Monthly Archives: September 2018

183. A P Christensen

2 Replies

CHRISTENSEN Allan Patrick 2824
2 FAB  KIA 28/9/18

Allan Christensen’s father – Anton Christensen – was an immigrant from Norway. The father married Mary Ann Margaret Sherry at Devon in 1890. It appears that the family ran a dairy farm at Alberton in the 1890s. There were 7 children and Allan, born in 1896, was the fourth. A second brother – Walter – also enlisted and survived the War, although he was seriously wounded and had his right leg amputated.

The children grew up in the local area and attended several local state schools. Allan’s name appears on the honor rolls of both Devon North and Yarram state schools. His name also appears on the honor roll for the district of Devon North. And it is also on both the Shire of Alberton Roll of Honor and the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial. On the information form for the (National) Roll of Honour, Yarram was listed as the location with which he was ‘chiefly connected’.

Allan Christensen had his initial medical and enlisted at Yarram on 2/2/16. On his enlistment form there is a handwritten note signed by A(llan). Christensen:

Father born in Norway & naturalized. Mother’s address unknown.

While the mother’s address was, apparently, unknown, the father was working in the local area. He appears on the electoral roll (1915) as a carpenter of Mullundung. Similarly, he was also listed as next-of-kin on the enlistment papers where his address was given as the Goodwood Timber Company at Mullundung. Allan Christensen’s occupation was simply listed as labourer.

On enlistment Private Christensen was single and he was nearly 21 yo. His religion was given as Roman Catholic. However, his brother’s religion on enlistment was given as Church of England.

Private Christensen enlisted as reinforcements for 4 Light Horse Regiment and his group of reinforcements left Melbourne in late July (28/7/16). The details of his time over the next year are sketchy but, presumably, he spent the latter part of 1916 in Egypt.

At the very end of 1916 his file shows that he was in hospital in the UK. It is not clear why he was sent to the UK from Egypt – perhaps he was already ill – but he definitely was hospitalised after arrival ( 26/12/16) in the UK. The condition was described as ‘bronchitis’ and ‘influenza’. An extensive period of sickness and hospitalisation followed, through to the end of September 1917.

Over the first 6 months of 1917, when he was in hospital in the UK, Private Christensen was obviously very sick. In his file, there is a detailed medical report from Tidworth Hospital, dated 15/3/17, which lists his condition as ‘T.B. of lung’ and dates the disability from December 1916. The report states:

Patient states that he was never ill previous to enlistment. Was ill on boat en route for England from Australia for a few days with Influenza and one week after arrival here he was taken ill with present complaint. He complained of weakness, cough and pains in chest and abdomen.

The same medical report gave ‘exposure’ as the cause of the ‘disability’ and found that it had been ‘aggravated by military service’. The report also noted that he was ‘very anaemic’, was experiencing ‘night sweats’ with elevated temperatures and had lost some 2 stone in the past 2 ½ months.

The recommendation of the Medical Board at the time was that Private Christensen be discharged. However this obviously did not take place. Possibly the TB was a mis-diagnosis, in as much as there is a references in the report that … (4) Sputum looks tubercular though so far no TB germs have been found.

Far from being repatriated to Australia for medical discharge, Private Christensen was discharged from hospital mid 1917 and returned to duty. Interestingly, there is a reference to him in a letter sent by Laurence Irvine. The letter was dated 5/6/17 and it was published in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 3/8/17. Irvine , before he enlisted, had worked at the local Co-Operative Store in Yarram and he was writing to his fellow workers in Yarram informing them of other locals they would have known. Irvine was stationed at Candahar barracks at the same time as Christensen.  Clearly, in Irvine’s opinion, Christensen was suffering from chronic ill health, there was little chance of his recovery and he should have been repatriated:

Allan Christensen was boarded to go home, but was found fit for duty, but I think that as soon as the cold weather comes he will be in hospital, where he was this last four months.

In late August 1917, when he was still in the UK, stationed at Candahar Barracks, Christensen was picked up by the military police in Tidworth and charged with being AWL. His punishment appears to have been nothing more than an admonishment.

In September 1917, Gunner Christensen, now attached to the Artillery – 2 Field Artillery Brigade – moved to Larkhill and in November he proceeded to France where at the very start of December (1/12/17) he was finally taken on the strength of 102 Battery.

Gunner Christensen was sent to France in mid November 1917. Then in February 1918 he was again repatriated to hospital in the UK, this time suffering from ‘trench fever’. After recovery he was posted back to France and rejoined his unit mid June (14/6/8). He was subsequently killed in action less than 4 months later on 28/9/18.

The war diary for 2 Field Artillery Brigade gives a picture of the situation at the time of Gunner Christensen’s death. The unit was involved in the major assault on the Hindenburg Line near Jeancourt on the morning of 28/9/18. The assault also involved American units. Over the period of the afternoon of 27 to the morning of 28 September, Gunner Christensen’s unit – 102 Howitzer Battery – fired some 600 rounds at the wire of the Hindenburg Line trying to cut ‘lanes’ for the attacking troops. When the attack began at 5.50 a.m. on 28 September, with a covering barrage, the diary records how the advancing American troops were able to move through the wire that had been cut. The unit diary also highlighted the perils of their over-enthusiasm:

As the barrage lifted the American attacking troops kept well up but after passing the wire and trenches to the West of Bellicourt, the attacking troops got into our own barrage and many casualties were inflicted by shrapnel. This was apparently owing to eagerness on their part and no fault of the artillery.

The German response to the barrage on the morning of 28 September was described as ‘weak’. Similarly, the day before, the German response to the wire cutting efforts of 102 Battery had been only ‘intermittent’. Notwithstanding these qualifications, Gunner Christensen was killed on the morning of 28 September by German artillery fire. It appears that he was the last man of his unit to die in action.

There is a Red Cross Report which provides a detailed account of Gunner Christensen’s death:

I was on the same gun with him. We were at a place which was called “Dan’s Gully”, between Jeancourt and Nouroy, when a shell landed on the dugout in which Christensen was resting. He was killed instantly. I pulled his body out which was taken away, but I know nothing of the burial place.

D. Worrell (9997) 2 Field Artillery Brigade 2/5/19

I saw Christensen of 102nd How. Bty. Killed instantly by gas shell (hit in back) in a dugout abt. 7 or 8 a.m. between Jeancourt and Bellicourt (near Jeancourt). I don’t know about burial but I think he was buried in Hancourt. He was the last man in the Bty to be killed in action.

Dvr. A. C. Collins (29716) 102 How. Bty. 28/4/19

I saw Christensen’s (of 102nd How. Bty.) body after he was killed by shell through back in a dugout near Jeancourt abt. 7 a.m. He was the only man in the dugout. We got him out unconscious and he died a minute of two after. I don’t know where buried. Padre Major Webb will have buried him.

Gnr V. K. Clark (31842) 102 How. Bty. 14/5/19

Gunner Christensen was buried at Hancourt British Cemetery, 6 ½ miles from Peronne.

The cable advising of the death was dated 2/10/18. The death was reported in the local paper on 18/10/18:

We regret to record the death of Gunner A. P. Christensen, son of Mr Anton Christensen, who was killed In action on 28th Sept. last. Gunner Chrlstensen, who enlisted in Yarram, had seen just over two years’ service. The sad message was sent to his mother, 412 William St., West Melbourne , on 11th inst.

The mother inserted a death notice in the same edition of the paper:

CHRISTENSEN.- No. 2824, Gunner A. P. Chrlstensen, killed in action on 28th Sept.,1918, after two years and two months’ service.

A soldier and a man, sadly missed.
One of the best, a loving son.
So kind and true,
So dearly loved, so sadly missed, by everyone he knew.
The hardest part is yet to come,
When the other boys come home, .
For we’ll miss among the happy throng, dear Allie,
Who will never come.
-Inserted by his loving mother.

There is no record of any personal kit being returned, nor any request from his family regarding same. The AIF had difficulty in tracing the father, as next-of-kin, to receive the medals and other memorials. The father changed address at least 3 times over the period from the end of the War to the early 1920s. In the end, it appears that the medals were entrusted to the mother.

The brother, Walter Christensen, was given a medical discharge in early 1920. That year, on the second anniversary of his brother’s death he inserted the following in memoriam. It appeared in the local paper on 29/9/20:

CHRISTENSEN – In sad and loving memory of my dear brother, Gunner Allan N. C. (sic) Christensen, killed in action 28th Sept.,1918, at Grandprie[l] Wood, France.
His King and country called him,
The call was not in vain;
On Australia’s roll of honor,
You will find my dear brother’s name.
– Inserted by his loving brother, Wallie (late A.I.F.)

Gunner Christensen was the last of the Shire of Alberton men killed on the Western Front.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

National Archives file for CHRISTENSEN Allan Patrick
Roll of Honour: Allan Patrick Christensen
First World War Embarkation Rolls: Allan Patrick Christensen
WW1 Red Cross files: Allan Patrick Christensen

O’Callaghan G (Comp) 2006, Clonmel to Federation: Guide to people in the Port Albert area 1841-1901, Vol 1, The Alberton Project

Additional family information provided by Di Christensen, relative.

181. Returning home in 1918

Leave a reply

This post examines the series of welcome home celebrations staged in the Shire of Alberton in 1918 to the end of hostilities in November. In all there were 29 such celebrations reported in the local paper – Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative – over the period. On a few occasions a welcome home was combined with a farewell to one or more soldiers about to embark for overseas service. Of the 29 occasions, 8 involved welcome home events in Yarram and the rest were divided across the smaller towns and settlements in the Shire: Stacey’s Bridge (2), North Devon (4), Alberton (2), West Alberton (1), Port Albert (1), Won Wron (3), Wonyip (1), Binginwarri (1), Willing South (1), Stradbroke (1), Kjergaard (1), Carrajung (1), Lower Whitelaw (1), Lower Bulga (1).

Some men who had in fact returned prior to 1918 were also ‘welcomed’ again at some of the events in 1918. Also, men could be welcomed home in more than one location. Commonly, they would attend a welcome in Yarram and then they would also be welcomed home in their particular township, or even in more than one township. Some men returned to Australia before 1918 but they remained in hospital in Melbourne for extended periods and did not return to the Shire for an official welcome until some time in 1918. Lastly, there could have been some men who enlisted from the Shire of Alberton and who returned to Australia for medical discharge in 1918 but who never returned to the Shire. With all these qualifications in mind, it appears that over the course of 1918, 40 men were welcomed home in the 29 formal events referred to above.

By way of comparison, prior to the 40 men in 1918, 12 men had been formally welcomed home in 1917, 8 men in 1916, and one person – William Andrew Newland who became the local recruiting sergeant – in 1915. Clearly, over 1918, there was a dramatic increase in the number of men being discharged. Some would have seen this increase as incontrovertible evidence of the desperate need to provide reinforcements for the AIF. At the same time, all would have seen it as dramatic proof of the escalating human cost of the ‘sacrifice’ that had been exacted over the past 4 years.

The local state school was often used as the venue for welcome home celebrations. For example, there was a major function held at the Yarram school on Anzac Day 1918 when 12 men were welcomed not just home but also to their old school. It was the largest welcome home event staged in 1918. Other local schools involved in welcome home celebrations included Stacey’s Bridge, North Devon, Willing South, Lower Whitelaw and Lower Bulga.

There appear to have been a number of reasons why the school was such a popular venue. In the case of Yarram there was the ongoing issue about attendance at such functions. As noted previously, there was the constant complaint from speakers at these events that not enough locals were prepared to show up and demonstrate their support for the men, either those leaving for overseas or those returning wounded. At a welcome home as late as October 1918, Councillor Barlow was reported in the local paper (11/10/18) lamenting the poor attendance but, at the same time, acknowledging the presence of the school children. The lack of attendance was only really an issue in Yarram. Events staged in the other townships were invariably well attended. They also almost always featured a more expansive program which included a social and/or dance to ensure a genuine community celebration.

While staging the event at the school guaranteed an audience, much was also made of the appropriateness of the school per se. Speakers claimed that it was the local school that had formed the initial, critical character of the men who had enlisted. Rossiter, the editor of the local paper, expressed this argument when he spoke at a welcome home for Robert McKenzie at Devon North State School in February 1918. His comments were reported in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 22/2/18:

It is fitting that these send-offs and welcomes should take place in the school, for here, as in every country community, the school is the centre of local interest, and when we consider that in nearly every case it was in this school that these soldiers have received their early training in love of country, it is highly desirable that it should be in that building they should be bid “god speed” or “welcome’.

Rossiter’s comments placed the local school as a critically important institution in the formation of the Australian soldier’s character. In the report (26/4/18) of the 1918 Anzac Day welcome home ceremony referred to above, Rev. Walklate, another of the district’s outspoken Imperial Loyalists, highlighted the specific significance of the school curriculum. It is clear that the experience of WW1 was redefining the traditional (Imperial) narrative that had prompted such high levels of patriotic loyalty and duty at the outbreak of WW1. The claim that Australia’s true history only really began with Gallipoli was by then common place. Even Federation – less than 20 years earlier – had been replaced.

Rev. C. J. Walklate said that the 25th April three years ago was the beginning of Australian history. They [the school children there that day] had read of the exploits of our explorers, who had mapped out the land for civilisation to come and make homes for the present generation. But the tragic landing at Gallipoli eclipsed everything else. They had read of the charge of the Light Brigade, but what the Australians had done put that feat in its shade, when they landed against such great odds on 25th April 1915.

In general, the themes highlighted at the welcome home events were often identical to those used at farewells. For example, much was made of the sacrifice and heroism of those returning and both qualities were often contrasted with the self-interest and cowardice of those ‘eligibles’ who refused to go. B P Johnson, welcoming the returned soldiers, reflected pointedly at the same Anzac Day event:

Many have died, but their names will never die; memory of them will live far beyond those eligibles who remain at home.

Johnson would learn just one month later that his own son had been killed (14/5/18).

The soldier as the true son of the ‘pioneer’ was another common theme. There was a very large welcome home social – 170 in attendance – held at Won Wron in early May 1918. One of the speakers was reported (8/5/18) as declaring that … the character of the child came from that of the parents, so there was no need to wonder at it. These parents were the pioneers of Gippsland and assisted in making history for Australia, while their sons made history for the world.

The outstanding fighting qualities of the Australian soldier was another common theme. J J O’Connor (9/10/18) declared at a welcome home in Yarram that the … Australian soldier was recognised as the best fighter on the side of the Allies. It was a common claim.

Not surprisingly, the most common theme was that of ‘repatriation’. Speakers laboured the idea that the men returning, both those returning wounded and the thousands who would be discharged at the end of the fighting, had to be ‘looked after’. The details of any large-scale repatriation scheme were still sketchy but the ideal of ‘repatriation’ had become a given. There had to be both recognition and recompense. In 1918, civic leaders were fearful that the local community did not appreciate the size of the problem and would even be indifferent to the men’s situation, as they been indifferent to so many other aspects of the War. Just before the Armistice, at a welcome home to A J Martin in Yarram on 30/10/18, B P Johnson was reported in the local paper (1/11/18) as declaring:

There was a big thing facing the people of Australia in regards to the returned men, and that was repatriation: and as yet the public did not seem to grasp it. In this district it was not very apparent, as most of those who had returned had, in their independence of spirit, not asked for help. However, the time would come when men would return to the district who needed help, and the people must be ready with that assistance, for if anyone deserved a helping hand it was those men who had fought for us. It would not be conferring a favor but simply endeavoring to repay in a small measure a debt that was due. No matter what was done for the returned lads, it would only be as a drop in a bucket compared with what they had done for us.

In rural areas, the idea of repatriation equated to settling the returned soldier on the land. It was seen as a natural reward for their effort and it was commonly believed that returning soldiers would be the very type that could make a success of it. Also, the common labourers and farm workers amongst them had won the chance to better themselves by becoming land owners. At another welcome home at Won Wron on 11/10/18 – reported on 16/10/18 – one of the local farmers was reported as hoping that … the Government would do its duty by such as he [D’Arcy Brown, the soldier being welcomed home] who had risked his life for Australia. The boys had fought for it [land] and it was theirs, if the Government did right it would give, not sell to returned soldiers the land they required. They had gone forth and fought for it while others just as able remained at home, getting high wages and at ease.

While, not surprisingly, the common sentiments expressed at the welcome home events were those of relief and gratitude, the events also highlighted the ever-present division in the local community. This was particularly the case involving the larger more set-piece welcomes, especially those held in Yarram or those that featured leading Imperial Loyalists as the key speakers. In such instances, the welcome home presented a public platform to attack eligibles, press for recruits and chastise the community generally for not lending sufficient support for the War. A striking example of this behaviour was the welcome home at North Devon on 13/9/18. It was reported in the local paper, in great detail, on 18/9/18. The event, which was very well attended, had a dual purpose: to welcome home and present a special medallion to 8 recently returned local men and also to honour the … memory of those who had fallen. The returned men sat on the stage throughout. The event was organised by the North Devon ‘Old Boys’ Association’, a local committee that throughout the War had been very active in ensuring all those who left from and returned to the district of North Devon were recognised and celebrated. However, for some reason, the key speakers on the day were two of the most outspoken Imperial Loyalists from Yarram. Benjamin Couston was the bank manger of the Yarram branch of the Bank of Victoria and the Rev Cyril John Walklate was the Methodist minister from Yarram.

Couston started his long speech by praising the returned men on the stage. He declared that, Every heart should be pulsating for the men who had done their duty to their country and had returned home. He then noted that, The people did not appreciate fully what these brave men had done. He then declared that … these men are heroes, and no honor that is bestowed upon them would adequately repay them for what they had done. If the whole wealth of this prosperous district were handed to these men, it would not be one-tenth of what was their due.

Continuing in this effusive style, he could not pass up the opportunity to remind those in the audience that they themselves had been fickle:

They would remember when the lads left this district that there was cheering, singing and flag waving, but some of those who did those things soon forgot the lads.

The real target however was the man who refused to enlist. Couston, who invariably described himself at such gatherings as ‘the father of two soldiers’, saved his fiercest criticism for the eligibles, some of whom he had recently seen playing football at Yarram. There was menace in his remarks:

Why was it that some stood on one side? They were never touched with that patriotic feeling which should be within the breasts of all. When he saw a number of men assembled together the other day at Yarram playing football he asked himself the question. Why weren’t these men playing the game yonder, why weren’t they helping their pals? To his own mind there was only one reason, and that was cussed selfishness. But the time would come when these men would dearly regret their selfishness, as they could not expect to be treated in the same way as the men who had sacrificed themselves.

Couston continued and attacked those who were in favour of negotiations for peace, the ‘pacifists at Trades Hall’ and those who wanted ‘revolution’. For Couston, It was no time to talk of peace. In his mind, the War had to be pursued until Germany was totally crushed, and therefore he urged,

If there was one man in Devon who was eligible he asked him in God’s name to go.

Following Couston, Rev Walklate’s primary focus was not the men on stage being welcomed home, but those who had died. His theme was the universal one of sacrifice, Christian sacrifice. He preached that life only had meaning if it was lived in the spirit of sacrifice. There could be no other measure:

The living of life must be measured by the spirit in which that life was given. Unless the spirit of self-sacrifice entered into man’s life that life was not lived in the true meaning of the word. It was probably hard to understand, but it was true. The men who had fallen and those who are prepared to go forth and make the sacrifice are the men who live. If that spirit of sacrifice died then the men lived no longer. The parents and loved ones of the fallen heroes had done their part, and had lived because they had sacrificed themselves.

With the returned men sitting on the stage as props, Walklate continued his sermon on real life. It was not about ‘wealth’ and ‘social position’ but about ‘sacrifice’. The length of life was not as important as its spiritual quality. There was of course the mandatory text and its explication:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend.” Men worshipped in different creeds, but the final test was whether it was done under the name of Jesus Christ or not. The final test was the test of Jesus Christ, that a man live in that spirit and that he lay down his life for his friend. These men, and these alone, had reached the stepping stone into eternal life.

To make it clear that he too was targeting eligibles, Walklate spoke of the returned men who had confided in him that they felt spurned by locals, while they saw eligibles – who had ‘failed in their duty’ – being favoured. He declared:

One man who had fought and bled [like those on the stage] had told him that many girls were keen to catch the glances of the shirker, but hardly noticed the returned soldier.

Walklate went so far as to condemn, in the religious sense, the man who would not accept his responsibility. Such a person would not enter the kingdom of God. He warned … those who were enjoying the comforts of this life would find out their mistake later on, as they would soon die, and they could not live again. Only sacrifice, in this case in the cause of the Nation and Empire, could guarantee eternal life:

The entrance to eternal life was by sacrifice, and if people did not respond to life’s responsibilities, they would have an awakening [fateful reckoning] in the life to come.

The final speaker that night was a local, the father of Edwin Alford who had been killed in April that year (Post 158). Alford had just been given a medallion for his dead son. He rounded out the condemnation of all those who had refused to enlist:

Mr. Alford said he would value the token received that evening all the days of his life. He was an Australian, and was proud to be one. He also felt proud to know that his boy had gone and done his duty. He would sooner any son of his fight and die for his country than to remain home and be a coward. He said to those fathers who had sons, to send one to the front to see themselves from dishonour. Neither himself nor his wife would wish to have a son who shirked his duty. (Applause.)

It is clear that those on the stage that night were being welcomed back to a divided community where there was much grief, frustration, anger and bitterness.

The returned men themselves

The men welcomed home in 1918 were the ones who had been repatriated to Australia for a medical discharge. They returned home with their health significantly compromised. In several cases they were not able to attend welcome home ceremonies because they were still recovering in hospital in Melbourne. In other cases, when they attended such functions they were not able to speak because of ‘nerves’. In other instances they appeared before the locals as amputees. The standard approach to handle the nature and extent of battle wounds was to appeal to notions of manhood and Empire. As W G Pope declared at a welcome home in March 1918 (reported on 20/3/18):

He was sorry to see some of them wounded, but these scars would be their glory for the rest of their lives. They had proved to be men of the same description of our Nelson and Wellington heroes.

The report in the local paper also noted the similar remarks of Rev A R Raymond, the local Anglican clergyman:

Rev. A. R. Raymond extended a hearty welcome to the soldiers, men who could say they bore marks on their bodies in fighting for King and Country, and in defending right we were [as] proud of them as they were proud of their marks.

Beyond such platitudes, it is worth examining in more detail the condition in which the men returned. Of the 40 men welcomed home in 1918, only two had not been discharged on medical grounds. Henry Cook had been discharged for ‘family reasons’. Four brothers from the family had enlisted, but by 1918 the parents were not able to cope by themselves. The other person was Sydney Collis who had been returned to Australia on Anzac Leave and, in theory, was to return to France for the planned offensive in Spring 1919. However, the medical condition of both these men was problematic. Cook had been wounded – gsw back – and had suffered from shell shock, while Collis had been hospitalised earlier with enteric fever.

Of the remaining 38 men, some had been discharged for ongoing medical issues. One was discharged for chronic bronchitis, another for defective eyesight, a third for hearing problems and a fourth for gastric ulcers and tachycardia. Two men, both in their forties, were discharged for (premature) senility.

The remaining 34 men were discharged on medical grounds that specifically related to battle field experience. Two had been ‘gassed’ and one had been discharged with ‘trench feet’, including ‘blood clots in the legs.’ There was a group of 4 men who had been discharged because of neurasthenia. While only 4 men were discharged solely on the basis of this condition, neurasthenia often occurred in the medical notes of men discharged for other (medical) reasons. The condition was commonly described in terms of ‘shell shock’, ‘paralysis of the legs’, and often tachycardia was included.

The largest group of men (25) were medically discharged because they had been wounded by gunshot (gsw) or shrapnel (sw) or, in the case of Gallipoli veterans, by ’bomb’. The wounds in these instances were most commonly to the chest, back, legs, arms and thigh. Sometimes the wounds were ‘multiple’. There were several amputations – leg, hand, arm – associated with these wounds.

Clearly, even after they had been discharged from hospital, the general health of this group of returned men was going to be problematic. While they were welcomed home as heroes, the reality was that they were to face compromised health, most probably for the rest of their lives. This would affect their lives generally, including work prospects. It also meant that those who were relatively young – most were in the mid to late twenties – and single (33) were most likely going to have to rely on the support of their parents and siblings. The fortunes of the families of the 7 married men would also be compromised, and the burden of care would fall heavily on the wife.

It is also important to note that the most common occupation for men in this group of returned soldiers (50%) was that of ‘farm worker’ or ‘farm labourer’. There was another 25% of the group who came from the ‘family farm’. Essentially, even with a pension and even if they managed to find and keep work or perform a productive role on the family farm, these men were always going to struggle financially. They did not have financial resources to fall back on. Again, notwithstanding the degree to which they were feted on their return – and told to wear their wounds as ‘badges of honour’ – the reality was that their lives had been seriously compromised. The cost of sacrifice fell disproportionately on the rural working class.

There are 2 additional interesting observations. The first is that a significant number of the men – 9 of the 40 – had been UK immigrants who had worked as farm labourers in the Shire before they enlisted in the AIF. Rather than be discharged in the UK these men had returned to Australia and then, once back in Australia, they had chosen to return to the very district where they had worked before the War. Presumably their overall decision was shaped in part by issues such as the need for ongoing medical care and the provision of pensions but, at the same time, the decision to return to the very district where they had worked before the War suggests that they saw themselves as true ‘locals’. Perhaps they also reasoned that they would be better supported in their (adopted) local area.

The other interesting detail is the fact that 25% of the group actually went on to become soldier settlers after the War. There are 2 pertinent observations here. The first is that the figure tends to confirm the view that had soldier settlement as the ‘natural’ vocation for returned soldiers. The thinking at the time was that such men had the right experience, skills and character for the challenge. They were tough, independent and resourceful. Because of their experiences in the AIF they could make the scheme work. Moreover, in the spirit of some form of ‘rural socialism’ these soldier ‘battlers’ deserved the chance to secure land and move beyond the lot of the (itinerant) rural working class. Men wounded in battle had sacrificed even more and the logic had to be that such men deserved the chance as much as any other returned soldier. The other observation is that men whose health had been as compromised as it was for this group, would inevitably struggle more as soldier settlers than those whose health was relatively intact. Essentially, this view holds that these men were set up to fail.

In the last year of the War a record number of wounded men returned to the Shire of Alberton. They were welcomed as heroes. They were promised that everything possible would be done for them and that their sacrifice would never be forgotten. At the time, their sacrifice was also used to condemn those in the community who had refused to enlist. The men themselves must have seen that the community they returned to was divided. What they could not see was the future in which all the promises made would be qualified and their relative standing in the same community compromised. The currency of their scars would decline and the reality was they would never be able to slip back into their old lives and take up again where things were before they enlisted.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

182. T C F McCarthy

Leave a reply

McCARTHY Terence 353
4 Machine Gun Battalion KIA 19/9/18

There is nothing in his service file to tie Terence Charles Francis McCarthy to the Shire of Alberton. He was born in the Melbourne suburb of Kensington. He went to school in Kensington and served for 2 years in the junior cadets there. When his father – John Henry McCarthy – completed the information for the (National) Roll of Honour he also gave Kensington as the location with which his son was chiefly connected. Moreover, the name of Terence McCarthy does not appear on any memorial in the Shire of Alberton, most notably the Shire of Alberton Roll of Honor and the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial. However, there is no doubt that Terence McCarthy was working as a farm labourer in the Shire of Alberton at the outbreak of WW1 and was amongst the very first group of ‘locals’ to enlist. He received railway warrant number 33 from the Shire Secretary to travel to Melbourne on 21/9/14. The date of his enlistment in Yarram was 16/9/14 and his next-of-kin was given as his father, John H McCarthy of Kensington.

Terence Charles Francis McCarthy was born in 1895. His early family story was revealed in a formal statement made by his step-mother in 1922 when she applied to receive his war medals. The statement described how Terence’s mother – Marie McCarthy – died when he was just two years old (1897). His step-mother – Amy Elizabeth McCarthy – first worked as housekeeper for the husband – John Henry McCarthy – and then married him after 2 years. The father died in September 1920. The same statement also refers to an ‘eldest’ brother, Eugene McCarthy. More information on other siblings came from a copy of his will that named his sister – Augusta Mary McCarthy – as the sole beneficiary. Additionally, the (National) Roll of Honour form gave information on an additional 2 older brothers who had also enlisted. Maurice August Dorman McCarthy (6539) was 24 yo and single when he enlisted in November 1915. He was a labourer and was living at Kensington. He survived the War and returned to Australia in July 1919. David Owen McCarthy (5596) was 22 yo and single when he enlisted in July 1915. His occupation was given as printer and he too lived at Kensington. He died of wounds on 1/10/17.

Terence McCarthy, even though he was the youngest brother, enlisted first. As indicated, he was one of the first group of recruits from the Shire and his name – T C F McCarthy – was published in the initial list which appeared in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 23/9/18. On his enlistment papers his occupation was given as ‘farm labourer’. He was only 19 yo so, most likely, he had been working in the local area for just a few years. His religion was Roman Catholic. His medical was also completed at Yarram and there was a note from Dr Pern, one of the local doctors, that his ‘teeth [needed] to be attended to’.

When he enlisted in Yarram on 16/9/14, Terence McCarthy gave his age as 19 years and 4 months. As he was ‘under age’, he should have provided some form of written consent signed by both parents. Often this appeared on just a slip of paper and there was no consistent wording. Unusually, there is no such document in Private McCarthy’s service file. Presumably, he promised such a consent when he enlisted in Yarram but, once he reached camp at Broadmeadows, neither he nor the AIF ever followed up on it.

Like many others in the first group of volunteers from Yarram, Private McCarthy thought he was joining the Light Horse. In fact , ‘Light Horse S. Gippsland’ was crossed out on his enlistment form and he was attached to the newly formed 14 Battalion. His unit embarked for Egypt from Melbourne at the end of 1914 (22/12/14).

Unfortunately, the details of Private McCarthy’s service in 1915 and through to the end of 1917 are very sketchy. After Gallipoli, 14 Battalion moved to France in June 1916 and was involved in the major battles on the Western Front, including Pozieres (August 1916) and Bullecourt (April 1917). There is more detail in his service file for 1918. In January 1918 he had a period of leave in the UK and was then admitted to hospital with VD. The pattern of leave in the UK followed by VD was not uncommon. In his case, the period of illness was recorded as 56 days, the period of time for which his pay would have been docked. He was discharged from hospital in early April.

Private McCarthy remained in the UK until late August 1918. In early May (2/5/18) he was charged with and convicted of ‘making a false statement to his superior officer’ and received 1 day of Field Punishment No. 2. There are no details regarding the nature of the ‘false statement’. In early June 1918, after having served in 14 Battalion for more than 3 years, he was transferred to the Machine Gun Training Depot at Grantham. After another 3 months of training, he was sent back to France where he formally joined 4 Machine Gun Battalion at Camiers on 27/8/18. He was killed in action less than one month later (19/9/18) and almost 4 years to the day when he first enlisted in Yarram.

The cable advising of the death was dated 4/10/18. The body was never recovered and his name appears on the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial. The meagre kit – Rising sun, 1 Wallet, Note book, Post card, Photos – reached Australia one year later in September 1919.

Unfortunately, there was no Red Cross report for Private McCarthy. The War Diary of 4 Machine Gun Battalion describes how the unit was at rest in Longueau (Amiens) until approximately 7 September when it moved to the area near Catelet. The attack opened on the morning of 18 September and was very successful. Casualties were light but there is an specific reference in the account of 12 Australian Machine Gun Company – of 4 MG Battalion – to an officer (Lt E P Prendergast) being wounded and 2 other ranks (Privates Thompson and McCarthy) being killed when the group was hit by a shell in a front line trench. They were the only deaths recorded for the unit on that day. The nature of the death probably explains why there was no grave for either of the two men killed.

There is an interesting letter in Private McCarthy’s file that adds a dramatic note to his death. It was written on 13/10/18 by a Miss M Gray of Malvern. She was his cousin.

Can you give me any information about my cousin Private T. C. F. McCarthy No. 353 14th Batt reportedly killed in action on the 19th of September. I received a letter from him on August 10th at Aus. Machine Gun Training Depot, Park House Salisbury saying he would be home for Xmas, as an order had been published throughout the camp that the 1914 men were to be granted leave he also said that they heard that the 1914 men were not to be sent to the France until definite orders, but if he did his address would alter from the 14th Batt to some permanent Machine Gun unit. He was a Driver in the 14th Batt until a few months ago. So would be very thankful if you could let me know if the 1914 men were sent to France from England after the order was published that they were coming home.

The key point to the letter appears to be the very last sentence. There was obviously a significant tension between the promise after nearly 4 years of war of being sent home on leave and the reality of being returned to the front, with the ongoing possibility of being killed. The story behind this promise of leave back to Australia dates from the decision of the Australian Government in August 1918 to have those who embarked in 1914 – the ‘originals’ – return to Australia for leave. There was a matching recruiting drive urging men to enlist to take the place of the Anzacs being given leave. It was not until September that there was shipping to accommodate this promise. There is no reason to believe that Private McCarthy was not eligible, and the war diary of his unit – 4 MG Battalion – makes it very clear that those who had enlisted in 1914 were in fact being pulled out of the line and sent ‘home’ to Australia. For example, there is an entry for 14 September – 4 days before the attack – that states:

Lieut. Martin and 6 O/Ranks, all 7 having enlisted in 1914, today reported at Btn. H.Q., en route for Italy and so to Australia for six months’ leave.

Similarly, there is an entry for 18 September – the very day of the attack – that notes,

Captain Taylor and 20 O/Ranks left for six months to Australia.

Why Private McCarthy was not one of those withdrawn from the line and sent back to Australia at that point is not known. The poignancy of the situation is all the more powerful given that he was killed at the very time other ‘originals’ were going home on extended leave.

Terence McCarthy was a 19 yo farm labourer who was working in the Shire of Alberton when he enlisted at the very start of the War. He survived 4 years before being killed in action. Someone, presumably the Shire Secretary, wrote in red ink ‘killed’ next to his name on the list of those issued with railway warrants. However, there appears to have been no other recognition of his status as a ‘local’ or his fate. Like many others, he disappeared from the Shire’s history.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

National Archives file for McCARTHY Terence C F
Roll of Honour: Terence C F McCarthy
First World War Embarkation Roll: Terence C F McCarthy

180. Farewells in 1918

2 Replies

According to reporting in the local paper, the number of men who received formal farewells in 1918 was 22. Over the same period of time – the whole of 1918 – the number of local men who enlisted was approximately 40. In other words, about one half of those who enlisted in 1918 were given formal farewells from the Shire of Alberton. It is possible that in one or two cases a more private farewell occurred but it was not reported. It was also the case that another small group of men specifically rejected the offer of a formal farewell. More commonly, as noted in previous posts, men enlisted in Yarram, went off to camp but then never returned to the Shire of Alberton before embarking for overseas service. Hence there was no opportunity for a formal farewell.

Previous posts have shown the background complexities associated with enlistment over 1918. There was considerable ongoing pressure for enlistments, particularly after the major German offensive – and spectacular successes – in April-May 1918.

While public recruiting drives continued to be held locally – see Post 167. The search for ‘eligibles’, May 1918 – many of those who came forward at such public demonstrations failed the medical. There was a further drop-out rate amongst even those who did pass the (local) medical. Either they could not obtain parental permission or they failed subsequent medicals or perhaps they were discharged as unsuitable.

There was also the local recognition that, whatever the official recruiters might claim, the number of eligible men left in the district was small. Estimates suggest that by the end of 1918 approximately 800 men with a link to the Shire of Alberton had enlisted. Consequently, however desperate the need for reinforcements, the reality was that the available pool was, by the end of 1918, very limited. At the same time, this reality was often discounted – particularly by those who spoke at farewells – and the calls for enlistments remained right to the end of the War. The denunciation of ‘cold footers’ and ‘shirkers’ also continued to the end.

An indication of how the pressure was maintained to the end comes from the observation that men continued to enlist right through to early November 1918. Indeed, 3 men – James Wentworth Davis, Albert McEvoy and Christian Gregory Olsen – received their railway warrants for travel to Melbourne to complete the enlistment process on the very day of the Armistice, 11/11/18. Equally, as will become apparent, formal farewells were held through to the end of October 1918.

As previously noted, the farewells staged in the small settlements or townships of the Shire – places such as Womerah, Stacey’s Bridge, Lower Bulga, Wonyip – tended to be more community-focused and elaborate than those conducted in Yarram. Invariably in these places, the farewell was incorporated in a social of some kind, there was a very large attendance and the men being farewelled received not just the conventional Shire Medallion and (religious) Card but also some additional remembrance, for example a ‘wristlet watch’ or a ‘gold locket’ or inscribed ’gold medal’. In Yarram, attendance always seemed to be an issue and, as previously noted, A E Paige, the head teacher of the primary school and one of the common speakers, would often bring a party of students from the school to help make up the numbers. The problem with farewells at Yarram was that they were invariably used for recruiting purposes. The farewells were organised by the same group of Imperial Loyalists who were involved in the various iterations of the local recruiting committee and they also backed the Yes vote in the 2 referenda on conscription. Eligibles would hardly attend farewell – or welcome home – events at Yarram and, over time, ordinary locals would, inevitably, become reluctant to attend to be harangued on the need for enlistments. Then, when the numbers attending dropped, the speakers attacked the townsfolk for being indifferent to the War situation and the sacrifice of those being farewelled.

The themes employed by speakers at the farewells, both in Yarram and the outlying centres, remained constant to the end of the War. Loyalty to England and the Empire was ever present. As was the praise of those in the AIF and the conviction that as a fighting force it ranked with the very best. Indeed, for many it had proved itself to be the best fighting unit in the world. Speakers referred to commentary in the newspapers that constantly pushed this claim. Often there were also references to the young man enlisting as representing the very best character and spirit of the original ‘pioneers’ of the district. The pioneers had battled to settle the land and now their descendants were battling to protect what had been created. But by far the most constant theme was the one that had enlistment as a test of character; and this was after 4 years of constant appeals for enlistments, endless recruiting drives and 2 failed referenda on conscription. The essential dichotomy was there throughout the entire period of the War: that while most Australian men proved themselves loyal and brave and enlisted, there was a solid core who refused to acknowledge their responsibility and, no matter what pressure was applied, did not enlist. The sub themes here were that such men were cowardly, they forced mere boys and married men to take their place and do their duty, and they took the jobs of those who had enlisted voluntarily. These men were to be despised. They would forever be outcast because they had never been part of the AIF. Moreover, they must never be able to take either the jobs or the promotions of those who had enlisted.

Often, the various themes and sub themes ran together. For example, Leo Furlong was farewelled from the school at Lower Whitelaw on 21/1/18 and then again at the Womerah Hall on 22/1/18. The farewells were reported in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 30/1/18 and 6/2/18. Furlong enlisted as a 21 yo . His family ran a dairy farm. One of the speakers at Womerah was Henry John Alford another local dairy farmer who had take a strong, public pro-conscription position. At the time, his son – Edward J Alford – was serving in the AIF. He would be killed on 14/4/18 (Post 158). Alford started by declaring that at Womerah … practically all the eligible men had enlisted … and now married men and boys were going. Accepting that this was the case, in such a small community the locals would have known which ‘eligibles’ had not enlisted. Alford went on to dismiss one of the arguments – it was not Australia’s fight – put up by those who refused to enlist. In the process, Alford not only questioned their reasoning but attacked their base character. These were not real men:

Unfortunately there were men (so called) who refused to take any part in the defence of Australia. They said, “This is England’s quarrel, not ours. If an enemy should land in Australia we would fight.” He would say to those men, “If England goes down Australia is doomed. Only the British navy protects us”. Should an enemy land in Australia there would be no scrub on the hills thick enough to hide those heroes.

Another local farmer who spoke that day – Matthew Thomas – managed to tie together a range of themes:

Mr. Mat Thomas said there were two classes of men who were not taking their part in the war. Those who would like to go, but were afraid, who he felt sorry for, the other class were those who would like to see the enemy win who were traitors, and should be turned out of any position they held. No returned soldier should be looking for work while one of these men held a position.

In May 1918, not long after his son had been killed, H J Alford spoke at another farewell from Womerah. It was reported on 7/6/18. Of the 2 men farewelled that night, William H Clemson was very young. He gave his age as 19 yo but in fact he might have been as young as 16 yo. It was a complicated enlistment and, indeed, he might not have lasted in the AIF, presumably because he was so young. In any case, it must have been Trooper Clemson’s very young age that prompted H J Alford to declare:

It was a shame that young men of more mature years [those not as young as Clemson] should stand back and allow a boy to go to fight for them. If there were any eligible men there that night who could go he appealed to them in God’s name to go at once while yet there was time; if not, how could they face these boys when they came back? They would stand branded all their days as shirker, who in their country’s danger refused to defend her.

Clearly, the stage was set for some form of orchestrated reckoning when the War ended and the men of the AIF returned home. The heroes of the AIF, backed by the general community, would confront and settle the score with the ‘traitors’, ‘cold footers’ and ‘shirkers’.

There was another theme that touched on family sacrifice, or, more pointedly, the father’s sacrifice. As indicated, H J Alford’s son had been killed in April 1918. Another very public Imperial Loyalist, B P Johnson, lost his son in mid May 1918 (Post 164). Men in the public eye, who were in favour of conscription and who advocated ceaselessly for enlistments, promoted the enlistment of their own sons as praiseworthy and proof of their own loyalty. They even loosely cast themselves as modern-day Abrahams, where they, as well as their sons, were making great personal sacrifice. Benjamin Couston was the manager of the Yarram branch of the Bank of Victoria. He had been in Yarram since late 1916. He was pro-conscription and had served on the local Yes committee. He was constantly attacking ‘eligibles’ and claimed he saw them playing football locally. At public farewells, he praised his own sons for enlisting while attacking those … who had no encumbrances but were hanging back and would not enlist. (28/6/18). At the farewell for Private H Brand held in Yarram on 26/6/18, and reported in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 28/6/18, Couston once again attacked the eligibles but did so in the context of the personal sacrifice that he, as the patriarch, was called upon to make:

He [Couston] knew of no reason and would acknowledge no reason why eligible men should stay at home. They had no right to do so when their country was calling. The Empire was tottering to its foundations and during no time in history had it been in such deadly peril. … He could not understand eligibles remaining at home. His second son who was only 20 years of age, had just written asking for consent to enlist. One was in camp, and this as his only remaining boy, and he considered whether he ought to sacrifice the manhood of his family for those cold-footers who were remaining in security. There were other people with six or seven eligible sons who had done nothing.

A few weeks later on 10/7/18 it was the turn of Couston’s son – Kenneth Couston, who had enlisted on 1/6/18 as an eighteen-year-old – to be farewelled from Yarram. The farewell was reported in the local paper on 12/7/18. Again the young age of the recruit was noted. In fact, the comments on the day by George Bland – one of the key figures responsible for organising farewells and welcomes – smacked of desperation:

Mr. Geo. Bland said it was another instance of a youth taking a man’s place. So much had been said on that question that it seemed useless to endeavour to persuade men of more mature years to enlist.

When his turn came to speak, Couston declared that – like Abraham – he was prepared to sacrifice everything, in this case for the Empire and the Allies:

Mr. B. Couston said that on behalf of his son he thanked them for their kindly wishes. The present time was not a time when a father could put his feelings into words. He had given all he had – his two sons – for the cause of the Empire; and no father could do more. He would sacrifice everything to advance the cause of the Allies (Applause).

The same sentiment was being expressed as late as October 1918. There was a farewell held at Womerah on 1/10/18 – reported in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 9/10/18 – for James Summerfield who had enlisted at the end of May 1918. The father was prepared to commit his son to the ‘fiery furnace of war’. He was reported thus:

Since he was 18 the boy had wanted to go, but he held him back, considering him too young. He was now 20, and going with his full consent. Though he was as anxious as anyone to see early peace declared, but (sic) rather than have an inconclusive peace he would wish to see the war continue and his boy pass into the fiery furnace of war till the beast of Berlin was securely chained. (Applause.)

Wilfred Owen’s poem, The Parable of the Young Man and the Old [below] explored the fateful consequence of the patriotic fervour of such patriarchs.

The penultimate farewell from the Shire of Alberton took place at Won Wron on 28/10/18 and was reported in the local paper on 6/11/18, five days before the Armistice. The event was a social-dance for George ‘Jim’ Clark and the hall was packed. Clark was a 20 yo ‘saw mill hand’ who had enlisted on 2/8/18. As well as being presented with the usual Shire Medallion and Card, Private Clark was also given a certificate in a blackwood frame. The theme referred to that day was the common one of ‘playing the game (of football) as part of a team’.

When attending the school, he had always upheld its traditions and he felt sure that by the stand he had taken, he would uphold the standard already attained by the Australian soldiers. (Applause) … When the opposition [football] team needed a bump “Jim” could give one, and he felt sure now that he is a “member of the team” out for justice and liberty, he will endeavour to give the enemy a good solid bump. He possessed the many fine and sterling qualities of his parents and was certain he would uphold Australia’s good name.

The very last farewells from the Shire of Alberton occurred on the night of 29/10/18 and the morning of 30/10/18. Both events were reported in the local paper on 1/11/18. On the night of 29/10/18 Ernest George Griffiths was farewelled from Stacey’s Bridge. The next morning there was another farewell for him in Yarram. At this second farewell, one other local – Roy William Turnbull was also farewelled, and Sapper A J Martin was welcomed home. Ernest Griffiths was a 21 yo clerk whose family was from Stacey’s Bridge. He had enlisted in August 1918 but, as was pointed out in speeches on the night, he had been trying to enlist since 1916. Roy William Turnbull was only 19 yo. He was a bank clerk from Yarram and he had enlisted in July 1918.

By this point – early November 1918 – there was a growing sense that the fighting had just about finished. Speakers remarked that the news from the front was ‘much brighter’ and it was possible that neither of the men being farewelled would face battle. They were quick to add:

Privates Griffiths and Turnbull had enlisted some time ago, and the fact that they were just about to sail did not detract in any way from the spirit in which they had enlisted.

Specifically in relation to Private Griffiths, the chair of the farewell at Stacey’s Bridge declared that … Private Griffiths was not going to the war because he thought it was nearly over. To his credit he enlisted three years ago, and has tried several times since. This time [18/8/18] he was successful.

The key theme for this last set of farewells saw the return to the legacy of the pioneers. The chair at the Yarram farewell – George Bland – effectively summed up both the Shire’s overall contribution and the ongoing link with the pioneers and their spirit. He declared that the 2 men being farewelled were … grandsons of pioneers of the district, and it was pleasing to see that the grand old spirit which was in the blood of their grandfathers had been inherited by these boys. Almost every district family was represented at the front, and he was proud to say the boys had proved their worth.

The same theme was picked up by B P Johnson. Johnson had returned to his role as key speaker at such events after a period of several months following the death of his son. The sub-theme of racial superiority comes through in all the references to the superior (White and British) ’blood’ of the pioneers.

Mr. B. P. Johnson said in regard to the two boys that were going to the war, they were descendants of old pioneers of the district, and blood tells every time. Their forefathers were men who came out to this country and showed they had true British blood in their veins by the work they had done, and their boys were now going forward to lend their assistance to a cause that was keeping from these shores a fate worse than death.

Johnson of course had been present at the very first farewell of men from the Shire of Alberton at the Alberton Railway Station on 21 September 1914. On the day, there had been much enthusiasm, but that very first farewell had been poorly organised – see Post 11 – and the men nearly did not make it to the station. Johnson, conscious of the second-rate and very amateurish send-off the men were being given, promised to make it up to them with a ’tip-top reception’ when they came back. At that first farewell, all the newly enlisted men were enthusiastic and confident. There was an overabundance of volunteers. The community was totally behind the men. There was no real challenge for any speaker on that occasion. Johnson simply declared:

You are a decent lot, and we are proud of you fellows. You are going to the biggest battle the world has ever seen. It will not be a picnic. You will have a hard time, but we know you will do your duty. I only wish I were a few years younger and I would be amongst you, (Cheers). The Empire is proud of men like you. We know you will come back victorious. We’ll win the fight, even if it takes every man and every shilling we’ve got. We’re fighting for right.

Just over 4 years later, at the end of 1918, farewells had become very different affairs. In the past 4 years, 800 men had enlisted from the Shire and more than 100 had been killed. For at least 3 of the 4 years, recruiting drives had been a constant, draining feature of life for everyone. Two conscription referenda had been defeated. Enlistment targets could not be met and the Government claimed constantly that the nation was failing its soldiers on the front line. In the conservative, rural community of the Shire of Alberton, Imperial Loyalists had not been able to comprehend, or accept, the defeat of the conscription referenda. Principally, they saw the treachery in the City but they also saw evidence of it in their own community, with some not prepared to share the sacrifice. Overall, while formal farewells still acknowledged individual sacrifice, loyalty and selflessness – particularly amongst the very young – they had also become very public demonstrations of division, bitterness, frustration and disillusionment. This was particularly the case for those farewells held in Yarram.

The Parable of the Young Man and the Old

So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
and builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretchèd forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.

But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative