circum stances, otherwise they deem it would be utterly impossible for him to discharge faithfully and efficiently his duties as a clergyman.'" (2). "That this meeting deems it expedient, in the interests of the church and of the vicar himself, that he be removed: to another parish within a reasonable time, but not in any way that would prejudice his position or reputa tion." The secretary was instructed to forward a copy of the resolutions to the bishop of the diocese, with the addition that the committee desired to impress upon his lordship the fact this expression of opinion did not emanate from the parishioners, but from the church com mittee; and if his lordship wishes the opinion of the whole of the parish the committee will obtain it."

I have included the lengthy article published in "The Sydney Morning Herald" of Thursday 23 June 1859, below.

The most relevant points from this are that:

1. Gualter Soares was employed by NSW Customs for six years but was dismissed because he was said to have conspired to assist his brother-in-law, James Stewart (and his wife), to escape arrest for smuggling, by boarding the "Louisa" for Howe's Island (Lord Howe Island?) and assisting in removing furniture (claimed to belong to James' mother) on 6th November 1858. 2. Another brother-in-law, William Stewart, who had briefly had a wine and spirit merchant business in NSW in 1858, appears to have been smuggling too, as he is described as having left home "and has not returned" at the beginning of of November 1858. 3. Soares mother-in-law, Mrs Stewart, is living in Sydney, and her son James was living with her before setting up his own home at Pyrmont. It is claimed that the furniture removed by Gualter was loaned by Mrs Stewart to her son, and is therefore her property, not James' 4. James Stewart had a boy called McDonald, brother to another servant of his wife's, in his employ and placed with James mother for three weeks before James' "escape" from NSW. It was testimony of McDonald who returned to NSW some 6 weeks after leaving with James Stewart on the Louisa, which was instrumental in Gualter Soares losing his position. 5. After failing to influence Governor-General Denison or the Board to reconsider their verdict (which, effectively, made his unemployable, as he was no longer eligible for employment by the government) it appears that Gualter has chosen to publicise his correspondence and ask for the readers of the Herald to assist him...

"REMOVAL FROM THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF MR. GUALTER SOARES.

To the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.

Sir, - You published lately the case of Mr. Surveyor Sanderson, and I trust, under similar circumstances, you will confer on me the same favour. The reputation of every honourable man is as dear to him as his life, and he will adopt every available means to defend it against attack, whatever the consequences may be to him. The Government have, of course, a right to dismiss any officer from their employment if they think it for the good of the public service; but they have no right to couple such dis- missal with unjust denouncements and charges, wholly unsupported by evidence-calculated to blast his reputation, and inflict severe damage on his future prospects. The charge made against me by the Government is that I have been a "a participator in a conspiracy to defraud the revenue". This charge is pressed against me with pertinacity in the correspondence which has taken place, and with your kind indulgence. I will submit the documents themselves, and my whole case, to the judgment of the public, being determined not to be trodden down unheard, and being fully convinced that my silence, even till now, has, in more instances than one, militated fatally against my obtaining other employment for the support of my family. The report of the Board of Inquiry, dated the 4th of February, has appeared in your paper already, and its deliverance on my case is that, The conduct of Mr. Soares. a locker en the Customs Department, was brought under our notice through a report made by a detective officer of the police to the Inspeetor-General, charging that officer with being privy to the escape or Mr. James Stewart from the colony, and with permitting that gentlemen's furniture and effects to be removed to his own charge. Mr. Soares, in his examination before us, denied that he was at all aware of the escape of Mr. James Stewart, and although he admitted that he was employed up to a late hour on the 6th of November in removing furniture from Stewart's house, he alleged that he was only taking out of the house that portion of the property belonging to Mr. James Stewart's mother. Were it not for the testimony of the boy McDonald, Mr. Soares explanation of his conduct might have been considered sufficient, but when it appears to be beyond a doubt that McDonald (who had made the voyage in the Louisa when she was employed in the nefarious act of defrauding the Government) had been a resident at Soares' house for a period of nearly three weeks, and had been, during the evening of the 6th November, employed by that officer in removing cases and other things for Mrs. J. Stewart to the vessel which was about to take Mr. Stewart and his wife to Howe's Island-and on board of which vessel there is little doubt he proceeded during the night-it is manifest to the board that Mr. Soares was accessory after the fact to the fraud which had been committed, as well as instrumental to a considerable extent in facilitating the escape of Mr. James Stewart from the colony.

"On the 11th February I received the following letter from the Treasury :

The Treasury, Sydney, 11th February, 1859.

Sir,-The Government has under consideration the report of the Board of Inquiry into charges made against certain officers of the Customs Department, in connexion with the clearing and dispatch of the "Louisa" on the 2nd of September last, and her sudden return and subsequent departure on 7th October following, and it appears by that report to have been satisfactorily proved that you have been a participator in a conspiracy to defraud the Revenue. I am, therefore, directed to Inform you that his Excellency the Governor-General and Executive Council have directed that you be forthwith dismissed from the situation you now hold in the department of the Customs, and that you be declared disqualified for future employment ia any capacity under this Government.

I have, &c., (Signed)

HENRY LANE, Under-Secretary. Mr G Soares H M Customs

"On receiving the above letter I addressed a memo- rial to the Colonial Treasurer, and the members of the Board of Inquiry, which I left at the Treasury Office. After waiting a considerable time, and receiving no answer, I called on one of the members of the Board, with a copy of the memorial ; he read it over, saying, the Board had not before seen it ; and after kindly acknowledging that my explanation might certainly materially change the appearance of my conduct, and confessing much sympathy in my case, he promised to take my memorial to the chairman, and advise with him. The chairman, after reading it, refused to entertain it afresh, without orders from the Government, whom, he said, I ought to have addressed. I therefore sent the following memorial to the Government :

"To his Excellency Sir William Thomas Denison, &c., &c, and the

Honorable the Members of the Executive Council, in Council assembled.

The memorial of Gualter Soares respectfully showeth :

1. That your memorialist has rereived the letter of the Government dated the 11th February, dismissing him from the public service, in consequence of the report of the Board of Inquiry into charges made against certain officers of the Customs Department, in connection with the clearing; and dispatch of the Louisa, on the 2nd September last, and her sudden return and subsequent departure on the 7th October following; and your memorialist trusts he may be permitted to address to his Excellency, and the members of the Executive Council, a few remarks of explanation on that part of the report of the Board of Inquiry which refers to his conduct as an officer of Customs.

2. Your memorialist was fully satisfied to rest his defence on the evidence he had already given before the Board, and which they were pleased to admit in their report might have, been con dcred sufficient explanation of his conduct, had it not been for the supervening testimony of the boy, McDonald ; and your memorialist, feeling conscious of his entire innocence of any complicity to the alleged frauds, the report given in the Herald of McDo nald's examination did not strike him as being calculated materially to alter the Board's previous view of his conduct, due allowance being made for possible errors in the boy's impressions of the circumstances which brought him in contact with your memorialist in the first instance. But as the Board have now taken a different view of the matter, and seem to think that this boy's evidence makes it manifest that your memorialist was after all an accessory to these frauds, and thereby compromised his position as an officer of Customs, he feels it incumbent on him to lay before his Excellency and the Executive Council a connected view of his conduct throughout these events.

3. That Mr. William Stewart is your memorialist's brother-in law. Mr. Stewart commenced business as a wine and spirit merchant in the course of last year, and continued that business until some time in the beginning of November, when he went from home and has not returned, rumours being afloat that he was connected with the transactions of the Louisa. Mr. James Stewart left home about the same time ; but whatever guilt may attach to either or both of these gentlemen in the matter of the Louisa, your memorialist most solemnly asserts he was entirely ignorant of it. They never consulted him about their affairs, and although his near relationship to them rendered it probable that the closest intimacy would prevail, they always kept him in the dark about their business transactions, into which he never enquired, and knew nothing of them except what common rumour made known to him as well as to others.

4. The first time your memorialist had any personal connexion with their affairs was early in November, when he was requested by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Stewart, to take a boy of the name of McDonald down to a vessel at the Commercial Wharf, about ten o'clock in the evening, together with some unaddressed luggage. This boy was brought to Mrs. Soare's about three weeks previous, by her brother, Mr. James Stewart. He stated to her that the boy was the brother of Mrs. Stewart's servant, and that, wishing to get him a situation in a vessel he expected to arrive, he would thank her to keep him and make use of him for a few days. Your memorialist knew nothing of this boy, or his connexion with the Louisa; and most positively denies the truth of the boy's state- ment that he was on board the vessel after delivering him and the luggage he took with him. So far from Mr. James Stewart having left Sydney with your memorialist's assistance, as the report states, he was not aware that gentleman intended to go from home ; he knew of no charge against Mr. James Stewart, who, as far as your memorialist knows, was no partner in the wine and spirit business of his brother. What your memorialist then did. and what he did next day (Saturday, 6th Nov.), as detailed in his ex- amination before the Board, was merely in obedience with the re- quest of his mother-in-law, which he could see no reason whatever to refuse; and on the contrary, would have considered it dis graceful to decline. It was evident to your memorialist that some heavy grief was at the moment pressing on her, the nature of which she seemed anxious to conceal ; but he could never have forgiven himself to have left her unaided with his utmost efforts at such a time, and he is unable to understand how anything he did for her, under these circumstances, should be fairly construed into a compromise of his position as an officer of Customs.

5. That your memorialist, with submission to his Excellency and the Executive Council, is unable to see anything in the evidence to justify the statement in the report of the Board that your memorialist undertook to place under safe keeping the furniture left by Mr. James Stewart. Such was not and could not be the fact. It was not till next day, in the afternoon, and, as it appears, after both the Messrs. Stewart had finally left the colony, that your memorialist found there was any need for his interference ; and those articles which he removed were, within his own knowledge, the property of his mother-in-law. He was, in fact, the proper person to identify them, having removed them fifteen months before as a loan from his mother-in-law to her son at the time he took a separate house at Pyrmont.

6. That your memorialist, as he has before said, was kept en- tirely ignorant about the Messrs. Stewart's business. Possibly they may have purposely done so, from a knowledge that he had nothing to look to but his salary, whilst his near relationship to them would lay him open to suspicions, and involve him in risk through them. If such were their motives, your memorialist feels grateful to them for it ; but, at the same time, he is safe in saying, during all that took place about the despatch and return of the Louisa, he was so thoroughly ignorant of it that he scarcely knew of the existence of such a vessel until it became the general subject of conversation in and out of teh Customshouse. And whatever connection your memorialist has had with the matter since his brothers-in-law left the colony has not been from any connivance on his part; far from it, but simply in obedience to claims he considered irresistible. Men take different views of the crime of smuggling ; but for an officer of Customs to receive pay or any other consideration both to protect and defraud the revenue, he has always looked upon as a most disgraceful act, be- traying a thorough disregard of moral rectitude, and he is sure he would never be guilty of it.

7. That your memorialist has been an honest and persevering servant of the Government whilst he has been in that department of the Customs. He is not charged in the report with in efficiency or neglect of duty, and he is not aware that there has ever been a complaint by any of his superiors proferred against him. He admits that his relationship with the Messrs Stewarts would naturally lay him open to suspicion, but he trusts that a candid and generous view of his position, and the circumstances which brought him in connexion with the events happening subsequentlv to the discoveries which were made about the Louisa. will acquit him of any just blame and will lead his Excellency and the members of the Executive Council to direct the Board to review and reconsider that part of their report which refers to his conduct, and

Your memorialist shall ever pray, &c.,

(Signed) GUALTER SOARES

I received the following letter in answer to the above :

The Treasury, Sydney, 28th. April, 1859.

Sir,-I am directed to inform you that your memorial to his Excellency the Governor-General and Executive Council, respecting certain charges brought against you, as an officer of the Customs department, in connexion with the affair of the Louisa has been submitted for the report of the lat Board of Inquiry, appointed to investigate this matter ; and that, after a careful consideration, they are of opinion that nothing has been advanced by you to induce them to alter their previous decision in your case.

I have the honour to be, & c.

Signed) HENRY LANE, Under Secretary; Mr. Gualter Soares. -

After the interviews I had with a member of the late Board, I little expected this reply to my memorial, and immediately on receiving it I waited on Mr. Lane complaining that, although the Board had con- firmed their former verdict, the Government had not withdrawn their unfounded charge against me, namely, that I had been " a participator in a conspiracy to defraud the revenue," which was the charge I most specially protested against, and which the Board had never in their report accused me of. Mr. Lane's answer was, that the Board was responsible for it, the Government having acted agreeably to the second report. I then called on a member of the Board whom I had previously had the pleasure of seeing. He positively denied that the Board had ever made this charge against me, or considered me guilty of it. That it rested entirely with the Executive, and he recommended me to see the chairman. Captain Ward confirmed the opinion of his coadjutor, saying they had nothing at all to do with it, nor did he think the report of the Board justified the charge. I asked him (as Chairman of the Board), to certify his opinion in writing. To this he demurred, without consulting the other members, doubting whether, as a servant of the Government, he could venture to negative their decision. In the meantime I again memorialised the Government as follows :

To his Excellcncy Sir William Thomas Denison, &c, &c, &c, and the Honorable Executive Council, in Council assembled.

The memorial of Gualter Soares respectfully sheweth,

1. That your memorialist has been honoured with the reply of his Excellency the Governor and Executive Council to his memo. rial; stating that it had been submitted to the late Board of Enquiry appointed to investigate the affair of the Louisa, and after careful consideration they are of opinion that nothing has been advanced by your memorialist to induce them to alter their previous opinion in your memorialist's case.

2. That while your memorialist bows to the decision of the late Board of Enquiry in confirming their previous verdict, he submits respectfully that the late Board have not pronounced any opinion on the charge which the Government have made against your mcmorialist in their letter of the 11th February last, or having been "a participator in a conspiracy to defraud the revenue." On the contrary, the honorable Chairman and another member of the Board have done vour memorialist the justice to say that they exonorate him from this charge, and have not in either of their reports accused him of it; but as the charge made by the Government was not before them, they did not consider it necessary to refer to it in their second report.

3. That therefore your memorialist respectfully prays the Governor and Executive Council to reconsider their letters of the 11th February and 23rd April last, and withdraw this charge which your memorialist cannot but feel a painful and undeserved blot on his character. And your memorialist shall ever pray, &c.

(Signed) GUALTER SOARES.

The following is the reply of the Government to my second memorial :

The Treasury, Sydney, 14th May, 1859.

Sir,-I am directed by the Treasurer to acknowledge the receipt of vour petition to the Governor-General, in which you allege that, "The late Board of Inquiry into the transactions in connection with the Louisa, did not pronounce any opinion in support of the charge the Government made against you, ' that you wore a participator in a conspiracy to defraud the revenue,' and pray that His Excellency would cause the letters from this department, dated 11th February, and 28th April last, respectively to be re- considered." In reply, I am to inform you that the communica- tions in question are founded on the opinions expressed by the Board, who, by their first report, find that "you were accesory after the fact to tho fraud which had been committed, as well as instrumental, to a considerable extent, in facilitating the escape of Mr. James Stewart from the colony." By their second report the Board adhere to the conclusion arrived at in the first.

It is therefore not in the power of the Government to reverse the terms of the communications in question, which they consider to be justified by the report of the Board.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

(Signed) HENRY LANE, Undcr-secretary. Mr. Gualter Soares.

I must consider this letter as a final disposal of my case, as far as the Government are concerned. It is needless for me to contend further against tyranny and injustice like this. They have the power, and they have, as it appears, irrevocably put it forth to crush me. But what are, after all, in a few words, the real merits of the case as against me? Mr. Hugh Dixson, the tobacconist in George-street, who is styled in the report of the Board "a detective," goes over to Mr. James Stewart's house, at Pyrmont, after he had left the colony, on Saturday, November 6th, and finds me removing, at the request of my mother-in-law, part of the furniture, which I knew to be her property. He informs the Inspector-General of Police. I am sent for by the Board of Enquiry ; examined in reference to it. My explanation is declared in the report to be satis- factory, and, had nothing further transpired, it is highly probable my conduct might have remained un impeached. But a boy of the name of McDonald, who, it appears, had sailed in the Louisa, turns up six weeks after. He is examined before the Board, and states just enough to make it possible that I might have known of, or even in some manner have assisted my brother-in-law to escape from the colony. Do I blame the Board for entertaining this idea, on the instant of hearing of this boy's statement ? Not at all.

It was quite natural for them to have formed such an opinion. The circumstances were, I acknowledge, of a suspicious character. "What I complain of in the treatment of my case is that, being, as they de- scribed themselves to be, a jury, they con- demned me unheard. That is not the manner in which a Jury proceeds. It is more like the proce- dure of a " Star Chamber." Why was I not sent for as on the former occasion, when Dixson was the in- former ? Was there no possible explanation that might reconcile my conduct with my duty? Was this boy's testimony more worthy of credit than Dixson's ? Perfectly unknown to them, had he more right to be heard against me, even if he had said more than is recorded, "than I had to be heard in my own defence, who have for six years served the Government faithfully and without reproach or complaint ? Did the boy accuse me of having: received him from the Louisa ? Did he say I must have been aware of the traffic that vessel had been engaged in while he was one of the crew ? Did he, even, know himself that he was to sail with Mr. James Stewart? Or did he ac- cuse me of being cognizant of it or assisting in it ? Nothing of the kind. What ho said was very little in reference to me, and was perfectly consistent with a very natural explanation of my conduct. He was left at my house by my brother-in-law, and was taken down to the Commercial Wharf by me, at the request of my mother-in-law, to do which it was not necessary that I should know who he was, or where he was going. Yet in the face of so many possibilities and doubts as to the real character of my conduct in this matter, the Board suddenly wind up the enquiry, and give in their report condemning me as an accessory after " the fact." Not as having taken a part in, or, as the Government say, " been a partici- pator in the fraud on the Revenue." The chairman and another member of the Board, for whom I have a high respect, have distinctly repudiated the con- struction the Government have put on their verdict ; and the latter said he could not have believed that I could have been ignorant of the fact that my brother in-law was leaving the colony, and acknowledged that, on that supposition, my conduct was " perhaps only natural ; " and, if natural, was it criminal ? The Board hardly required any evidence, it appears, to find me guilty. It was so "natural" for me to have known-and, " under the rose," to have assisted-so near a relative to escape from a position of danger to his personal liberty, that the gentlemen forming this jury did not think it necessary to give me an oppor- tunity even of denying it ; or, as I could have done, disproving it-and forthwith they set me down as an accessary after the fact, but not as a "participator in the fraud." This lies with the Government, and it is against this injustice that I most complain. I do not complain of the loss of my situation, for I am not par ticulaily anxious to serve in a department where such proceedings are tolerated. But my character is in- valuable to me, and I am determined to defend it from whatever quarter it is attacked. It may be that the Government, having, through their own want of precaution, lost the opportunity of getting hold of the alleged real culprits, have determined to whip them over my back, something after a fashion I have heard of in China, where, if the authorities of a district are unable to detect the lurking-place of the real offenders, they chop off the heads of an equal number of their nearest relatives to manifest their zeal for the publie service. But in this Christian country we have fortunately an intelligent public to carry our appeal to from the capricious will even of a responsible Government and I therefore leave my case with confidence in their hands, apologizing for occupying so much of your valuable paper, and thanking you for the indulgence you have granted me.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant.

GUALTER SOARES. Balmain, June 3rd."