Merriman, George

Description

Unique IDPE-001713SurnameMerrimanGiven namesGeorgeBirth date1st January 1845Birth date qualifieryear onlyPlace of birthSydney, NSWDeath date17th November 1893Death date qualifierexactPlace of deathSydney, NSWBiographical abstractCity Solicitor: 1880-1893. Suspended 3 October 1893 after discovery of irregularities and defalcations in accounts. Dismissed 12 October 1893.
Member of NSW Legislative Assembly: 5 December 1882-7 October 1885 and 5 February 1887 to 19 January 1889
Son of James Merriman, Alderman 1867-1883 & Mayor 1873, 1877-1878; uncle of James H Merriman, City Architect’s Department, 1884-1927
Pictures: NSCA CRS 54/382; NSCA CRS 54/407; NSCA CRS 54/454; NSCA CRS 54/500
Parliamentary career: [ref: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/formermembers]

Biographical noteSuspension, Dismissal and issue of Warrant: [ref: The Australian Star 4 October 1893 p5[; [ref: Evening News 5 October 1893 p6]; [ref: The Daily Telegraph 5 October 1893 p5]; [ref: Evening News 6 October 1893 p5]; [ref: The Daily Telegraph 13 October 1893 p3]; [ref: Evening News 13 October 1893 p6]

Death 17 November 1893, Funeral and obituaries [ref: Evening News 20 November 1893 p3]; [ref: Goulburn Evening Penny Post 18 November 1893 p2]; Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate 20 November p5]; [ref: The Sydney Mail and NSW Advertiser 25 November p1115]

Merriman’s illness [ref: The Armidale Express & New England General Advertiser 3 November p7]; Dr Kesteven’s letter [ref: The Daily Telegraph 21 November p6]

Details from contemporary sources:
1880 £350 pa - Finance Committee recommendation: salary, costs, duties - 10 August [ref: 22/20/18]
1880 Sureties Benjamin Jenkins & WJ Merriman [ref: 26/168/1486]
1881 £400 pa - Salaries of Officers for 1881 [ref: SMH 20 January 1881]
1881 Engrossment of Appeal Bill; request City Surveyor to measure proposed site for the Cattle Sale Yards - November [ref: 26/180/2151]
1882 Salaries of Officers 1882 [ref: 22/22/54]
1883 Salary Schedule 1882-83 - Finance Committee recommendation - £400 pa [ref: 22/24/44]
1883 Advice on Druitt St encroachment - April [ref: 26/190/655]
1883 Depart of Lands appointment as trustee of Wentworth Park replacing James Merriman - August [ref: 26/192/1318]
1884 £450 pa - Salary Schedule 1884 [ref: 21/16/123 [891]]
1884 Advice re settlement of Council v Phillips - December [ref: 26/201/2272]
1885 Salaries of Officers 1885 [ref: 22/29/11(b)]
1885 Opinion on power of Council to allow the sale of cattle at the Stock Yards at Market Street Wharf - May [ref: 26/204/721]
1885 £450 pa - List of Officers & Servants - position, salary, duties - ordered by Council 9 September 1885 [ref: 30/001/094]
1885 Settlement in Cooper v Council - November [ref: 26/208/1896]
1886 Salaries of Officers 1886 - Finance Committee recommendations - £450 pa [ref: 22/31/6(e)]
1886 Draft of Bill for Blackfriars Estate - June [ref: 26/213/1299]
1886 Opinion that Council has no power to impose rates on Municipalities using City Sewers - August [ref: 26/214/1650]
1887 Opinion on Council's liability re collapse of Gloucester St Wall - February [ref: 26/218/510]
1887 Opinion on rights of Inspectors to enter premises - June [ref: 26/222/2833]
1887 Opinion on eligibility for election of Alderman Poole - August [ref: 26/222/1853]
1888 Schedule of Salaries 1887-88 - Finance Committee recommendation [ref: 22/35/5(b)]
1889 £450 pa - Salaries of Officers for 1889 [ref: SMH 13 December 1888, p7]
1890 Salary Schedule 1890-91 - Finance Committee recommendation - £500 pa increase from £450 - approved 12 December 1890 [ref: 22/41/1]
1893 Settlement in case of Williams child killed in fall over cliffs in Thompson Street - July [ref: 26/267/1366]
1893 Suggests changes needed to the Act to allow Council to lease lands at Sydney Common and Moore Park to bodies such as Agricultural Societies and to permit the playing of games there - October [ref: 26/261/1893]
1893 Report of Committee re Defalcations by Merriman [ref: 30/001/157]
1893 Suspended by Mayor - 3 October - missing money [ref: 26/268/1797]
1893 Medical certificate - severe illness - 3 October [ref: 26/268/1798]
1893 Details of defalcations report of Council Meeting in Evening News 6 October [ref: Council Meeting 5 October 1893]
1893 Unfit to appear in court, Dr Kesteven - 27 October [ref: 26/269/1960]
1893 Police Surgeon advises fatally ill - 16 November [ref: 26/269/2089]
1893 Merriman's life insured for £4,000 - Mayor instructs City Solicitor to protect the City's interests - December [ref: 26/270/2245]
1894 Special Committee report Chaired by WP Manning on defalcations [ref: 26/272/460½]
1894 City Solicitor's Packet: George Merriman's Estate [ref: 56/26]
1895 City Solicitor Waldron advises amount to be claimed from Merriman's estate, February - £4164/5/2 [ref: 26/278/240]
1893 Report July 1898: Annexed document: Printed Report of Committee re Defalcations of Geo Merriman, City Solicitor [ref: 22/55/1]

INTRODUCTION
George Merriman’s contribution to the administration of the Sydney City Council as the City Solicitor is unfortunately overshadowed by his ultimate physical and mental collapse and his embezzlement of City moneys. He was a man of talent and good character, respected by colleagues and those who knew him. He came to a terrible death from a disease which in its final course afflicted his brain causing mania and delusions which in turn caused him to take uncharacteristic actions appearing to have resulted from unsuspected criminality. When the disease brought about his final collapse in 1893, it was discovered that his accounts and financial affairs were in chaos and that he had embezzled in his final years some £4,000 pounds from the City Council’s accounts. He appeared to have also exhausted considerable personal and family wealth in unknown ways. On his death , his doctor took the unusual step of writing to the Sydney newspaper, the ‘Daily Telegraph’, explaining that the cause of death was “general paralysis of the insane” which in his opinion had affected Merriman’s mental state for the last three years before his death. This cause of death is now recognised as the terminal phase of syphilis for which no effective treatment was available in the nineteenth century; even its diagnosis was beyond the knowledge of many doctors of the time. The disease may stay latent for up to 30 years after the original infection and may then manifest itself in the final stages at first with symptoms such as headache and fatigue which Merriman suffered as early as 1889.

FAMILY HISTORY AND EARLY LIFE
George Merriman was born in Sydney in 1845, the second son of James Merriman, Alderman of Gipps Ward of Sydney Municipal Council, Mayor of Sydney three times, member of the Legislative Assembly of NSW for West Sydney, and a successful businessman, whaler, ship-owner and publican. George Merriman, his brother William, and his surviving sisters Clara, Emily and Fanny were the second Australian-born generation of the Merriman family. George Merriman attended his local Fort Street school and then completed his senior school years at the Sydney Grammar School between August 1859 and December 1861. His elder brother, William James Merriman, for most of his career the Registrar for the Metropolitan Transit Commission regulating vehicles and traffic in Sydney and suburbs, was also a pupil there between 1859 and 1860. The Sydney Grammar School was founded as a ‘nursery’ school for talented pupils in preparation for further study at the University of Sydney. The family lived in Osborne House in Argyle place in the Millers Point area of Sydney.

EARLY CAREER

George Merriman chose a career in law. He was articled to Francis James Garrick and subsequently to Richard Holdsworth. A fellow articled clerk with him was WJ Trickett who remained a life-long friend and confrere. He applied for admission to the Supreme Court of NSW as attorney, solicitor and proctor and was admitted on 18 December 1868. He took rooms at Bells Chambers in Pitt Street. James Merriman, his father, had become an alderman in the previous year and no doubt in this capacity he came to know well Richard Driver, the City Solicitor between 1859 and 1880. In 1871, George Merriman entered into a legal partnership with Richard Driver practising as the law firm Driver and Merriman until 1876. From 1872 Merriman began to appear in the Water Police Court performing some of his partner’s duties as City Solicitor, prosecuting those brought to court by Richard Seymour, Inspector of Nuisances for breaking Municipal By-Laws. He acted privately as solicitor for Bills to be presented to Parliament for the creation of various Bus Companies and was a number of times the solicitor instructing counsel for cases in the higher courts. In June 1872, Merriman married Minnie Hamilton and they lived in Argyle Place at Millers Point. In April 1873, insolvency proceedings were taken against Merriman but he must have paid the debts alleged as the action was dismissed. In that same month Merriman’s first child Clara was born.

In May 1876, Driver and Merriman dissolved their partnership and Merriman moved to rooms at 183 Pitt Street and later to 203 Pitt Street. Over the next few years, he build up a practice in which he often acted as proctor for the executors of deceased estates. He continued to prosecute breaches of City By-laws brought by Seymour and he acted as solicitor for the Metropolitan Transit Commission prosecuting breaches of their regulations for which he received an annual remuneration. His second daughter Amy Gertrude was born in 1877 and his son George Leslie was born in 1879.

George Merriman shared his father’s keen interest in the City of Sydney in all its facets, including the political. It was common for City Aldermen to be also members of the NSW Parliament and it was considered to be of benefit for the City and its Council. Both George and James Merriman joined the large election committee in 1869 which supported Eagar, Windeyer, Wearne and Speer as candidates for the seat of West Sydney which sent four members to the Parliament. In 1874, George Merriman fulfilled the position of Honorary Secretary of the General Committee for the election of George Dibbs (later Premier) to the West Sydney seat. In 1877 James Merriman stood for the same seat and was elected in first position and he served until 1880 while continuing as an alderman and Mayor of the City Council. In 1879 George Merriman acted as attorney for John Douglas Young seeking the release of his estate from sequestration on the ground of payment to the satisfaction of his creditors. Merriman and his brother William James Merriman signed the requisition for Young to stand as Alderman for Gipps Ward. George Merriman then chaired meetings for Young and was his nominator for the position. JD Young served as the Alderman for Gipps Ward from 1879 until his death in 1893. He also became from 1885 to 1887 one of the members for West Sydney. In 1880, James Merriman suffered ill health and upon his decision to retire from Parliament, some talk began that George Merriman might stand for West Sydney.

The pseudonymous columnist, Pasquin, in the Sydney ‘Freeman’s Journal’ of 12 June 1880, described in light satirical vein the various members of the legal world participating in a trial at Darlinghurst Quarter Sessions and of George Merriman, he wrote

“Instructing Mr. Want is Mr. George Merriman, who is a full-blown solicitor, and aspires, next election, to be a full-blown 'membah’. George is very intelligent, has a good delivery, fights honestly for his clients, and is deservedly popular. Some put down his popularity to his genial disposition; others to his having 'sworn off' colonial beer. It may be for either reason, or both; anyhow he is 'deservedly popular.' That ought to be enough for him.”

CITY SOLICITOR 1880-1893

If George Merriman contemplated seeking election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of NSW, he set that thought aside for the moment when in July 1880 Richard Driver, the long-serving City Solicitor, died and his position became vacant. Merriman was one of twelve applicants for the position of City Solicitor. He was successful in the ballot for the position at the Council meeting on 10 August 1880. The position carried a salary of £350 pa and his duties were to be performed “as heretofore” with the exception that henceforth all costs allowed by the police courts were to be paid into the City Treasury rather than retained by the City Solicitor. At some later time this provision was dropped and Merriman was permitted to retain any costs awarded in successful cases. Although the City Solicitor was accorded an annual salary as an “officer” of the Council, he was permitted to engage in private practice while fulfilling the City’s legal needs. The duties of the City Solicitor included providing legal advice or opinions, conducting legal proceedings for council including engaging well known barristers for trials in the higher courts, preparing or assessing proposed legislation particularly any concerning the structure or powers of the City Corporation, participation in rate assessment appeals, drawing up articles of apprenticeship for junior employees, drawing up contracts and bonds for sureties and receiving or disbursing payments in connection with such matters as land or property transactions or court awards or requirements. The sureties bound for Merriman’s performance of his duties were Captain Benjamin Jenkins of St Leonards, ship owner and business associate of his father, and his brother William James Merriman.

In November 1880, James and George Merriman recorded their support for Daniel O’Connor as a candidate for West Sydney. For the seat of East Sydney, George Merriman nominated Charles James Roberts, who was then the Alderman for Macquarie Ward and had been Mayor in 1879. Both George and James Merriman served on the general committee for Roberts’s election. Roberts was unsuccessful in this campaign but entered the Legislative Assembly in 1882 as the member for Hastings and Manning and later served in the Legislative Council for the rest of his life.

George Merriman’s salary for 1881 increased to £400 pa and in May his family increased also with the birth of his fourth child Beatrix (Trixie) Isabel. His legal work continued uneventfully. He advised Council on its powers to form streets; he took some matters to court while advising other matters to be settled out of court; he drafted clauses for a bill to license brokers; when Council was sued for damage to buildings near a stream flowing to Blackwattle Swamp by flooding apparently caused by defective drainage installed by Council after land reclamation by the government, Merriman and counsel successfully defended the case and averted multiple possible claims for flood damage; and he acted as proctor administering deceased estates for a number of private clients.

Ill health afflicted the Merriman family in 1882. George Merriman requested leave for January 1882 when his father had been extremely ill, even expected to die, but fortunately he recovered. Merriman then requested two weeks’ further leave in March to accompany his mother to Hobart in March for her health. Merriman, his mother and his sisters, and possibly two of his children, went by sea to Melbourne and then to Launceston. Merriman returned alone and he may have consulted a Melbourne doctor on his own behalf at this time. His mother and sisters returned to Sydney later at the end of the month. Tragedy visited the family when his five years old daughter Amy died in May from pneumonia.

Merriman instructed leading counsel in Council cases and in September FE Rogers and Edmund Barton successfully achieved a verdict for Council in yet another case of flooding caused by the drainage problem at Blackwattle Swamp after the Government reclamation programme. At the beginning of October, however, Merriman applied for six weeks’ leave on his own behalf for his “failing health”. It is possible that the disease which was to kill him eventually had now entered its second phase which can be manifested by fevers, rash, skin and organ lesions, general malaise and bone-aches lasting for a few weeks. Whatever the illness, he had fully recovered or gone into remission by the end of November 1882 when he announced his candidacy for the seat of West Sydney, represented still by four members.

The short but busy electoral campaign saw Merriman addressing large crowds almost every night at various hotels in West Sydney. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ gave a long report of his address at the Lord Nelson Hotel in Millers Point on the 25 November. He was introduced by Alderman Thomas Playfair who referred to his long residence in the locality and his “efficient services as their city solicitor” and described him as a man full of energy and animated by a love of his country. Merriman spoke saying he thought he had both “time and ability to serve the country in Parliament”. He went on to speak of what he said were “the great questions” facing the electorate on the recent defeat of the Parkes-Robertson Administration who he said were “wrecked” upon their Land Bill. He considered the defects in the land laws were so great and those proposed by the government no solution to the strife between squatters and free selectors. He believed that the opposition leader Stuart had suggested improvements such as dividing land into districts available both for pastoral and agricultural purposes and he also thought that John McElhone had in the past suggested measures to the benefit of the country. He hoped the next Parliament would bring about changes with the objects he identified. He said:

“So far as the squatters and free selectors were concerned, he did not go in for favouring one more than the other. What he desired to see was such an amendment of the land laws as would terminate the feuds and ill feelings between those two classes, and at the same time induce a larger settlement of population upon our lands. If our land laws were amended to secure those objects, we might hope to see large numbers of people with capital coming to the colony and settling here.”

A second issue he noted was the need for an extension of the system of local government. He said the country towns and districts needed large works such as roads and bridges and the present system of appeals to Government Ministers needed replacement. He said:

“The members that had most influence with Government were the most likely to get the bridge, or some other work that might be desired. Well that sort of thing should be done away with, and Ministers should be saved the annoyance. All such works, works of a local importance, should be placed in the hands of local boards, composed of gentlemen responsible to Government, and who could be relieved of their positions whenever they acted improperly.”

A third issue he remarked was the need to reform the Licensing Act as some of its provisions were “very harsh and tyrannical”. He deplored the use of subterfuge by some police to gain convictions. He spoke from his professional experience.

He concluded by stating his objectives:

“He did not say he had ability to represent them. That was for them to say. He had lived in the locality for a long time, and had a great interest in it. He would like to have their votes, for he esteemed it one of the highest honours to be returned to Parliament. He trusted he would be so returned. He had time to devote to their interest, and he would engage in the legislation that would prove most advantageous to the country. This was his native country, and it had prospered wonderfully, and he loved it and on this account he would like to be of service to it.” [‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 27 November 1882]

Merriman was nominated for the seat by John Harris, the Mayor of Sydney. Eight candidates faced the polls in December and the four elected were Daniel O’Connor 2967 votes, Merriman 2519 votes, Francis Abigail 2340 votes and Angus Cameron 2176 votes.

Alexander Stuart formed a new Ministry after the resounding defeat of the Parkes government. The next Parliamentary session lasted from 3rd January to 1st June 1883 and Merriman dutifully attended. When Parliament was in session, the Assembly sat for four days in the week, convening at 4.30 pm and continuing through the evening after a meal break. Members of Parliament, other than ministers, were not paid at this time. In his first brief speech Merriman declared his position apropos the government, saying:

“I came here as an independent member, free to give my vote to the Ministry when I find them right in their policy. I believe, judging by the composition of the present Ministry, that they are anxious to do something for the good of the country…” [Hansard 17 January 1883]

During the session the Ministry introduced much legislation and Merriman supported most of it. He voted for the abolition of fees for elementary education; he supported the Bill to amend the Licensing Act particularly condemning the practice alleged of some police disguising themselves as travellers entrapping publicans into serving them illegally; and he served on some committees concerned with legal issues. He spoke on the often hostile relationship of the City Improvement Board and the City Council and defects in the structure and powers of the Board. He supported spending on immigration and spoke of its benefits:

“The facts that we have in twenty years doubled our population, and that wages are now much higher than they formerly were, are a sufficient refutation of the argument … that the continued introduction of labour into the colony would lead to its ruin rather than to its benefit.” [Hansard 14 March 1883]

When the Criminal Law Amendment Bill came to be debated, Merriman showed his social conservatism when in full accord with the spirit of the times and his fellow members of Parliament, he strongly supported the reintroduction of whipping into the penal code for offences heard in Magistrates’ Courts as well as in the higher courts. He also marched with the majority in expressing no qualms about the infliction of the death penalty for some crimes.

In his election campaign, Merriman had spoken strongly of the need to reform the licensing laws and when the Licensing Law Amendment Bill came into Parliament, Merriman was present for all stages of the Bill and presumably found no argument with the proposed amendments as he usually voted with the majority of members and he did not speak.

From time to time in adjournment motions he brought up local issues of concern to him such as his desire to see Dawes Point being a public recreation ground not given over to the British Navy for its use, the abolition of tolls upon Government acquisition of Pyrmont Bridge and his concern about the drainage and flooding problems caused by the Government’s reclamation of part of the Blackwattle Swamp.

He supported Daniel O’Connor in his second attempt to legislate amendments to the City Corporation Act. Merriman made it clear that he was independent of the opinions of the Aldermen of Sydney (of whom his father was one) saying:

“I may state that I have no instructions from the city council to seek to get any clause inserted bearing on the main principle of the bill. The honourable member for West Sydney [O’Connor] has been requested to withdraw the measure; but I shall give it my support, reserving to myself the right to criticise the various clauses in Committee.” [Hansard 20 March 1883]

Changes were needed to the clauses giving eligibility to vote in Council elections as various strategies had developed to circumscribe tenants’ rights to vote and the number of enrolled voters in the city had plunged to 6,000 in contrast to the 25,000 O’Connor believed should be on the electoral rolls. Merriman was concerned that tenants, who were legally responsible for payment of the city rates, should be ensured a vote, but he thought owners too should be ensured of a vote. Merriman moved an amendment that gave both tenant and owner a vote regardless of which one of them paid the rates and it was adopted [Hansard 20 April 1883]. Women had in the past had a vote if otherwise qualified and the question arose that their vote might be abolished. Merriman demonstrated his very conservative social values and protective attitude saying he thought that women should not be allowed to vote asking “Would honourable members like to see respectable women jostled about at a polling-booth, as undoubtedly they would be?” He did not express any other reason for disqualifying women. [Hansard 13 April 1883] In the event, no change was made to women’s rights as the proposed amendment was withdrawn after being rather strongly talked down by some members. After passing all stages in the Lower House, the Bill, like its predecessor, was rejected by the Upper House. O’Connor protested to the Lower House but the battle would have to be fought again another day. With that defeat, the House adjourned on 2nd June and did not meet again until 9th October 1883.

His family suffered two great losses in 1883 and a reminder of loss in close succession. First his father James Merriman died in May. The first anniversary of the death of Amy, George’s little daughter, also fell in May and then his twenty one years old sister Clara died suddenly in July. James Merriman’s funeral was one of the largest seen in Sydney for some time as many farewelled the man whom the ‘Daily Telegraph’ [16 May 1883 p2] called a “prominent citizen and an estimable man”. The ‘Sydney Punch’ eulogised him further:

“During the whole period of a long civic career, Mr. Merriman retained, undiminished, the warm esteem and confidence of the citizens and of his brother aldermen, over whose deliberations he had presided for three years in succession. For the term of his occupancy of a seat in the Legislative Assembly, he won golden opinions by his quiet courtesy and gentlemanly demeanour, upon all occasions, whilst the clear, just, sober view he took of all questions which came before him, and the manly unflinching integrity with which he bore himself under the most trying emergencies, endeared him to all with whom he came in contact. As an honest man — "the noblest work of God" — the name of James Merriman may be proudly held up to his fellow-countrymen as a splendid example of the solid success which attends the efforts of those who walk in the straight path of rectitude.” [‘Sydney Punch’ 19 May 1883 p2]

James Merriman had been a most successful businessman with shipping and hotel interests. His estate was large and valued for probate at £51,287. The executors of his estate were his widow, Anne, his sons William and George, together with Thomas Wilton Eady. The family had also to deal with Clara Merriman’s estate. James Merriman had left his estate to be shared between his wife and his five children. Ten years later, when George died with his financial affairs, both civic and private, in chaos, the family had to seek court determination for the correct apportionment of these estates and the trusts associated with them as doubts had arisen about the various heirs’ entitlements and the assumptions that had been made concerning them, no doubt guided by George Merriman as the qualified lawyer in the family.

During the remainder of 1883, Merriman continued his private law practice administering estates and occasionally appearing in court. In July and August, Merriman was appointed a trustee of the Flagstaff Hill Reserve and a trustee of Wentworth Park, in both positions succeeding his father. He continued to advise the Council on various matters and appeared again in the Water Police Court prosecuting cases for the Council. He conferred with the Lands Department on ownership of portion of the Sydney Common, he gave his opinion that the streets and lanes in the Blackfriars estate were less than the prescribed widths in the Corporation Act and so Council had no powers over them. He gave his opinion also on the powers of the Mayor in the period between cessation of his Alderman’s role (when an election for his ward was held) and the cessation of his Mayorship (end of the calendar year). He prepared the articles of apprenticeship for Council juniors. He moved office from 71 Castlereagh Street to the FitzEvans Chambers at 50 Castlereagh Street opposite Moore Street (now part of Martin Place). He and other Members of the Legislative Assembly made a trip to Melbourne in June and a trip to inspect works on the Clarence River and visit Northern Rivers towns in September. In November his wife gave birth to their second son Sidney at Undercliff Cottage in Argyle Place.

Parliament resumed on 9th October 1883 for what became a marathon session that was to occupy Parliamentarians until November 1884 with only a three week break over the Christmas 1883 period. Interestingly, in view of his generally socially conservative views, Merriman voted with the losing minority in a proposed amendment removing the requirement of public servants to state their religious belief in their application for employment. [Hansard 18 December 1883]. He showed a sense of practicality in briefly speaking on the Metropolitan Magistrates Act Amendment Bill which was intended to solve the problem of the inability of the court to function if a number of magistrates were taken ill, as had happened. When an amendment was proposed limiting the choice of allowable appointments as deputy stipendiary magistrate, Merriman said “that great inconvenience might arise from restricting the choice of the Government to the two gentlemen who had been mentioned. It would be far better to leave it to the Executive Council to appoint any person they pleased.” As a result the amendment was withdrawn and the Bill went ahead. [Hansard 27 March 1884]

Merriman spoke briefly on some matters in the Fire Brigades Bill. He moved an amendment to the clause permitting the demolition of buildings but limited the exercise of that right to during the course of fighting the fire or immediately after thus removing a possible conflict with the powers of the City Surveyor and the City Improvement Board. His interest in Sydney local issues was demonstrated again at the end of the year when he was one of a delegation of Aldermen and MLAs to call on the Minister of Works to express their desire for a branch tramway to Pyrmont and a high level bridge over the railway at William Henry Street. He joined with Daniel O’Connor in seeking a grant of land from Council on which to build a waiting and reading room for wharf labourers and in April 1884 Council agreed to allow temporary use of land at Kent Street North for that purpose. In February 1884 he voted for the removal of the toll on the Glebe Island bridge and expressed once again his wish that the Government might do something to bring about the abolition of the toll on the Pyrmont Bridge. When the Government was finally able to purchase the Pyrmont Bridge and abolish the tolls, the ‘Evening News’ credited Merriman for bringing this about, stating:

“The inhabitants both of Pyrmont and Sydney, especially the former, have reason to be thankful to Mr. George Merriman M.P. for having worked so successfully in the matter of the abolition of the Pyrmont Bridge tolls, as to have induced the Government to bring their negotiations to a close with the company, by purchasing the Bridge, which will now be free of toll from the 1st of August next. When at the meeting the other night Mr. Merriman read the letter of Sir G. Wigram Allen to the Colonial Secretary closing with the offer of the Government, there were loud cheers. The conclusion of these negotiations terminates the litigation which has been pending for a long time, and renders an appeal to the Privy Council, with its attendant delay and large expense, unnecessary.” [‘Evening News’ 27 June 1884 p3]

The government pursued an ambitious legislative programme that stretched through most of 1884. Major bills presented were the Constitution Act Amendment Bill tackling issues involving clearer definitions of receipt of benefits from government and subsequent disqualifications of MPs; the Crown Lands Bill which occupied most of the year; the Criminal Law Amendment Bill No 2; the Sydney Corporation Act Amendment Bill No 2, being a renewed attempt by Daniel O’Connor to tackle the problems of the City franchise; and the Supply Bills being the Government’s proposed expenditures. Merriman attended virtually all sessions of Parliament but he very rarely spoke and, on those occasions when he did, he spoke very briefly and mostly in response to issues raised by other members of the Assembly. He consistently voted in support of the Stuart Ministry.

Merriman’s longest speech, probably lasting 5 minutes, was on the Supply Bill debated in the House in May 1884. The particular item arousing his interest was the allocation of funds to immigration from Britain which he had decided to oppose. Merriman said he had told the electors of West Sydney that he was in favour of immigration but that since then conditions in the country had worsened particularly from the continuation of the drought which had caused nearly all the country employers of labour to discharge their workers who now swelled the numbers of the unemployed in Sydney. He saw great distress in the city. He saw also some problems in the actual selection of immigrants. He said:

“If the country was in a prosperous condition I should be prepared to join with the Government in voting money for immigration, because I do not think that without an increasing population we can make progress. I think that the present necessities of the country, however, will compel us to reject the item. The complaints in reference to the class of immigrants brought to the colony are, I find, too true. The immigrants seem to be selected from the population of the large towns, and when they arrive in the colony they naturally object to go into the country.” [Hansard 1 May 1884]

The vote was close and the House not well attended by members with 18 members voting against the funding of immigration while 22 voted to continue the funding, although the amount the government allocated was by agreement reduced by two thirds.

As well as attending sessions assiduously, he served on fourteen Parliamentary committees of inquiry between 1883 and 1885, so it is clear that his opinions and abilities were respected by the fellow members who nominated him. The committees of longer duration on which he served included the Windsor Gaslight Company’s Bill Committee, the Tamworth Cattle Sale-yards Bill Committee, the Claim of Thomas Horton Committee relating to the supply by Horton of silver ore to the Sydney Mint for which he claimed he had been underpaid and the Claim of Stephen Cole Committee for which his widow petitioned “the consideration of the House on account of the long services of her late husband as Commissioner of Crown Lands”. One of the most contentious committees on which he served , as one of the ten members nominated for the task, was the Case of Mr J. H. Handsaker Committee which was “to inquire into and report upon the circumstances under which J. H. Handsaker was appointed acting inspector of conditional purchases; and also upon the circumstances under which the salary, or any part of it, of the said J. H. Handsaker was paid to John McElhone, Esq., one of the members for The Upper Hunter.” Members of the Assembly had much to say to the detriment of firebrand McElhone in recounting material contained in the report but Merriman despite having been reported as asking many questions in committee, along with fellow members Burns and Melville, said nothing in the debate in the House.

Throughout 1884 Merriman continued to deal with the routine matters arising in his role of City Solicitor and he continued his private practice. He was a member of large public committees organising “grand complimentary picnics” for celebrities in the popular sport of rowing and also for the captain and officers of the American warship ‘Iroquois’. He was a vice-president of the Sydney Lacrosse Club and of the Woolloomooloo Bay Rowing Club later renamed the East Sydney Rowing Club. He showed his pragmatism in advising Council to accept the eccentric action of the jury in the case of Mrs Rosetta Phillips who sued Council for negligence in that she had fallen over a damaged capping stone while crossing the road and suffered a badly broken leg. The jury stated that they wished the Council to pay Mrs Phillips’s legal and medical costs and if this was agreed, then they would return a verdict for Council. Merriman at first felt disinclined to agree as he felt that a re-trial should undoubtedly occur and Council’s case was good but he reported to Council that he had conferred with his legal confreres and all agreed on a payment of £100. He wrote:

“I feel certain that if further litigation had taken place it would have cost the Council more than £100 in legal expenses as if they succeeded in the end (which I am certain they would) the Council would not recover any costs from plaintiff as she is a poor woman. What I have done I considered was in the best interests of the Council and I trust that my action will meet with their approval.” [Court report ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ 13 December 1884 p11; City of Sydney Archives (CoSA), Unique ID A 00308925, CRS 26/201/2272]

Parliament was prorogued on 27 November 1884. Alexander Stuart, Colonial Secretary and Premier, had suffered a debilitating stroke in October and WB Dalley, the Attorney-General in the Legislative Council took over Stuart’s duties. In February Dalley of his own accord, without assent of Parliament or indeed the other ministers, offered to raise troops to send to the Sudan in support of the British government’s fight against the insurgents responsible for the death of General Gordon at Khartoum. The action was at first very popular and several thousand men answered the call for 700 troops on the promise of good pay. A NSW Patriotic Fund for the relief of any widows and orphans resulting from the military expedition was initiated and Merriman donated the generous sum of 20 guineas. Parliament was recalled on 17 March 1885 and while some members criticised Dalley’s actions on constitutional grounds, the troops were already at sea and most people were still feeling patriotic fervor. While Merriman was reported to have raised the constitutional question of government expenditure not approved in Parliament, in practice he shared the patriotic feelings of the majority. He spoke in the Assembly during the Address in Reply debate saying:

“I feel proud to belong to an assembly which, in a few minutes, will indorse the patriotic action of the Government in sending the troops to the Soudan. I may also say that on the day that the troops left the colony, I felt proud that I was a native of New South Wales. … I simply rose to say that I feel proud to record my vote in favour of the action of the Government.” [Hansard 24 March 1885]

The portion of the Address in Reply presented to the Assembly by the Select Committee of whom Merriman was one relating to the Military venture stated:

“We desire to express our hearty approval of the conduct of the ministers in despatching the Australian contingent to aid the imperial forces in Egypt; and we regard their action as manifesting the loyalty of the Australian people to the Crown, and as drawing more closely together the various portions of our great empire.” [Hansard 24 March 1885]

The sitting of Parliament occupied only seven days and then once again Parliament was prorogued and did not sit again until September 1885. The performance of Merriman’s City duties continued as before including negotiations in relation to the claims of William Cooper regarding the land used by Council for the water supply to the City of Sydney. An agreement was finally reached in November 1885 having achieved a reduction from £20,000 claimed to £3,000 for a lump sum compensation payment for trespass and usage plus costs and an annual lease at £2,000 in a dispute that had been ongoing for a long time. Merriman visited Melbourne once more in company with Sydney’s Mayor, Thomas Playfair, and attended the Melbourne Mayor’s quarterly dinner.

The Government called a new election in October 1885. Merriman requested some leave from the Council and sought re-election in his seat of West Sydney which continued to return four members to the Legislative Assembly. All four of the sitting members (O’Connor, Abigail, Cameron and Merriman) contested the election with the addition of two highly respected men, JD Young and Alexander Kethel. In a swift campaign, all six candidates spoke of their beliefs and all were attended by large good tempered crowds according to the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’:

“Several of the public-houses from which addresses were delivered were chosen by two or more candidates; but despite the fact that the only point upon which there was any agreement amongst these was in their electing to speak from the same building, they were received with much enthusiasm. … This enthusiasm in favour of candidates, regardless of the view they espoused, was particularly noticeable in Athlone-place where a successful meeting of the friends of Mr. George Merriman was followed a few minutes later by an equally successful meeting organised by the friends of Mr. J.D. Young.” [‘Sydney Morning Herald’ 15 October 1885 p7]

The votes for the candidates were Kethel 3515, O'Connor 3057, Abigail 3043, Young 2870, Cameron 2388 and Merriman 1853, the first four becoming the representatives for West Sydney and both Cameron and Merriman exiting Parliament for the nonce. A period of instability in government followed with George Dibbs forming a government that lasted 3 months before defeat in Parliament, followed by John Robertson whose ministry lasted only two months from December 1885 to February 1886 also before defeat in Parliament. At this time, the NSW Constitution Act required parliamentarians who were appointed to the ministry to face a further electoral vote in their electorate to confirm their appointment, so when Robertson appointed O’Connor as Post-Master General it precipitated a second election in the West Sydney electorate between O’Connor and any other person who cared to nominate. There was considerable speculation that Merriman would stand against O’Connor. The ‘Evening News’ reported Merriman’s response at first in dispassionate tone:

“We understand that Mr. George Merriman, acting upon the advice of his friends, has determined not to oppose Mr. O'Connor's re-election for West Sydney. Mr. Merriman, we are informed, agrees with the principle that it is not right to oppose the re-election of a Minister; and that the provision in the Constitution Act requiring Ministers to go to their constituents ought to be abolished, as a useless and vexatious relic of a bygone time. The determination of Mr. Merriman to withdraw from so unhandsome a contest will be generally applauded. [‘Evening News’ Saturday 2 January 1886 p5]

Two days later, the “News” was more critical if not ironic in tone, saying:

“It is rather unfortunate for Mr. Merriman that he allowed nearly a week to elapse before he took the electors of West Sydney into his confidence after he had made up his mind not to oppose Mr. O'Connor. It was stated on Saturday night that he had come to this conclusion early in the week, and that his reasons for retiring are of a purely private nature. He also informed his friends that no pressure whatever had been brought to bear upon him one way or the other; and, though it would involve a strain upon our credulity, we are bound to accept his assurance that a few of Mr. O'Connor's envious enemies did not endeavor to make him their tool. Of course, what had appeared in the ‘Evening News’ did not influence Mr. Merriman, which fact he took special pains to impress upon the meeting. Public men never do take any notice of what appears in newspapers; or at least, it is very common with them to repudiate being influenced by such means. It is not necessary, however, to carefully consider whether Mr. Merriman acted exclusively in accordance with his own ideas, or was assisted to make up his mind by the advice we gave him on Friday, the main point in the matter being that he has retired; and it is quite certain that he has acted wisely in so doing, though he asserts that on public grounds, not only Mr O' Connor, but every member of the Ministry should be opposed. It is now almost certain that not one of them will be put to the trouble and expense of a contest; but, according to Mr. Merriman, this is the result of pure sympathy. Sympathetic political opponents are a section of the public which it has been left for Mr. Merriman to discover, though he does not claim to have found any of them in West Sydney. It is not sympathy for Mr. O'Connor that keeps him quiet; for, did his private affairs permit him to become a candidate, the Postmaster-General would have to fight for his seat….” [‘Evening News’ Monday 4 January 1886 p4]

In the event, no-one opposed O’Connor but the Robertson government was soon defeated and Patrick Jennings headed a new ministry which lasted 11 months until January 1887. Merriman cited private reasons for withdrawing from challenging O’Connor and he and his wife left Sydney for Melbourne on 8 January 1886 aboard P & O’s ‘RMS Massilia’. It is possible that he consulted a doctor in Melbourne concerning his own health on this visit. While in Victoria, Merriman visited the Yan Yean reservoir with the Water Commissioners of both Melbourne and Sydney in company with others. He and his wife returned to Sydney by the express train from Melbourne to Sydney on 22 January 1886.

Merriman continued his work as the City Solicitor while maintaining his private practice throughout 1886. His name appears in law notices as proctor for a number of deceased estates. He appeared in court representing the City in appeals against rate assessments during March. In April he once again visited Melbourne, returning on the overland express on 28 April. He attended meetings of the City Improvement Board during May. He instructed counsel in several court cases both on behalf of Council and in his private practice. At Council’s request he prepared an amended Bill for the Blackfriars Estate and the Shepherd Nursery Estate to enable Council to take responsibility for the streets in the estates. He gave opinions to Council on such matters as its power to impose rates on Municipalities using the City’s sewers (none) or its powers in the sale of meat from diseased cattle. In October he had to advise aldermen as a massive fraud perpetrated by David Bradford, supplier of ironwork and iron fittings, was uncovered in the City Engineer’s department. Bradford had been able undetected to alter quantities recorded on official requisition forms between delivery and payment increasing the amount to be paid and he and his clerk had been doing so for some years. There were other breaches as well benefitting Bradford. The amount defrauded that was cited during Bradford’s trial, for which Merriman briefed GB Simpson, was about £9,000 but it was eventually revealed to be much greater, probably well over £30,000. At the end of October, Merriman applied for two weeks’ leave and is recorded leaving on the express train to Melbourne and returning in November by sea on the ‘RMS Valetta’. He probably timed this visit to include watching the horse race, run on the first Tuesday in November, that had already become the most famous Australian horse race, the Melbourne Cup.

In politics, the Jennings Ministry was struggling in Parliament and losing public support. Eventually, in mid January 1887 Parliament was prorogued and NSW went to the polls in February. Merriman decided to present himself once again as a candidate for the four member seat of West Sydney. Candidates who nominated for that seat were Alexander Kethel, George Merriman, Francis Abigail, JD Young, AD Nelson, Daniel O’Connor, W Westman and W Pritchard.

Merriman announced his views in advertisements as well as in meetings at various hotels as was the usual custom. He announced in the press:

“TO THE ELECTORS OF WEST SYDNEY
Gentlemen,— At the request of a large number of the Electors of West Sydney, I have consented to become a Candidate for your suffrages at the ensuing election. The main issue which has been submitted for the decision of the country is Freetrade versus Protection. In seeking your support I do so chiefly upon the ground that I am entirely opposed to the policy of protection, being convinced beyond all doubt that it would be fatal to the best interests of this country and would impose upon all classes of the community unjust and heavy burdens. I will, therefore, if elected, give my warmest support to Sir Henry Parkes on his policy of freetrade. … It is scarcely possible in a written address to enter into the merits or demerits of these two policies, but I will take an early opportunity to address you in different parts of the electorate and explain my views upon them. … I may also here state that I am in favor of establishing Local Government, a Property (not income) Tax, a Board to manage railways, and reform and judicious retrenchment in the public service, upon all of which questions I will give you my views, when addressing you. “ [‘The Daily Telegraph’ 31 January 1887 p3]

Merriman found local support within the electorate with its shipping industry dominant in Merriman’s home locality of Millers’ Point in the persons of Mr. Griffiths, the President of the Coal Lumpers' Union, Mr. Furlong and Mr Elliott, the Wharf Labourers' representatives and P Kean, stevedore’s representative, all of whom endorsed his candidature at meetings. The candidates’ meetings attracted huge crowds. Merriman’s meeting at the Hibernian Hotel according to the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ attracted upwards of one thousand people. Merriman further enhanced his candidature by joining an alliance of four with Abigail, Kethel and Pritchard. Advertisements appeared in the papers announcing the alliance:

“WEST SYDNEY ELECTION: THE FREE TRADE FOUR
ELECTORS - Vote the solid FREE TRADE TICKET
FRANCIS ABIGAIL -ALEXANDER KETHEL - WILLIAM PRITCHARD - GEORGE MERRIMAN.
Don't disfranchise yourselves by omitting any one of the above FOUR.
Vote solidly and straight and go in for a TRUE VICTORY.”

The candidates elected were Abigail 3688, Kethel 3450, Merriman 3049, and Daniel O’Connor (also a free trader) 2988, followed in losing position by JD Young 2246, a protectionist, who was well ahead of the remaining candidates. The Free Trade faction outvoted the Protectionists, Sir Patrick Jennings resigned and Sir Henry Parkes was able to form a new Ministry becoming once again Premier and Colonial Secretary of NSW. His government retained power for all of 1887 and 1888. Merriman supported Parkes throughout that time. In his previous term as MLA, Merriman had rarely spoken but had attended Parliament assiduously and served on committees. This term was different. Merriman did not speak in Parliament at all and his attendance became a rarity. During the first session in 1887, he attended about one quarter of the sittings. In the latter session of 1887 he attended about one eighth of sittings. His attendance in 1888 was worse still as he was present on only about 14 days of the more than one hundred sittings. Clearly something was causing Merriman’s behaviour to deviate from his previous pattern.

Merriman continued to give legal advice as City Solicitor but his court appearances declined throughout 1887-88. He continued to advise Council on legal matters and draft bylaws for such matters as regulating porters and barrowmen. He advised Council that legislation was needed to define Council’s powers in regard to water supply from the Nepean River and to suburban Councils. He suffered a further family loss in the death of his mother in June 1887. As in the earlier deaths of his father and sister Clara, George and his brother William Merriman were executors, trustees and beneficiaries.

George and his family lived in Undercliff Cottage in Argyle Place in the Millers Point area where he and his siblings had grown up but in about July 1887, Merriman bought a luxurious home for his family which cost the huge sum of £5,000. This was ‘Folkestone’ in Tupper Street, Stanmore or Marrickville. It was situated on a large block of land with street frontage of 224 feet and a depth of over 200 feet to a rear lane and having large trees, lawn, gardens and shrubbery. When the two storey house with 5 bedrooms, a spacious entrance hall and 3 reception rooms, was placed on the market in 1893, it was described as:

“an attractive and comfortable home … nicely retired from the road, and approached by a carriage drive … substantially built of brick with cemented facings, and fitted throughout with every modern improvement and convenience … a most complete residence, surrounded by all the accessories of a gentleman's abode, including stabling, charming pleasure grounds, all in good order, and presenting an opportunity rarely to be met with of securing what may be termed a country home within the metropolitan area, and especially recommended to the notice of gentlemen requiring a first-class house …” [‘The Sydney Morning Herald’, 4 October 1893, p3]

Merriman proceeded to spend a further enormous amount on the furnishings and furniture of the house in the following five years. Perhaps on his trip to England and Europe in 1889, he acquired some of the beautiful chinaware, the vases and jars, to this day highly prized by collectors and connoisseurs,. so that when in his final days the contents of the house were sent to auction, the advertisements listed such items as:

“… superb English-made high art furniture of modern design … very handsome dinner service of an unusually large number of pieces, artistically decorated with coral and gold flowers, edged with amber, gold ornamentation, en Bleu de Roi medallions, relieved with gilt hair-lines and light canary bands … choice hand-painted dessert service and tea and breakfast services; richly cut table glass; splendid selection of electroplate … the furnishings of the windows have been carried out at a very large cost, and consist of superb figured silk tapestry relieved with silk plush, appropriately trimmed with fringe and heavy silk tassels to match the coverings of the furniture and the draperies of the state bedsteads, cornices of American walnut, &c, to match the furniture, and very elegant hand-made brussels lace curtains … massive dining-room, hall, and library furniture in solid American walnut … mammoth musical box, in burr walnut, made in Geneva, and cost about 120 guineas, furnished with 4 barrels, playing altogether 64 pieces … brilliant-toned upright grand pianoforte (ebonised) by T. Frost, Zurich … choice water colours and very fine proof engravings … superb collection of Buda-Pesth vases, Dresden china jars, Capo di Monte vases, and French jardinieres painted by hand … exquisite Carrara marble statuary, and green marble pedestals … Florentine mosaics … [‘The Sydney Morning Herald’, 21 October 1893, and following days]

Merriman took leave from Council for two weeks in July and August 1887 in which in company with a group of NSW MLAs he visited the Adelaide Exhibition. When Sir Henry Parkes called a public meeting in October seeking endorsement of his policies and explaining his difficulties in Parliament, Merriman attended and spoke in support of Parkes’s policies while criticising his supporters as much as the opposition in their Parliamentary tactics. Merriman said:

“It seemed to him that the object of the meeting was to consider the best means of assisting the Ministry in carrying on the business now before the country. The matter might be left entirely in the hands of the Government. If they could not carry all the measures, let the Government make the selection. He endorsed the remarks of Mr. Cameron that the members of the Government ought to restrain themselves as much as possible. They frequently repeated each other's arguments, which led to useless debate and disorder on the part of the Opposition. He hoped all supporters of the Government would submit to any reasonable demand in order conclude the session before Christmas.” [‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 20 October 1887 p6]

Soon after this meeting, Merriman again visited Melbourne taking a sea trip to that city and the train back. It seems very probable that he was not well and consulted doctors in Melbourne. WH Pigott seems to have filled in as City Solicitor until the end of the year. The City Council was involved in conflict with the contractors erecting the new Town Hall and their differences on the matters of the girders installed and the columns erected for the Centennial Hall found their way into litigation. Merriman briefed notable counsel as usual but does not seem to have been very much involved himself.

Merriman was rarely in Parliament or in court in 1888 but made multiple trips to Melbourne. At the end of April, he visited for a few days this time taking his 9 year old son George with him, travelling down by sea and returning by express train. He repeated the visit at the end of July when he spent a week in Melbourne visiting the Melbourne Centennial Exhibition. He attended the official opening of the Exhibition on 1 August 1888. He remained absent from Parliament only attending twice in the last months of 1888 but he did travel a third time to Melbourne when he joined the group of MLAs taking the special train for the Melbourne Cup Carnival. The whole of his family, wife and children, and his brother travelled to Melbourne in December spending a week there. It seems certain that at least on some of these trips he consulted medical personnel in Melbourne.

In January 1889 Parliament was prorogued and an election called. Merriman attended a meeting of the Parliamentary free-trade party on the 18th January and announced he would not stand again as he intended visiting Europe with his family. The next day he applied to Council for leave from March to December in order to go to England. He wrote to the Mayor:

“I regret to have to inform your Worship that I have for some time past been in a very bad state of health which has upon two occasions lately compelled [me] to cease from business and seek a change.
“I have consulted two Medical Gentlemen one in Sydney and the other in Melbourne and they both agree that it is absolutely necessary that I should take a long rest and sea trip and have therefore ordered me to England otherwise they say my health will become seriously impaired. Under these circumstances necessity compels me to ask that the Council will be pleased to grant me leave of absence from my official duties from the 1st March next until the end of the present year.
“I may state that I have made most satisfactory arrangements for the carrying out of all the Council’s matters which may arise during my absence.
“Mr C S Jones of the prs Jones & Jones, Solicitors, Mr R P Abbott and Mr W J Trickett have each kindly consented to attend to any of the Council’s matters which may be submitted to them.” [CoSA: A 00315957,CRS 26/232/108]

The Sydney newspapers reported the granting of leave because of his ill health at the next Council meeting but made no further comment either on their own behalf or in reporting any debate on the matter. It seems that many people were aware that Merriman was ill and respected his privacy. It appears that his disease had awoken from latency and now was beginning to cause neurological symptoms and damage. Merriman was unfortunate that his disease had progressed in this way as medical authorities estimate that only about one third of infections progress to this phase. He was also unfortunate to live in a time when there was no cure for syphilis. That had to await the discovery of the drug penicillin. The disease in the terminal stage could affect brain, nerves, heart, liver, audio and visual systems, bones and joints and could be manifested in headaches, muscle weakness, numbness, paralysis, confusion, personality changes and dementia.

A curious case came to court at this same time when Morton Matthews was charged with having in his possession a bell register, property of the NSW Government, suspected of being stolen. Evidence was given that the book belonging to the Tramway Department had been lent some time before to George Merriman and not returned. Matthews was fined £5. The involvement of Merriman was apparently not pursued in court but he wrote an explanatory letter published in all the main Sydney papers saying that he had borrowed two registers about four years ago with permission in order for JD Young to check on the attendance of some of his employees at the hotel he then owned. He had told Young several times that the registers had been requested to be returned but he and Young both forgot about the matter. Merriman concluded his letter, writing: “I do not think I have heard anything about the matter for over two years, and it had, entirely faded from my memory.” [‘Sydney Morning Herald’ 21 January 1889 p5; ‘Evening News’ 23 January 1889 p8; ‘The Daily Telegraph’ 23 January 1889 p10]

Merriman appeared on 18 February 1889 in the Assessment Court before District Court Judge Dowling who at a marathon session had heard 150 appeals against municipal assessments. The ‘Herald’ reported:

“Just before the close of the sittings, Mr. George Merriman, addressing his Honor, said he understood that exception had been taken with regard to his absence from the court. Two reasons prevented his presence. The first was ill-health, which prevented his presence. In fact, he was so ill that, acting on medical advice, it was his intention to leave for England in the course of a fortnight. Furthermore, he believed he could safely leave the work in the hands of the assessor. His Honor said that he, too, was ill; in fact, it was highly probable that the present was the last day he would sit in the court. He did not say positively that it was. … After hearing Mr. Merriman's explanation, [Dowling] was sorry that he had called attention to his absence. He was ill himself, and after sitting so many years it was not to be expected that he could preside over the Court for ever. He was there that day working as the willing horse. Mr. Merriman fully sympathised with his Honor in his indisposition. His Honor responding wished Mr. Merriman a prosperous voyage, and a speedy restoration to good health.” [‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 19 February 1889 p4]

As it eventuated, Dowling booked passage on the same ship to England as Merriman and his family. Merriman continued his preparations for a long absence overseas. His carriage horses went to auction. His wife advertised for a dressmaker. He had made arrangements with his legal fraternity to cover his roles as private solicitor, City Solicitor and solicitor to the Metropolitan Transit Commission and notwithstanding his earlier advice to Council, he arranged for FE Rogers to continue acting as barrister for Council and WJ Trickett as solicitor. He must have also given his permission for re-election in his absence as a director of the Delaney’s Dyke Gold-mining Company Limited which reported a failure to commence crushing ore because of water shortage which the company was seeking to remedy by finding bore water. He was also named in his absence in the prospectus for the proposed Imperial Arcade Company Ltd as a provisional director of the company to be formed to build and lease a five storey arcade running between Pitt and Castlereagh Streets in the mid-city which would contain shops, offices and hotel rooms. When the company was duly floated in May, shareholders elected directors and Merriman was not among them.

The City Council held a harbour picnic to farewell Merriman which was attended by about 50 Council employees including the principal office bearers and the Mayor. On a dull day they proceeded up the Parramatta River and stopped for a catered lunch at the Sydney Rowing Club’s boatsheds. Merriman responded to their best wishes:

“A start homewards was made shortly before 4 o'clock, when Mr. Merriman, in a neat little speech, thanked his entertainers for their esteem and the pleasing method of illustrating it. He said that they were all aware his health had for some time been very bad. So bad indeed had it been that oftentimes it was with the greatest difficulty he could perform his duties. The doctors had ordered him to give up work, and go for a trip to the old country. If he did that he would come back re invigorated. He could not have wished for any greater compliment than he had been tendered in this outing. He had to thank the officers of the council for the assistance which had always been so ably and readily given him.” [‘Evening News’ 1 March 1889 p2]

Merriman, his wife and their four children and a maid, departed Sydney on 2 March 1889 on the P and O’s ‘R.M.S. Arcadia’ for London and the family, once again accompanied by a maid, returned ten months later on ‘R.M.S. Victoria’ arriving in Sydney on 27 December 1889. News must have reached Sydney that Merriman’s health had improved for when the ‘Sydney Mail’ on the occasion of the opening of the newly completed Centennial Hall published an illustrated article titled “The Corporation of Sydney and the Centennial Hall” describing the history of the Council with biographical details of many of its aldermen and officers, it featured a drawing of Merriman accompanied by the following text:

“The City Solicitor. — Mr. George Merriman is the second son of the late Alderman James Merriman, who was for three years Mayor of the city. He is a native of Sydney. He succeeded to the office of City Solicitor on the death of Mr. Richard Driver in 1880. Mr. Merriman is a prominent patron of public sports, and has taken a very active part in connection with our aquatic clubs. In his official capacity he has been engaged in many important law suits in which the corporation was a party, and has almost invariably brought the cases to a successful issue on behalf of the body he represented. About seven years ago he was elected to represent the important constituency of West Sydney in the Legislative Assembly, and held that seat for some years. Failing health, through overwork, prevented him from seeking re election to the present Parliament. Early in March last he left on a visit to England and Europe; and the crowds of friends, professional and otherwise, who went on board the noble steamship ‘Arcadia’' to bid him bon voyage bore gratifying testimony to the esteem in which he is held. Since then he has visited the chief cities of Europe, and is now we understand, completely restored to health. He is expected to return to Sydney by the ‘S.S. Victoria’ towards the end of December.” [‘The Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser’ 30 November 1889 p1211]

It is clear that Merriman’s reputation had not been adversely affected by his illness during most of 1888 and his absence in 1889; he was still apparently highly esteemed. Merriman immediately took up his duties, and his social life, and seemed to have regained his vigour. Merriman was present at a dinner on 4 January 1890 in honour of the new Mayor, Sydney Burdekin, and then at a luncheon given by Burdekin after his first Council meeting. During the luncheon, Alderman John Harris proposed a toast to WJ Trickett and George Merriman, in which he “referred to the excellent services which had been rendered to the council by the former gentleman during the absence in England, for the benefit of his health, of Mr Merriman, who, he was pleased to state, had returned greatly benefited by the trip.” [‘The Australian Star’ 22 January 1890 p3]

Merriman returned apparently in better health, but while he was away, his brother in law, John Dalgarno had contracted typhoid fever and had languished for some months without recovering and died on 27 January 1890, leaving George’s sister Fanny a widow with young children. George Merriman acted as proctor for the estate. During the year Merriman acted for Council in court and briefed counsel in several court cases; he advised Council on their rights in various matters; he drafted several proposed Bills including one to confer power on the Council to purchase or resume land for purposes of city improvement; and he maintained his private practice and acted as proctor for a number of clients. In October he declined an invitation to stand again for Parliament. In November Merriman appeared for the Metropolitan Transit Commissioners in a hearing which resulted in the committal for trial of William Dwyer for embezzlement. Although his brother William was no longer the Registrar with the Commission, George retained his position of solicitor for the Commissioners. He also acted on a public committee supervising the ‘Sunday Times’ newspaper’s ‘Strike Relief Monster Benefit’.

Economic conditions in Australia in the 1890s were very difficult with much unemployment and strikes by workers against conditions and pay. Unfortunately the economic depression worsened during the coming years with multiple bank and business failures and individual insolvencies. No doubt many people were finding it hard to pay their rates. When the Assessment Appeals against Council’s rate determinations came to be heard in December, there were over 2000 appeals lodged. Judge McFarland attempted to streamline the appeals process by filtering cases through Merriman who negotiated agreements where possible with ratepayers. This system allowed better processing but of course was not liked by some of the ratepayers and allowed inconsistent agreements as details of such agreements were not necessarily declared in the hearings. The hearing of the appeals still occupied many days and extra days were required with the final days being heard by Judge Docker in the District Court.

One of the agreements negotiated was made between Merriman and George Harris, who administered all the properties of the Harris family which included his younger brothers, Matthew and John Harris, both of whom were Aldermen at the time and for many more years after. The Harris Estate agreement was not revealed until years later in 1898 when many scandalous matters relating to the assessment and collection of rates came under much scrutiny. When Robert Anderson became treasurer in 1897 one of his first tasks was to try to collect all outstanding rates which he estimated at £10,000. He found many errors in the names of owners and occupiers and many faults in the system including the legal inability according to the current Corporation Act to collect rates more than three years owing. He produced and distributed much information including a list of written off or rebated rates which included the names of some aldermen and well-known persons. When Thomas Hughes became an Alderman in 1898 he also scrutinised the assessment book that revealed the Harris Estate arrangement made in December 1890 and recorded in 1891. He informed Council of his findings and asked more questions about other remitted rates and reduced assessments. A Committee was set up to enquire into his statements. The notation in the assessment book, written by the then town clerk, Henry Daniels, reads:

"Special arrangement: The appeals of Mr George Harris on vacant land to be admitted on the basis of 4 per cent on the capitalised value of the land. Approved on the advice of Mr Merriman by Mayor Burdekin. (Signed ) Henry Daniels, Town Clerk March 1891."

The rate for such properties was set at 6 per cent on the capitalised value of the land and could not legally be varied by Council or its officers and Merriman would undoubtedly have known this. When the 1898 committee questioned Henry Daniels, just retired, and Sydney Burdekin, who was still an Alderman, Burdekin denied all knowledge of the matter, and pointed out that neither his initials nor signature appeared with the entry as would have been his normal practice. He also pointed out that he had “always been on terms of more or less hostility” with John Harris, so he thought it unlikely that he would favour him or his brother, and that at that time he had been advocating raising not lowering rates. Both George Merriman and George Harris were dead by this time, so neither could speak to their actions. Judge Docker stated that he had written on the assessment lists “Assessed at capital value, 16 December 1890” and that he had announced the appeal in court as “settled”; he believed Merriman and George Harris were present and he was given no details of their agreement. He said “Probably the parties had some reason for not making the settlement public” and under questioning by the committee said further “If the parties do not desire a disclosure the Judge is powerless in the matter”. Daniels said he wrote the note after George Harris complained that he had made an agreement with Merriman and the agreed rate had not been used in the assessment he had received. Daniels had asserted that a final discussion had taken place in March between Merriman, Harris and Burdekin with Daniels present and he then wrote the note but Burdekin had not signed it. He gave confused reasons for why Burdekin had not signed it. Daniels said he had protested strongly against the agreement at the time. [Sydney Newspaper reports, October and November 1898; Council Committee Report: CoSA: A 00438488, CRS 22/55/43 November 1898]

Daniels’ recollection of the events surrounding his notation in the assessment book and the subsequent levying of the amended rate was contradicted by Burdekin who was meticulous in recording his decisions as Mayor. [CoSA: CRS 887 “Instructions from Mayor Sydney Burdekin”] It is astounding that Merriman would have recommended or endorsed an illegal variation of the rate. Perhaps he did make such a verbal agreement with George Harris and then baulked at any action to implement an illegal agreement. Perhaps he suffered a moment of mental confusion caused by his disease or perhaps he wished to please George Harris. Perhaps events did not occur exactly as Daniels related. It is only possible to speculate and the truth remains lost in the mists of time.

The Committee laid much of the blame for the accumulation of arrears in rates and other irregularities on the “negligence” of the treasurer of the time, Arthur Speers. In the Harris Estate matter, the Committee believed that the “minute” in the assessment book had probably not been made in March but later when Burdekin was overseas. They reported their view of the sequence of events:

“The complete evidence, however, compels your committee to the opinion that some arrangement was made between Mr Merriman and Mr George Harris, and negligently omitted by the former to be stated to his Honor, who thereupon did not authorise any amendment of the assessment.” … [George Harris received in May an unamended assessment notice] … Solicitor Merriman being then referred to by Mr George Harris, and presumably remonstrated with, sought to amend his irregularity by an illegality in inducing the late town clerk to enter a minute authorising the reduction, purporting to be by the knowledge and consent of Alderman (then Mayor) Burdekin. … Your committee, in these circumstances, view the minute as a false one, and absolutely decline to believe that Mayor Burdekin was cognisant of it, or authorised the alteration …. Your committee also consider that the Harris family did not in any fraudulent or improper manner obtain the concession …. It is well nigh impossible to secure sufficient evidence to legally sheet home the blame for the irregularities so apparent in the evidence given.” [CoSA: A 00438488, CRS 22/55/43; ‘Evening News’ 29 November 1898 p5]

The Committee effectively laid the blame on the convicted embezzler, Arthur Speers, and two dead men, and for good measure, criticised the failure of Judge Docker to record the agreement. They held off from directly accusing Daniels of lying as he maintained he had “nothing whatever to do with the decision which was entirely arrived at by Alderman Burdekin, after consultation with Mr Merriman”.

Merriman’s salary increased to £500 pa for 1891. Council had underway a number of property resumptions or purchases intended for city improvements. Many were intended to rectify difficulties caused by irregular or narrow city streets and others to tackle issues such as the poor drainage of the Blackwattle Swamp Estate. The process for the final settlement of a purchase of land by Council appears to have been either the drawing of a cheque to the vendor then held by Merriman to give to the vendor or the drawing of a cheque made out to Merriman who then made the final payment to the vendor from his own funds. Merriman would presumably give the vendor a cheque in exchange for the deeds of the land or some other form of receipt. For instance, in December 1890 Merriman requested five cheques totalling over £2,000 to five vendors relating to purchases of land in Chippendale by Council [CoSA: A 00321132, CRS 26/46/2298]; or in February 1891, Merriman asked for a cheque for £500 for John Barnett for the purchase of land in O’Connor Street to enable the extension of Smithers Street [CoSA: A 00321744, CRS 26/249/638]. Similarly in cases where amounts were required to be paid into court in relation to a case claiming compensation or damages from the Council, it seems that payment would be given to Merriman for him to transfer to the court or to a successful litigant. For instance, in March 1891, Benjamin Bryant sued Council on account of injuries suffered when his horse fell because of a hole in the street and the jury found in his favour awarding him £100 plus costs [‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 21 March 1891 p7]. Merriman requested a cheque to make this payment and was given one. [CoSA: A 00321814, CRS 26/249/711]. In these matters, Merriman’s receipt to Council was accepted as a final receipt and tacitly deemed to have been made to the intended recipient without any further proof. A loophole for fraud was thus awaiting exploitation. The Examiner of Accounts simply matched vouchers with receipts and although the Auditors had at times pointed out the weakness in this system with its lack of an ultimate receipt, no action was taken. Reform of Council’s financial systems had become very difficult and certainly was not helped by the fact that the City Treasurer of this time was Arthur James Speer, who had begun embezzling Council funds in 1890 and whose malfeasance remained undiscovered until 1896. Reform had to await the crusading zeal and outstanding abilities of Robert Murray McCheyne Anderson and the full exposure of the poor financial systems in Council’s affairs in the 1898 Inquiry into the working of Council.

In May 1891 Merriman made his first misappropriation of Council funds. It is possible that his actions were initially at least inadvertent as the episode happened when he and family were under great stress and worry. On the 12th May Council approved the payment of £800 to James Paton and £1190 to Lady Martin for land required for the extension of Little Essex Street into Upper Fort Street. Paton lived at 12 Ross Street, Camperdown but owned premises at 66 Upper Fort Street [‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ 13 May 1891; CoSA: A 00437752, CRS 22/41/35]. On about the 17 May, Merriman’s 7 years old son, Sidney, fell dreadfully ill and died on 23 May from “acute desquamative nephritis and oedematous laryngitis” [NSW Death Certificate 9129/1891]. Merriman signed Council’s voucher for the receipt of £800 due to James Paton on 22 May; he could hardly have been in a normal frame of mind. The relevant vouchers and warrant for the payment seem to indicate the cheque was made out to Merriman [CoSA: A 00327830, CRS 26/272/460½, March 1894; and CoSA: A 00438439, CRS 22/55/1 ‘Report of Committee re City Solicitor’s Defalcations’ July 1898]. According to the City Auditors, they queried the City Treasurer in relation to the lack of an ultimate receipt (ie from Paton) in their audit in July 1891 but neither they nor Speer took any further action and at the next audit in January 1892 no further queries were made. One of the auditors, Christie, maintained that in fact they had no option but to accept the receipt given. The extraordinary feature of the defalcation was that James Paton appears to have made no formal inquiry about the missing payment due to him until the Mayor suspended Merriman in October 1893, having discovered other money missing. Paton then wrote formally to Council about the lack of payment and claimed additional reimbursement as he had been forced to rent the premises for short terms but at a reduced rent as it was known Council were to buy the place to knock down; additionally he had been paying rates on the premises [CoSA: Letters by Paton: 23 October 1893, A 00327076, CRS 23/269/1947; 16 January 1894, A 00327436, CRS 26/271/022]. Why Paton apparently had made no attempt to demand payment earlier is not known and it seems obvious that if he had, the defalcation or inadvertent incorrect banking of the moneys would have been immediately discovered. The Mayor and Aldermen in their report on the matter in March 1894 also were convinced that had the matter of an ultimate receipt been pursued, Merriman would have had to produce the money and perhaps might have been deterred from any later defalcations.

For the remainder of 1891 and the early months of 1892 Merriman appears to have acted as expected in performing his duties as City Solicitor and in his private legal practice. He drafted a Bill for Council in regard to the supply of electricity, a Bill to amend the Moore Street Improvement Act changing the mode of Council’s financing of the improvements, and a Bill for controlling, improving and financing all footpaths in the City. He suffered a severe bout of influenza at the end of the year according to a report in the ‘Evening News’ [11 December 1891]. In February and March 1892, he was active in court dealing with 450 appeals against assessments and in that month he committed his second major defalcation when he failed to pay into court some £2000 paid to him relating to a compensation award to JT Starkey on the resumption of land belonging to him in Moore Street.

Council’s powers to improve the City by resuming properties and changing street alignments had always been not clearly defined or not recognised. Aldermen over the years had solicited the Government for clearer and greater powers. Attempts to add to City powers or change electoral matters had frequently, if passed by the Legislative Assembly, been defeated in the extremely conservative upper house, the Legislative Council, composed as it then was of life members. In 1890 Council had again asked for demolition and improvement powers to rectify the multitude of localities in the City of Sydney with haphazard and narrow streets. As usual the Bill proposed was much amended and curtailed in the Legislative Council and what was passed eventually was “The Moore Street Improvement Act of 1890” [Act 54 Vic No 30 1890]. The preamble of the Act states:

“ ‘The Improvement’ means any work or undertaking to be carried out for the purpose of increasing the width, or altering the direction, or for raising or lowering the level, of Moore-street in the City of Sydney, or of the approaches thereto; including the carriage and footway, and all necessary and proper metalling or paving, kerbing, guttering, draining, lighting and all other works appurtenant to a public way.”

The Act continued stating:
“The Council is hereby authorized to purchase or resume all lands and do all acts necessary for the purpose of widening Moore-street to a total width not exceeding one hundred feet, and otherwise carrying out the said improvement.”

The Act further defined the processes of financing including levying of an improvement rate, resumption, valuation, and compensation. Owners of land to be resumed could challenge the amount of compensation in Court. An amendment to the financing section was passed in February 1892. [Act 55 Vic No 13 1892]

Moore Street, destined to become Martin Place, was a small street running east west with irregular frontages connecting Pitt and Castlereagh streets. The western end was opposite the Post Office Reserve occupied largely by the General Post Office and a Government Stores Depot and giving access to George Street. Council published details in July 1891 of lands, buildings or ruins (created by a massive city fire in Pitt Street) to be resumed, and a list of holdings deemed to be “bettered” by the proposed improvement and liable to the “improvement rate”. In the decades following, more land was resumed until the street reached across Elizabeth and Phillip Streets to end at Macquarie Street opposite the Sydney Hospital. The City Historian, Shirley Fitzgerald, wrote

“the slow apotheosis of Moore Street into Martin Place, the city’s finest pedestrian precinct, lined with grand buildings took a century to complete …” [Shirley Fitzgerald, ‘Sydney, 1842-1992’, p226]

John Thomas Starkey owned a large block fronting Moore Street including buildings and yard at which he had made ginger beer and other aerated cordials for many years. He had acquired a new site in Phillip Street but he still owned the Moore Street premises. The building followed the southern alignment of Moore Street where it left Castlereagh Street. This alignment did not match the angle of Moore Street where it ended at Pitt Street. Starkey’s factory in effect jutted out and caused a narrowing of Moore Street. The Finance Committee of Council, which at many times was virtually a “Committee of the Whole” including all the Aldermen, met in May 1891 and recommended that Council proceed with the improvement of Moore Street and identified properties to be resumed and properties in the betterment area (properties whose value would be enhanced by the new wider Moore Street [CoSA: A 00437774, CRS 22/41/52]. The land to be resumed from Starkey was only a small piece of the property on the Moore Street frontage measuring at its widest 9 feet and tapering to nothing and was intended to make it possible for that property to be aligned with the end of the street at Pitt Street. The piece of land was officially valued at £1200 before improvement and at £2000 after improvement. It was obvious that Starkey would challenge this amount as inadequate because the resumption meant the demolition or removal and re erection of a building, the suspension of any business he was operating while he was rebuilding or removing, the costs in moving any machinery and equipment, and the loss of any rent he might be receiving. Starkey duly commenced legal action.

A warrant, an abstract of the warrant and a voucher for the payment £2088 5 0 were created by the Town Clerk on 14 March 1892. The Warrant to the City Treasurer was signed by the Mayor, WP Manning, and the Town Clerk, HJ Daniels, for “Moore Street Improvement – Compensation for Resumption” and the abstract included the name “JT Starkey” and was signed by the Examiner of Accounts stating he had examined the voucher. The voucher was made out for payment to George Merriman with details that the amount was to be paid into Court as the compensation awarded to JT Starkey for land in Moore Street plus interest and court fees. It was signed by George Merriman as “claimant” and initialled by the Mayor and two others, and a further certification on it was signed by the Mayor and Merriman. It was never paid into Court but presumably paid into an account held by Merriman. [CoSA: A 00438439, CRS 22/51/1: “Report of Committee re Defalcations of Geo Merriman, City Solicitor” included in “Report of the Finance Committee recommending adoption of the Report of the Draft Committee on Evidence taken before the Committee of Inquiry”.]

Starkey died in November 1892 but his executors continued legal proceedings in December 1892 when the District Court awarded £4125 compensation and damages. Council appealed and the amount of damages was reduced by £800 at the Supreme Court on 23 August 1893. As with the payment intended for James Paton it is possible to believe that Merriman had not purposely misappropriated the money but rather muddled his accounts. With once again the failure of the Council systems to require an ultimate receipt, the payment retained by Merriman would not be missed until it was required to be paid out of court accounts at the completion of the court case. In this case the discovery that the funds were missing was not made until October 1893. Although Merriman may have forgotten to make the transfer of funds to the Master in Equity, it is clear that he ultimately used the money for his own purposes. In November 1893 Council finally paid £4190 11 8 which represented the reduced award plus taxed costs and interest to Starkey’s estate [CoSA: A 00327290, CRS 26/270/2175].

During 1892 a number of other matters arising from the Moore Street resumptions were handled correctly by Merriman. On 5 March he forwarded to the Town Clerk a receipt from the Commercial Bank for £17,954 12 7 for money he had paid to the Master in Equity for the compensation award to the Trustees of John Hughes Estate for one of the properties being resumed in Castlereagh Street. [CoSA: A 00323021, CRS 26/256/463]. When, in September, Joseph Israel, tenant of Robert Reid in Moore Street, claimed more than the £200 originally offered, the jury reduced the compensation to £180. Also in September, Merriman reported he had negotiated a settlement with the Hughes Trustees in relation to other land resumed at the corner of Moore Street and Castlereagh Street with the Trustees now agreeing on the sum of £13,200 which was the original valuation [CoSA: A 00324081, CRS 26/260/1681]. In relation to this award, he forwarded to the Town Clerk in October a duplicate receipt from the Commercial Bank for £13997 8 6 being the award plus interest paid to the Master in Equity and another duplicate receipt relating to another sum paid to the Trustees’ solicitors. Perhaps the production of duplicate receipts rather than originals might indicate confusion in the administration and recording of Merriman’s financial dealings. [CoSA: A 00324209, CRS 26/261/1832].

Also in 1892, Merriman and legal advisors to the Royal Agricultural Society of NSW tried to solve the problem of legally leasing the Sydney Common and Moore Park to the Society or others such as the Sydney Driving Park Club or the Zoological Society. The legal status of the Sydney Common as regards the NSW Government and the City of Sydney Council and the original stated purpose of the Sydney Common created in 1811 were all complex matters. The Attorney-General took the matter to Court and Judge Owen decided that the grounds were a commonage, the Council had no power over the grounds, and control rested with the NSW Government. Merriman advised the drawing up of a Bill for Parliament to vest the whole power in the Council, in accord with what many had assumed to be the case. [CoSA: A 00324321,CRS 26/261/1983; ‘The Daily Telegraph’, 14 October 1892 p2]. The Parliament’s response seems to have been only to pass an act enabling the Royal Agricultural Society to temporarily vest part of the common [Act 56 Vic 1893 No 8, March 1893] and so once again not to acquiesce in any extension of City power.

The extended Merriman family suffered another untimely death in April 1893 when Fanny Dalgarno, George Merriman’s sister, died of kidney disease at the age of 44. Merriman was the executor of her will and his wife Minnie became the legal guardian of the four surviving Dalgarno children. Merriman’s disease progressed further and the collapse of his health accelerated. Although still able at times to act normally, his ability to function capably declined and this showed in a number of ways. Michael Hegarty, a resident of Grafton Street, Woollahra tripped over the hose and tap of a water hydrant left carelessly over the footpath by a Council water cart driver at the corner of Park and Castlereagh Streets in November 1892 and injured himself becoming bed-ridden for some time. He wrote to Council informing them immediately of the accident. Richard Seymour, Inspector of Nuisances, promptly reported the matter in detail and he immediately suspended the water cart driver and informed the Mayor. Hegarty wrote again in December and asked Council’s intentions. The papers on the matter were sent to Merriman on the 6 January 1893 and Hegarty called on Merriman and followed up with a claim for one hundred pounds compensation. Nothing happened and Hegarty wrote to council again in February and still again on 27 June. Town Clerk, Henry Daniels, noted on this letter “To Mr Merriman: in a position to report on this matter?” Obviously Merriman had not dealt with the matter either in communicating to Council or to Hegarty. Daniels was being more than patient although it was revealed in the 1898 Inquiry into the working of Council that he had a very narrow concept of his duties and responsibilities as Town Clerk. He may have been aware of Merriman’s ill health or simply considered the matter not his responsibility, seeing himself just as a conduit for communications between officers, aldermen and others. [CoSA: A 00324414, CRS 26/261/2089; A 00324434, CRS 26/262/2118; A 00325633, CRS 26/264/346; A 00326416, CRS 26/267/1229; A 00504836, CRS 877/2/222-3; A 00504842, CRS 877/2/226-1.]

Merriman’s misdealings became apparent to more persons during August and September 1893 and came into the public domain at the beginning of October. On 25 September 1893, Merriman acted unusually in creating a Deed Poll assigning certain debts owed to him, including any costs awarded to him in the Starkey case, to William Walford and William John Banks as executors of the estate of Sarah Jane Smith, deceased. The rights of Walford and Banks, Merriman’s widow Minnie, and the Council to costs awarded to Council in various cases such as versus Starkey and cases versus Adolphus Rogalsky and versus David Marks occupied legal minds throughout 1895. Presumably Walford and Banks were pursuing Merriman for a debt he owed to the estate of Sarah Jane Smith. [CoSA: A 00453341, CRS 56/299.]

In June 1893, Council had approved the purchase of John Buchanan’s property in Butt Street, Surry Hills. The details on the Warrant, the Abstract of the Warrant and the Voucher for payment, all dated 10 August 1893, show that £700 was to be paid to the City Solicitor for payment to “Mr Buchanan for a portion of his property required for the extension of Butt Street”. Subsequent inquiries showed that Merriman had paid this cheque into his own current account at the Bank of Australasia on 10 August 1893. [CoSA: A 00438439, CRS 22/55/1.]

Buchanan was in some financial difficulties and very soon started asking after his money. He spoke with the Mayor who responded by personally investigating. Merriman had sought sick leave by the end of August, and had travelled to Melbourne, as it was said, for a “change of air” [‘The Australian Star’ 4 October 1893 p5] but in fact to seek medical advice once more. Merriman returned to Sydney on 11 September on the ‘SS Barcoo’ and was by then extremely ill. In the meanwhile, the Mayor had checked matters and easily discovered many discrepancies including the missing Starkey payment. He said “the discoveries were made in the simplest manner; in fact, the transactions were such as to leave no room for discovery in the proper sense. They were certain to come under notice as soon as the affairs were gone into.” [‘Evening News’ 5 October 1893 p6]. There was no sophisticated scheme of embezzlement. Merriman had simply banked moneys received and due to Council but had not subsequently transferred the money to Council or had banked cheques made out to him of funds intended for transfer to others but had not made those transfers. The Mayor, WP Manning, suspended Merriman on 3 October, having by then spoken to him. Manning reported to Aldermen at the Finance Committee meeting on 5 October, telling them that Merriman had admitted retaining Council money and had said he was unable to repay the missing amounts. Merriman’s dismissal was confirmed at the full Council meeting on 12 October 1893.

The Mayor told Alderman he was alerted by Buchanan’s complaint and set about inquiring while Merriman was in Melbourne. Manning acquired lists of payments and receipts involving Merriman. and easily discovered the discrepancies in the Starkey and Buchanan matters and was made aware of the failure to pay Paton; these defalcations amounted to £3588 5 0. He found evidence of a number of smaller amounts received by Merriman and not paid into Council accounts. These totalled £500 1 2 but as the official report put it “The greater part of these moneys also were paid to him such a short time previous to the discovery of the defalcations that sufficient time had not elapsed to cause inquiries to be made about them in the ordinary course”. It is also possible that for these amounts Merriman had simply become too ill to deal properly with them. The other moneys not properly dealt with were payments of fees to Robert Darlow Pring, barrister, for his appearances in court amounting to £75 19 0. The grand total of missing funds reported was £4164 5 2. [CoSA: A 00438439, CRS 22/55/1]

The Mayor reported about Merriman to Council:

“… he had made investigations into his affairs, and found them hopelessly involved, and that he had in his possession about £4000, the money of the corporation. … He had seen Mr Merriman at his house, and he confessed that he had a sum approximating about £4000 which he had jeopardised by mixing up with his bank affairs, and he also stated that he was unable to make restitution. He promised me, said the Mayor, that he would come into town on the following Tuesday and see what could be done to extricate himself from the difficulty, and to give an explanation regarding the accounts above mentioned. On the Tuesday the Mayor received a medical certificate from Dr. C. N. H. Crewe, stating that he had seen Mr. Merriman, who for the past three weeks had been suffering from a very severe attack of nervous prostration, accompanied with insomnia, and succeeded by maniacal delirium and two epileptiform convulsions. … Dr. Fiaschi had also seen Mr. Merriman in a consultation with Dr. Harpur-Crewe. … The Mayor said he had a full list of the payments made to Mr. Merriman since he had been in office, and all had been duly accounted for except those mentioned above. [‘Evening News’ Friday 6 October 1893 p 5; Harpur-Crewe’s letter: CoSA: A 00326933, CRS 26/268/1798]

Just what Merriman had done with the Council money and his own inheritance from his father and sister Clara, not to mention his own salary and earnings, is not clear other than the assumption that he lived luxuriously. He made some effort to try to find some funds to repay Council or other debts as he put his house “Folkestone” up for sale on 4 October. By the end of the month, however, it was being advertised as a mortgagee sale. It was sold in November for the sum of £3250 so it is likely that this amount did not fully discharge his mortgage to the Bank of New South Wales. He also in mid October put all the remarkable contents of the house on the market.

The Mayor laid information with the police on 20 October and a warrant for Merriman’s arrest was taken out but never served on him as his health radically declined and it was clear that his condition was terminal. The city was rife with rumours that he was dead or that he was alive but faking his condition; there was general disbelief that he could have acted dishonestly but in the face of the Council and police actions it became accepted .A number of people asserted he was being given favourable treatment in not being taken to gaol. The rumour mill in Sydney worked hard; he was clearly a person of great interest. Even after his funeral, rumours circulated that he was not dead and his coffin had been filled with stones.

He was transferred from his home to the Camden House Private Hospital at Milsons Point and into the care of Dr Leighton Kesteven. Kesteven took the unusual step of writing a letter to the ‘Daily Telegraph’ trying to quell rumours and to seek understanding of Merriman’s condition. In this letter he wrote:

“Mr. Merriman is at present an absolute physical and mental wreck, incapable of answering for himself in any way, and it would be therefore absolutely useless for the police to arrest him when it would be impossible for him to answer the charges if he were even carried — a helpless invalid — into court. I have had a pretty extended experience in lunacy practice, having been resident medical officer in three large asylums in England, and subsequently medical officer to a lunatic reception house, and I have no hesitation in certifying (as I have done to-day to the Mayor) that Mr. Merriman is in too weak a mental condition at present to understand or answer the charges against him. He had to be moved from his house, as it was to be sold off, … I very much doubt if he ever will recover the use of his mind, if he does that of his body, as the symptoms which he presents are not those of weeks’ or months' origin, but in my opinion must have been many months arising, in which case they will be incurable. At present he is under police supervision at Camden House, and is confined to his bed, and I keep the police informed as to his condition.” [‘The Daily Telegraph’ 28 October 1893 p4]

Merriman died just weeks later on 17 November 1893. He was 47 years old. The newspapers published short simple factual obituaries, at a loss as to how to portray his character and achievements after the dreadful events of his disgrace and decease. His funeral was attended by a number of Aldermen but there were notable absences including many of his Council and legal associates. Dr Kesteven again wrote to the newspapers giving a full explanation of Merriman’s cause of death and according him some semblance of obituary. He wrote:

“None of those witnessing George Merriman's funeral last Sunday can fail to have been impressed by the entirely representative character of the numerous attendance thereat as not merely a recognition of his old citizenship, but as an endorsement of the feeling, which I believe has become very general, that the unfortunate state into which he had allowed his pecuniary affairs to lapse cannot have resulted from any guilty action on his part, but from a condition of mind in which he must have in some manner been irresponsible for his actions.

“I have, therefore, thought it would not be out of place to state the grounds on which such a supposition may be shown to be absolutely justifiable. Having had the care of Mr. Merriman in his last days, I have no hesitation in asserting — from a pretty extensive practical acquaintance with such cases — that the whole of his symptoms led most conclusively to the diagnosis that he was suffering from the disease known to lunacy practitioners as "general paralysis of the insane," a state in which the most salient points are — without going into abstruse medical terms and expressions "not understanded of the people"-— mental oblivion, exaltation of ideas, and impairment of muscular action.

“Either of these symptoms in such cases may precede one another. George Merriman had them all, and in his case mental oblivion came first, and most certainly incapacitated him from the proper fulfilment of the trust reposed in him in his business capacity for some years before his demise.

“I diagnosed his case directly he came under my care, and foretold his ending exactly as it occurred. Nobody having any special knowledge of lunacy work could have failed to do the same. His symptoms were too obvious; but there are many of all classes of society who can now recall, bearing in mind his state at death, innumerable instances showing, even to the most uninitiated, that his mind had been more or less unhinged ever since his return from Europe more than three years ago.

“George Merriman was known to all classes of the community as a man without vices, of the soul of honour, and if he had had it in his mind to have been a villain, he could have done so any time for years past to a vastly bigger tune than his accounts are now short by; and instead of leaving his family virtually unprovided for he could have settled on them many of the thousands which have now disappeared, goodness knows where; but his whole large estate has been dissipated wholly and unaccountably by the phantasies of a mind diseased. The aldermen, brother lawyers, doctors, press, merchants, and every other class represented at his last obsequies point unerringly to the conclusion that few, if any, believed him responsible for the sad state of his affairs, and sincerely believe that the All-merciful God before whose bar he has now gone to appear will as inevitably have entered a ‘nole prosequi’ as the Attorney- General of this colony must have done if any jury of his fellow-citizens could have been found to commit him for trial when the surroundings of his case had been investigated.
-Yours, etc., LEIGHTON KESTEVEN” [‘The Daily Telegraph’ 21 November 1893 p 6]

Not all, of course, were able to accept Kesteven’s assessment. The opinion writer in the Northern Rivers District was not alone in his judgement:

“The late city solicitor, Mr. George Merriman is dead and buried. The doctor who attended him in his last hours has expressed the opinion in the papers that Mr. Merriman was practically an irresponsible being for the three years preceding his death, and that, therefore, he was not morally guilty of the crime against the City Council that he committed. Many a time since the beginning of this year have l talked with Mr. Merriman and on those occasions he was as sane as any man in the city. His reputation cannot be whitewashed by any process like that adopted by his medical attendant, and it is foolish to make such experiments. If he had stowed away the stolen money in a drawer, one might believe, that he had a diseased brain when he appropriated it, but he did nothing of that kind.” [‘The Clarence and Richmond Examiner’ (Grafton) 25 November 1893 p 4]

Others believed it best to speak no ill of the dead, while some opted to express their difficulties in dealing with mental illness and the actions of sufferers. In his column ‘Personal Items’, another journalist wrote:

“Ex City-Solicitor Merriman, charged with heavy official embezzlements, but not arrested because of illness, died of brain disease last week in a private hospital. The malady seems to have been of gradual growth, and the case is one tending to show how difficult it is to properly gauge the extent of human responsibility.” [‘The Bulletin’ 25 November 1893 p10]

Merriman’s personal and family financial affairs were in an even greater state of chaos and more than five years of litigation followed in trying to rectify maladministration. The estate of John Viles Dalgarno married to Merriman’s sister Fanny had been dealt with by Fanny as administratix until her death in April 1893 and Merriman as proctor acting for her. In 1894 Minnie Merriman applied to be appointed administratix of Dalgarno’s estate as executor for her husband George whom she alleged was a creditor of Dalgarno. George’s death also brought about an examination of his and members of the family’s administration of the estates of his sister Clara, who died in June 1883, and his father, James, who died in May 1883. A series of court hearings of a suit called in brief “Merriman v Perpetual Trustee Co and others” meandered its way through the Supreme Court (including Appeal hearings) throughout 1895 until December 1899. The court was asked to determine the rights of the parties in the share and interest of Clara Merriman in the estate of the late James Merriman, both real and personal property. Among the parties involved were the children and grand children of James Merriman (namely Clara Merriman (deceased), Emily Lewis and her children, the Dalgarno children of Fanny (deceased), William James Merriman, George Merriman and his widow and executor Minnie Merriman). The non-family members also drawn in to the case were the Perpetual Trustee Company which had become Trustee for James Merriman’s Estate, Isaac Himmelhoch and Horace Bately Allard to whom William Merriman had made an assignment, and the Bank of NSW. The court decided that Clara’s share in her father’s estate had been incorrectly apportioned between her mother and siblings. Accordingly, although with the prior agreement of all parties, James Merriman’s Estate had been also incorrectly apportioned. The Judge declared that as the suit had arisen from the common mistake of all the parties, and as the points before him were only points of law, the costs of all parties up to the hearing, and between solicitor and client, should be paid out of the estate. Emily Lewis nee Merriman further appealed in 1897 alleging an improper withdrawal of funds held in trust for her and her children by the then Trustees, including her brothers William and George, in which the trustees had advanced money to George Merriman supposedly for investment. The money had disappeared and the Court declared a gross breach of trust with the money to be repaid from George Merriman’s estate and if insufficient funds were found then by the other Trustees at the time.

Probate was granted to Minnie Merriman as executrix of George Merriman’s estate in April 1894 and the value of the estate was said to be £965. Notice to submit all claims to the estate was published in November 1894. The City Council put in a claim for £4164 5 2 and in February 1895 it received a payment of £91 1 10. This seems to have been the only payment received. [CoSA: A 00331089, CRS 26/278/240; A-00331153, 26/279/310]. When Council held its Inquiry into the Working of the Corporation in 1898, Alderman John Harris questioned the Town Clerk, Henry Daniels, asking “Was any attempt ever made to get anything out of his estate?” Daniels said “The acting city solicitor at the time made inquiries about it I am sure, because it was a question that cropped up pretty frequently.” Daniels had not inquired himself as he said it had not been his duty to make inquiries but he believed Council got nothing from the estate. [‘Evening News’ 8 March 1898 p7]

Council appears to have made no attempt to seek payment from anyone who might have been a surety for Merriman’s performance of his duties. While it was practice to demand sureties, either from individuals or from an insurance company, it is clear that quite often bonds signed on appointment or insurance policies taken out lapsed and were not replaced. The Finance Committee in 1892 discussed the problem and recommended that Fidelity Guarantees from Insurance Companies should be obtained for various officers. The Committee listed current and proposed fidelity bonds or guarantees for most officers but Merriman is not listed at all. [CoSA: A 00437854, CRS 22/43/24] His original sureties were Captain Benjamin Jenkins and William James Merriman but the bond must have lapsed. Neither appear to have been approached for any restitution. In view of the total confusion of Merriman’s finances and the lack of money in his bank accounts, it is probable that after making the formal claim on the estate, the City Solicitor Waldron may have informally advised that there was no prospect of getting any further recompense.

It is tragic that the efficiency and enthusiasm for the City of Sydney displayed by Merriman in his early years of association with the City as City Solicitor, trustee of public parks and member of Parliament for West Sydney were no longer evident in his final years when his incurable disease brought about his devastating mental and physical collapse.

[This biographical Person registration was researched and drafted by City of Sydney Archives volunteer Marilyn Mason, 2023]

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

CITY OF SYDNEY ARCHIVES
City of Sydney Archives [abbreviation: CoSA]:
https://archives.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/
including City Record Series: CRS 7 Minutes of City of Sydney Council; CRS 21 Reports of Committees; CRS 22 Reports of the Finance Committee; CRS 26 Letters Received; CRS 30 Reports of Committees; CRS 56 City Solicitor’s Packets; CRS 887 Instructions from Mayor Sydney Burdekin
(Many of these records have item descriptions or transcriptions or are digitised)
Further online CoSA references: City of Sydney Assessment Books; Sands Directories of Sydney; City of Sydney Aldermen: https://www.sydneyaldermen.com.au/; Historical Atlas of Sydney: Dove’s Plans, 1880: Maps 4,5,8; 15,17,21; People and Positions.
Hilary Golder: A Short Electoral History of the Sydney City Council 1842-1992; electronic edition: https://archives.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/nodes/view/1900338?keywords=golder&type=all&highlights=WyJnb2xkZXIiXQ==&lsk=56e3a6510bb371405c5415712fea989e
Photographs illustrations:
James Merriman -1: Unique ID A-00041450; Source system ID 005\005713; Alternative ID NSCA CRS 54/499; -2: Unique ID A-00049546; Source system ID 020\020604; Alternative ID NSCA CRS 54/510; -3: Unique ID A-00049547; Source system ID 020\020605; Alternative ID NSCA CRS 54/541
George Merriman: -1: Unique ID A-00041406; Source system ID 005\005668; Alternative ID NSCA CRS 54/454; -2: Unique ID A-00041335; Source system ID 005\005597; Alternative ID NSCA CRS 54/382; -3: Unique ID A-00041360; Source system ID 005\005622; Alternative ID NSCA CRS 54/407; -4: Unique ID A-00049545; Source system ID 020\020603; Alternative ID NSCA CRS 54/500
Houses and buildings associated with Merriman family:
Family home of James Merriman: Osborne House Unique ID A-00023562; Source system ID054\054602; Alternative IDCRS 1035/1070
Cottage occupied by George Merriman and family in November 1883: Undercliff Cottage Unique ID A-00023565; Source system ID 054\054605; Alternative ID CRS 1035/1073
https://docs.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/House-history_-44-Argyle-Street-Millers-Point.pdf

OTHER SOURCES:
Published portraits or drawings of George Merriman:
‘Evening News’ 6 October 1893 p5
‘Australian Town and Country Journal’ 14 May 1887 p13
‘Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser’ 30 November 1889 p1207

Online resources: People, Places and Events:
Australasian Legal Information Institute (A joint facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law): NSW databases: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/nsw/
[Merriman v The Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1896] NSWLawRp 93; (1896) 17 LR (NSW) Eq 325 (2 November 1896): http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWLawRp/1896/93.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=merriman]
Australian Dictionary of Biography online: https://adb.anu.edu.au/
Australian Newspapers and Government Gazettes etc: digitised by the National Library of Australia: https://trove.nla.gov.au/
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the national public health agency of the United States): https://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/stdfact-syphilis-detailed.htm
Inner West Council: Folkestone: https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au; Cyprus Club Preliminary Heritage Assessment by John Oultram Heritage and Design including illustrations from State Library of NSW, Enmore Subdivision Plan no 36
NSW State Archives and Records: https://mhnsw.au/collections/state-archives-collection/
Parliament of NSW: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Pages/home.aspx
including: Former members; Hansard and House Papers

Online resources: Family history:
Australian Newspapers and Government Gazettes etc: digitised by the National Library of Australia: https://trove.nla.gov.au/
Biographical Database of Australia (BDA): https://www.bda-online.org.au/
Internet History Resources: New South Wales Family History Document Service: https://www.ihr.com.au/index.html; including directories, electoral rolls, mining and land records.
Museums of History NSW: NSW State Archives Collection: https://mhnsw.au/collections/state-archives-collection/
NSW Births Deaths Marriages Registry, indexes: https://familyhistory.bdm.nsw.gov.au/lifelink/familyhistory/search?
Online Genealogical Index: https://ogindex.org/
The Ryerson Index (Death notices and obituaries): https://www.ryersonindex.org/
Sydney Grammar School: https://www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au/
Including school archives: https://www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au/community/school-archives/
Transcriptions of NSW Birth, Death or Marriage Registrations by NSW Family History Transcriptions Pty Ltd: https://nswtranscriptions.com.au/pages/about_us.php

Print resources: History of Sydney, NSW Politics:
Margaret Betteridge: ‘Sydney Town Hall: the Building and its Collection’, 2008, Council of the City of Sydney
Roger Bird (ed): ‘Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary’, 7th edition, 1983, Sweet and Maxwell
Brian Dickey: ‘Politics in New South Wales 1856-1900’, 1969, Cassell Australia
Shirley Fitzgerald: ‘Sydney, 1842-1992’; 1992; Hale & Iremonger
Bryce Fraser (ed): ‘The Macquarie Book of Events’, 1983, Macquarie Library
Hilary Golder: ‘Politics, Patronage and Public Works: The Administration of New South Wales, Volume 1 1842-1900’, 2005, UNSW Press
GN Hawker: ‘The Parliament of New South Wales 1856-1965’, 1971, NSW Government Printer
Beverley Kingston: ‘A History of New South Wales’, 2006, Cambridge University Press
Kenneth F Kiple (ed): The Cambridge Historical Dictionary of Disease, 2003, Cambridge University Press

GenderMaleSource system IDTPER-003067

Relationships

CollectionPeople and PositionsOrganisationSydney City CouncilPositionCity Solicitor [multiple departments]Related itemsLetter: George Merriman, City Solicitor's Office to TC. Submit for approval names of Capt Benjamin Memorandum: George Merriman, City Solicitor, forwarding the engrossment of the Appeal Bill. He also Report of Finance Committee - Salaries of officers for 1882Report of Finance Committee - Salaries of officers for 1883Memorandum: George Merriman, City Solicitor, to The Town Clerk. Advising that it would be unwise to Letter: J. Blaxland, Department of Lands. Advisement of the appointment of George Merriman as a trustee Report of the Mayor, John Hardie, on temporary promotions in the City Treasurer's Department Memorandum: George Merriman, City Solicitor, re Council v Phillps, advises in order for a favourable Report of Finance Committee - Salaries of officers for 1885Memorandum: The City Solicitor, G Merriman, gives his opinion on who has the power to allow cattle to be Officers & Servants of the Sydney Corporation [names, positions, salaries, duties]Report of Finance Committee - Salaries of officers for 1886Report of Finance Committee - Salaries of officers for 1888Report of Finance Committee - Salaries of officers for 1891Finance Committee Report - Re adoption of Report of Committee of Inquiry (re fraud)

Registration

Detailed recordNo

Start typing here to find a location	Latitude	Longitude	Zoom	Actions

loading google map....

Save Cancel

Menu

Merriman, George