Talk:John Forrest

earliest comment

An anonymous editor changed "Sir John Forrest" to "Lord Forrest of Bunbury" at the very start of the article. I have reverted it. For most of his life John Forrest was known as "John Forrest" or "Sir John", and he is still referred to exclusively by these names in Western Australia where he is a household name. Very few people know him as "Lord Forrest", and so I believe that it is not appropriate to introduce him as such here. "Sir John Forrest, later Lord Forrest of Bunbury" is a reasonable compromise. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).

Hesperian 00:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forrest on the box

Tonight's episode of Dynasties is about the Forrest family. It screens at 8pm tonight on ABC TV. See [1]. User:Hesperian | User talk:Hesperian 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC) ABC Radio have been unashamedly plugging itUser:SatuSuro 03:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Important correction

The creation of a Peerage in the Peerage of the United Kingdom does not occur when an announcement is made to the subject, or when the announcement is made to the press. It only occurs when the Letters Patent are issued. In the case of Sir John Forrest, no letters patent were issued before his death. The Complete Peerage (the standard reference work) does not include Forrest in Volume XIII of Peerage creations 1901-1939. As W.D. Rubinstein remarks in "The Biographical Dictionary of Life Peers" (St Martin's Press, 1991) at page 368:

"Sir John Forrest .. was granted a hereditary peerage by the Lloyd George government, the first Australian to receive a peerage. Forrest died on the trip from Perth to England. Although he is referred to as 'Lord Forrest' in Who Was Who, 1916-1928, his peerage is not mentioned or included in Burke's Peerage, The New Extinct Peerage, the Complete Peerage, or any other standard reference work on the subject."

See also my recent article on John Davies who also died before receiving his peerage. Sir John Forrest was never a peer and his article is incorrect if it says that he is. David | Talk 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

* Crowley (2000) states that Forrest was told he had been raised to the British peerage on 6 February 1918. He didn't die until the following September. The absense of a mention in Burke's Peerage is hardly reason for overturning what is universally accepted as fact, and smacks of original research. Find me a reference that refutes that Forrest was a peer. User:Hesperian 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether someone was a peer is a matter of law, not of opinion. If the law says that a person only becomes a peer when letters patent are issued, and if no letters patent were issued for Forrest, then he wasn't a peer and the article needs to be moved to John Forrest (explorer and politician). Adam 01:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Quite right. I've already apologised to David for my immediate reaction, and started correcting the article. Since John Forrest (Australian politician) is itself ambiguous, I think it is time we claimed John Forrest for this article. User:Hesperian 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Murdered" v "killed"

• Fred.e changed "murdered" to "killed" in the context of "a place where a group of white men had been murdered by Aborigines a long time ago" with edit summary "murder is legal term. killed."
• Prester John reverted with edit summary "Bugs are killed. Humans are murdered."
• I have now reverted Prester John. Humans aren't always "murdered"; for example, soldiers killed in action are "killed" not "murdered". Some people consider early explorers killed by Aborigines to be just that - killed in action. To assert that these people were murdered is therefore culturally biased. There is ample precedent on Wikipedia for making careful distinctions between forms of killing.

Hesperian 03:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Murder" is a legal term. A homicide is not a murder unless it is found to be so by a court. The neutral term is "killed." Adam 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at Murder. Wikipedias own definition doesn't even back you. Prester John 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does.

"Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another."

This issue hinges on the question of what system of law we should use to judge these killings as unlawful. They were certainly unlawful under colonial law; but they wouldn't have been unlawful under Aboriginal tribal law. Hesperian 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

They weren't even unlawful under colonial law unless a court found them to be so. Homicide can be successfully justified in court on grounds of self-defence, provocation, insanity etc. Unless someone was charged, tried and convicted of murder in relation to these killings, they were not murders. The use of the word "murder" merely to suggest moral approbrium is not acceptable. Adam 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So I guess "murder-suicide" is an oxymoron then? Hesperian 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking yes, since a dead person cannot be convicted of murder. A coroner could conclude that dead person A had killed dead person B, but not convict them of murder. Adam 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, not the courts, that determine whether an act is lawful or unlawful. Of course the courts are best qualified to determine whether an act contravenes the law, but that doesn't mean an act only becomes unlawful once the court has reached a verdict. Rather, the act was unlawful all along, and the court merely told us so. It follows that trivially obvious contraventions of the law may be referred to as unlawful acts by us mere Wikipedians, irrespective of whether the perpetrator has been convicted. Hesperian 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Remind me not to live in any country run by you. In THIS country we have the separation of powers. The legislature decides what shall be a crime, and the courts decide whether an individual is guilty of that crime. Murder is a crime under common law. The legislature (in the Crimes Act) defines the act of murder and sets penalties. A given act of homicide (the killing of one person by another) is a murder only if a court determines that it constitutes murder - the deliberate (or criminally negligent) killing of another person without lawful excuse (ie self-defence) or mitigating circumstances (ie insanity). It is open to the court to decide that the act constitutes manslaughter, of that it was not a crime at all. Adam 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

When I'm running the country, I'll let you know, just in case you haven't noticed. ;)

I actually agree with everything you've writtem. But I daresay we'll disagree on this next question: if a person didn't actually kill anyone, but is found guilty of murder by a kangaroo court, is s/he a murderer? Hesperian 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes under the following conditions a) the kangaroo court is an officially recognised court. and b) the decision hasnt been overturned. example is that guy who was recently released after 30-years then you'd categorised it him as "wrongly convicted" where as someone who is aquitted in a court without conviction would be "accused" aka OJ. Gnangarra 02:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a "kangaroo court"? Except possibly in Western Australia, kangaroos are not eligible for jury service. Adam 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your are correct in noting that kangaroos arent eligible for jury duty even in WA though it is common place for wombats to sit on the bench 8) Gnangarra

see Kangaroo court Gnangarra 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

OK I strongly suggest to all combatants that you move on to something else now that user Saulih has placed a compromise - otherwise we will have to invoke Essjays user page speach about the save button... SatuSuro 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

SatuSuro beat me to the Talk page, here is what I was typing before he beat me.

Since this has once again descended into two opposing POV camps edit warring over terminology, I have added what I think is a compromise. Killing stays with a note about the debate over this subject. Ernest Favenc refers to it as murder, so it isn't all cut and dried when sources are added into the debate. Whether it was murder or killing hardly matters as the point being made was that there was rumors about Leichhardts fate and final resting place. The note removes the issue from the article proper but alerts the reader to a significant issue regarding early race relations, attitudes, and the stance taken by the indigenous community. Please let's work together on this and pull your feet out of the POV mud. SauliH 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! SatuSuro 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I've uprated this to B-Class as it has everything a GA class article has without the extensive in-line citations. —Moondyne 12:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kings Park president?

I found a statue in Kings Park (Image:John Forrest statue at Kings Park.jpg) that clearly is a statue of John Forrest (name and birth/death dates match) and claims he was "FIRST PRESIDENT OF THIS PARK", yet this is not mentioned in this article. Is it true? Dcoetzee 06:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I duplicated this question at Talk:Kings Park, Western Australia. cygnis insignis 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See 1927. Hesperian 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on his putative title

Shortly before his death, he was informed that he was to be raised to the British peerage as 1st Baron Forrest of Bunbury.

I understand that people are not simply informed that they've been elevated to the peerage. They are approached about whether they'll accept one, because many have declined, and the establishment doesn't want to be publicly embarrassed. If they accept, there's then the question of the precise name. Some choose their existing surnames or variants of them, others choose some place name. The preferred name then has to be checked to make sure there's not already a peerage with such a name; this all takes time, even today, and took even longer back in 1918 when communications were so much slower. So I'm wondering whether there was work behind the scenes prior to February 1918 (ie. he was approached, he accepted, he gave his preferred title, it was checked), and what arrived on 6 Feb 1918 was an official letter saying that everything was right to go and that he should come to the UK to take his seat in the House of Lords or whatever. The letters patent formally establishing the peerage would be created in the meantime; but as we know that hadn't happened prior to his death. Anyone have any ideas about this? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

His ADB article says:

On 9 February [1918] it was announced in the press that Forrest had been recommended for a barony, the first native-born to be so honoured. He was delighted, and thereafter signed only his surname. ... Late in May [he] left Melbourne with the intention of seeking further medical aid abroad, if and when war conditions would allow it. He had no intention of resigning from parliament, though he was hoping that when the legal formalities had been completed, he might sit for a time in the House of Lords as an elder statesman of the Empire.

On 30 July he left Albany with his wife and a nurse in the troopship Marathon, bound for London with A.I.F. reinforcements. He was very ill and suffering much pain when he celebrated his seventy-first birthday at sea on 22 August, whilst sailing up the west coast of Africa. He died on 3 September 1918 ...’’.

So what we have is a recommendation for a barony; he wasn’t informed that he was definitely going to get one, or had got one. He seems to have put the cart before the horse by signing as “Forrest”. Nevertheless, ADB calls him 1st Baron Forrest of Bunbury, so they seem a bit confused about his title. ADB also says he died on 3 September, not 2 September; and I've come across 3 September in other sources. The Parliamentary Handbook says 2 September. But they also call him "Lord Forrest", so I wonder about the accuracy of their information. I’ve shot off an email to the Parliamentary Handbook asking them to remove the "Lord" bit, and explaining why.

There's still the uncertainty about his date of death. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people refused peerage in the 1910s.

According to Crowley's Big John Forrest, the relevant events/communications were:

• a letter from the Governor-General to the King's private secretary, on 21 February 1917: "... should His Majesty by disposed to confer a peerage in Australia... I can think of no one here on whom it could be more appropriately conferred than on Sir John."
• Later that year, a letter from Langdon Bonython to Prime Minister Hughes: "He would like immensely to be a baron, and why should he not be made one...? Think over the matter...."
• On 6 February 1918, a coded telegram from the minister for the colonies to the Governor-General: "His Majesty has been pleases to confer the dignity of a barony of the United Kingdom on the Right Honorable Sir John Forrest G.C.M.G. in recognition of his long and distinguished services to the Empire."
• The next day, the G-G visits Forrest in his sick room to let him know.
• Publicly announced on 8 February

The legal situation at Forrest's death is described as follows: "The barony had been conferred, but letters patent had no been issued afterpassing under the Great Seal; technically, therefore, Forrest was not a baron, and his wife not a baroness. The barony is not mentioned in the Complete Peerage. The explanation is given in L.G.Pine, The New Extinct Peerage: 1884–1971 (London, 1972), p. 128'."

Hesperian 03:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

... which raises a related point. Someone has inserted a quote from Rubenstein that says Forrest's barony is not mentioned in The New Extinct Peerage, but the quote I've given above states that he is. Hesperian 03:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe mentioned, but only to explain why he's not correctly described as Baron Forrest. I know of no other case where a peerage has been conferred and publicly announced but not formally created prior to the person's death, so it is a special case that they were justified in giving some attention to. Re declining honours, see Declining a British honour, which gives quite a few names of people who declined peerages, eg. Disraeli, well before Forrest. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WA Premier and Federal Minister concurrently

It seems that he remained WA Premier until 13 February 1901 (15 Feb according to Premier of Western Australia), although he had been a member of Barton's federal ministry from 1 January (PMG initially, then Defence Minister from 17 January following Sir James Dickson's death). This was probably not unconstitutional because he wasn't a member of the Federal Parliament until the end of March 1901. But it still seems to be an odd arrangement, involving potential conflicts of interest between his state responsibilities and his federal responsibilities. Was this an issue at the time, and has it ever been repeated by anyone else? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

I raised this above, but it's still an issue. In the lede it's 2 September. In the infobox it's 3 September. I know sources disagree, but can we at least come to a concensus about the date and not speak with forked tongue? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For an independent opinion, thePeerage.com has him dying on 4 September. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica lists him as dying on 3 September. He died at sea, "off the coast of Sierra Leone", which has a timezone of UTC+0, not in his home in WA (timezone UTC +8). It is possible that he died (for example) at 8pm, 3rd September Sierra Leone time, which is 4am, 4th September, WA time (or 2nd/3rd Sep) - ie the date of his death may depend on the timezone in which it was considered. If we're really not certain, we should perhaps just say "September 1918", with a footnote stating that sources differ (and citing the sources with their differing dates). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The date of his death may depend on the timezone in which it was considered - yes, absolutely. Dates of death are always rendered as at the place where the death occurred, and according to the time zone/daylight saving etc conventions applying in that place at that time. Where the person was normally domiciled has nothing to do with it. Sierra Leone is 9 hours behind Western Australian time, so an event occurring in Sierra Leone after 3 pm on a certain day (say 2 September) would be happening while it's already the next day (3 September) in WA, but the date of the event would still be 2 September. However, we don't know exactly where "off the coast of Sierra Leone" Forrest died. I for one have no idea how dates are computed for events that occur at sea in international waters; or on aircraft flying above international waters. I've seen one site that says Forrest died while the ship was anchored in a harbour (probably Freetown, I imagine); but most don't say anything this specific. Yet, Sierra Leone is a small country, and to be further out than "quite close" would mean the ship would more likely be described as off the coast of west Africa. So that suggests it was close enough to be virtually in Sierra Leone maritime territory. But how does that help? We can still find dozens of sites saying 2 September, and dozens saying 3 September, and now one (a normally reputable site) saying 4 September. We may need to track down some original documents/newspapers to get a handle on the precise timelime.

In the meantime, I propose we make all the dates in our article consistent. It's more likely to be the earlier of 2 and 3 September, so I suggest we choose that one, with a footnote acknowledging the alternative date. Or we can come right out say "2 or 3 September (sources differ)". Leaving it as just "September 1918" seems a little vague, as it's only ever been one of two dates (let's exclude 4 September as having virtually no support). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Baron or not?

PurpleHz changed the lead section and added a category to say that Forrest was a Baron. However:

• That paragraph was not consistent - the last sentence still said he was not.
• The penultimate paragraph of In federal politics still said he was not, citing Rubinstein.

Because of the inconsistency, I've reverted the edit. I don't have online access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (although I can probably get to a physical copy in the next week or two), so I can't check it. I suggest that we should discuss the discrepancy between ODNB and Rubinstein before changing the article. (And then if we do change it, change all of the relevant parts.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, here is the relevant part in the ODNB :

Already appointed a KCMG in 1891 and a GCMG in 1901, in 1918 he was created Baron Forrest of Bunbury, the first peerage bestowed on an Australian politician; but while bound for England to take his seat in the House of Lords and to seek medical advice, he died at sea on 3 September 1918 off Sierra Leone.

— Elizabeth Baigent, ‘Forrest, John, first Baron Forrest (1847–1918)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, online edn, Oct 2008.

Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before, in #Important correction and #Question on his putative title, both of which seem to conclude that he was not legally a baron. Is there any thing new to change this opinion? (I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject of peerage; I just watch this article because I have a family-related interest in the Forrests.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlawfully repealed Section 70 of the [Constitution] Act?

I question the reliability of the source cited for this:

In 1897 he perhaps unlawfully repealed Section 70 of the Act, which granted Indigenous Australians one percent of the State's consolidated revenue.

Self published sources are not generally considered sufficient. Donald McLeod does not appear to be a neutral source, if this biography of him is anything to go by. The book cited is apparently "Don McLeod’s own story". I suggest that we should remove the sentence, unless someone can provide a more reliable source. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.166.109 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What Good Condition? says "The colonists duly passed a second Bill for the repeal of s.70 in late 1897". Saying that "Forrest repealed S.70" doesn't appear to be very accurate. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence to more accurately reflect what Meyers says. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the Steven Church essay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.3.142 (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find this Steven Church essay? It's not listed in the article's references. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Section 70 did not "[grant] Indigenous Australians one percent of the State's consolidated revenue." It granted one percent of the colony's revenue to an Aborigines Protection Board. Essentially the British Government did not trust the West Australian government to deal with its indigenous peoples justly and humanely, and so insisted on the establishment of a separately funded apolitical board charged with the care of the Aboriginal peoples of the colony. It was in fact Forrest himself who guided the bill that established the APB through parliament in 1889. The 1895 amendment was based on the argument that the Western Australian government could be trusted to deal fairly and humanely with its Aboriginal peoples, and it was a humiliating insult that the colonial government had imposed this stricture on WA and no other colony. The point of the amendment was not to eliminate the 1% allocation but to abolish the Board altogether. As for it being illegal, the amendment was passed unanimously by parliament (there was no requirement for a referendum on constitutional amendments), and assented to by Joseph Chamberlain. Hesperian 04:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Barony

I would argue that John Forrest's title should be included (even if only as a courtesy title):

• John Forrest's title is listed as extinct (and so as valid) in the authoritative Burke's Peerage (1920), and his widow is clearly listed as a Baroness: https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=PNc7AQAAMAAJ&dq=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Baroness+Forrest%22
• Most reference sources treat the title as having been created: e.g., http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/forrest-sir-john-6211, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Forrest
• WA's official monument to him (his statue in King's Park) describes him as a Baron
• Even assuming that the peerage was not formally created, there is precedent in Britain for the use of a peerage title as a courtesy despite the failure of its formal creation: see Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1660–1661), Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1677). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.84.66.46 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No we just don't do that. The title doesn't exist until created and can't be used before it is. A 17C royal title announcement is not a useful precedent for how this is done now or indeed for commoners anyway. Most sources don't treat it as having existed and the only sources that matter are official ones.Fwiw I can think of half a dozen similar case of announced titles that also never passed the great seal and they are correctly treated with no fictitious title included see for example George Cave, 1st Viscount Cave Garlicplanting (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Forrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927221002/http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf to http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220024722/http://www.hamersleyfamily.com/hamersley/f79.htm to http://www.hamersleyfamily.com/hamersley/f79.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605023905/http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=Forrest&placetype=0&state=WA+ to http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=Forrest&placetype=0&state=WA+

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

John Forrest had an Aboriginal nurse and assigned a 'skin'

In Bob Reece's book, 'Daisy Bates: Grand Dame of the Desert', page 37[[2]], on Sir John Forrest, he says:

Forrest had an Aboriginal Nurse at Bunbury, where he was brought up with Aboriginal boys, assigned a classificatory 'skin' and probably went through the first stage of initiation.

This to me seems to be of note and worth inclusion in the article. Would anyone familiar with Forrest know of a source that discusses this in more detail? FropFrop (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)