Author Archives: pcashen

About pcashen

Retired South Australian high school teacher and social historian.

216. Sentiment vs the market: Archie Morley’s failed bid to become a soldier settler

Archie Morley was born in Gormandale in 1889. He grew up in the town and attended the local state school.

Archie married Olive May Scarborough in 1914 and by the time he enlisted in 1916 there were two children: Rupert George Morley (1915) and Arthur Robert Morley (1916).

Archie Morley enlisted at Sale in early February 1916. He was 26 years old, and he was leaving behind a wife and two very young children. His religion was given as Presbyterian and his occupation as farmer. As we will see, he and a brother were farming on land leased from W E Cumming.

According to the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative (8/3/16) Archie was farewelled from Gormandale, with another 5 local men, at a social in early March 1916. Each of the men was presented with a fountain pen and an indelible pencil ‘for writing many messages home’.

Archie Morley joined 21 Battalion and embarked from Australia on 3/10/16. After training in England, he finally reached France in mid February 1917. His service on the Western Front was relatively short because he was wounded on 28/4/17. He was hit in the left shoulder by what was described as either (gsw) gun shot or shrapnel. It was a serious wound: ’shrapnel’ / ‘gsw left shoulder severe; fractured clavicle’ and it marked the end of his service. After hospitalisation, he was returned to Australia (21/11/17) and discharged as ‘medically unfit’ (26/12/17).

He received a welcome home at Gormandale – along with 3 other men – in early March 1918. Again, it was written up in the local paper. The account described the men being … welcomed home in a right royal way. Each man was presented with … a gold medal, bearing the inscription, with name, “Service abroad, A.I.F., 1914-17. For duty bravely done. Awarded by residents of Gormandale and district.”

Obviously, Archie Morley returned from the War with a serious disability. He was in his late twenties, married with two young children. A third child – Vera May Morley – was born in 1918. On discharge, his pension and the allocations to his wife and children came to £6/5/0 per fortnight. Back in his local community, not surprisingly – and not withstanding his significant disability – Archie was keen to take advantage of the government scheme to place returned men on the land. On the face of it, he was the perfect match for the scheme.

But there was more to Archie Morley’s background, specifically his family background, that, at least in the eyes of the locals, boosted his entitlement to become a soldier settler in the local area. Indeed, there was considerable support for him right across the Shire of Alberton, not just in the Gormandale district, because of the widespread conviction that the Morley family had well and truly ‘done its duty’.

Five of the Morley boys had enlisted and three had been killed. Of the two who survived, Archie Morley, as already noted, had been discharged on medical grounds, and the other brother – Charles Victor Morley – served until September 1918 when he was returned to Australia to be discharged on ‘special’ grounds. The official record covering his early discharge described the circumstances thus: for sake of family; widowed mother; three brothers killed in action. One disabled on active service. It also noted that ‘two sisters and one brother died’ in the time Charles Morley had been in the AIF.

The three brothers killed were: George Thomas Morley, August 1916 (see Post 79), Ernest Edward Morley, May 1917 (see Post 119) – strictly speaking, he was a nephew – and Robert Herbert Morley, October 1917 (see Post 141). The two sisters who died were Mary Elizabeth Morley (1916 aged 35 years) and Annie Morley/Esler (1917 aged 45 years); and the brother who died was Jesse Morley (1917 aged 35 years). He left behind a wife and three small children; and in fact this family had lost an infant son in 1916. By any standard, the years 1916 and 1917 had brought enormous grief to the Morley family; and their tragic story was well known throughout the Shire.

The father of the Morley family (Jesse Morley) had died, aged 53, in 1897. The mother – Sally/Sarah Dove – died at Gormandale in 1939 aged 83 years. Over the War years, the mother was praised in the local press for offering solace and support for grieving families and also for her involvement with the local Red Cross. As an indication of her position in the local community, when the Gormandale memorial was unveiled by the long-serving federal politician G H Wise in December 1923, the Gippsland Times (24/12/23) reported that Wise readily assented to the suggestion that Mrs Morley – five members of whose family had served at the war, three of whom, alas! had fallen in battle – assist him in the unveiling.

With this background, it was hardly surprising that Archie Morley enjoyed considerable community support in his bid to become a soldier settler in the district. His extended family was well known and had lived in the local community of Gormandale for many years. Locals knew of the sacrifices the family had made in the War. They knew of the tragedy that had fallen on the family over the War years. They knew that Archie was returning home from France with a significant disability. They knew he had a young family to support. They knew he had had considerable experience in farming in the local area. They knew he was hard working and independent. They wanted to support him to take up his former life as a farmer.

But while Archie Morley was the perfect match for the soldier settlement program, his attempt proved unsuccessful. It is instructive to learn why his attempt failed. It certainly highlighted one of the inevitable checks on the grandiose program of repatriation at the end of WW1: market forces proved stronger than civic sentiment.

The account of Archie’s failed bid comes from newspaper reports from the time as well as papers from the archives of the Shire of Alberton.

Archive papers of the Shire of Alberton indicate that in early 1919 the various local repatriation committees set up across the shire, as part of the attempt by the Closer Settlement Board to promote soldier settlement, had become exasperated with what they saw as the faults of the state bureaucracy based in Melbourne. The local committee covering the Gormandale district was particularly critical. It formally raised a series of complaints with the Shire of Alberton Council and the Council in turn took up these concerns with the State body. The chief concern was that so few returned men were actually being placed on the land. In fact, the Gormandale committee claimed that despite all its work no soldier had been settled on the land in the district to that point. There was also ongoing criticism of the work of the (land) valuers appointed by the Government. The key issue here was that the local committees involved in the scheme considered that they had the critical local knowledge of both the suitability of land and local property values; but their advice and assessments were generally ignored and that of non-local, government-appointed valuers accepted.

Archie Morley’s case attracted a lot of attention and, by early 1919, it had even made it into the Melbourne papers. For example, an article in The Argus on 12/2/19, under the headline: ‘District Committees’ Powers’, specifically referred to it. The article covered the same general criticisms being made of the Closer Settlement Board across the Shire of Alberton.

One case in particular was cited, that of a soldier named Morley, who, on his return from the war, desired to take up a property which he had worked successfully for three years before enlisting. It was stated that he even went so far as to build a house on the property, and that one man had offered to buy it [the land] back from the Government in three years’ time at the present price. Morley has a qualification certificate, and is one of five brothers who enlisted, three of whom made the supreme sacrifice.

The ‘qualification certificate’ referred to was a formal certificate that established that the individual had the necessary farming background and character to succeed in the soldier settlement program.

There was another article, two months later, in the Morwell Advertiser (18/4/19) that gave more details on the case. Again, the general tenor was one of criticism of the Closer Settlement Board operating from Melbourne.

Before the war Mr Arch Morley and one of his brothers had a six years’ lease of a farm, compromising 105 acres, from Mr W. E. Cumming, Gormandale. Mr. A. Morley was one of the early volunteers, but returned invalided in November, 1917, and he decided to ask the Repatriation Board to purchase the farm for him. The six years’ lease expired the following February [1918], but in view of the negotiations with the Board, Mr. Cumming extended the tenancy for another 12 months, and the other brother went to Queensland. When the soldier returned from the front the owner of the property asked what he was prepared to pay for the land, and he told him £16 per acre all round. The owner agreed to accept the figure, the local valuers and the local repatriation committee said the price was a fair one. Negotiations have been in progress for 12 months, and the soldier is no nearer to getting possession. Four Government valuers have been over the property, and a certain member of the Closer Settlement Board. The latter came with an augur under his arm, for the purpose of testing the soil. The same gentleman, seeing a fine fruit tree on the farm, remarked, “What a pretty tree of quinces,” but it happened to be a pear tree. At first the Board offered £12 an acre for the property, and have since advanced the price to £13 10s and the owner has come down to £15, as he would like the soldier to get the farm, but has been offered £17 an acre by a resident of Gormandale. Mr. Morley was so confident of getting the farm that he has put an additional building on it. The extended lease has just expired and Mr. Morley wants to know what the Closer Settlement Board is going to do. It is cases like the above that have caused the public to lose confidence in the Repatriation and Closer Settlement Boards. It might be added that “The Courier” has communicated with the Minister for Lands (Mr. Clarke) for an explanation in connection with the above, and bringing under his notice the threatened resignation of the Gormandale repatriation committee, but up to the present no reply has come to hand.

Clearly, the Morley case was being used to show how ineffective the soldier settlement scheme had become. The clear suggestion was that external valuers were the key problem; and that negotiations at the local level, where those involved had a better, more informed view of values and other relevant issues, would produce better outcomes. There was also a dig at the supposed expertise of the external officers, who could not tell the difference between a pear and a quince tree! The article also highlighted the degree of frustration weighing on the local (Gormandale) repatriation committee members who were then threatening to resign. These local committees were active in each of the three ridings of the shire. They were small and usually consisted of 2 or 3 successful landholders with a local councillor. They were unpaid positions and often involved a great deal of work – another reason why the members became so frustrated when their advice was apparently ignored.

Beyond the local newspaper reports, Council correspondence from the time provides some additional detail. There is letter dated 20/3/19 from T G Anderson on behalf of the local (Gormandale) ’Shire Repatriation Committee’. The letter noted that Morley had made application for the land 12 months earlier (early 1918). The land itself actually consisted of 2 parcels: one allotment of 74 acres and another of 31 acres. The local valuers determined an average price for the 105 acres of £15/16/9 per acre. The vendor had indicated that he would accept £15/5/0 per acre. The letter noted, re the vendor’s offer: … and this is considered by local land valuers as a reasonable price.

The letter also noted that Morley had rented the land for 3 years before enlisting and that … ever since he returned 16 months ago has been renting and working on this place. There was clearly an expectation on Morley’s part that he would be able to secure the land. The letter noted that, on the assumption that he would get the land through the ‘Government scheme for returned soldiers’, Morley had erected a house and outbuildings for a dairy farm.

Morley was described as married … with three children and a good wife to help him. He was also described as someone who had spent his whole in the district and was respected by all. He was an industrious young man and the committee was confident that he would be successful. The letter also included the reference to a ‘respected valuer’ (W Pentland) who was willing to act as some of guarantor, in that he was prepared to repurchase the land from the Government – at the current value of £15/5/0 per acre – at the end of 3 years if Morley’s venture did not succeed.

The letter also noted that Morley had also built a house for the widow – and her 3 children – of one of his brothers who had been killed in the war. This must have been the family of Ernest Edward Morley, killed 14/5/17. It was not clear where the house was; but possibly it too was built on the land in question.

On the basis of all this background information, the Gormandale Repatriation Committee requested in the letter that the Shire of Alberton take up the issue and urge the Closer Settlement Board in Melbourne to re-open and review the case. In fact, the Shire itself had already formally decided – on 13/3/19 via a successful council resolution – to request that the Closer Settlement Board re-open the case.

The Alberton Shire formally wrote to the Closer Settlement Board on 25/3/19. The Shire Secretary (G W Black) stated:

The Council has given this case careful consideration, and I am directed to ask if the Board will re-open it.

Black continued,

The Council is of opinion that if the proposition has been turned down, as has been alleged, it must have been due to some misapprehension, and it, therefore urges that the case be re-opened, and full consideration given to the representations as set forth in the accompanying letter. [Anderson’s letter of 20/3/19]

The response from the Closer Settlement Board was immediate – the reply was dated 26/3/19, the next day – and it was as definitive. As far as the Closer Settlement Board was concerned the matter was closed and the decision was not going to be reviewed in any way. The tone was as curt as the reply was prompt:

The vendor was offered a price by the Board which was declined, and no further action will be taken in the matter.

There are many unanswered questions here. For example, was Archie Morley encouraged – by the landowner or others in the community – to make the significant improvements to the property in the belief that this would increase the pressure on the Closer Settlement Board to agree to the sale? Similarly, was there an assumption held by Archie Morley, and the local community generally, that, in effect, the Closer Settlement Board was bound to support him and that the actual cost of the land was of secondary importance, particularly given that the local committee had effectively negotiated a ‘reasonable price’? From another perspective – was this a defining case for the Closer Settlement Board, which was determined to uphold its authority in view of all the criticism it was attracting? And, of course, there were the more technical questions: what was the price offered by the Board and how close was it to the price negotiated by the local committee at Gormandale?

Sitting behind all this is another key question. It is one I hope to pursue in coming posts: were the local repatriation committees, intended to work closely with the Closer Settlement Board in Melbourne to support the soldier settlement scheme, keen to drive up the price of land in the district? After all, the committees were made up of significant landholders in the community and they knew that the Government had become a key player in the local land market. The Government needed land for the soldier settlement scheme; and the market now offered considerable potential for profit. And there are some darker questions to do with who really profited from the scheme to put returned soldiers on the land.

But, beyond all the conjecture, there is little doubt that the case highlights the inevitable clash between sentiment – everyone agreed that Archie Morley deserved to become a soldier settler – and market forces. Archie Morley’s dream was denied because the Closer Settlement Board was not prepared to meet the price requested by the vendor. For his part the vendor was not prepared to accept the price offered by the Board because, presumably, he had had a better offer from some other local party. The vendor was not prepared, as it were, to incorporate a ‘discount for public sentiment’ in his selling price.

Archie and the wider Morley family might have done everything for the War effort – certainly they committed to it and sacrificed a lot more than most – but, in the end, market forces proved more powerful than sentiment.

References

The Argus

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

Morewell Advertiser

Gippsland Times

Archives, Shire of Alberton
Box 432
One of 7 volumes numbered 2-8
Volume 2: October 1918 – July 1919

215. The problematic history of the names on the Soldiers’ Memorial in Yarram

Two previous posts have looked at the history of the war memorial (soldiers’ memorial) in the main street of Yarram:

96. Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial.

212. The Shire of Alberton unveils a memorial to its soldiers

This particular post looks specifically at the addition of the actual names of ‘the fallen’ in the second half of 1929. It took 14 years from the time of the first deaths – at Gallipoli, in 1915 – for the names of the Shire’s dead to be acknowledged formally on the memorial.

The post examines the complex and fraught question of who was included on the soldiers’ memorial. Typically, most people looking at the names on a memorial, such as the one in Yarram, would assume that it presented a complete and accurate tally of all the ‘local’ men who had made the ‘ultimate sacrifice’. However, as will become obvious, the reality is more complex and and less certain.

The process of adding the names

The Shire of Alberton archives reveal at least part of the history behind the inclusion of the names on the soldiers’ memorial. The archives show that in November 1928, a request was made by the Diggers’ Club that the council receive a deputation – Dr Rutter, W A Cole and E Smithies – that was to seek council support – and a financial contribution – for the inclusion of the names on the soldiers’ memorial. Tellingly, from the very start the clear intention was that the names of the men would be supplied by the Diggers’ Club and that the cost of the exercise would be met in equal shares by the Diggers’ Club and the Shire. Previously, with the creation of the monument itself, the council had driven the entire project and met all costs. The wording on the monument when it was unveiled in 1920 acknowledged the council’s primary role:

Erected by the Shire of Alberton out of gratitude to the men who offered service in the Great War 1914-1918

But now, for the addition of the names, responsibility was passed exclusively to the Diggers’ Club and the council agreed to meet half the costs involved. Responsibility for the determination of the names being passed to the Diggers’ Club is not a small point. However, at the time, no one appeared to have been concerned that the Shire’s significant responsibility was delegated to another body. The resolution passed at the relevant council meeting (8/11/28) explicitly made the Diggers’ Club the responsible agent:

That the Diggers’ Club be requested to depose and compile the list of fallen whose names they consider should be be engraved on the Soldiers’ Memorial.

Council business in early 1929 (14/2/29) indicated the Diggers’ Club had drawn up a list of 61 names. There was a letter – dated 13/2/29 – to the council from E Griffiths, Honorary Secretary, the Diggers Club, Yarram:

At present we have the names of sixty one soldiers from this shire who fell in the Great War. We propose to publish these names in the Gippsland Standard and the Melbourne daily papers with the request that anyone knowing of any soldier who was killed on Active Service and whose name does not appear on the list should communicate with the undersigned…

Presumably, the inclusion of the notice in various newspapers had some effect because 2 months later, in another letter to the council, the numbers had grown to 79 names. The letter was dated 9/4/29 and, again, it was signed by E Griffiths.

As stated in a previous letter the Diggers Club was undertaking the task of compiling the list of names of the soldiers from this Shire who fell in the Great War. This has been done and I enclose the list herewith. It contains the names of 79 soldiers and every effort has been made to secure that it is complete.

With the letter was a hand-written list of the 79 names. These were the 79 names that ultimately appeared on the memorial. There were some minor changes to the order of the names and whereas the list provided by the Diggers’ Club sometimes included first names in full, the memorial used only initials – for example, Harold Seymour Ray on the list became Ray H. S. on the memorial. But, critically, apart from such minor changes, the list provided by the Diggers’ Club in early April 1929 represented the final version that appeared on the memorial.

It was interesting that the letter specifically referred to 2 of the names: the brothers Bryon and George Nicholas. They were included at the very end of the hand-written list, as numbers 78 and 79, with the following comment:

As regards the last two names – it is known that these two brothers were school teachers in the Shire but we have not been able to ascertain whether they enlisted here or at their home town – Trafalgar.

The fact that the two Nicholas brothers were added at the very end of the list plus the apparent concern that they might not have enlisted in Yarram suggest that their inclusion on the list was uncertain. Further, there was a brief note added to the letter specifically in response to the question of where the brothers enlisted. The note read, not in Yarram. Presumably, this had been added by George W Black as the Shire Secretary, and the officer who had maintained enlistment records over the course of the War. Black was able to state that they had not enlisted at Yarram. Both enlisted in Melbourne. In the end, the place of enlistment must not have been an issue because, as noted, the brothers were included on the memorial. I will return to the case of the two brothers later but, in this initial context, it is worth noting that the work undertaken by the Diggers’ Club in compiling the list was done independently of the Shire. Black, as the Shire Secretary, did have records that would have been of considerable assistance in helping to draw up or, at least, vet the Diggers’ Club list. For example, he had had to keep accurate records of the railway warrants he had issued to men who had enlisted at Yarram, so, in effect, he had a tally of all men who had enlisted at Yarram. Also, Black had annotated this list throughout the War, including, for example, with references to those men known by him to have been killed. Again, as we will see, there was no single, complete, perfect set of records and, in any case, the specific criteria applied for inclusion on the list of the fallen were neither explicit nor consistently applied. However, it seems strange that the council effectively abdicated its responsibility and relied entirely on the deliberations of the Diggers’ Club. Perhaps it just assumed that the ‘pooled memory’ of those involved with the Diggers’ Club would suffice. Perhaps it anticipated controversy over the exercise and made a political decision to leave the judgment to the local body that claimed to speak directly on behalf of the returned men.

Other council papers in the archives cover the tender for the work and the agreement between the Shire and the Diggers’ Club to divide the cost equally. The wording at the head of each of the two columns of names – These men gave their lives for their country – was also determined by the Diggers’ Club and then approved by the Council. The total final cost for the lettering was £61/16/6.

The Council also opened a public subscription for local families to make a financial contribution to the work. I think it is fair to argue that the response was underwhelming. The subscription list in the council papers showed only 9 parties (B. R Jeffs, R. Wight, M. Nebbitt, J. E Attenborough, ‘Eyes Right’, Mrs Caroline Sexton, Miss Jeffs, Mrs A. M. Morris and ‘Parents’) who contributed a total of £7/13/6. Perhaps the parents and families of the men killed took exception to any suggestion that it was appropriate for them to contribute to the cost of having their son or husband’s name recorded. Perhaps the response was some measure of war weariness. Perhaps the response was affected by the passage of time. In some cases it was up to 15 years after the soldier’s death; and for all of the men it was at least 10 years.

At the time, the inclusion of the names on the soldiers’ memorial must have brought some sense of finality to the offical commemoration of the Great War in the local district. It is also possible that the final act of inscribing the names brought a sense of what we refer to today as ‘closure’ to the War itself and provided the opportunity for the local community to ‘move on’. Finally, the names of those men from the Shire of Alberton who had paid ‘the ultimate sacrifice’ were engraved in stone in the main street of Yarram. The list of names could stand as a permanent record; and in a real sense the list has stood as a fixed reality for the past 100 years.

From a historical perspective, one key defining feature of any formal list of names is that it presents the opportunity for checking. Using the range of historical resources available, it is possible to assess the accuracy of the list. Applying this methodology, we can establish that the list of names on the memorial falls short in terms of the total picture of those with a link to the Shire of Alberton who were killed in the War. As well as establishing some sense of the extent to which the picture is incomplete, we can also tackle the related and difficult question of how the picture presented by the memorial came to be incomplete. And there is another set of questions to do with the implications of this situation.

While the Shire Council passed responsibility for coming up with the list of names to the Diggers’ Club – presumably, this body used the collected memory of its members to create the list – there were other options at the time. Arguably, the key reference in the exercise should have been the Shire Secretary, G W Black who had been appointed to the position in 1911. Throughout the War, Black had been tasked with keeping records of those who enlisted from Yarram. At the start of the War, he kept hand-written records of those who completed medicals at Yarram and, as already noted, as an extension of this work, he also had to keep account of those who were given railway warrants to travel to Melbourne. He kept other records – unfortunately these were incomplete – of those who were awarded the Shire Medallion. After the War, in early 1920, Black was instructed to compile a list of all those from the Shire who had … offered service in the Great War. This was the basis for the honor roll drawn up for the Shire of Alberton at the same time. [See Post 24. Honor Roll of the Shire of Alberton.] The roll also highlighted the 62 men ‘killed’. Overall, while Black’s primary focus was on those who enlisted in Yarram, he certainly had a broader picture of all those from the Shire who enlisted elsewhere, most commonly in Melbourne.

Additionally, throughout the War, other groups also kept records of enlistments and formally recorded the deaths of soldiers. The most significant example of this practice involved the local state school, and at the end of the War there was a memorial honor roll or honor board unveiled in each local school which recorded all past scholars who enlisted, and it also highlighted those killed. There were some issues with these honor rolls – for example, past scholars could have left the district well before they enlisted – but, certainly, the school rolls were all available for reference by 1929 and, arguably, should have been used. In addition to school memorials, there were also some church and district honor rolls and boards and even memorials created. They were obviously another valuable resource that could have been used. Additionally, as we have seen, throughout the War the pages of the local papers – Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative and South Gippsland Chronicle – had recorded details of enlistments and deaths and commonly included death notices and in memoriams. In the early stages of the War the papers often published lists of those who had enlisted. For example, in January 1916, the South Gippsland Chronicle published a list of approximately 250 men who had enlisted to that point. The list included those who had enlisted outside the Shire and it also gave some details on men killed.

The key observation in all this is that there was a good deal of information available in the district that could have been used to compile a comprehensive and accurate record of all those locals from the Shire who had died in service. It would have taken a reasonable amount of coordination and organisation and there would have had to have been basic agreement on what constituted a ‘local’ in the particular context. Also, you would assume that it would have been the Shire council that took the lead role.

It is of course possible that the Diggers’ Club did seek input from other groups or individuals, perhaps informally and on an ad hoc basis. However, as already indicated, the material in the Shire archives certainly suggests that the list came exclusively from the Diggers’ Club executive. Further, the Council saw the list as the responsibility of that body. It will also become apparent that there was not not much cross-checking by the Diggers’ Club against existing Council and other records records; or, seen from the other persecutive, the Council did not apply too much critical attention to the list provided by the Diggers’ Club.

The incomplete picture

With this background in mind, it is relevant to examine how all the various lists of the ‘fallen’ from the time line up against each other. The picture that emerges, to put it mildly, is one of confusion.

We can start with the list drawn up by Black in early 1920. This became the Honor Roll of the Shire of Alberton. As noted, it highlighted the names of 62 men ‘killed’.

The first issue with this list is that 3 men identified on the list as ‘killed’ were not killed. Tyler, H. B. – Henry Bernard Tyler – is marked as killed, but it was his brother – Tyler, G. T.: George Thomas Tyler – also on the honor roll, who was killed. It was an awkward case of mistaken identity. The second individual was Loriman, J. B. – John Bourke Lor(r)iman. While he definitely was not killed – he returned and was medically discharged in July 1919 – there was at least some confusion about his fate during the War. For example, in a memorial service held in Yarram in May 1918 his name was included as one of the dead. The last person to be listed as killed, but who in fact survived the War, was Pullbrook, L. J. – Lisle John Pul(l)brook was not killed and he returned to Australia in July 1919.

Of more concern is that fact that the Shire’s 1920 honor roll also featured the names of 28 local men who were killed in the War but who were not marked as ‘killed’. For present purposes, we can assume they were ‘local’ because they appear on this formal list drawn up by the Shire Secretary. Somewhat incredibly, Black had ‘missed’ that they had been killed.

The 28 men whose names appeared on the Shire’s honor roll but who were not acknowledged on that roll as having been ‘killed’ can be divided into 2 groups. Nine of them did, in time, appear on the soldiers’ memorial, which meant, in effect, that their sacrifice was ultimately acknowledged. But, incredibly, the names of the other 19 men killed did not appear on the soldiers’ memorial.

Obviously, the original error lay with Black and his honor roll. You could argue that just 2 years after the War there could have been some uncertainty over the fate of some soldiers. Then again, to miss 28 deaths from your list of local men is a major failing. At the same time, it is hard to understand how by the time, nearly ten years later, when the Diggers’ Club came to draw up their list, only 9 of the 28 men had been picked up. Surely, by that point, the fate of local men who appeared on Black’s 1920 list would have been known. One explanation has to be that the Diggers’ Club did not cross-check their list against Black’s.

Below are the names of the 9 men who (1) were killed (2) were included on the Shire’s honor roll drawn up by Black in 1920 (3) were not shown as ‘killed’ on this honor roll, but then (4) were included in 1929 on the soldiers’ memorial in Yarram:

Appleyard, Edgar – Appleyard, Edgar John
Christensen, Allen – Christensen, Allan Patrick
Carter, Jas – Carter, James
Fleming R. V. – Fleming, Robert Victor
Missen, Harold – Missen, Harold Joseph
Sherlock, A. – Sherlock, Albert
Tolley, C. S. – Tolley, Charles Samuel
Tyler, G. T. – Tyler, George Thomas (see above re confusion with brother, Henry Bernard Tyler)
Wilson, T – Wilson, Thomas Anderton

Below are the names of the 19 men who (1) were killed (2) were included on the Shire’s honor roll drawn up by Black in 1920 (3) were not shown as ‘killed’ on this honor roll, and (4) were not included in 1929 on the soldiers’ memorial in Yarram:

Aubrey, G. V – Aubrey George Victor
Booth, N. W. – Booth, Norman Waterhouse
Campbell Donald – Campbell, Donald
Francis, John – Francis, John
Farthing, A. V. – Farthing, Arthur Vincent
Harrison, Frank L. – Harrison, Frank Lionel
Kennedy, A. – Kennedy, Arthur Charles Valentine
Manders, J. H. – Manders, John Henry
McIntosh, Jas – McIntosh, James Edward
McLeod, L. J. – McLeod, Leslie John
O’Day, J. R. – O’Day, James Robert
Patterson, O. – Patterson, Owen
Pallot, E. R. – Pallot(t), Ernest Ralph
Robertson, J. D. – Robertson, John Douglas
Robinson, Edward – Robinson, Edward
Robinson, Alex – Robinson, Alexander
Singleton, J. – Singleton, James
Somers, A – Somers, Arthur John
Skene, G. A. – Skene, George Alexander

In one sense you could argue that it was only really the second group of 19 men that was of concern because for the first group of nine men the ‘mistake’ made in 1920 was corrected by their inclusion on the soldiers’ memorial in 1929. On the other hand, the second group of 19 was significantly disadvantaged because even though they were ‘local’ – as indicated by their inclusion on the 1920 honor roll of the Shire of Alberton – their names were left off the permanent memorial. The obvious question is how did such a situation occur? There is no obvious answer. As suggested, the basic problem might have been that there was little, if any, cross checking of available records. Or perhaps the cross checking involved was careless or, more accurately, carried out in only a cursory manner.

However, I want to argue that there was a bigger problem beyond the issue of problematic record keeping. Once again, I think the basic issue is all about how ‘local’ was defined. The reality was that there was no single, agreed definition, and different groups, institutions and even families had different perspectives on who was and who was not ‘local’. And this problem was exacerbated by the fact that there was a high background level of mobility – both individual and family – in society, particularly amongst the rural working class.

Even more missing names

Moreover, my research suggests that the potential number of missing names from the soldiers’ memorial in Yarram was far greater than is suggested by the above discrepancies between the records of Shire Secretary, Black and the Diggers’ Club. There was, potentially, another large group of men ‘forgotten’ or ‘left off’.

Throughout this research, I have attempted to cast the widest possible net over the Shire of Alberton to identify all those directly involved in or affected by the Great War. To do this I have relied on a significant range of primary resources: from electoral rolls to a wide range of memorials, from council archives to local newspapers, from personal accounts and local histories to the individual service files of hundreds of enlisted men. With this approach, I have identified just over 800 men for whom there is some direct link to the Shire. This figure is considerably greater than the 446 men that featured on the 1920 honor roll for the Shire of Alberton. Similarly, my data base records approximately 170 deaths amongst this group, a figure which is far higher than that on the soldiers’ memorial (79) which itself was greater than the number of deaths (62) recorded on the 1920 honor roll.

Applying my methodology, the list at the end of this Post shows the 70 additional men ‘killed’ but whose names do not appear on either the Roll of Honor for the Shire of Alberton or the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial in Yarram. For all in this group, there is at least some evidence that links them to the Shire of Alberton and makes them, in some sense at least, ‘local’. I have indicated for each individual first the place of birth and then the place of enlistment, and also given a very brief note on the evidence linking them to the Shire. In some cases, the evidence is limited – sometimes it is only a mention on the honor roll of a local school – but in many other cases there is considerable evidence to tie the individual to the Shire and give them the status of a ‘local’.

What do we make of all this?

One critical point, which has been made repeatedly, is that there was no agreed definition of ‘local’. For example, on my additional list there are at least 18 men who enlisted interstate, or even overseas (New Zealand and Canada). Obviously, they would not have been living in the local area at the time they enlisted and were therefore not ‘local’. But when you look more closely at the individual cases you can see that many of them were certainly well known in the local area: they had been born there, attended school and grown up there; and their families had been in the district for a long time and indeed many of the family were still living there. But the individual himself had left the Shire. So you could start to make all sorts of distinctions between someone who had a ‘strong local background’ or someone who was still ‘very well known in the local area’ and someone who was a ‘local’ because he was actually living in the area. You might want to argue that only someone who was living and working in the local area at the time of enlistment could count as ‘local’, in terms of having their name added to the memorial. On the face of it, this would make sense and would provide a consistent criterion. And on that score, the following names from my additional list would never be considered local because they enlisted interstate or, as indicated, even overseas:

Adams, John Henry: Enogerra, Qld
Booker, Frederick Peter: Perth, WA
Bunston, Leslie William: Lismore, NSW
Dove, Albert Ernest: NewZealand
Ellis, Robert G:Vancouver, Canada
Godfrey, Albert John Jeffrey: Perth, WA
Lowther, Frank William: Toowoomba, Qld
Mates, Harold: Brisbane, Qld
Morgan, Arthur: Adelaide, SA
Moulden, William: Belmont, WA
Noonan, Leonard: Sydney, NSW
Raymond, Harold McCheyne: Brisbane, Qld
Saal, Christopher: Toowoomba, Qld
Slavin, John Leonard: Perth, WA
Tregilgas, Archibald Sturt: Adelaide, SA
Whitford, Roy Victor: Perth, WA
Widdon, Albert Edward: Dalby, Qld

The problem with this hard but consistent definition of ‘local’ is that it was not applied at the time. In fact, five men were included on the soldiers’ memorial even though they enlisted interstate and were obviously living and working interstate at the time they enlisted:

Appleyard, Gordon William: Rockhampton, Qld
Grinlington (Grimlington on memorial), Dudley: Perth, WA
O’Neil, John Albert: Claremont, Tas
Sutton, David George: Brisbane, Qld
Sutton, William Henry: Brisbane, Qld

The logic has to be that if some men were included on the memorial on the basis of a strong local identity, even if they were no longer living in the Shire, then might not some of the 18 men on my list have had the same claim?

Then there is the issue of the school memorials. Many individuals on my list have their name recorded on one or more of the memorials from local state schools. In a limited number of cases – approximately 7 – it is the school honor roll that is the sole piece of evidence tying the individual to the Shire. Often, the individual concerned might have left school, and the district, many years before the War. So the argument could be that they were no longer ‘local’ in any meaningful way. But it is worth making several qualifications. As noted, cases where the only link to the Shire was the inclusion of the name on a school memorial are few.

Further the school honor rolls and boards were deliberately created at the time as significant historical records. All schools created them. They were completed with care and they were based on school registers which were significant records in their own right. They were treated with considerable pride and there was always a formal unveiling ceremony associated with their completion. The effect of all this was that the status of ‘former student of the local state school’ served, as it were, as a variety of ‘local’. The point is that that from the perspective of history it is not possible simply to dismiss those named on these rolls as not genuinely ‘local’. At the time, people did see the previous schooling of those who enlisted as proof of their local status. Indeed, the need to tie both the enlisted and, more particularly, the ‘fallen’ to their local school was obviously a very powerful driver at the time and one of the defining features of Australian society’s memorialisation of the War.

There is also another dimension to this whole business of the local school’s honor roll which is worth exploring. Again, it highlights just how complex the issue of ‘local’ was. Earlier, I mentioned the 2 Nicholas brothers. Both had taught, but only for a short period, in local state schools. Both brothers appear on the honor roll for Gormandale East and, additionally, Bryon Nicholas appears on the Carrajung South SS honor roll and George Nicholas on the Wonyip SS honor roll. As mentioned, when the Diggers’ Club came up with their list of names for the soldiers’ memorial there was some question over whether their names should be included. It was noted that neither brother had enlisted locally. But in the end both names were included. Their inclusion would appear to have been on the sole basis that both had taught in local schools. I highlight their inclusion because on my additional list there are another 5 men who also taught in local schools : Brain, Edward George (Ryton Hall/Wonyip SS), Chester, Charles Edward William (Ryton Hall/Wonyip SS), Martin, John Herbert (Hiawatha SS), Moysey, James Edgar (‘former school teacher of the district’), Ormsby, Philip Michael (Madalya SS). As well as highlighting yet more inconsistency over this vexed issue of ‘local’, the matter draws attention to the large number of state school teachers, the great majority in their first few years of teaching, who did enlist.

As well as the vexed issue of ‘local’ there were obviously problems with record keeping. Strictly speaking, it was not so much the creation of records but more so the checking of records and understanding their significance. I have already highlighted how there was apparently no cross checking between the Diggers’ Club list of names and the Shire honor roll created by Shire Secretary Black. My additional list highlights some more failings. I have already written about the significance of railway warrants – Post 201. Railway warrants 1914-18 – and noted that Black’s records of these warrants identified men who definitely enlisted in Yarram. That is, they had their initial medical in Yarram, signed attestation forms and took the oath and were then issued with their railway warrant to travel to Melbourne to complete the process. So, presumably, anyone appearing on Black’s list of railway warrants would have been living and working in Yarram or elsewhere in the Shire at the time of enlistment. They would have been, at least in some basic sense, ‘local’. Yet my additional list has at least seven men who were on Black’s list of railway warrants – and were subsequently killed – but who do not appear on either the Shire’s honor roll or its soldiers’ memorial:

Dietrich, Henry James
Hofen, Robert Henry
Martin, Gordon
McCarthy, Terence Charles Francis
Reeves, Alfred
Smith, William
Sebire, Francis Henry

Further, in most of these cases there was additional evidence that pointed to a connection to the district at the time of enlistment.

As suggested, the basic problem with this group, presumably, was that no one cross-checked various lists. Also, possibly because these men had only been working as itinerant farm labourers for a short period before they enlisted in Yarram, no one ever saw them as ‘genuine locals’. Nor is it hard to see how they would fall outside the collected memory of the Diggers’ Club, ten years after the War.

There is one other critical piece of evidence to consider in relation to this general discussion of ‘local’. Strictly speaking it was evidence not available to local authorities at the time but it is still important to look at it because it highlights just how subjective the very issue of ‘local identity’ could be.

For those men killed – or who died – in the War, a circular was sent to next of kin seeking a limited amount of personal information for commemorative purposes. The request was headed, Particulars required for the Roll of Honour of Australia in the Memorial War Museum [National Roll of Honour] and one of the items sought specific details on the location to which the individual could/should be linked. The specific question was:

With what Town or District in Australia was he chiefly connected (under which his name ought to come on the Memorial)?

The significance of all this is that on my additional list there are 10 men who, according to their next-of-kin, were ‘chiefly connected’ to some location within the Shire of Alberton. The men and the specific location are as follows:

Ashton, John Henry Parker: Tarraville
How(e), Harold Christopher: Yarram
Lowther, Frank William: Yarram
Mason, James Oliver: Yarram
Morgan, Arthur: Boolarra
Morley, Robert Herbert: Gormandale
Radburn, Edward: Boolarra
Tibbs, Walter: Tarraville
Wilson, William: Yarram
Withinshaw, George: Yarram

Admittedly, two of these locations (Boolarra and Gormandale) are potentially ‘borderline’ with other shires but, as with other examples, there was usually other corroborating evidence to suggest the link to the Shire of Alberton.

You can begin to see what likely transpired in these cases by going a little deeper. For example, George Withinshaw was born in the UK. When he enlisted in Warragul in November 1916 he was 22 yo. On enlistment and embarkation, he gave his address c/o C J Stockwell, Yarram. Charles Stockwell was a grazier from Yarram; and, presumably, Withinshaw was working for him. When his parents completed the information for the National Roll of Honour they gave Yarram as the place with which their son was ‘chiefly associated’, They also gave Stockwell’s name – and address – as a person who would be able to provide additional information, if required.

Of course, the existence of that particular record would not have been known by anyone in Yarram. Moreover, Withinshaw was killed in September 1917, so 12 years had passed when the Diggers’ Club came to compile its list. It is easy to see how, in effect, Withinshaw’s name disappeared from local memory. Walter Tibbs was a similar ‘lost’ person. He had come to Australia as a 15yo and worked as a farm worker in the Shire. He enlisted as a 21yo very soon after War broke out (21/8/14) and was killed at Gallipoli on the first day of fighting. Without his parents’ identification of Tarraville as the location with which he was ‘chiefly connected’ there would be nothing to tie him to the Shire. Yet he was clearly working in the district before he enlisted. These types of examples indicate the significant limits to ‘collected memory’ and ‘local knowledge’.

Finally

As I stated at the start, people look at war memorials like the one in Yarram, with its list of the ‘fallen’, as some form of sacred scroll, and assume that it is based on an accurate and complete reckoning. My research suggests that the true status of such a memorial is less perfect. It stands as an incomplete record: proof that arbitrary judgements, problematic definitions, faulty memories and careless record-keeping can all play a part in compromising the historical record.

However, for all its problems the memorial is still very much a historical artefact in its own right. It has its own 100 year history and, moreover, its creation reflected the historical realities of the time.

Some might want to argue that the list of names on the memorial needs to be extended so that there is a more accurate picture of the true cost of sacrifice across the Shire in WW1. Some might want to argue that the others who died have a ‘right’ to have their name inscribed, and that the present community has a ‘responsibility’ to undertake this task. Personally, I have major reservations about any ‘re-working’ of the memorial. As argued, I see the memorial as a piece of history in its own right. I do not believe we have any right or responsibility to re-create it in any way.

At the same time, we certainly have a responsibility to understand and explain the history of the memorial’s shortcomings; and that history points to the divisive and complex politics that characterised Australian society after the War. For example, I think it was particularly significant that at the time the Shire abdicated what was undoubtedly its responsibility and made the Diggers’ Club the sole arbiter. And there were other powerful forces at work – for example, the extraordinary degree of mobility that characterised society – particularly with the rural working class – at the time.

Moreover, in terms of ‘trying to set the record straight’, I also think that it would be impossible to come up with a definitive list of all those ‘from’ the Shire of Alberton who served and, of this group, those who were killed. There were too many interpretations, too many variables, too many inconsistencies, too many lost memories, too much missing information; and while some family interests were very strong, others were not strong enough or never even represented …

I think there is one final, important irony to note. As stated repeatedly in recent posts, throughout the War promises were made routinely and religiously to the young men who enlisted that their loyalty and sacrifice would never be forgotten. It was effectively one generation’s promise to the next one. The civic leaders, prominent citizens, clergy and elders persuaded the younger generation to enlist on the basis of a raft of causes: Imperial loyalty and patriotism; national interest, including the maintenance of White Australia; the universal test of manhood; the upholding of British values and opposition to German militarism; the protection of the weak and defenceless; and even the memory of the colonial pioneers. And the same generation promised that the men’s sacrifice would never be forgotten and they would be cared for and their memory honoured. Their names would be engraved in stone. But as we have seen, the actual history did not play out like that. In its own way, the history of the names on the war memorial underlines this reality.

Additional list of seventy men killed who had some association with the Shire of Alberton but who are not recorded on either the Roll of Honor for the Shire of Alberton or the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial.

Adams, John Henry
Ballarat (born) /Queensland (enlisted)
The family was well known in district. He had attended school at Longwarry. After school, he worked with his father on the family farm farm at Jack Creek. But he must have been in Queensland for several years before enlisting. On his embarkation record his address was given as Yarram. He had one of his letters home published in local paper. In it he wrote about catching up overseas with other locals, including Eric Coulthard.

Anquetil, Henry Stewart
Northcote/Richmond
He had attended school at Binginwarri and his mother was living in district.

Ashton, John Henry Parker
Tarraville/Leongatha
He was born at Tarraville and went to Tarraville SS. Fish Creek was given as his address on enlistment form. The National Roll of Honour had Tarraville as the location with which he was ‘chiefly associated’.

Atkinson, Bertram
Ballarat/cannot find record
He had attended Yarram SS. At the time of his schooling, his father – Rev James C Atkinson – had been Church of England minister in Yarram, c. 1905. His death and connection to the district were reported in the local paper.

Booker, Frederick Peter
Yarram/Perth
He had attended North Devon SS. He was one of three brother who enlisted. The other two, younger, brothers retained strong contact with the district but by the time he enlisted he was in Perth. The local paper gave details of his death and referred to him as ‘former resident’.

Brain, Edward George
Geelong/Toora
He had been a teacher in the district – Ryton Hall – and, given that he was only 19yo when he enlisted, it was probably his first appointment. His name appears on the Wonyip & District honor board. He also likely played for a local football team.

Browney, William
Ipswich, Qld/ Foster
He was also known as Beadmore (adopted). He had attended school at Korrumburra. Reports of his death in the local paper clearly identified him as local of Wonyip. The paper also reported on his formal farewell from Wonyip. His name appears on the Wonyip & District honor board. He also played in the local football competition.

Bunston, Leslie William
Boolarra/Lismore, NSW
He had attended Carrajung South SS.

Chester, Charles Edward William
Glenmaggie/Melbourne
He was a teacher in the district – Wonyip – up to the time he enlisted. The local paper reported his death and its commemoration in Wonyip. His name appeared on the Wonyip and District honor board.

Coverdale, Robert
Ballarat/Melbourne
He had attended Madalya SS. Local paper reports had him residing in Madalya in early 1914, and he enlisted in Sept. 1914. His name appears on the Madalya and District Roll of Honor.

Davidson, Percy James
Auburn,Tas/Yarram/Melbourne
He was one of the first group to enlist at Yarram in Sept 1914 but he was then discharged on medical grounds. He subsequently re-enlisted in Melbourne in early 1915. The initial enlistment at Yarram was with his ‘mate’, Percy Wallace. They both subsequently served in 22 Battalion and when Percy Wallace was killed (15/4/16), Percy Davidson provided an account of the death which was featured in the local paper (23/6/16).

Dewell, William Scoones
London, UK/Melbourne
At the time he enlisted (Oct. 1914), re was a 20 yo working at Wonyip. At the time, he wrote to the Shire Secretary to advise him, directly, that he had enlisted in Melbourne. In the letter he noted that he had been advised by the Shire Secretary (Black) to enlist in Melbourne because at the time the Shire was not accepting enlistments. This was just after the first large group of 50 had enlisted from Yarram, in Sept. 1914.

Dietrich, Henry James
Jeeralang/Morwell
He must have been working in district at the time because he received a railway warrant from the Shire Secretary. Reports on his service – and also family matters – featured in the local paper.

Dove, Albert Ernest
Gormandale/New Zealand
He was born Gormandale and attended Gormandale SS. The local paper (4/6/15) specifically referred to him as one of the ‘Gormandale boys’ but he actually enlisted in New Zealand.

Dunne, James Richard
Yarram/Melbourne
He was born in Yarram and attended Yarram SS. He had left district by the time of his enlistment. The local paper referred to his death and noted he was formerly of the district.

Ellis, Robert G
Sale/Canada
He had attended Tarraville SS and the family was local (Port Albert) but he himself had left Australia by WW1. He enlisted in Vancouver. The local paper gave details of his death and featured an in memoriam.

Ferres, Sydney Eversley
Ararat/Melbourne
He had attended Alberton SS but by time of enlistment he was living at Toora. There were several reports covering his death in the local paper.

Ford, Ernest Leslie
Deans Marsh/Melbourne
His name appeared on the Methodist Circuit honor roll, where he was associated with Mullundung. His father worked at the timber mills at Mullundung.

George, Herbert Ilott
Dunolly/Melbourne
He had attended 2 local schools: Alberton SS and Port Albert SS. At the time of his death, the local paper described how he had been a resident of Port Albert and had worked in a store at Yarram. He must have left the area not long before enlisting. The local paper covered reports of his death and stated that he was well known in Yarram, Port Albert and Foster. The paper even featured one of his letters home.

Godfrey, Albert John Jeffrey
Melton/Perth, WA
He was one of 5 brothers who enlisted. The other 4 brothers survived. All the brothers had attended Alberton SS. The family moved to WA late 19 – early 20C but the father did subsequently return to district and died at Alberton (1897).

Grenville, Vincent
Yarram/Melbourne
There is very little on him but he was born in Yarram and the family had been in the district from 1880s. The local paper referred to his death (8/9/16) and noted he was from Yarram. On his enlistment papers, the father’s address, as next-of-kin, was Yarram.

Hanrahan, Dennis Ambrose
Welshpool/Melbourne
The family was local, with the mother and 2 sisters living at Alberton West/Binginwarri/Hedley. On his enlistment papers he gave Alberton West as his address. The local paper reported his death and described him as a ‘native of Hedley’.

Hibbs, Clifford/Clifton (Goodwin, Arthur)
Tarraville/Yarram
It was a complicated case: desertion then re-enlistment under another name. At the same time, he was definitely local. See Post 142.

Hofen, Robert Henry
Bairnsdale/Yarram
Medical, enlistment and railway warrant were all from Yarram. He had also been in Woodside Rifle Club for 3 years prior to enlistment.

How(e), Harold Christopher
Kent, UK/Yarram
He would only have been in the Shire a short time before enlistment. Medical, enlistment and railway warrant were all from Yarram. The local paper identified him as a local. On the National Roll of Honour, the place to which he was ‘chiefly connected’ was Yarram.

Inseal(Ensil), Arthur George
Wales, UK/Melbourne
He appeared on the honor roll for Carrajung as a resident. He also appears in the 1915 Electoral Roll as ‘farm labourer’ of Carrajung.

Kiellerup, Frederick Charles
Narrandera, NSW/Melbourne
He had attended Yarram SS. The local paper reported his death and noted he had once been the Wertheim representative in Yarram. However, he was 31 yo when he enlisted so it is possible that his stint as the Wertheim rep in Yarram could have been up to 10 years earlier.

Kennedy, John
Woodside/Sale
He had attended Darriman SS and his name was also on the Presbyterian Charge.

Lear, Eric Nightingale
Fryerston/Melbourne
He had attended Won Wron SS. His father had been a teacher at Tarraville in 1890s. The local paper reported his death and noted he was nephew of the local councillor, Nightingale.

Liddelow, Aubrey
Tarraville/cannot find record
He had attended Tarraville SS.

Lowther, Frank William
Woodside/Toowoomba, Qld
He had attended North Devon SS and Yarram SS. His name also appears on the Presbyterian Charge and the North Devon District honor roll. There was a detailed write up in the local paper on his death. There was also an in memoriam. He was well known in district. On the National Roll of Honour, Yarram was given as place with which he was ‘chiefly connected’. He was farming with his brother in Queensland when the War started.

Martin, Gordon
Dunolly/Yarram
Medical, enlistment and railway warrant were all from Yarram. Detail on the embarkation roll showed his address as ‘Barry Hotel, Alberton’.

Martin, John Herbert
Abbotsford/Warrnambool
His name is on the Hiawatha SS honor roll. He was a teacher at the school in 1913

Mason, James Oliver
Won Wron/Melbourne
He had attended Yarram SS. The National Roll of Honour has Yarram as the location with which he was ‘chiefly connected’. The local paper reported his death and noted he was well known in Yarram.

Mates, Harold
Nyora/Brisbane, Qld
He had attended Carrajung South SS. The local paper reported his death and noted he had been previously employed at the local branch (Yarram?) of the Colonial Bank.

McCarthy, Terence Charles Francis
Kensington/Yarram
He was one of the first group to enlist from Yarram (16/9/14).

McLeod, Alexander John
Merino/Melbourne
He and his brother – Leslie John McLeod – were sons of the local police officer at Yarram who was appointed there in 1914. Both brothers were minors when they enlisted. The other brother is listed on the Shire Roll of Honor – and as ‘killed’ – but he is not on the soldiers’ memorial. This brother is on neither the soldiers’ memorial nor the roll of honor.

Morgan, Arthur
Boort/Adelaide, SA
He had attended Womerah SS. His name appeared on the list of medicals and enlistment of locals for November 1914 but he did not enlist for another year and then from Adelaide. Correspondence indicates he was definitely a former student of Womerah SS. On the National Roll of Honour, the father indicated that the place with which he was ‘chiefly connected’ was Bullarah, Gippsland (Boolarra) and that his former occupation was ‘saw mill hand’.

Morley: there were 5 Morley brothers from Gormandale who enlisted and the following 3 were killed. All had been born at Gormandale and all had attended Gormandale SS. The local paper highlighted their service and identified them with Gormandale. All three appeared on the war memorial in Gormandale itself. Their father was dead. The mother was living at Gormandale. Only one of the brothers appeared on the Shire of Alberton Roll of Honor (Morley, Archie Cortnage). The family’s ‘sacrifice’ was well known throughout the district.

Morley, Ernest Edward
Gormandale/Melbourne
He had attended Gormandale SS.

Morley, George Thomas
Gormandale/Brisbane
He had attended Gormandale SS. He was obviously not living in the district at time of enlistment.

Morley, Robert Herbert
Gormandale/Melbourne
He had attended Gormandale SS. On the National Roll of Honour, the place with which he was ‘chiefly connected’ was given as Gormandale.

Moulden, William
Alberton/Belmont, WA
He had attended Binginwarri SS. The family had been in the district from the 1870s. He had obviously moved to WA before he enlisted but the local paper referred to him as ‘native’ of Binginwarri, and his mother gave Alberton as the place with which he was ‘chiefly connected’ for the Roll of Honour.

Moysey, James Edgar
Yinnar/Bairnsdale
The local paper reported his death and noted he had been a former teacher in the district and a well-known local footballer.

Neil, Leonard John James
Port Albert/Foster
He had attended Port Albert SS.

Nicholson, James vernal
Maldon/Melbourne
His name appeared on the local Methodist Circuit memorial. His father was a farmer at Balook. The local paper reported he was one of those commemorated at a memorial service in May 1918.

Noonan, Leonard
Tarraville/Sydney, NSW
He had attended Tarraville SS. His father had been the local police constable at Tarraville before retiring as a farmer at Jack River. He had obviously left district before enlistment.

Ormsby, Philip Michael
Ballangeich/Melbourne
He had been a teacher at Madalya and his name appeared on honor roll for Madalya School and District, as a teacher. He would have been a (the) teacher at Madalya one or two years before enlistment.

Owens, Charles Athwell
Traralgon/Melbourne
He had attended Gormandale SS.

Pickett, James Burnett
Rupanyup/Yarrawonga
He had attended Yarram SS and Darriman SS. His father had been the Alberton Shire Engineer (1900-1904). His death was reported in the local paper and he was commemorated at a local memorial service (May 1918). He was certainly well known in the district. The Shire medallion was even presented to a relative on his behalf. The South Gippsland Chronicle listed him – early 1916 – as a local who had enlisted and been killed.

Radburn, Edward
Bairnsdale/Boolarra-Melbourne
His name was included on the honor roll for Wonyip & District. The local paper reported on his farewell from Gunyah (October 1914). The National Roll of Honour had Boolarra as location with which he was ‘chiefly connected’.

Raymond, Harold McCheyne
Brighton/Brisbane, Qld
He was the son of Rev Arthur Rufus Raymond. The father had been appointed as the Anglican minister to Yarram in January 1917. He was killed 9/4/17 – a few months after his father’s appointment – and the local paper reported the death.

Reeves, Alfred
Leicester,UK/Yarram
The medical, enlistment and railway warrant were all from Yarram. He served for several months and then deserted; but he then ‘re-attested at Broadmeadows’.

Reville, Albert James
Alberton/Melbourne
The family well known in the district but they had left by time of his primary schooling. The local paper covered his service and death.

Robinson, James Nobel
Bendigo/Melbourne
He appeared on the 1915 Electoral Roll as ’storekeeper’ of Mullundung.

Saal, Christopher
Toowoomba, Qld/Toowoomba, Qld.
He had attended Binginwarri SS. The local paper had an in memoriam for him in September 1918 from a ‘friend’ (Victoria Hiho) from Hedley.

Sebire, Francis Henry
Port Melbourne/Melbourne
His name appeared on the honor rolls of Binginwarri SS and Wonyip SS. He was a teacher and one his first appointments was at Binginwarri (1911-14). He was in the Stacey’s Bridge Rifle Club at the start of 1914. The local paper reported him missing and presumed dead (June 1918). It noted that he had been a teacher in the district.

Slavin, John Leonard
Yarram/Perth, WA
He had attended Yarram, Balloong and Tarraville SS. The Slavin family was well known in the district and a sister was still living there. The family had shifted to WA and three brothers enlisted there. The other two brothers survived. His death was reported in the local paper which noted that he had spent his boyhood in the district.

Sleigh, Stephen
Trentham/Wonthaggi
On the embarkation roll his address was given as c/o Bank of Australasia, Yarram. The Shire rate book indicated that he had 20 acres at Binginwarri. BP Johnson acted as his lawyer and held power of attorney.

Smith, Leslie
Northampton,UK/Melbourne
He had attended Wonyip SS. The family must have immigrated when he was a child. When he enlisted (21yo) his father’s address was given as Wonyip. The memorial plaque was sent to the father at Wonyip but the father by then had moved to Toora.

Smith, William
Yarram/Yarram
He had attended Wonyip SS. The medical, enlistment and railway warrant were all from Yarram. The father’s address was Jack River and Binginwarri. He had shares in the family farm at Binginwarri.

Spargo, Clifton James
Brunswick East/Melbourne
His name was on the honor roll for Wonyip & District. His Father’s address was given as Wonyip via Boolarra. The father’s pro-Conscription stance was highlighted in the local paper.

Statham, Sydney Joseph
Port Mackay, Qld/Melbourne
His name was on the honor roll for Wonyip & District. The local paper gave an account of his death and described him as ‘one of our boys’ from Gunyah. He was presented with a gold medal by locals (Gunyah) and was well known and popular.

Tibbs, Walter
Leeds, UK/Melbourne
His address on the embarkation roll was ’Tarraville via Yarram’. The National Roll of Honour gave ‘Tarraville, Gippsland’ as the location with which he was ’chiefly connected’. He enlisted very early: 21/8/14. This was a month before the first, mass group of enlistments from the Shire.

Tregilgas, Archibald Sturt
Sturt, SA/Adelaide, SA
He had attended North Devon SS and his name was also on the North Devon District honor board. It appears the family left the district in the early 1890s.

Walker, Moore
Mortlake/Mortlake
He had attended Wonyip SS. On his service record, the father’s address changed from Mortlake to Wonyip and Yarram.

Whitford, Roy Victor
Yarram/ Perth, WA
He had attended Won Wron SS.

Widdon, Albert Edward
Yarram/ Dalby, Qld
He had attended North Devon SS and Yarram SS. His name was also on the Methodist Circuit. The family was still in the district and the father had land at Devon. There was extensive coverage of his death in the local paper, which noted that he had enlisted in Queensland. Many of his cousins in the district also enlisted. He was commemorated at a memorial service in Yarram in May 1918. He was referred to as one of the ‘Yarram lads’. The South Gippsland Chronicle listed him – early 1916 – as a local who had enlisted and been killed.

Wilson, William
Trentham/Daylesford
Yarram was identified on the National Roll of Honour as the location with which he was ‘chiefly connected’. His siblings were living in the district. The South Gippsland Chronicle listed him – early 1916 – as a local who had enlisted and been killed.

Wilson, Alexander
Traralgon/Melbourne
His name appears on the Blackwarry roll of honor.

Withinshaw, George
Staffordshire,UK/Warragul
The National Roll of Honour gave Yarram as the location with which he was ‘chiefly connected’. His address on enlistment and embarkation records was c/o Stockwell, Charles John – grazier of Yarram. There was a report in the local paper (6/10/16) of him being charged with being on the premises of Yarram Hotel during prohibited hours. This was just one month before he enlisted.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

South Gippsland Chronicle and Yarram and Alberton Advertiser/South Gippsland Chronicle

Archives, Shire of Alberton
Box 377
Files 285-292
Including a collection of papers: Inscribing the names of the Fallen on the Soldiers’ Memorial

214. Repatriation: bold promises and real limits

Repatriation was one of the greatest challenges facing post-War government in Australia. More pointedly, it is fair to argue that the real challenge was managing the virtually unlimited expectations to do with repatriation that had been created over the period of the War. This post looks at the situation in the Shire of Alberton in the early 1920s.

Repatriation was an issue from the very beginning of the War. At the countless farewells organised for local men, or ‘boys’, who had ‘answered the call’ and volunteered, there were as many pledges from local elders and civic leaders to ‘look after’ the same ‘heroes’ when they returned. Every speech promised that their sacrifice and bravery would always be acknowledged and repaid in full. All such promises coalesced around the notion of ‘repatriation’. The broad idea of repatriation covered not just the material programs put in place to support the returning men – in terms of health care, employment, training, housing, soldier settlement schemes etc – but also the recognition and special status that was to be accorded to the returning men.

Importantly, over the course of the War the status of the men who enlisted in the AIF increased significantly. In part, this was because of the failure of the two conscription referenda. The failure meant that the AIF remained a volunteer force and this had the effect of raising the status of those who had volunteered. Also, from 1916, as recruiting became more and more difficult, there was ever more focus on emphasising the higher character of those who did volunteer. Opposed to the selfless and loyal volunteers there were the ‘slackers’ who refused to volunteer: cowards who stayed at home and hid behind the bravery of others.

And there were other ways in which the status of those who served in the AIF was elevated. As noted previously, there was a constant media narrative that portrayed the AIF as not just another highly valued, integral unit within the broader British Army but as a unique, elite fighting force that had played a critical – if not the most critical – role in the final battles of the War. Additionally, men in the AIF routinely regarded themselves as better than all the other Allied conscript soldiers. The unique character of the AIF, the mateship and larrikinism that defined it, its battlefield successes and its role in shaping the nation’s character and identity were themes that would be taken up in the post-War period by C E W Bean as the official War historian.

Some sense of the special status accorded to returned men can be picked up in routine newspaper reporting from the time. For example, the local paper – Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative – always featured a summary of cases held in the local court. From 1918, there were cases where returned men who appeared in the local court were given favourable treatment because of their war service. Often they were represented by B P Johnson, one of the most vocal and prominent Imperial Loyalists throughout the War, and he would invariably refer to the men’s war service. The local justices would then make it clear that their determination did reflect recognition of this service. Presumably, the police who had arrested the men and brought the charges would have been unimpressed. Often the charges involved public drunkenness and fighting. For example, a report in the paper on 9/5/19 noted that two former soldiers – Patrick Martin O’Loughlin and W Johnson – were discharged with just a caution following a punch up in the main street of Yarram. W Johnson cannot be traced but O’Loughlin was a local. He had been born in Ireland and had enlisted as a labourer from Yarram in January 1916. At the time he was 38 yo and single. He spent the last year of the War as a POW in Germany and was repatriated to the UK in December 1918. He had only returned to Australia in April 1919 so he could only have been back in the local area a couple of weeks when he was involved in the fight. In fact, he was not officially discharged as ‘medically unfit’ until the start of June 1919.

There was another case reported on 9/1/20. This one involved one soldier (Claud Garfield Brown) trying to break into the lock up at Yarram to ‘liberate’ two mates (Cann and Pope). Brown had been drunk at the time. The report noted that Brown, defended by Johnson, got off lightly because of his war service. Only one of the three soldiers involved – George Abraham Cann – was a local.

Two months later (5/3/20) there was another report of a brawl between two soldiers – Harry Roberts and Jas Burlis, neither of whom appeared to be local – and again the justices were lenient because of the men’s service history. The report noted that the police on this occasion were keen to make an example of the men because the brawl occurred on a Sunday morning in front of children going to Sunday School.

There were other cases reported where the ex-soldier’s law breaking was more colourful. For example, earlier (11/12/18) there had been a report of William Owen Sutton receiving a caution and a small fine for speeding on his motor bike through Yarram. Significantly, Sutton’s licence was not taken. The report noted that Sutton had been a despatch rider in France. Sutton had enlisted as a 19 yo in 1914. At the time of enlistment, he was working at Head’s Garage in Yarram. During the War he had had a serious motor bike accident – fractured skull – and had been hospitalised for 4 months.

Of course, these are only several cases drawn from a single location over a short period of time but they do at least suggest that there was an understanding in the community that some sort of special allowance had to be made to accommodate the anti-social behaviour of returning men. At the same time, there were bound to be limits to such accommodation. Some behaviour could be explained away, at least initially, as something like exuberant larrikinism but, inevitably, there was going to be increasing community tension over just how much, and how often, such behaviour could be tolerated.

Beaumont (Broken Nation: Australians in the Great War) makes the point that concerns about the behaviour of ex-soldiers went well beyond the style of larrikinism described here and that, from1915-16, the progressive return of thousands of men ‘unfit for military service’ raised fears of the former soldiers becoming ‘a disruptive and subversive force in Australian society’ (524). Essentially, unbridled wartime adulation of the Anzacs was always going to have be tempered by the realities of their return to civilian life and re-engagement with all the conventional challenges of family life, work and civic responsibility.

Just as there were always going to be limits to the celebrated status accorded to returned men, particularly when they went beyond acceptable community behaviour, there were inevitably going to be failures associated with the formal scheme of repatriation. The expectations set down during the War had been too great – in a real sense, the promises had been made without any practical sense of limits – and the actual level and range of repatriation services that would be required over an extended period had been greatly underestimated. There was also the issue of the costs involved. Naively, Hughes and his government had believed that German reparations would cover the cost. However, the Treaty of Versailles effectively denied Australia this source of funds; and it was clear that the costs of repatriation would have to be met by at least the next generation of Australian tax payers.

Consequently, with the idealisation of repatriation you also had this ongoing sense of frustration, anger and disillusionment. And it was there right from the very start, as soon as wounded men began to return home. As already noted, speeches at welcome-home functions in the Shire of Alberton would always refer to the government’s responsibility – and promise – to look after the returning men; and, from the time of the first such welcomes, there were references to the government not doing enough, not understanding the men’s needs and being too slow to organise support.

There were other relevant dimensions to this widespread community belief that the government was constantly failing with repatriation. No matter what services were provided, some returned men were always going to find it difficult to settle back into civilian life. Quite apart from physical injures, many men were mentally damaged. This was at a time when there was no real sense of ‘mental health’ or specific conditions such as PTSD. But it was not just a question of mental or emotional damage because, as we have seen in earlier posts, many men tried to hang on to the ‘mateship’ that had been forged in their time in the AIF. They wanted, as it were, for the shared experience of the AIF to continue after demobilisation. Post 211. Club rooms for the returned men or a memorial hall for the Shire? described how this was an issue with the creation of the Diggers’ Club’ in Yarram. The returned men wanted an exclusive meeting and social place for themselves; and many in the local community accused the returned men of wanting to keep to themselves and not committing to their community. Of course, the reality was that the men were no longer in the AIF, and they found themselves re-bound to their families and communities, and even competing against each other for employment and services. Overall, the potential for frustration, anger and the perceived loss of recognition amongst the returned men was very high. Inevitably a lot of this negativity was subsumed within the universal belief that repatriation was failing the men, even if, in the strictest sense, some of the particular challenges were not tied to the mechanics of repatriation. The reality was that a system of repatriation was never going to be enough to handle the multiplicity and complexity of issues that came with the War’s legacy.

It is also important to note that prior to the formal system of repatriation there was not a long history – at either the state or national level – of government involvement in, or responsibility for, what we would regard as ‘social welfare’. Prior to WW1, returned service men relied on the help of their families, local communities or charitable institutions. The scale of repatriation required post WW1 was such that this traditional approach would never work; and, early on, the Commonwealth Government recognised that a formal, Commonwealth public department would be required. Arguably, there were at least two critical consequences of this new approach. The first was that support for the returned men, and their families, shifted from the status of ‘benevolent’ or ‘charitable’ voluntary support to ‘social entitlement’. This sense of entitlement obviously shaped people’s dealings with the new department. The second consequence was that as a ‘public service’ the new Department of Repatriation had to establish a universal, codified system of entitlement. The system was to be administered objectively and impartially. There had to be rules, regulations and most significantly, ‘eligibility criteria’ and ‘cut-off points’ and ‘levels of benefits’. Inevitably, the bureaucratic regime and approach would mean that some men or families ‘missed out’ and this, in turn, gave rise to high levels of disputation, frustration disillusionment and anger. It is also worth noting another – somewhat counter-intuitive – consequence. As soon as the federal Department of Repatriation was established, responsibility, as well as all associated blame, for the welfare of returned men – and the widows and families of those men killed – was shifted from the known, immediate and local community to an impersonal, anonymous and bureaucratic government department. The ‘Repat’ became everyone’s target and everyone’s scapegoat. This reality tended to minimise the value of the extraordinary work achieved by the Department of Repatriation post WW1.

It is also important to acknowledge that even with an extensive government system of repatriation, a good deal of the support that was offered to the returned men – and the hardship and suffering involved in this support – was private, if not hidden. The great majority of men who enlisted, served and then returned were single and relatively young. It fell to their families, and particularly their parents, to care for them. Families had to manage the trauma, depression, alcoholism, violence and despair. Beyond the level of formal assistance offered by the Repat, there was an extraordinary, and ultimately unquantifiable, amount of unpaid and unacknowledged support offered by families.

The broad sense of repatriation in the local community

To give some sense of how the general issue of repatriation played out in the local community I want to look at two cases in the Shire of Alberton. Both had considerable coverage in the local paper at the time. One case (Mrs Murray) involved a widow and her three children facing serious financial hardship, and even homelessness, who made direct appeals to the local community for help. The second case (St Margaret’s Island) involved a call, widely supported by the local community, for some sort of special provision to enable a group of 4 returned men from Woodside to set themselves up on the land. The significance of their particular initiative was that it did not fit the conventional soldier settlement arrangement which was then being implemented in the district. Together, the two cases tease out both the complexities – and shortcomings – of the system of repatriation and, as well, local attitudes towards the same system.

Mrs Murray

The plight of Mrs Murray has been raised in an earlier post (Post 176). She was the wife of John Bridge Murray who had enlisted at Yarram in August 1915. Murray was definitely local and he was given a formal farewell from the Shire. He also received the Shire Medallion.

Murray was originally from Scotland. The couple had been living in the local area prior to his enlistment and both names appeared on the 1915 Electoral Roll. He (John Murray) appears as a ‘labourer’ of Yarram and she (Esther Murray, nee Coghill) as ‘home duties’, also of Yarram. There were three young children, all born in Yarram: William Coghill Murray (1910), Helen Gina Murray (1913) and Johannna Bridge Murray (1915).

Murray was killed on 11/8/18. His body was never recovered. His name is recorded on the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial and the Shire’s Roll of Honor.

As a widow with children, Esther Murray would have received a war pension, as per The War Pensions Act 1914-1916. The base rate of the pension – for a soldier on 6/- per day – was £ 2 per fortnight. There was an additional 20/- per fortnight for the first child, 15/- per fortnight for the second child and 10/- per fortnight for each additional child. This would have given her a total pension of £ 4/5/0 per fortnight. There would also have been an amount of deferred pay – at the rate of 1/- per day of service – which would have come to approximately £ 50. Many soldiers also held insurance policies on their death, with various friendly societies; but in this instance there does not appear to have been any policy.

There were indications that Mrs Murray was struggling well before her husband was killed. While Murray was alive, the family would have been receiving an ‘allotment’ of 4/- of his 6/- per day pay as a soldier. In the archives of the Shire of Alberton there is correspondence from May 1917 (1) involving a request from Mrs Murray for financial support to pay rent (£12). It appears that the request had been made directly to the (Victorian) State War Council and this body then referred it the local recruiting committee at Yarram in the belief that the recruiting committee was acting as the local branch of the War Service Committee. In his response, the Shire Secretary pointed out that there was no local committee of the War Service Council and, in any case, he believed that Mrs Murray had applied to the wrong body, given that her husband was still overseas on service. The background was that the State War Council, acting through local committees, was able to provide limited financial assistance where the the returned soldier and his family were facing financial difficulties. The process involved having the local police make enquiries as to the individual circumstances and the local committee had to vet the application. There is no indication of the outcome of Mrs Murray’s request but it seems clear that even before the death of her husband she was in financial difficulties and that she was reaching out for help.

The archives also feature further relevant correspondence from the end of December 1918 (2). The gist of the correspondence was that Mrs Murray was to lodge an application with the Closer Settlement Office in Melbourne to ‘take up land’. The correspondence makes it clear that Mrs Murray was a ‘soldier’s widow in this district’ and that she wanted to know the steps required to become eligible for the scheme. She was advised to complete the application and that, once completed, she would be informed when she would be required to appear before the relevant committee. There was a handwritten note on the correspondence stating that the ‘application form and particulars’ were handed to Mrs Murray on 20/1/19. It is unclear if the application was ever lodged and I have not found any indication that Mrs Murray received any land grant. If her application was lodged, it would be the only instance I have come across in the district where a soldier’s widow applied under the scheme (Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act 1917). The detail does suggest that, once again, Mrs Murray was reaching out for any form of support being made available.

The next item in relation to Mrs Murray came in an editorial in the local paper on 9/7/19. There was a report that Mrs Murray’s house at North Devon had been destroyed by fire. She was described as a widow whose husband had been killed in the War. She was said to be looking for help from the local branch of the RSSILA. The editorial set the report of her hardship against the general claims of failure to look after the interests of the ‘returned boys’.

Just over year later (6/8/20), the following letter appeared in the paper:

Will you through the medium of your paper let the public know how the Alberton Shire Repatriation Committee treat a soldier’s widow and children. I am, I believe, about the only widow in the district. It will be remembered that in June, 1919, I was milking a few cows on a small place in North Devon, endeavouring to get a living for myself and three little children, when I had the misfortune to be burnt out. The night after the fire the Repatriation Committee held a meeting, and they took up my case. M. Newland came round to where I was staying and told me not to worry, that they had held a meeting last night, and that they were going to get me a home. A year and two months have passed since then, and they have not fulfilled that promise yet. Of course I believed them when they made that promise, or I would have tried to get a bit of land through the Repatriation, or got a home through the housing commission. Instead, I have waited for them to make good their promise to look after me and get me a home, and in the meantime I have had to use the money I got for my cows when I sold them, to keep my children decently clothed and fed. A certain section of the people did not go far wrong when they said to the soldiers that if they went out to fight that they would not get looked after when they came back. The grateful country gives the widow 10/- for the first child, 7/6 for the next, 3/- for the third [per week]. I have three children, and that sum of money works out at about 10 1/2d a day each to feed and clothe them, I am now faced with being turned out in the street with my three little children, as the house that I occupy is to be sold. My present landlord told me some time ago that he would raise the rent on me from 15/- to £ 1 a week, but under the Moratorium Act this was prevented. I again appealed to Mr. Newland, after the rent trouble, and asked him if he had done anything for me. He said yes: that he had consulted with Mr. Benson and Mr. Johnson, and they said that as I was not in this house when my husband had enlisted that perhaps they could not do anything for me. I then went to Melbourne, and went to the Returned Soldiers’ League, and stated my case to them. They gave me a letter of introduction to the State War Council and told me to state my case to them. I went to the War Council. Mr. Lillywhite, the secretary, wrote a letter in my presence to Mr. Newland, asking him that if they in the Yarram branch would raise a fund to get a home for this widow, Mrs. Murray, they in the State War Council would meet them half way out of the Soldiers’ and Widows’ Fund. It was on the 15th of June the letter was written and sent to Mr. Newland, and he has taken no notice of it yet. Before I went to Melbourne I told Mr. Newland that I would go to Melbourne and try to get a home there. He said alright, that he would fill in a form and send it down to the Repatriation, and that would get me a soldiers widow’s home. He filled in the form and I signed it, and seven weeks later, when I went to Melbourne, I called at the Repatriation office in Melbourne. They informed me that they never had any enquiries about me, and that they never had received any form from Mr. Newland for a home for me. The secretary of the State War Council was astonished to find that in such a wealthy district one war woman should be looking for a home in vain. There are all the loyalists and flag wavers’ promises to the soldiers and their dependents. Deeds, not words, count.
Mrs J. B. Murray Yarram, 3/8/20.

It is not possible to test the claims made in the letter. The ‘M Newland’ referred to in the letter would have been William Andrew Newland. Newland had returned to Australia at the end of 1915 after having been wounded at Gallipoli. He had served as one of the recruiting sergeants in the district during the War. After the War, he was involved in the establishment of the local branch of the RSSILA and had served on the original committee. He had also been very involved in establishment of Diggers’ Club in Yarram. Both Benson and Johnson – both referred to many times previously – were also every involved with the welfare of the returned men. It is easy to understand how Newland and the local branch of the RSSILA would have been affected by Mrs Murray’s plight after her house was destroyed by fire. Almost certainly they would have given some undertaking to try to help. But it is difficult to follow the specifics of promises made and, possibly, not kept. Also, the lines between the various organisations mentioned are unclear. Possibly, Mrs Murrray was confusing repatriation agencies at the state level with returned soldiers’ organisations at the local level. At the same time, the episode highlights the acute vulnerability faced by widows like Mrs Murray and their desperate attempts to secure support. It also revealed the difficulties in negotiating the relevant bureaucracy. In terms of her claim, it is important to note that there were other war widows in the district.

The letter also reveals a moral dilemma being played out at the local level. Mrs Murray was highly critical of the lack of the support that she considered was her due. Her appeal for help touched on all the past promises. She questioned whether the soldiers had been lied to, as some had warned even during the War. She accused people of hypocrisy. She could not accept that the local community would not help her.

One week after the letter, there was an in memoriam for Murray in the local paper (11/8/20). It was the second anniversary of his death. Presumably, the timing of the letter to the paper – one week before the in memoriam appeared – was deliberate.

In sad and loving memory of my dear husband and our dear daddy, Lance-Corp. John Murray, who was killed in action south of Lihons, France, on 11th August, 1918.

This day recalls sad memories
of a loved one gone to rest.
Ever remembered.
There is a grave in far off France
Where our dear daddy lies at rest.
God called him home to be with Him.
How hard it seemed, but he knows best.

A memory prized more than gold,
A daddy’s worth can never be told.

Inserted by his loving wife and children, Yarram.

Ordinarily, with letters such as Mrs Murray’s there would have been an immediate response, particularly given the serious charges she had made and the references to specific people. And, clearly, she was calling for some response. She wanted to know why she was not being supported and why her pleas were being ignored. But there was no response. Consequently, two weeks later (25/8/20) she wrote again.

It would be interesting to know why a reply to my letter is not forthcoming, and why the challenge to offer certain explanations is still unheard. It is (sic) because those holding responsible positions are afraid of exposure that they can pass over such a letter with apparent contempt? It is scandalous to reflect that in such a wealthy district as this that the rights of a soldier’s widow are utterly ignored. Australia owes a debt of gratitude to those who paid the sacrifice for her freedom. Such a debt is difficult to find expression in mere words and is much more difficult to repay. Is no one willing to come forward to support the rights of one who has sacrificed so much for the cause of liberty? All are glad to enjoy the freedom which is their birthright, but how many remember the debt of gratitude they owe to those who are purchasers of that freedom? Why should anyone in an official capacity neglect to fulfil the duties of that position? It is quite time the country should realise how sacred are its promises to fulfil, and no one should be obliged to fight for what is their right. There should be no difficulty in arranging and settling such matters in the shortest space of time.
Mrs J. B. Murray 19/8/20.

However, once again, there was no reply. Obviously, we do not know the full details associated with this particular case: the specific promises made; whether, in fact, various kinds of support had already been given to Mrs Murray; whether she had attracted a lot of negative attention to herself because she was seen as too ‘pushy’ and too public in her calls for support and the criticism levelled at well-known local figures etc. At the same time, it is possible to make the following points. First, the fate of war widows like Mrs Murray – and their families – was always going to be hard. Even with pensions and access to other services via the system of repatriation, their financial position was marginal and there was always the fear of poverty, homelessness and even destitution. Second, this harsh reality was at odds with the universal promises that had been made through the War to ‘look after’ the men – those who returned wounded or disabled and those who made the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ – and their families. Third, there were very real limits to the level and nature of repatriation benefits and services that could be provided by the government and, equally, there were equivalent limits to the amount of empathy, and the length of time such empathy could be sustained, in the general community. War weariness was a reality and people did not appreciate constant reminders of what was expected of them and how responsible they were for the suffering of those around them. Last, the state system of repatriation, based on a codified system of ‘entitlement’ and administered via a professional bureaucracy had the effect of removing – or, at least, reducing – the local community’s sense of responsibility. In effect, the local community could represent Mrs Murray’s fight as one not with the local community but with the Reparation Department.

St Margaret’s Island

St Margaret’s Island was located just off the coast near Tarraville. It was crown land used for stock grazing, mainly sheep. One of the people who had held the lease for the land in the period before WW1 was J J O’Connor who in 1919 was the Shire President. In the same year (1919) four returned service men from Woodside applied to the government to take over the lease which was then expiring. What was significant about their claim was the fact that they wanted special provision on account of their war service. This particular initiative of the four men was outside the ‘soldier settlement’ scheme then in play throughout the district. The episode again highlighted the idea of ‘entitlement’ and it also showed how sentiment – the sense of duty owed to returned men – played out against the economic realities of the time.

The matter was first raised publicly in a letter to the local paper 0n 12/9/19. The letter called for public support for the men’s initiative, making it clear that without some form of special provision, the men had no chance of securing the lease; and that if the men were not successful the lease would go … to wealthy land owners, or speculators or [land] grabbers or even … hungry land sharks.

We are, all four of us, returned soldiers, having had from three to four years service respectively. One of us enlisted at the age of nineteen, and has been right through the whole war campaign. We are not saying this in any spirit of boasting or bravado, but we are merely stating a fact which has an essential bearing on our case. The lease held from the Government by those who at present have the use of St. Margaret’s island will shortly expire. After a personal interview with the State Minister for Lands we, at his suggestion, made joint written application for a lease of the 4000 acres which comprise the island. We have been informed that our application has been refused, and that the future lease will be let by tender. This means, in effect, that we have no possible chance of success. We cannot expect to compete against wealthy land owners, or speculators or grabbers. Owing to drought conditions in other parts of Gippsland, land is being eagerly sought after by hungry land sharks and speculators with an eye to profiteering. We now appeal to the patriotic public to interest themselves on our behalf. We are not asking much, merely permission to rent Government land to help make a living. Our stock is guaranteed, and our credentials are also guaranteed.

The men involved included two of the O’Neil brothers from Woodside. Simon John O’Neill and Joseph Jeffrey O’Neill had enlisted in June 1915. The third, middle, brother – Maurice Edward O’Neill – who had enlisted with them, had been killed in France in June 1916. The O’Neill brothers are significant because in 1915 they had come under a lot of pressure to enlist, via a series of anonymous letters in the local paper that accused them of a lack of patriotism. The details are covered in Post 41. Pressed to enlist in the first half of 1915.

Of the other two men, John Francis Lawton had been born in Ireland and, like the O’Neill brothers, was Roman Catholic. Elias Warburton Squires was the fourth man and he had been born in the UK and gave his religion as Church of England. Both Lawton and Squires had been discharged on medical grounds. Lawton had suffered a gun shot wound to the head and Squires a gun shot wound to the thigh. In fact, Squires had been wounded in a live firing drill with a lewis gun. The person who shot him, accidentally, was another local from the Shire of Alberton in the same unit: Edgar John Appleyard, who himself died of wounds in August 1917. To round out the picture of the 4 men’s war experiences, Simon John O’Neill had suffered shell shock and his brother, Joseph Jeffrey O’Neill had been gassed. Clearly, the four men were well known locals, and their war service deserved recognition.

Not surprisingly, the letter prompted expressions of support for the men. There was a letter, dated 15/9/19, which appeared the next week (19/9/19). It was signed ‘Justice’. Justice believed the men’s plan would succeed, saw no reason why it should not be supported and contrasted the proposal with what he saw as the excessive costs associated with the far more problematic soldier settlement scheme:

I know this island well, and a better proportion for three or four men who know anything about sheep farming it would be hard to find. It belongs to the state, and therefore costs the Government nothing, while they are spending millions buying high priced estates for soldier settlement, where they have not half the chance as they have in this case of making good.

Another letter, singed ‘Father of Soldiers’ appeared on 24/9/19. The correspondent was keen to remind readers of the pressure put on young men to enlist during the War. In fact, the detail is close to the experiences of the O’Neill brothers in Woodside:

Now, during the progress of the war, recruits were applied for, and even rounded up by the recruiting officer. Promises were made to them that they would be provided for in the event of their return, and should they not return, their dependents would have provision made for them. Eligible young men were called shirkers, Huns, and every conceivable name, and that they were unpatriotic if they refused to enlist.

The writer then turned to what he referred to as the ’sequel’. It was a case of men returning with the loss of limbs and eyesight; and even those … who have come back to us whole have their nerves shattered. He then made the claim that the civic leaders who had made all the promises during the War were now neither seen nor heard. In his view they were doing nothing to help the returned men.

He also claimed that the men would never win in the conventional market place because land values had increased so much from before the War. He claimed they had doubled. Presumably, he was convinced that leases had also correspondingly risen.The high price of land in the district was an ongoing concern and many blamed the soldier settlement scheme for this situation. The claim was that once government money was made available for land purchases in relation to the scheme, the value of landholdings throughout the district increased. This was in the interests of existing local land owners who were keen to sell land to the government for the soldier settlement scheme.

The writer wanted the local Returned Soldiers’ League to take up the men’s claim. But he was not hopeful:

Although I have suggested the local League make a move on behalf of these men, I do not think it would be possible to move them, unless it was with a bomb, as the composition of the managing staff has very little sympathy with the general run of diggers, but rather inclined towards the money bags.

He even claimed that the recent purchase of the property for the Diggers’ Club had significantly financially benefited a relative of one of the management committee of the club. The clear suggestion was that not only were locals not sufficiently helping the returned men, they were also keen to exploit the various appeals, services and programs that were put in place.

Still more correspondence ensued. On 1/10/19 there was a letter, signed ‘Labor omnia vincet’, that again supported the returned men. It was critical of the local Progress Association and called on the body to support the men.

In fact, the same edition of the paper featured a public notice from the Progress Association advising of a public meeting to be held at Woodside (4/10/19) on the very matter:

A Public Meeting will be held at Woodside, in the Mechanics’ Hall, on Saturday, 4th Oct., at 3 p.m., to discuss the advisability, or otherwise, of having St. Margaret’s Island made available for soldier settlement.’ D. Lancaster. Convenor.

Then in the edition of 3/10/19, Lancaster had a letter reminding people of the public meeting. He hoped … to see a large gathering of local residents with a knowledge of the island, also some members of out local repatriation committee, to go thoroughly into the matter.

Lancaster finished with support for the men’s claim:

I am sorry to hear that the soldiers’ appeal has not been inquired into, but I hope that people who have our soldiers’ welfare at heart will take a more lively interest in this and other matters concerning their welfare.

There was a report of the meeting in the edition of 3/10/19. Lancaster was in the chair. Several locals with extensive experience of the island – including the Shire President, J J O’Connor who had held the lease before the War – spoke in favour of running sheep there. In the end, the meeting supported the soldier’s proposal. The following resolution was sent to the relevant state (T Livingston) and federal (G H Wise) representatives.

That this meeting supports the application of the three returned soldiers for an extended lease of St. Margaret’s Island. We furthermore agree the the granting of St. Margaret’s Island to these soldiers should not prejudice their claims for a local repatriation block.

In the same edition of the paper, immediately under the report of the meeting, there was a short account of the monthly meeting of the Woodside Progress Association. This meeting was held immediately after the public meeting. At this meeting it appears that one of the soldiers presented the letter they had received from the PM’s office about their unsuccessful bid for the land. The PM’s letter indicated that some 20 other ‘prospective settlers’ had subsequently applied for the lease. The Progress Association then agreed to support the bid of the returned men from Woodside and work to the resolution of the meeting held earlier that day.

However, there was another interesting detail to emerge at the meeting of the Progress Association. The secretary of the group was a Mr Hardwick. In all likelihood, this was Henry Hardwick of Woodside who had enlisted at the same time as the O’Neill brothers. Hardwick, who had risen to the rank of sergeant-major, had been discharged on medical grounds – gun shot wound, left arm – in August 1918. Hardwick had been born in the UK but he had been working in the district as a labourer, like the O’Neill brothers, before the War; and he obviously returned to the district after his medical discharge. There was a strong suggestion at the meeting that Hardwick, and possibly other local returned men had also applied for the lease and that his application was one of the 20 additional applications to which the PM’s letter referred. At the meeting Hardwick reportedly … disclaimed any connection with such application [for the lease] on behalf of himself and all present settlers. The whole episode demonstrated two critical issues. The first was that of whether the government should interfere with the function of the existing market place. The second was the challenge of determining the relative worth of conflicting bids from the returned men. In the case of the lease for St Margaret’s island – an initiative which fell outside the soldier settlement scheme of the time – the simplest and most neutral solution for the government was not to interfere in the market; and this appears to have been what happened.

Interestingly, it appears that most of the returned men involved in this episode did end up with soldier settler selections: S J O’Neill (Woodside), J G O’Neill (Woodside and Balloong), E Warburton (Woodside) and H Hardwick (Balloong). There is no indication that J F Lawton became a soldier settler.

Overall

These are only two cases drawn from one regional community in Gippsland. However, they do illustrate the tension between the idea of ‘repatriation’ as some form of sacred bond made during the War with the men who enlisted – the promise always to honour their service and sacrifice, ensure that their celebrated status was forever recognised and, essentially, always ‘look after’ them, and their families – and ‘repatriation’ as a government service that had to operate in the real world of market-driven economics, finite resources set against increasing levels of need, complex regulations and necessarily constrained objectives. The mismatch between the two realities created significant levels of hardship, anger, frustration and disillusionment right across Australian society. As we will see later, the mismatch was particularly acute for many of the soldier settlers in the district.

References

Beaumont, J 2013, Broken Nation: Australians in the Great War, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest NSW.

Archives, Shire of Alberton

(1) Box 379

File: Correspondence etc of Recruiting Committee Formed, April 26th 1917

(2) Box 432

Volume 2, Documents 36, 57

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

213. Sectarianism after WW1

This post provides an overview of the extent, nature and causes of the sectarianism that characterised life in the Shire of Alberton in the immediate years after the War. It is based largely on reports in the local media from the time.

Background

Sectarianism in the local community was hardly new, and it has been covered in numerous earlier posts. Essentially, in terms of causes, there was the centuries old clash between Roman Catholicism and British Protestantism. There were significant differences in terms of dogma, the role and responsibility of the related clergy and fundamentals such as the significance of the Bible in the quest for personal salvation. There was also a long, bitter history between the two religions that had featured persecution on both sides.

There was also the vexed issue of Ireland. In part, this represented a religious clash between Irish (Roman) Catholic and British Protestant. But it also covered Irish nationalism and the fight – both political and military – for an Ireland completely free of British control. There was also the determination by Protestants in the north (Ulster) to remain within the United Kingdom.

Prior to the War itself, there had been the threat of civil war in Ireland. It was largely averted by the British promise of Home Rule after the War. This background was covered in Post 67. Ireland, Empire and Irish-Australians. However after the War and, more particularly, the Easter Uprising of 1916, there was a different political dynamic in play. The 3 years immediately after the War featured armed conflict between Irish nationalists and the ‘occupying’ British troops and Auxiliaries. Then, following the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, and the realisation of a form of Irish independence, the conflict with the British was superseded by a bitter civil war between those who supported the treaty and those who opposed it and wanted a complete break with the UK. Overall, the political situation in Ireland in the years immediately after the War was dire and the obvious hostility towards the British In Ireland was inevitably reflected amongst the Irish Catholic community in Australia. Where in 1914, Australians, including those from the Irish-Catholic community had flocked to join the defence of the Empire, by the end of the War – after two divisive conscription referenda, the Easter Rebellion and the British campaign to crush the rebellion and execute the ring leaders – support for the Empire amongst the Irish Catholic population in Australia had softened considerably. The dynamic situation in Ireland in the years after the War compromised Irish-Catholic Australians’ support for the Empire even more, particularly when Protestant clergy in Australia declared, in effect, that Roman Catholicism itself and the Pope posed an existential threat to the Empire. In part, this argument was a reworking of the conscription debates of 1916 and 1917.

Beyond several centuries of religious differences, the ripple effects of the ever-present conflict in Ireland and the strident claims of Catholic disloyalty to the Empire, there were still further drivers to the increasingly bitter sectarianism that characterised post WW1 Australia. As noted in several previous posts, schooling was a constant flash point and, arguably, its effect was even more pronounced in rural communities. Catholic efforts to establish their own schools, operated by religious orders such as the Sisters of St. Joseph, were viewed negatively by others in the the local community. The negativity was not just because of religious differences or the view that the local Catholics were choosing to remove their children from the local state school and effectively set them apart from the other children, but also because of the challenge of providing schooling in rural communities where the issue of student numbers was always critical. Any new Catholic school made the challenge more difficult. The end of WW1 saw the push for increased secondary schooling in rural communities and, as the likes of Bishop Phelan pushed for Catholic secondary schooling in Gippsland, tensions increased over the impact of such schooling on equivalent state school initiatives.

The sectarian tension associated with schooling went beyond the issue of its provision, because there was also a very significant background issue round the question of Bible or Scripture study or lessons in the state school. For a long time there had been a push from the Protestant Churches for some form of ‘non sectarian’ religious instruction, based on Bible reading or study, in Victorian state schools, even to the extent that such instruction could be given by the teachers themselves rather than visiting clergymen. However, such a position was, in theory at least, at odds with the non-sectarian and ‘secular’ nature of the state school system which had been established in all the various colonies in the 1870s and 1880s. After WW1, in the midst of heightened sectarianism, Protestant groups accused the Romand Catholic Church of undermining their attempts to bring about such Bible instruction in the state school. From the Catholic perspective there was indeed an element of wariness about the motivation behind the push. Beyond issues of dogma and theology associated with Bible reading per se, the wariness stemmed from the degree to which during the War the local state school had been pressed to serve the British (Protestant) Empire. There was Catholic concern that Protestantism, as well as having been declared the ‘natural’ religion of the Empire, was also being proposed as the natural religion of the state school.

There were still more dimensions to the ugly sectarianism of post WW1. Interestingly, one emerging dimension concerned Australian nationalism. Throughout the War, such nationalism had been incorporated within the total commitment to the Empire. The true Australian was one, first and foremost, loyal to the Empire. However, in the sectarianism of post WW1 this simple equation began to unravel. Irish Catholics were increasingly concerned by what they saw as British repression in Ireland. For them, the Empire had become an oppressor. At the same time, on the other side, there were strident claims from some Protestants that Roman and Irish (Australian) Catholics, led by the anti-Christ Pope, were effectively ‘traitors’ to the Empire, and, in fact, had been throughout the War itself. Not surprisingly, the very idea of Australian nationalism came under great pressure and Catholics inevitably looked for an expression of such nationalism outside the (Protestant) Empire.

Another dimension involved national politics. Irish Catholics tended to support the ALP and, obviously, they had been largely identified with the anti-conscription cause – itself interpreted as an anti-Empire push – during the War. Politically, they were seen as left, even radical, and also definitely anti-Empire. On the other side, Protestant Churches were largely represented as politically conservative.

One final dimension worth noting concerned individual personalities. For both sides, the bitter sectarianism both threw up and was itself defined and driven by key personalities. As we will see, such personalities attracted intense interest and their individual appeal and actions definitely shaped what happened.

All these dimensions are evident in what follows.

Loyalty by numbers

One of the key background issues to the intense debates at the time covered the extent to which Irish Catholics had been ‘loyal’ during the War. For many, this question came down to numbers: the numbers of local Catholics who enlisted. Throughout this blog, I have attempted to plot enlistments relative to the religious affiliation described on the enlistment papers. I have also attempted to tie these figures to what we take to have been the levels of religious affiliation in the local community itself. None of this analysis is as simple or easy as it might appear. Take the case of the levels of religious affiliation in the local district. The 1911 Census gave a figure of 21,349 males who were identified as Catholic for the County of Buln Buln. This suggested a figure of 19% of the total male population for the county. We could extrapolate from this and assume the same level for the Shire of Alberton. However, there are some qualifications. First, while the Shire of Alberton is located within the county of Buln Buln, the county is considerably larger than the shire. There could well have been variations in terms of Catholic settlement density across the whole county that affected the precise figure for the number of Catholics within the Shire of Alberton. Second, the overall figures are not broken down by age-cohorts. Such information would help identify the numbers of men who were actually eligible to enlist at points throughout the War. There are also problems with the designation of religious affiliation on the men’s enlistment forms. True, virtually everyone identified with a religion, but there is no way of knowing the strength of the religious conviction or the commitment to the associated religious beliefs and practices. So, strictly speaking, the statistics refer only to ‘in-name’ affiliation. Also, sometimes with brothers you have different religions given and there appears to have been a tendency to use ‘Church of England’ as a sort of generic religion. With all these qualifications in mind, the following points can be made:

The complete list of men with a definite association to the Shire of Alberton who enlisted between 1914 and 1918 and who indicated a religious affiliation – there were only 13 cases where a religion was not given – was 807. Of this number, 109 men described their religion as ‘Roman Catholic’. This number represents 13.5% of the total Shire enlistments.

Previous analysis – in earlier posts – indicates that the percentage of Roman Catholic enlistments varied over time. For example it was at its highest in the first half of 1915 (17%) and it remained around 16% through 1916. It was lower from 1917, but it is difficult to be precise about the exact decline, principally because enlistments as a whole declined significantly from that point and the numbers are too small to be able to make definite observations. For example, whereas total enlistments in the Shire for 1915 were 302, there were only 31 enlistments in the first half of 1917, with 3 of these Catholic. With this significant qualification about the numbers involved, it appears that there was a drop-off in the rate of Catholic enlistments in the Shire from the start of 1917. This is hardly surprising given the background of the conscription referenda.

In a real sense, the issue here is not one of statistics but community perception. With more than 100 Catholic enlistments over the period of the War, the perception in the local community would definitely have been that the Catholic community had ‘answered the call’. It is also worth noting that the local Catholic priest, Fr Sterling, served as a chaplain with the rank of captain in the AIF over 1916-1917. In the local press at the time this service was noted and praised. It would have served as a very visible example for other potential Catholic enlistments.

Also in terms of perception, it is worth noting that of the 79 names on the cenotaph in the main street of Yarram – the memorial to the dead of the Shire of Alberton – 13 of the names are Catholic (16%). The fact might not mean much today, but 100 years ago locals would definitely have known the individual men and noted the significance of their religion.

Overall, in terms of enlistments and sacrifice, the Catholic community in the Shire of Alberton had proved its loyalty over the course of the War.

The following is an overview of episodes that illustrate the nature and extent of sectarianism in the local community in the first few years after WW1.

The test of loyalty and the increasing the number of Catholic schools in Gippsland

The first episode has already been covered in a previous post – 154. The start of the 1918 school year and yet more division – but it is included here because it touches on another aspect of the critical issue of loyalty. Throughout the War years, Bishop Phelan of Sale had pursued an ambitious church and school building program in Gippsland. He had enjoyed significant success with new churches at Bairnsdale, Maffra and Yarram and convent schools at Leongatha and Yarram (opened for the start of the 1918 school year). Further, his ambitious plan for a major Catholic boys’ secondary school – St. Patrick’s – at Sale was keenly promoted. It would open in 1921. Part of the motivation behind the ambitious program was clearly to lift the profile of the Catholic community in Gippsland and emphasise their right to exercise civic and political power. For example, Phelan was quoted – Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative, 26/4/18 – in relation to the proposed Catholic boys’ college at Sale:

My ambition is that the Catholic boys of Gippsland should have in their own province a college where they would receive such a secondary education as would equip them to take a leading part in civic and national affairs.

But in the same article, Phelan noted the challenges he had faced in his ambitious building program. He noted the inherent difficulties in the geography of the diocese where the Catholic community was spread thinly over such a vast area. He also noted the competition for funds and specifically mentioned … the innumerable demands made on the people on account of the most terrible war in history. He then stated:

But the greatest difficulty experienced was the wall of prejudice raised by narrow-minded people who endeavored to howl down every movement for raising funds except for Red Cross or Imperial purposes. But the stirling Catholics of Gippsland, like their fighting brothers at the front, did their duty towards all the demands of the Empire, and broke through every barrier that prejudice and bigotry would raise between them and their own field of labour.

The Catholic community in Gippsland was aware that fund-raising on their part during the War for their own parochial interests could be interpreted as an act of disloyalty to the Empire. An earlier post – 84. Schooling, religion & Imperialism, Part B: Secularism – considered the issue in more detail. It described how the proceeds from the St Patrick’s Sports Carnival, held in Yarram in March 1916, were passed in entirety to both the Red Cross and the Victorian Sick and Wounded Soldiers’ Fund. The amount was very significant – £720 – and it was to that point; and probably for the entire period of the War – the single most successful fund-raiser for the War effort. It was also significant that it came just 2 weeks after the official blessing of the new Catholic church in Yarram which itself had been funded by a far more parochial effort.

Clearly, throughout the War years, there was the perception on the part of the Catholic community that its loyalty to the War effort and the Empire was always under question. The loyalty itself was measured in a range of ways and the scrutiny was intense.

Fr Sterling’s ‘loyalty’ comes under question

The second episode involves a letter to the editor published in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 1/5/18. Again, this was obviously before the end of the War but it is important for setting some background to the hostility directed at the local Catholic priest – Fr. Sterling – in the years immediately after the War. Fr Patrick Sterling had been born in Ireland in 1882. He served as parish priest if Yarram from 1914 to 1949. As already indicated, he also served as a chaplain with the AIF. At the time he volunteered, his service received widespread praise in the local community.

The letter in question, signed ‘Returned Soldier’ wanted to know why Sterling had not been invited to a recent function for returned men. There was a clear inference that his absence was a sleight to the returned Catholics in the district:

Kindly allow me to inquire through your valuable columns of those responsible for the Returned Soldiers’ Smoke Night, why the Rev Father Stirling’s name was omitted from the invitation list. He is as much a returned soldier as any of us and his non-inclusion was keenly felt by at least the Catholics present.

The event had been held in the Shire Hall on Thursday 25/4/18 and the report in the local paper on 1/5/18 indicated that … nearly 100 local and district residents’ received invitations.

There was a letter in response from the local branch of the Returned Soldiers’ League published in the paper on 3/5/18 which argued that there had been a direction from the State Executive of the organisation that … troopship chaplains are not eligible for membership of the Returned Soldiers’ League and are not classed as returned soldiers by the Defence Department. The letter continued that as there were limited places it was not possible to include Fr Sterling. There are at least two possible interpretations here. One is that the local committee, acting neutrally, was merely applying the letter of the law. The second is that it was exploiting a technicality to exclude Fr Sterling from attending and, at the same time, intimate that his service with the AIF had not been all that significant. It, effectively, did not rate. The significance of the second interpretation will become clearer later. Certainly, there were some in the local community keen to minimise and denigrate Sterling’s service as a chaplain with the AIF

Intensified attacks on Fr Sterling

The third episode also involves Fr Sterling. From the end of 1918 through to the first part of 1919 there was an extended series of ‘welcome homes’ to local men returning from the War. They were written up in the local paper. Typically, they were hosted by a local dignitary, often the local councillor and invariably a recognised Imperial Loyalist. The conventional patriotic sentiments were always evident.

However, the welcome home staged at Stacey’s Bridge on Friday 10 January 1919 was definitely not in the normal style. It was reported at length in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 17/1/19. This report itself prompted a series of animated letters to the editor over the next few weeks. There were several highly divisive issues on show and the degree of hostility evident is revealing. It points to major fault lines in the local community.

The actual welcome at Stacey’s Bridge was put on for two sergeants – John Cantwell and Aloysius Cotter – and a stoker from the RAN named McKenzie. The two sergeants had survived the full war. They were part of the original group of 4 men from Stacey’s Bridge that left from the Alberton Train Station in September 1914. The original four men were Cantwell, Cotter and also Patrick Sexton and John Babington. Cantwell and Cotter made it through the War and were at this reception. Sexton was killed in April 1918. Babington was not finally discharged until October 1919. Of the four from Stacey’s Bridge who enlisted in September 1914, three were Catholics – Babington was Presbyterian – and it appears that this Catholic background was the distinguishing characteristic of the welcome home.

It was a very large community gathering. The paper reported that some 300 people attended the reception and there were at least 3 local councillors present: McLeod, McGalliard and Barry. The focus of the report however was on the comments made by Fr Sterling.

Fr Patrick Francis Sterling was thirty-seven at the time. As already noted, he had been born in Ireland – Thurles – and his mother as next of kin was still living in Borrisokane, County Tipperary. He had been serving in the parish at Yarram for two years when, in October 1916, he applied for and was given a commission as a captain in the AIF and served as a chaplain until April 1917. In that time he served on ships transporting troops to and from the UK. It was not a long period of service; but he obviously did have experience in the AIF and he could claim to speak with some authority.

Father Sterling’s speech is all the more interesting for what was not said, very deliberately not said. In fact, as reported by the paper, he began by stating that he regretted that he … could not do justice to the occasion by speaking exactly what he felt … because … if he did he ran a big risk of getting six months in jail.

By this point, Catholics had had to develop a particular perspective on the War. They were reluctant to support the claim that the War had been fought to preserve the integrity and supremacy of the British Empire. After all, as they saw it, the Empire was the core problem in Ireland. Yet uncompromising and total dedication to the Empire had been one of the constant themes hammered home in Australia throughout the War and well before it. In the popular mind, the defence of the Empire was a given – even a God-given reality. Moreover, 300,000 thousand Australians had enlisted in the AIF – including many from an Irish Catholic background – to defend the Empire. So there was this fundamental dilemma for many Catholics: how to bypass or downplay the issue of Imperial loyalty – and avoid being seen as pro-British – while at the same time honouring the achievements, sacrifices and unique character of all the Australians who had enlisted.

On this occasion, it is clear that Sterling opted for a pro-Australian and anti-British position. Of course, his comments are being reported to us by the local paper and they may have been coloured by the editor; but they certainly do suggest that Sterling was not being as pro-British and pro-Empire as the times demanded.

He [Sterling] reminded the audience that the credit of winning the war was due in one essential matter solely to the Australians. The British authorities have now admitted that on the occasion of the last big German offensive, every preparation had been made to transport back to England every British soldier in France. As a last resort, and as a desperate gamble, four Australian divisions were hurried up at a critical time, and at Villers-Bretonneux stemmed the German advance once and for all. In plain, sober fact the Australians on that occasion won the war, and saved the world’s freedom. (Applause.)

This idea that Australian troops had in effect ‘won the war’ was reflected in other articles at the time. While the claim was greatly overblown, it did at least reflect the high praise accorded to the AIF by various heads of state, newspaper editors, foreign generals etc. The more important observation here is that Sterling’s comments champion the Australian cause while at the same time questioning British efforts and character. Sterling went on to make other highly complimentary remarks about … that gallant fighting force, the A.I.F. which had earned for itself in deeds of bloody glory a monument “more splendid than gold and more enduring than brass.”

The event itself was taking place just 2 months after the end of fighting. To this point, most other welcome-home events or Armistice celebrations had promoted a conventional narrative of God’s grace in bringing victory, the final triumph of good over evil, the resoluteness of the British fighting spirit, the unvanquished greatness of the Empire, the final defeat of German militarism, the outstanding achievements of the AIF etc. But Sterling started to raise the more awkward questions to do with what, in the end, had been achieved. He argued that for a war that had been waged for … freedom and democracy, and a lot of other high sounding things … the outcomes were decidedly uncertain. He even suggested that the ‘four years of hell’ that the Australian boys had been through ‘to make the world fit to live in’ were currently being compromised by the actions of some of the Allied powers themselves. He singled out France for its determination to maintain conscription and the USA for its declared intention to create a navy which, as Sterling put it, … will make her boss cocky of the seas. Sterling also included an attack on the ‘repatriation scheme’, which he referred to as a ‘huge farce’. The criticism was that the boys had volunteered for war on the solemn promise that they would be looked after when they came home. But now the promise appeared false:

The departing soldiers were told that nothing would be too good for them on their return, and the best would not be good enough for them. And so on ad nauseam. If they wait until these promises materialise they had better make Rip Van Winkle their patron saint. (Applause.)

He then gave an account of a returned soldier who, only recently, had had to cadge from him the ‘price of a bed and a feed’. Coincidentally, less than two weeks later there was a detailed story in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on the plight of a returned soldier who had well and truly fallen through any repatriation safety net. It is not clear if the subject of the article on 29/1/19 is the same person with whom Fr Sterling dealt. However, it is very evident that both the challenge of repatriation and the implicit fear that the returned men were not being sufficiently supported were very much in the public mind.

Fr Sterling also could not let the occasion pass without mentioning that he had been … blackballed from the Yarram Club … and … passed over at Armistice celebrations.

There was singing – ‘Coming Home’, Mother Macree’ etc – and dancing at the function. But there was no mention of standard Imperial tunes, nor any mention of the National Anthem.

Unsurprisingly, the article on Fr Sterling’s comments at the welcome home at Stacey’s Bridge prompted a response. A letter appeared in the very next edition of the local paper on 22/1/19 by an anonymous correspondent who signed himself as ‘Loyal Australian’, with the clear implication that Fr Sterling on the other hand was not loyal. In fact, the gist of the letter was that if he – Fr Sterling- risked six months gaol for speaking his mind then, clearly, his sentiments must have been disloyal. ‘Loyal Australian’ also challenged the priest’s remarks about the British preparedness to evacuate from France and he suggested that no one would believe such a claim. He appeared to confirm that Fr Sterling had been banned from the Yarram Club and passed over for Armistice celebrations. He also claimed that Sterling had also been … turned down by the Returned Soldiers’ Association.

Fr Sterling responded in the next edition of the paper (24/1/1919). By now the debate was indeed heated. Sterling began by attacking ‘Loyal Australian’ for hiding behind the mask of anonymity. He argued that without any idea of the writer’s identity there was no way of testing his own loyalty. Sterling implied that the claimed loyalty might be fake. In fact, he suggested that the cloak of anonymity certainly pointed to a lack of courage. Sterling talked about varieties of loyalty and it is clear what he had in mind:

Loyalty… has so many meanings and ramifications. Loyalty to pocket and flag-flapping loyalty are common specimens. There is also the loyalty of the man who sools others on to fight for him, and who tells his substitute what a fine fellow he is, and what a lot of things will be done for him on his return – if he ever returns.

Fr Sterling continued his claim that the Yarram Club was selective and discriminatory by alleging that a sergeant involved in recruiting [presumably, William Newland] had also been blackballed; and he used this claim as a justification for questioning the very integrity of members of the Club. The criticism was full-on:

Did “Loyal Australian” resign from the Club when a recruiting sergeant was subjected to the indignity of being blackballed? They must be a hard lot to please in that exclusive club of aristocrats. Possibly the sergeant with his honourable wounds was deficient in the Club brand of loyalty. How many shirkers are on the roll call of the Club? Is “Loyal Australian” himself one of them? Is he in good health and physically strong, and as well able to endure the hardships of campaigning, as many others on the too-young-side and the too-old-side have done? Has he enlisted, or tried to do so, even for home defence? Let us wait and see if the boasted loyalty is merely camouflage for humbug.

Fr Sterling also attacked the ‘War Precautions Act’ and Hughes whom he referred to as the ‘livery P.M.’ Sterling referred to national politicians – Hughes, Cook and Pearce – as the ‘tin gods’ of the likes of Loyal Australian. He also made another specific reference, in the context of the repatriation system not working, to a returned soldier living in a tent at the back of newspaper office waiting for a job. The reference in important because the same theme – possibly even the same case – was taken up the paper itself in a major article the next week (29/1/1919).

Not surprisingly, given what he had said about the Yarram Club, there was a response to Fr Sterling’s letter in the next edition, 29/1/1919. It was long, over-written and pompous in tone. Once again the writer was only given as ‘Loyal Australian’. But this letter included a piece of doggerel, penned by another anonymous scribe, ‘Spokeshear’.

The effort was clearly intended to damage the priest’s reputation and image in the community and make him look a fool. Amongst other insults, it questioned both his military service and his religious life. It mocked his Irish brethren. Aimed at a highly public figure in the local community and penned anonymously it was a nasty effort. It is surprising that the paper published such anonymously vindictive attacks. Perhaps the editor believed Sterling’s ‘disloyalty’ justified the attack. The complete effort – under the title of ‘Cinderella’s Voyage’ – is included below. It is worth reflecting that while the Great War was over, longer and deeper conflicts that touched on issues of class, nationality and religion were still very much alive. Those from the land of ‘bogs and hogs’ would have been less than amused.

Cinderella’s Voyage
I’ll tell you of a brave, bold Sterling chap
Who was spoiling for a scrap,
And was soon on board a transport
On a fairly decent job,
With clothes and boots and tucker free,
And a daily one and twenty bob.
And when he reached the land of bogs and hogs
His cobbers came to meet him by the score
But they couldn’t sight his togs,
They seemed to make ‘em sore,
But chappy didn’t care a dam-
For sure those togs were only sham.
And bad luck he didn’t stay,
But he wasn’t sorry that he went,
For he had a bonzer trip,
And it didn’t cost a cent,
And we know this Cinderella chappy
Didn’t mix up in a scrappy,
And wicked people say
He didn’t even – pray.
And soon he reached Australia fit and well,
And if he didn’t fight like hell or pray too well,
He surely wasn’t qualified to be supplied
With bread and beef and beer at a patriotic club,
So now perforce he lines up at the “pub”
And soaks his beer and damns the Club.
And now, alas, this poor Cinderella youth
Declines to mingle with these men uncouth,
Whom you’ll find among the “angels” at the Yarram Club.

Formation of local branch of the Protestant Federation

The fourth episode worth attention involved the formation of a local branch of the Protestant Federation in Yarram in August 1919. The motto of the Protestant Federation was ‘For God, King and Empire’. It had been established in Ballarat at the time of the second conscription referendum in 1917. By the time the local branch was set up in Yarram the Federation claimed a membership of 100,000. In part, it was influenced by the Protestant revivalist movement of the time. It spoke out against moral decline and population peril, and it actively supported causes like prohibition and social justice initiatives such as social housing. Imperial loyalty was its very DNA. Lastly, it was stridently anti-Roman Catholic. Archbishop Mannix was a particular target, as was John Wren.

The local branch was formed in Yarram on 1/8/19 at a meeting held in the Shire Hall with about 50 people present. The local meeting was reported in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 6/8/19. The meeting was presided over by Rev W E Lancaster (Methodist). In his remarks Lancaster noted that the federation … had done a great deal to check different menaces to the country, and to prevent many things that did not tend to promote the welfare of the Protestant community. One particular ‘menace’ that Lancaster highlighted was the Roman Catholic Church. He quoted Gladstone to claim that … where the Church of Rome is weak it is crafty, and where it is strong it is tyrannical. He added:

The past of the Roman Church was dark with intrigue and red with the blond of martyrs.

Then he launched into claims that the Protestant Federation was promoting at the time. They were claims about Roman Catholic perfidy in the recent War. The Roman Church was an enemy of the Empire:

During the war evidence was available to show conclusively that the Roman Church had had a hand in the awfulness that had taken place. The speaker [Lancaster] advised those present to study the Rev. F. A. Hagenauer’s pamphlet describing the relationships of the Papacy to the Kaiser in the war. When Belgium was over-run and France was outraged no protest had gone out from the Vatican, nor was there any papal protest when the Lousitania (sic) was sunk. While Germany was busy submarining Allied and neutral vessels, ships flying the papal flag were immune from attack. While masquerading in the guise of a church the Romanish sect dishonoured the King and endeavoured to bring about the destruction of the Empire. Politically that Church was prepared to sell its influence to the highest bidder, and Protestants should be careful to combat its evil influence wherever and whenever possible. (Applause).

Also present the meeting were Rev M G Opper (Church of England) and Rev S Williams (Presbyterian). Opper spoke briefly about the aims of the Federation: … to substitute liberty for bondage, truth instead of error, and purity instead of corruption. He also mentioned threats to the Empire – ‘social unrighteousness’ and ‘industrial unrest’ – and, again, one such threat was the Pope. He noted that the Federation … wanted to rule out the supremacy of the pope. The first principle of Protestantism was loyalty to God and loyalty to the King.

It was resolved that the president of the local branch was to be George Bland (Methodist) and the 3 vice-presidents would be the three local Protestant clergymen: Revs Melchior George Opper (Church of England, appointed to Yarram October 1918), Samuel Williams (Presbyterian, appointed to Yarram November 1917) and W E Lancaster (Methodist, appointed to Yarram early 1919).

There had been earlier connections to Yarram for some of the influential figures in the Protestant Federation. Rev F A Hagenauer, who at this point (1919) was at Castlemaine, had earlier ministered in Yarram and, in fact, he had recently been relieving in the district when Rev S Williams had been on holidays. Rev G A Judkins, another key figure, had also served for a term in Yarram. He had left in 1904. As we will see, Judkins returned to Yarram to speak on behalf of the Protestant Federation.

The decision to establish a local branch of the Protestant Federation prompted a letter to the editor (8/8/19) from Fr Sterling criticising what he saw as the group’s anti-Roman Catholic bias. Sterling’s letter attempted to make fun of the allegations about the Roman Catholic Church working in concert with Germany. Essentially, Sterling dismissed the claims as nonsense. He also gave his version of what the real motivation was:

Now that the big war is over, and there is no sensational subject for the Sunday sermon, it is not unexpected that a local sectarian war will be dragged in to do duty. Anything to fill the empty pews. However, it won’t worry us. There will be mass at St. Mary’s as usual next Sunday, and the local annual collection for the Pope will most certainly eclipse all records this year. That is the best reply to make to the snuffling slanderers.

Sterling’s letter set off a minor war of correspondence with Rev F A Hagenauer. Hagenauer (13/8/19) challenged Sterling to shown where the Protestant Federation had given ‘false or unreliable’ evidence. He also added the allegation that Stirling, personally, had spoken ‘disrespectfully’ of the Prince of Wales.

In turn, Sterling replied on 15/8/19. It was clear that he was not keen to pursue a debate that he considered nonsensical. He also claimed that the debate was designed to boost sales of Rev Hagenauer’s book(s). Then Stirling tuned his attention to the claim that he had shown disrespect to the Prince of Wales

The Prince of Wales has proven himself during the war to be above all things – a man among men. He is no namby-pamby drawing-room fop, nor yet a tin god on a swirling piano stool. From what we have learned of his character he is not the type that wants grovelling slobberers running after him labeled as spittoons.

But as well as praise, there was also the clear rejection by Sterling of any sense of mandated servility. He continued:

His [Prince of Wales] manly character and his exalted position demand the ultimate expression of respect, but it is not necessary for me to stand on my head every time his name is mentioned.

On 20/8/19 Hagenaeur followed up with another letter but the debate with Stirling had effectively petered out.

Then in the local paper on 24/9/19, there was advice of an address by Rev G A Judkins on ‘The Papal Army in Australia’. It was to be held on behalf of the local branch of the Protestant Federation. The paper also noted that Judkins had previously ministered in Yarram, that he was key figure in the Methodist Church and that he was … held in high esteem in Protestant circles.

The meeting took place on 26/9/19 and was written up in the local paper on 1/10/19. The paper’s report was extensive and noted that it was the first, formal function of the local branch. The address took place in the Mechanic’s Hall and ‘there was ‘a very satisfactory attendance.’ The meeting began with the National Anthem and prayers. Rev Opper, vice president, presided and set the tone. It was the Empire against Roman Catholicism.

The speaker deplored the apathy manifested by Protestants in the fight against the influences of Roman Catholicism which was a great menace to the Empire and to Australia.

For his part, Judkins claimed it was the Roman Catholics not the Protestants responsible for the conflict. Again, the Roman Catholic Church was trying to destroy the Empire:

The conflict would never have come into existence had it not been for the wicked aggression of the Roman Church. Rome had promised faithfully to lay aside her weapons during the progress of the great war, but she had not done so. While they were giving their sons in order that the Empire might be saved and liberty preserved for themselves and heir children, the great organisation of Rome was doing its utmost to spoil the Empire, and praying that it should be beaten down to the very dust.

According to Judkins, there was a universal conspiracy:

A papal army existed in Australia, and not only in Australia, but in every other land; and its definite object wherever it existed was to bring that country under the absolute control of the church of Rome.

Amongst other wild accusations, Judkins claimed that because France had ‘thrown off the papal yoke’, Rome had been keen to bring about the defeat of France and had allied with the Kaiser. Rome was behind the War itself:

France was to be punished because she had broken away. The intriguing hand of Rome was responsible for the great war, just as it was responsible for some of the other greatest tragedies in history.

With such a shocking history, Judkins warned that the threat of Rome could not be taken lightly. Rome was the Devil’s agent:

People did not realise it but an organised minority was infinitely more powerful than an unorganised majority. People talked foolishly when they argued that Romans compromised only a fifth of the Australian population, and they could not do anything. Rome was one of the mightiest forces that the devil employed; and it was working to bring the whole world to the feet of the Pope. He [Judkins] appealed to those present to organise and to keep organising, in order to combat the great menace which existed in their midst today.

Judkins continued on about papal espionage, the Church of Rome as the ‘anti-Christ’, a papal plot for world domination and, specifically, the conquest of all Protestant lands, with England the chief target.

Specifically in relation to the situation in Australia, Judkins claimed that Mannix had been reported to have said,

If I had my wish there would not be a Protestant in Australia.

There were additional attacks on the local Catholic clergy as being under the control of Rome and … working to injure our country. The Catholic Church was also said to be in alliance with the ALP … which she was using as a tool to be cast side when it had outgrown its usefulness. Similarly, Rome was in alliance with ‘Sinn Feinism and Bolshevism’.

Judkins also argued that Protestant attempts to bring scripture back into the State schools were being undermined by Catholics. The Catholics had even deliberately left some of their students in State schools so they could oppose the introduction of scripture. The Catholic Church was also ‘… cramming our [State] schools with Roman Catholic teachers.

The local paper noted the applause at the end of the address.

It was hardly surprising that local Catholics were upset by Judkins’ attack. On 3/10/19, there was a letter from John W Biggs a local Catholic who had had 3 sons serve in the AIF: Robert Biggs (2616), Charles Ignatius Biggs (1313) and John William Biggs (427). All survived the War.

Biggs recorded his ‘disgust’ at Judkin’s address which he described as … a tirade of abuse of the Catholic Church and all belonging to it. He identified Judkins and his supporters as ‘pro-conscriptionists’ from the War who had tried … to force our young Australian youth (boys merely) to fight for the defence of the Empire. He rejected the claims of disloyalty and claimed 60,000 of the AIF had been Catholic. He claimed this figure of 60,000 was … their full quota according to population. Biggs asked … did ever a body get such abuse as the Catholic parents of such soldiers?

Biggs briefly revisited the conscription debate:

No doubt a good many Catholic young men did not join the army but could you blame them when the majority of the Press and the wowser parsons were abusing their religion right and left.

Biggs also claimed that many young Protestants had not wanted to join AIF and had also opposed conscription; but they had not had to bear the same level of abuse as the young Catholics.

Biggs also disputed many of Judkins’ historical claims and was critical of the conditions of the British working class – housing, wages, living conditions – under Protestantism. He suggested that Judkins should focus on substantial issues, such as the housing problem in Melbourne and ‘profiteering’ and ‘race suicide’. Biggs finished his letter:

I will now conclude by informing you, that being the father of three soldiers, I was very much hurt on reading the insults and abuse showered on Catholics by Mr Judkins, to which denomination my boys belong. I may state that the Catholic percentage of population of Australia is 20.68, and the Methodist 16.3. The percentage of enlistments of Catholics is 18.9 and Methodists is 13.8.

St Patrick’s Day processions

The next episode to highlight the bitter sectarianism evident in the local community after the War involved St Patrick’s Day processions in 1919 and then 1920. The first covered events in Sale, Gippsland and the second in Melbourne.

Sectarianism was strong in Sale where Bishop Phelan was based. Against this background, the civic authorities insisted that for the 1919 St Patrick’s Day procession through the town the Union Jack had to be carried at the head of the procession. The flag also had to be larger than any other flag in the procession. Additionally, no ‘Sinn Fein colours’ were to be worn or displayed by members of the procession. Lastly, there was to be ‘no allusion’ in any display in the procession to the ‘unhappy incidents of Easter, 1916, in Dublin, or any sequel thereof’. The organisers of the march agreed to the obviously ‘political’ terms, but when Phelan heard of the demands made by the mayor he railed against them. He described the mayor as a ‘petty tyrant’ and a ‘fool’. The local press – Gippsland Times, 27/2/19 – reported that Phelan called off the procession because of the demands and the manner of the local authorities:

We will not march to the grounds [where the associated St Patrick’s sports carnival was to take place] under the humiliating conditions which our local ruler would impose on us this year. (Tremendous Applause).

Phelan then organised an alternative garden fete. He invited Mannix to attend the event and it was clear that this was a definite strategy to raise the profile of the occasion, underline the perceived attacks on the Catholics in Gippsland, and encourage a large attendance. Additional trains were put on to bring people from Bairnsdale and Traralgon. Mannix arrived at Sale by train on 5/4/19 and was met by very large crowd. Led by a car carrying Phelan and Mannix, the large crowd then processed thorough Sale to the cathedral. There was no Union Jack. The Gippsland Times (7/4/19) reported on comments by Mannix:

His Grace expressed his great pleasure at being present. In Melbourne they had been hearing a good deal of Sale lately – (laughter) – and some of the trouble arose in connection with St. Patrick’s Day. Here, as in other places, obstacles had been placed in the way of celebrating St. Patrick’s Day. They wanted to prevent the people of Sale from marching in their own streets, but today a great part of Gippsland had marched in spite of them. (Great cheering).

After the ’procession’ or ‘march’, the mayor of Sale set out to prosecute the organisers, on the basis that clearly a march had occurred – a large one, led by Phelan and Mannix – but that the appropriate permission for the march had not been either requested or given. Some of the councillors saw the episode as an attempt to undermine local authority; and they were incensed by what they saw as Mannix’s gloating. The Gippsland Times, 10/419 reported one councillor:

Cr. Futcher said there was not the slightest doubt that there had been a breach of he regulations. What made matters worse was the fact that Archbishop Mannix went out of his way to gloat over the fact that they had marched in spite of the authorities. … Had it not been for the gloating that had been indulged in by church dignitaries, he would have been prepared to let the matter pass.

The council initially narrowly voted to institute a prosecution against the organisers and Mannix. The 5-4 vote was on sectarian lines. The vote saw all the Catholics on the council walk out and division in the local community reached new levels. In the end, the prosecution did not go ahead.

The following year -1920 – saw Mannix put on his own version of the St. Patrick’s Day procession in Melbourne. This time it was a far grander spectacle than the one staged in Sale the year before.

The St. Patrick’s Day Procession in Melbourne in 1920 was reported extensively in the press. The Argus, 22/3/20, detailed how the route started at St. Patrick’s and ended at the Exhibition Building (the interim Federal Parliament). The crowd watching was a record and the paper noted:

Long before the starting time people commenced to assemble on the streets. Soon after 1 o’clock there was a large crowd behind the barriers, and all available space on Federal Parliament House steps and the Post-office steps was occupied.

The route itself was lined with 400 police on foot and another 100 mounted police accompanied the procession. There were also plain clothes police in the crowd. On the day, there were no reports of any disturbances or problems.

It was a large procession. The paper estimated that 20,000 people participated in the actual procession and that it took an hour and 12 minutes for the procession to pass a given point.

The procession underlined how determined Mannix was to demonstrate not just the sacrifices that the Catholic community had made in terms of the War but how significant they were in terms of state and national politics. At its head, the procession featured the Australian flag, not the Union Jack. In fact, there was much press speculation about how the Union Jack would appear. The report in The Argus noted that it appeared about half an hour into the procession and … it came and went without many people realising it. At the same time, With the exception of one or two isolated individual cases, there was an absence of Sinn Fein colours or emblems. The dominant colours throughout the procession were green and gold.

First in the procession came 14 Victoria Cross winners on grey horses. Next was Archbishop Mannix in a motor car with several returned chaplains, with … a small body of mounted troops as an escort. Then there were 6,000 returned soldiers and sailors. More cars followed with nurses and returned men and other cars with clergy. There was also a long line of Catholic boys from Catholic schools and colleges. There were also Catholic societies and schools with banners and some floats. There were also various bands including the Melbourne Pipe Band. Finally, the paper noted that … the rear of the procession was brought up by a body of about 140 horsemen.

Archbishop Mannix and the VC winners, 1920. Courtesy State Library Victoria

Mannix clearly sought to emphasise the martial character of the procession. He personally ‘took the salute’ in front of Federal Parliament House (Exhibition Building). He stood with the VC winners and was cheered by each section of the procession as it passed.

Following the procession, there was a major sports carnival on Exhibition Oval, which included 4,000 school children giving a physical culture display. Rain in the late afternoon forced the cancellation of the planned concert that night.

By any standard, it was an impressive turn out and certainly demonstrated the ability of Mannix to draw a crowd. It was also very much an expression of Irish-Australian identity.

After the procession, Mannix was quoted in The Argus (22/3/20) as acknowledging the opposition that had been raised. He was keen to state that those who had opposed the procession … will never prevent Irishmen showing their sympathy with Ireland, while yielding in none in their loyalty to Australia and to the Empire. But, clearly, this particular trinity – Ireland, Australia and the Empire – was a hard one to juggle. For Irish Catholics the actions of the Empire in Ireland were a real problem. In fact, the very next day The Argus again covered more of Mannix’s response to the procession. This time it was in relation to the 14 VC winners who had accompanied him on the day. He was keen to use them to boost the cause of Irish independence, or at least ‘self-determination’.

In the course of a long speech, Dr Mannix said that St. Patrick’s Day demonstration last Saturday would remain a memorable one as long as Melbourne was Melbourne. He also stated that the V.C. winners who supported him in the procession had unanimously agreed to a motion which they intended to cable to the British authorities, demanding that England should give to Ireland the self-determination which they fought for on behalf of other nations.

Scripture lessons in State schools

The sixth episode of sectarianism sees a return to Yarram and the activities of the Protestant Federation in the middle of 1920. Ostensibly, the issue was the push for a referendum – at state level – to determine the question of whether scripture lessons were to be taught in state schools. At the end of the meeting, the following resolution was passed.

That this meeting records its conviction that the great majority of Victorian parents desire Non-sectarian and Non-compulsory Scripture lessons in the school course, with equal opportunity for direct religious teaching by representatives of the various churches, under conditions that work smoothly in four other Australian States; claims that this issue should be placed before the Electors by a simple referendum question at the forthcoming elections; protests against a selfish minority [Catholics], largely hostile to national education, being able to continue to deprive the majority of the Non-sectarian Scripture instruction it deems beneficial to the community; and calls upon the Scripture Campaign Council to organise a deputation, at an early date, to urge Government and parliament to provide Referendum machinery for testing the mind of electors at the next general elections.

However, while, as indicated, the meeting was ostensibly about Scripture lessons, it was more remarkable for another full-on attack on the Roman Catholic Church. Judkins’ focus was on the threat the church posed to the Empire. As Judkins saw it, the church was openly and actively plotting to destroy the Empire. He worked from the proposition that the Empire itself was ‘God’s handiwork’. The Empire was also the bulwark against Rome:

God has not only established it [the Empire], but preserved it. This barrier [the Empire] between Rome and the realisation of her principles has been divinely built. It is because the Empire constitutes that barrier, that leaders of Roman Catholicism burn with so intense hatred against all that is British.

The link between the Bible and the defence of the Empire – and therefore the necessary push for the proposed referendum – came from what Judkins saw as the Roman campaign to undermine the Bible as a means of destroying the Empire. He described … two directions in which the energies of the Church of Rome are being exerted in an attempt to establish herself in a position of temporal and spiritual supremacy. She aims at the destruction of the British Empire, and the prohibition of the use of the Bible by the people.

For Judkins, the Bible and the Empire were fundamentally linked. The Bible had a form of geo-political significance:

We shall lose the Empire if we lose the Bible.

Judkins then gave another history lesson going back to the Spanish Armada and Rome’s attempt to subdue England and ending with the supposed alliance between the Pope and Germany in WW1.

Specifically in relation to the then current conflict in Ireland he claimed to see the hand of Rome involved and saw it as yet another attempt by Rome to overcome the Empire. He stated:

The happenings in Ireland, the endeavour to create a state [Irish Free State] close to the heart of the Empire have as their object the realisation of the long-cherished desire of Rome.

He then went further and claimed that the same plot was being played out in Australia:

Attempts are being made to make Australia another Ireland, and with the same object in view.

Whether it was the strongest attack against Roman Catholics made to that point, it was certainly extreme. Interestingly, some allies thought that the likes of Judkins had finally gone too far. One was Rossiter, the editor of the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative. As noted before, Rossiter was a firm Imperial Loyalist but, this time, apparently, Judkins had crossed a line. As editor, he would certainly have been aware of the impact this type of address – published in his paper – was having on the community and in particular on the level of sectarian conflict. It did not appear to have been such an issue for him in the past, but this time he intervened. In an editorial (2/7/20), he noted that the issue of Scripture lessons had hardly been covered in Judkins’ address and that it was more just an unbridled attack on Roman Catholicism. He stated:

If Bible lessons are to be taught in our State schools a scheme acceptable to all denominations will not be hastened by violently attacking the Church of Rome for acts done by her devotees hundreds of years ago.

and

If every Protestant clergyman held and enunciated views as does Mr. Judkins, what strife there would be.

On that very point, he singled out Rev Opper who had also been at the meeting. He claimed that Opper had been more ‘temperate’ and ‘constructive’ in his comments than Judkins.

And the apparent backlash against Judkins continued. In the local paper on 2/7/20 Rev Opper had a letter announcing that he had resigned his position as vice-president of the local branch of the Protestant Federation:

With your permission, I wish, through the medium of your paper, to dissociate myself from the violent attack upon the Church of Rome, made by the Rev. G. A. Judkins on Sunday night last, and published in your columns this morning. The meeting was arranged for the purpose of urging support for a referendum on Scripture Lessons in State Schools – a movement which has my fullest sympathy – and not for the purpose for which it was used. In order to avoid being placed again in a false position, I am forwarding to the secretary of the local branch of the Protestant Federation my resignation as president. Still remaining a good Anglican, and, I hope, a good Protestant. – I am …

Previously, Opper too had been a strident critic of the ‘Roman Church’ but perhaps, as a local minister, he had grown concerned at the impact that such wild accusations were having on the community.

But for any local disquiet about the level of sectarian conflict in the community and the impact of extreme accusations being made against Roman Catholicism, the local branch of the Protestant Federation continued the fight. In February 1921, Rev R Ditterich – president of the Methodist Conference of Victoria and Tasmania – addressed about 50 people in the Yarram Mechanics’ Institute. It was written up in the edition of 9/2/21. Ditterich was President of the Australian Protestant Federation and had been previously very involved in the Victorian branch. The talk focused on the question of ‘Why are we Protestants?’ He lamented that few people had a sound understanding of the history of Protestantism. The version of history he gave that night started with the persecution of Protestants by the Roman Church and highlighted the despotic power that Rome had over its faithful:

The Church of Rome exercised a power over the will of their people, who knew no liberty of thought, and no freedom, and they also tried to exercise a power over their politics and education, in fact, the Church exercised a power when and wherever it chose.

In terms of the recent War, Ditterich claimed that … Catholic France was saved by Protestant England.

Overall, Ditterich had nothing positive to say about Rome:

As Protestants they had no thanks to pay the Roman Catholic church for any single liberty which the people enjoyed today.

Perhaps the vote of thanks that night was more circumspect than usual:

Rev. Lancaster said they were deeply indebted for the address, which should inspire them, not in a spirit of hatred, but thankfulness for their freedom.

As noted, Rev Opper by this point had severed contact with Protestant Federation.

Local celebrations at the time Ireland gained ‘Free State’ status

The last episode to cover involved the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921. The treaty was to provide for a measure of Irish independence and put an end to the three years of fighting between Irish nationalists and republicans and British troops and special units. The treaty had broad backing in Australia but, in fact, in Ireland itself it presaged the bitter civil war that was to follow very quickly. But certainly at the time, the news of the treaty – even with its qualifications – was received warmly in the Catholic community in the Shire of Alberton.

As an indication of just how close the political situation in Ireland was to Irish Catholics in Australia, the local community in the Shire of Alberton organised a special celebration for the announcement of the treaty. It was written up in the local paper on 23/12/21. There was a ‘large and enthusiastic audience’ at Thompson’s Hall in Yarram. The Yarram Band played before the concert started. Items at the concert included the songs: ‘Ireland I Love You’, ‘Come Back to Erin’ and ‘Irish Eyes Are Smiling’. There was no mention of the National Anthem. There was also dancing. It was a great success and … everything passed off without the slightest hitch.

Finally

The end of WW1 did not see the end of the sectarian conflict in Australian society which had been exacerbated by the conflict over the two conscription referenda. In fact, more extreme Protestant groups doubled down on the fundamental question of ‘loyalty’ (to the Empire) and routinely portrayed Roman Catholicism as inherently anti-British and anti-Empire. They even argued that the Church of Rome had sided with the Germans in the War. Additionally, Roman Catholicism was represented as a form of intellectual, political and spiritual tyranny. And, for good measure, the Pope was the anti-Christ. Similarly, the struggle for Irish independence was portrayed as an existential threat to the Empire itself.

In response to such criticisms, and constantly looking to the political situation in Ireland, the Australian Catholic community chose to become more assertive in their role in society and politics, and more determined to protect their religious and cultural identity. Most significantly, they moved to a sense of Australian nationalism that effectively sought to remove the previously core element of the Empire.

The sectarianism experienced in the local community was intense and often highly personal.

References

Synan. T 2003, A Journey in Faith: A History of Catholic Education in Gippsland 1850-1981, David Lovell Publishing, Ringwood Victoria


Various. 1992, Companions on the Journey 1892-1992, Centenary of St. Mary’s Parish Yarram 1892-1992, St. Mary’s Parish, Yarram


The Argus
Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative
Gippsland Times

Note 1: for more background on the 1920 St Patrick’s Day Procession in Melbourne see the following article by Paul Daley in The Guardian 22/4/16: Divided Melbourne: when the archbishop turned St, Patrick’s Day into propaganda.

Note 2: Father Sterling’s name often appears as Stirling. The signature on his enlistment forms is definitely Sterling.

212. The Shire of Alberton unveils a memorial to its soldiers

Post 96. Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial gave a brief history of the monument in Commercial Road, Yarram. This post examines in detail the local politics leading up to first the construction and then the dedication of the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial. As for the previous post on the establishment of the Diggers’ Club in Yarram, it also highlights the nature and degree of the tension in the local community in the first few years after the War.

The decision to erect a memorial to the soldiers of Alberton Shire was taken at a council meeting on 13 May 1920:

A Soldiers monument (sic) be erected in Commercial Road,Yarram, cost to be referred to next year’s estimates, form and price to be decided at next meeting.

This was just after a presentation by the Melbourne firm of Corben & Sons. The actual cost indicated at the time was £550.

While the Shire’s decision appeared clear-cut, the way forward was to prove difficult.

To begin with, the editor – A J Rossiter – of the local paper – Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative – was keen to influence the debate over a suitable memorial. Indeed, initially at least, Rossiter had an entirely different proposal, which he promoted in the pages of the paper. In a sense, it was all a case of deja vu, as the previous post highlighted similar efforts by Rossiter to push his proposal for a grand, commemorative civic hall over the returned men’s wish for a more exclusive and lower-key Diggers’ Club. This time, Rossiter was keen on ’swimming baths’. Prior to the Shire’s resolution of 13/5/20 on the construction of the memorial on Commercial Road, outside the Post Office, Rossiter had been pushing his ‘public baths’ proposal. An editorial on 10/3/20 – two months before the council meeting – outlined his proposal. It began with an acknowledgement that his previous ambitious proposal had been rejected; but, as far as he was concerned, that was no reason to hold back from yet another bold, public venture:

Since the bold proposal of a public hall, embracing a soldiers’ club, did not find favor, why not a public memorial in the form of swimming baths? We have before advocated swimming baths for the rising generation, and have pointed out the necessity for every child to be taught the art of swimming. The old Mechanic’s Institute was at one time suggested as a suitable site, because of a natural watercourse that intersects that property. The public might well join issue with the Shire council in establishing public baths as a memorial to district soldiers, and the donor roll could be placed at the baths, instead of being hid in a comparatively obscure place in the shire hall which so few enter. Public baths as a memorial would be far before a granite monument in the main street or at the shire hall, because of their utilitarian character. Whatever is done by the shire council must cost a fair sum. No paltry donor board would suffice as a district memorial to the soldiers who fought for their country.

As matters progressed, the call for the memorial swimming baths appears to have slipped away. However, Rossiter had yet another proposal to replace the baths – the extension and refurbishment of the Shire Hall so that it could accommodate 1,500 people. In another editorial on 2/6/20, Rossiter raised the £550 figure for the proposed memorial in Commercial Road, and claimed that it would represent money ‘thrown away’. He wanted … something better done with the money. He had a far more beneficial and utilitarian proposal:

The town does not possess a hall worthy of the name, and none has the facilities which the public are justly entitled to. The proposal we have in mind as a fitting memorial to our soldiers is to re-model the shire hall, and build at the rear a balconied hall to seat about 1,500 people.

In the same editorial, Rossiter called for a public meeting to discuss the whole issue:

A memorial, in the form suggested, would for all time commemorate the deeds of not only the fallen, but those who have been spared to us. If remodelling the shire hall find favour amongst our readers, in place of the proposed monument, we would suggest that a public meeting be called as early as possible.

And there was yet another option. The third option focussed on the so-called (Soldiers’) ‘Memorial Park’.

When a new cemetery had been established at Yarram in 1902, the graves from the ‘Old Yarram Pioneer Cemetery’ had been relocated to the new site. In 1911, an act of the Victorian Parliament had provided for the old cemetery site to be converted to a park. Subsequently, from August 1914 several, local Friendly Societies – the local branch of the Australian Natives’ Association appears to have been the major player – undertook to turn the ‘old local burial ground’ into a ‘pleasure place for the populace’ . The details appeared in the local paper on 21/8/14. The Friendly Societies were to take advice from Shire personnel and organise working bees. The plan called for … the planting of palms, trees and shrubs in preference to flowers, and suggested a large grass plot in the centre where children could play, and where a bandstand could be erected. It was recognised that the amount of work involved was considerable and that a time frame of at least 2-3 years was required.

Over the period of the War, not a great deal of remediation work in the park was undertaken. Then, in mid 1918, a public meeting was held to consider … the question of beautifying the old burial ground, south of the town, and form a memorial park. By the end of October that year, there was a formal committee of the ‘Yarram Memorial Park’. There was also an agreed schedule of work to be undertaken by volunteer organisations, including the ANA, the Returned Soldiers’ Association, the Soldiers’ Fathers Association, the IOR and the local Traders’ association. It was all detailed in the local paper (25/10/18). Again, the scope of the remediation work was extensive. In fact, the scope was arguably too ambitious. In June 1921, in the South Gippsland Chronicle (1/6/21), the ’Soldiers’ Memorial Park’ was described as a ‘carefully fenced thistle patch’. The account described how, after an enthusiastic start, the effort slipped away:

The area was cleared and graded, the paths were laid out and gravelled, a fence was erected, and then – Yarram’s short-lived energy “petered out”

So, in mid 1920, the third option for the district soldiers’ memorial was to focus efforts on what was being described as the Soldiers’ Memorial Park and, potentially, include in the park a dedicated memorial of the kind proposed for Commercial Road. The Shire President at the time (J J O’Connor) was a strong backer of this proposal.

Given the range of proposals and what appeared to be strong community interest, the Shire council undertook in June 1920 to defer the decision on the soldiers’ memorial for two months, on the understanding that in the interim there would be a public meeting to canvas views in relation to, at least, the three proposals being put forward. The meeting was scheduled for 21/6/20. In the ads that appeared in the local press there were calls for a large attendance:

A large attendance is requested, and relatives of fallen soldiers are specifically invited to attend.

It is relevant here to point out that in the lead up to this public meeting on the soldiers’ memorial, the local paper was again targeting the politics associated with the Diggers’ Club. The point is that in the background to the local politicking over the soldiers’ memorial, there were ongoing charges being made against the local returned men. This situation could well have affected the locals’ interest and involvement in the whole business. As we will see, hardly anyone attended the public meeting on 21/6/20, despite all the publicity on how important it was.

In an editorial on 26/5/20, Rossiter had been almost gleeful in reporting trouble at the Diggers’ Club. He commenced with,

Has the Yarram Diggers’ Club so soon met trouble?

He then retold the story of how the returned men had held themselves ‘aloof’ from the local community by insisting on their own club rooms. He also argued that the resulting Diggers’ Club, as it was set up, was supported by local subscriptions; and those who had contributed financially understood they were contributing to a facility that would be available to all returned men, with the only restriction being a ‘small members’ fee’. The previous post revealed that, in time, the membership was also extended to include fathers’ of men who had served and also those men who had been ‘rejected’ on medical grounds.

Rossiter then claimed that there were significant divisions within the club over the very issue of membership. There was a ballot system to determine membership and Rossiter claimed that ‘certain rejects’ had been ‘black balled’ in the ballot process. This in turn had led to the resignation of the ‘chief officers’ of the club’s management committee. There were no further details on the men denied membership, nor on the fate of those said to have resigned from the committee. Obviously, the issue of which ‘rejects’ would be admitted to the Diggers’ Club was always going to be contentious. Rossiter was quick – and also keen – to point to the potential outcome for the club. He warned that … the public will be quite alienated, and the club too soon become a white elephant.

Overall, in the lead up to the public meeting on 21/6/20, the background politics associated with returned soldiers had become both public and contentious.

There was a detailed account of the public meeting in the local paper on 23/6/20. As indicated already, the attendance was very small. In fact, the number given was only twelve, ‘including one lady’. The paper claimed it was ‘farcical’ to suggest the meeting was either ‘public’ or ‘representative’. In any event, the meeting proceeded and the Shire President outlined the three proposals:

The three proposals that had been made were a monument in the public street, to cost about £500; the completion of the public park and the erection of a smaller monument in it; and the erection of a memorial hall.

The President declared that he favoured the second proposal – the Soldiers’ Memorial Park – but acknowledged that the Shire had already settled on the first, the monument in Commercial Road. He doubted that the memorial hall proposal would receive public support. Rossiter then spoke to his proposal of the hall, pointing out the benefits for the wider community. However, he also made the point that should his proposal not win support then he would finally quit his ‘effort to get a public hall for Yarram’. This was to be his last effort for the commemorative public hall for Yarram, which he had been pushing from the end of the war.

Councillor Barlow was obviously perturbed by the whole business. He argued that such a small meeting could hardly make any decision of import. Further, he maintained, the basic issue related to the whole of the Shire of Alberton and the narrow focus on Yarram – for the hall proposal – was inappropriate. Further, in relation to the same proposal, he had trouble reconciling what he saw as a business venture – the Shire would take out a loan and then seek to repay it by charging usage costs etc – with the commemoration of the soldiers’ sacrifice. He even went as far as accusing the backers of trying to … make money out of the lives of their fallen soldiers’ lives that had been given for their freedom. It was a strong claim. Barlow was obviously not about to change his support for the Shire’s initial vote to to establish the monument in the main street of Yarram, where the total cost would be covered by the Shire.

There followed further discussion over the merit of even considering alternative proposals if the councillors’ minds were already made up. In the end, the meeting closed without any motion being put. From that point, Rossiter’s proposal for the memorial hall in Yarram was dropped.

After the agreed two months for public discussion had passed, the matter was taken back to council. At the meeting on 12/8/20 the discussion focused on whether the monument was to in the park or in the main street. Incredibly, the vote was tied at four each way. The deciding vote of the President determined that the monument would be erected in the park. So notice was then given that there would be a vote to rescind the original council resolution of 13/5/20 – the one that had the monument in Commercial Road – at the next meeting. However, at the next meeting (9/9/20), the resolution to rescind the original vote was lost. At the same meeting, the following resolution was passed:

That the design for [the] soldiers’ memorial, submitted by H. B. Corben & sons, and numbered 5, to cost £550, be adopted; that it be surrounded by a bluestone and chain railing at an additional cost of £50; and that it be erected in Commercial Road, Yarram, opposite the post office.

Finally, there was a definite decision on the form and location of the soldiers’ memorial for Alberton Shire. It would be dedicated just under one year later. The back story to this decision highlights simmering divisions in the local community over the key question of ownership of the business of commemoration.

The unveiling of the memorial

The Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial was unveiled on Wednesday, 10 August 1921. The ad for the event specified that it would occur … immediately after arrival of train from Melbourne (about 3.30 p m). The train station at Yarram had been opened earlier the same year (February 1921). The event was written up in the local papers – both Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative and South Gippsland Chronicle – on 12/8/21. The number of locals who attended was put ‘between 400 and 500 people’.

The two dignitaries presiding at the unveiling were the local Federal member G H Wise and Major-General C F Cox. Cox had served on Gallipoli, and then throughout the Sinai-Palestine campaign, with distinction. After the War he was elected to the Senate as a Nationalist.

The account in the local paper noted that the Shire President – John Barry – opened the proceedings by referring to the 700 men who had left the district to fight and the 80 who had died. In his comments, Senator Cox described the memorial as … a credit to the district and a fitting tribute to the boys who saved the country.

For his part, Wise was more political with his remarks. He was keen to refute the claim – it was most commonly identified with Archbishop Mannix – that the War had been waged for merely economic reasons or, more specifically, over trade. Wise insisted that … Those people who thought the past war was a trade or financial was were making a great mistake. For Wise it had been a war to check German power and militarism. It had been a war … fought to end all inhumanities and guarantee freedom and liberty. Arguably, the most significant point here was that Wise felt the need to make the comments. Wise also referred to what he saw as the ‘levelling’ effect of the War:

One of the aftermaths of the war was that it brought all classes on a more equal footing.

At the actual unveiling of the memorial, the Last Post was played. And at the conclusion, B P Johnson gave a ‘hearty vote of thanks’ on behalf of the community.

That night, there was a formal dinner for Wise and Cox and other invited guests in the Yaram Club Hotel, put on by the Shire President, John Barry JP. Prior to the event, newspaper articles had made it clear who was to be invited:

Invitations are being issued to members of the soldier land settlement committee, the repatriation executive, and representatives of the Returned Soldiers’ League.

In the Archives for the Shire of Alberton there is a list of those who were invited. The actual list runs to approximately 55 guests but there is no corresponding list of those who did actually attend. It was an all-male affair. In the write up in the papers the number who were present was described thus:

Between 40 and 50 of the most representative citizens sat down to the dinner at the Club Hotel that would have done credit to a city caterer.

What is clear though is that the single largest group of invited guests consisted of members of the Soldier Land Settlement Committee. There were 18 of them. The second largest group – approximately 15 – would have covered all the Shire representatives: councillors, Shire Secretary, Shire Engineer, Clerk of Works, Treasurer … There was also a small number from the local repatriation Committee. Finally, in terms of distinct groupings of guests, there were approximately 10 returned men. Presumably, they were all associated with either the Diggers’ Club or the local branch of the RSSILA; although it does appear that one or two of them might also have been soldier settlers.

What this all means is that the returned soldiers themselves were a definite minority at the function. Precedence was given to what effectively was the previous generation, the very one that that committed the men to the War. It was something of a classic example how even the commemoration of the War was dominated by the earlier generation. Further, as we will see later, the local Soldier Land Settlement Committee exercised considerable authority over the returned men or, more specifically, those who tried to set themselves up as successful soldier settlers. Not surprisingly, many of the returned men would have felt that everything was skewed to the interests of the previous generation, the one that had not done the fighting.

At the formal dinner there were the usual toasts – ‘The king’, ‘health of the federal Parliament’, ‘the AIF’ … – and B P Johnson appears to have served as MC.

Wise spoke again at the dinner and it was evident that he was defensive over the range and intensity of disquiet in the community about the Government’s management of post-War expectations. For example, he referred to what he saw as the folly of the ‘public indignation meetings’ that were increasingly being called across the country. He defend the Government’s record on ‘soldier service homes’ and claimed the Government had ‘done their best’. And there was criticism of those – he referred to the ‘wealthy’ – who attacked the Government over the level of the War debt.

Another speaker that night was William G Pope. Pope had been a prominent Imperial Loyalist during the War and a backer of the returned men’s push for their own club rooms after the War. He was responsible for the toast to the AIF. His comments reflected those of Bean in that he saw the legacy of the AIF becoming a driving force in Australian history. He acknowledged that the AIF had officially ceased to exist, but then launched into the following, mutli-themed panegyric:

… it [The AIF] will live in Australian hearts and have a beneficial influence on our national life and character for all time, as in every true Australian heart the glorious deeds of the A. I. F. are enshrined for ever. There imperishable glory is the beaconllght on the hill, to which in future all who love and would serve Australia must turn for inspiration, and in the men who lighted it are the descendants of those men and women of British stock whose never-failing courage has laid the foundations of that Commonwealth or British nation, which is the hope of the world.

Returning to a more mundane level, Pope finished with a critique of those upset about the level of war indemnity or reparations that Australia was not going to receive from Germany. The background here was that there had recently been reports -for example, South Gippsland Chronicle, 20/7/21 – that Australia’s share of war indemnity had been reduced from £30M to £400,000, compromising overall repatriation efforts. Pope dismissed the concerns, arguing that the potential of reparations was hardly the reason Australian had gone to war.

It is interesting that even at such formal, commemorative events, the general disquiet in the community about the overall situation in Australia, just short of three years after the Armistice, kept intruding.

For his part, Senator Cox did not have much to say. He was full of praise for the 700 men from the Shire who had all left as volunteers. But even he finished with a call for a significant increase in immigration, as a matter of urgency.

There were several letters touching on both the unveiling ceremony, and the formal dinner, published in the local press immediately after. Predictably, there were complaints about the guest list for the dinner. A letter (12/8/21) from ‘A Dinkum Digger’ intimated that not only were the diggers generally under-represented but some of the diggers invited were not ‘genuine diggers’:

… I would like to ask who was responsible for the issuing of the invitations? Why was it that several Diggers were invited and partook of a hearty meal (and doubtless felt the effects of a bad head the following morning), and other real Diggers were quite overlooked? Why this state of things should be is puzzling. We hear of a dinner and on looking round the guests we see people with no claim to a seat as a Digger, and we also see many with no claim at all as a guest on such an occasion. What was the controlling influence in the choosing of the guests? Did it not count that a man who had really seen service for 4 1/2 years, from first to last, and who had ‘borne the burden and heat of the day,’ should not be asked. Why was it that so many of these real Diggers were not invited, while there were guests with no such record partaking of the good things and ‘eating the fatted calf.’ It seems evident that the same old trouble, class distinction, must have crept in. It is painful to think of such a thing after hearing the address of Mr Wise in the afternoon, when he commented on the fact of how the war had done away with this, and instanced a case of where he had seen hundreds of men on a transport all on an equal footing. Surely it must have pricked the consciences of some of the guests last night when they must have noticed the absence of some Diggers, men perhaps not holding ‘soft jobs’ or clerkships, but Diggers all the same, and justly entitled to a seat at the festal board.

The idea of the ‘genuine’ digger had history. For example, Johnson himself had fought off claims earlier in the War that his son had a secured a position away from the front lines. The AIF had regularly sought to ‘comb out’ men involved in clerical and support roles to reinforce those at the front. But, more generally, there was always the question of whose service in the AIF counted the most or, at least, for more than others’ service. Clearly, in this instance the claim was that some of he diggers at the dinner did not have the same entitlement as others who had served throughout the entire War. Perhaps it was a criticism on those who had taken on positions of responsibility in the local organisations to do with returned men. Clearly, there was politics associated with the operation of the Diggers’ Club. It was always going to be a vexed question. There were even shades of the same dilemma in the case of those ‘rejected’. For example, how many formal attempts and rejections did it take it take before someone became a genuine ‘reject’? Arguably, the more important point here is that the issues of entitlement and status were being raised publicly. The point was being made that not all diggers were ‘equal’.

It was not only the local returned men who were put out by events associated with the dedication of the memorial. One other criticism was that the local school children had not been sufficiently involved in the unveiling ceremony. In the South Gippsland Chronicle of 17/8/21 there was a letter from the head teacher (A M Parratt) of the Yarram State school. He was obviously upset that the children had not been asked to have a formal presence at the ceremony. There was some important history here. All through the War, the then head teacher, A E Paige, had ensured that the school children were always available, even at short notice, to attend formal and semi-formal functions. For example, Paige would quickly organise for a group of school children to attend a farewell organised for a departing recruit. The school children had become a feature of all such public occasions. But, on this occasion, they had been passed over. The new head teacher made the point that … the school was never asked to attend. Had there been an invitation, the school, most definitely, would have been there. In fact, it had a right to be there, and at the dinner as well:

The teachers and children were all willing to march down had we been asked. After all that the children did for the soldiers we were conceited enough to expect an invitation; we also thought that the schools of the district might have been represented at the dinner, either by a teacher or a member of the school committee, but those in authority thought otherwise.

There were even other letters with advice on how the whole ceremony could have been better staged.

The critical observation in all this was that even the acts of commemoration were capable of creating and stirring division. And while some of the tension and division was superficial, manufactured and even trivial, there were other issues that were deep and serious.

The last point to note is that when the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial was unveiled on 10/8/21, the actual names of the dead had not yet been added. Provision had been made for the names of 80 dead to be inscribed. But it was to be nearly another 10 years before the names were added. This detail will be the subject of a future post.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative
South Gippsland Chronicle

Archives, Shire of Alberton

Minute Book October 1913 – April 1921

File: 285-292

Box: 377

 

 

211. Club rooms for the returned men or a memorial hall for the Shire?

The next few posts look at the men returning from the War and taking up life again in the Shire of Alberton.

The posts will make it clear that the ‘Peace’ at the end of WW1 continued to feature a significant degree of conflict and division in the Australian community. Sectarianism, which had become more pronounced during the War over the issue of conscription, continued to be very divisive in the community after the War. There were also the lingering questions over conscription itself and, most importantly, the standing of those who had chosen not to enlist, particularly now that the volunteers had returned, many of them wounded and broken. The fear of the ‘alien’ and the ‘outsider’ which had driven paranoia during the War certainly continued after it. The common perception was that the White Australia Policy remained just as threatened, notwithstanding the fact that Hughes on his return to Australia after Versailles, boasted that he had ensured its survival. There was also the pressing issue of ‘repatriation’ and the inevitable conflict between what the returning soldiers had been promised and what the Government could realistically deliver. On this score, the potential for failure and despair was effectively unlimited. There were also the ongoing effects of the fundamental political divisions which had been created by the War, most notably the schism within the ALP. And, to round off the bleak picture, in the immediate aftermath of the War there was the scourge of the Spanish Flu.

Against this broad background, the following posts focus specifically on events in the Shire of Alberton in the years immediately after the War. As the focus is at the ‘local’ level, it is easier to see other important themes that emerged at the time. Arguably, the most significant of these was the dynamic of how the returned men re-connected with their previous life and re-integrated into the community they had left. What emerges very quickly is that these were somewhat fraught processes and the source of significant tension in the local community. In a real sense, the ‘boys’ were not prepared simply to take up their old lives and accept their prior status. There was a significant generational divide between the returning ‘boys’ and their parents and ‘betters’. It was also very much about the tension between what they had been promised and what they in fact received.

Club rooms for the returned men or a memorial hall for the Shire?

This first post in the short series examines the conflict in the local community from the perspective of one fundamentally critical question: who was to decide what represented the best interests of the returned soldiers?

The building featured here is a drawing for a grand ‘Memorial Soldiers’ Club with Public Hall and Civic Club’ to be erected in Yarram. But it was never built. The background story of why it was never built is one of multiple levels of disagreement and division within the local community.

The essential backing for this grand proposal came from the local paper – Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative. The editor – Augustus John Rossiter – had been a most vociferous Imperial Loyalist throughout the War. He would have assumed that he had established his right to talk on behalf of both the returning men and the community as a whole. He proposed a grand civic building which could incorporate a memorial for the fallen soldiers, a club room for the returned men, and a public hall for the community as a whole. Rossiter organised a shire-wide fund-raising appeal and he commissioned initial drawings of the proposed building which he then published in the paper on 25/4/19, Anzac Day. The initial plans or drawings were prepared by G de Lacy of Parkville, the architect responsible for the design of the very recent Holy Trinity Church (Anglican) in Yarram which had been finished in mid 1918.

The essential feature of Rossiter’s proposal was that the one, major new building would serve several interests. It would serve as a memorial to those who had served and those who had fallen. Further, it would incorporate amenities for returned soldiers living in the Shire of Alberton. But, as well, the proposal represented a significant, additional piece of civic infrastructure: a new and contemporary public hall. Obviously, the proposal would be expensive but Rossiter saw it as a fitting tribute to the returned soldiers and a major and justified exercise in civic commemoration. In fact, there were many such memorial halls built by local governments, both urban and rural, post WW1.

In the description of the proposed building, included with the initial drawings, Rossiter emphasised how the three building elements – ‘Soldiers’ Club’, ‘Civic Club’ and ‘Public Hall’ – were both separate and integral:

The proposed buildings have been designed so that the Soldiers’ Club, the Civic Club and the Public Hall can each be vested in separate bodies of control and managed and maintained as though they were three isolated structures. Although they are reached by a central common entrance, for purposes of convenience and effect, they are quite separate buildings in that fire-proof and sound-proof construction and parapet walls separate each from the other.

The overall building was a large, two-story structure. It included a comprehensive set of common-use facilities including library, reading and correspondence room, smoking room, billiard room and a shared, spacious entrance and foyer. The facade was Italianate in style and it incorporated space for ‘memorial tablets and inscriptions’.

However, in the same edition of the paper, Rossiter acknowledged that there was some opposition to his grand proposal. Strikingly, the main opposition was coming from the returned men themselves. Rossiter noted that there had been a recent public meeting in Yarram at which the returned soldiers – or at least a group of them – had dismissed the grand proposal and, instead, had called for a completely separate club rooms. Rossiter’s frustration was evident:

The demand by the men for a detached club created a barrier, and frustrated the good intentions of the public.

But now, with the detailed plans and drawings published in the paper, Rossiter attempted to increase the pressure on the men to give up the call for their own separate club rooms and get behind what he represented as the general community’s intention:

We this morning produce a facsimile [of the plans], and to clear the air, ask the soldiers, without delay, to state if a building erected on these plans will meet with their approval. The public want to know, for their intention is to build a memorial hall of service to the district wherein will be seen the photographs of all who enlisted, also those and records of the fallen. We parted with the boys as one family, worked for them while away, and longed for their return. What has made the difference that they should hold aloof now they have come back that their hours of pleasure must be spent amongst themselves, quite apart from former friends. A warm hearted public wants an answer. Will the soldiers consent to detached club rooms, with a clear title, under the roof of a memorial hall?

The emotional blackmail is evident: this particular group of soldiers is being ungrateful and, in effect, setting themselves against the very community that has supported them so faithfully through the long years of war.

The warnings to the soldiers were explicit:

The soldiers, unfortunately, lost much public sympathy by their defiant action at a public meeting in the shire hall; yet boiled down, the cleavage came from a very small section of the returned men. Prior to this the whole district was in the mood to go to any length towards a memorial hall for the fallen. Now, the hand is stayed, and until the soldiers say they will consent to a club under the roof of a memorial hall, there is little chance of getting either building such as would be an ornament and a credit to the town and district.

The public meeting where the soldiers had expressed their preference for their own club rooms appears to have taken place in early March 1919, just over one month earlier. At the time, there was a brief report in the local paper (12/3/19) of the meeting:

It was the returned men’s idea to build memorial rooms to be used as club rooms. They could invite anyone they wished to their club. At present they had no place whatever to meet in – unless they went to the Yarram Club, but returned soldiers were likely to be “black-balled” there. (Laughter.) If the public wanted to build a big hall there was no earthly reason why they shouldn’t.

It appears that this initial plan by the soldiers for their own private club room arrangement was not taken too seriously because by early April 1919 a fund – Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial Fund – had been set up … to build a memorial hall and soldiers’ club rooms in Yarram, in memory of the fallen. The editorial that described the basic arrangement (18/4/19) noted that 1,000 circulars associated with the fund-raising effort had already been distributed through the shire. Plans for a related gymkhana were also already under way. The same editorial effectively dismissed the concerns of the soldiers and expressed confidence that the combined proposal would be accepted by them. It also had a passing shot at their intransigence.

The decision of the returned men, in favor of detached club rooms, gave rise to comment, and was not favorably entertained by the public. The plan before us presents no obstacle in that respect. The soldiers’ quarters are embodied in a comprehensive plan, not absolutely detached, yet will, we feel sure, meet with the approval of previous objectors. there really seems to be no obstacle in the way of the public and the soldiers uniting in one great movement, and if the response is on all fours with what the people can afford we see no reason why a very fine hall should not be erected in memory of the fallen, and of the brave deeds of the returned men. We ask for liberal response.

But the backers of the grander proposal did not get the ‘liberal response’ they requested. The grand proposal was dropped within not much more than one month and all future effort went in to setting up a separate club rooms.

The formal commitment to a separate (Diggers’) club rooms came at a public meeting the end of May 1919, about one month after the local paper published the drawings for the combined proposal. A report of the meeting was written up in the paper on 30/5/19. The meeting was chaired by B P Johnson, another Imperial Loyalist who had been an outspoken champion of the War effort and who, arguably, had the highest profile as a supporter of returned men. Interestingly, it was in this role as a backer and supporter of the returned men that Johnson came out very strongly in favour of the separate Diggers’ club rooms. There was this strong sense that even if he did not believe that theirs was the best proposal, he would always back the men’s wishes.

This meeting at the end of May was called to accept or reject, once and for all, the local paper’s proposal ‘to erect a memorial hall and club rooms for the returned soldiers of Alberton Shire’. It was clear from the start that the soldiers wanted to go their own way. Speakers noted that the appeal for the combined proposal – memorial (public) hall and soldiers’ club rooms – had been running for nearly one month but that very little had been received. In fact, the response had been so poor that the local branch of the ‘Returned Soldiers’ Association’ had now decided to pull out of the proposal for the combined facility and opt instead for their own, separate club rooms. Johnson, as chair, immediately backed the men and declared that the matter had to be settled at the meeting. Johnson argued that one of the problems with the combined proposal was that many locals claimed that they did not see the merit in building another public hall in Yarram:

Many of the residents had used the dual appeal as an excuse for withholding donations. Some had said that they were prepared to assist an appeal for club rooms, but were opposed to building another hall in Yarram.

Johnson’s logic was that an appeal specifically for club rooms for the returned men would attract a higher level of financial support from the locals. As events turned out he was proved wrong. The same argument was taken up George F Sauer another key Imperial Loyalist and backer of the returned men. He also claimed that people felt Yarram already had too many public halls. Implicit in this argument was the view that residents of the shire who did not live in Yarram could hardly be expected to contribute to a facility which they would not use. Benjamin Couston, local bank manger and yet another key Imperial Loyalist, declared that whereas he had initially supported the double proposal, he now supported the soldiers’ club rooms’ proposal. He also noted that the appeal over the past month had ‘failed dismally’. It was Couston who formally moved:

That this public meeting now assembled agrees to relinquish the double appeal for a memorial hall and soldiers’ club rooms, and now pledges itself to support the Returned Soldiers’ Association in building club rooms for the returned soldiers of the shire.

The motion was passed unanimously and the meeting also determined to write to those who had already donated to the initial appeal and ask… whether they were prepared to allow their donations to be handed over, to the direct appeal for soldiers’ club rooms. The new appeal was to be The Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial Fund. The appeal would be supported by a gymkhana which would be held later in the year, in early November.

The last business of the meeting was to set up a committee to mange the appeal. Johnson became the president, Sauer the secretary, and Benson the treasurer. There was an executive committee which was made up of several returned men (E T Benson, W A Newland, Dr J H Rutter) and a number of local business men who had all identified as Imperial Loyalists during the War (W C Growse, E L Grano, W G Pope). The local Church of England rector – Rev S Williams – was also on the committee. This committee would work closely with the local branch of the RSSILA.

Johnson closed the meeting with a warning – rather prescient as it turned out – that if the new appeal proved a failure, then Alberton Shire … would be eternally disgraced.

Not surprisingly, Rossiter was annoyed that his far grander proposal was rejected in favour of the separate soldiers’ club rooms. His annoyance was evident in an editorial that appeared a few weeks later (20/6/19). Despite what he wrote, the public meeting had indeed formally decided to drop the memorial hall proposal and go with the club rooms:

If what we hear be true, the members of the Yarram branch of the Returned Soldiers’ Association have determined to disassociate themselves with the memorial hall movement, towards which some subscriptions have been received. The intention is to appeal for a soldiers’ club solely.

Rossiter was also prepared to challenge the real level of support for this decision and suggest that a soldiers’ club rooms would hardly constitute a suitable public memorial for the fallen and returned men:

It would be interesting to know the total number of returned men in the district and the number on the roll of the Association [RSSILA], in view of ascertaining if it be the will of the majority to stand apart from the public proposal.

But if Rossiter and others were annoyed that the returned men had scotched their grand proposal, the returned men themselves were concerned by what they saw as the lack of support from the local council for their proposal. There was another public meeting held in mid July – reported 18/7/19 – to drum up support for the soldiers’ club rooms. This time there was an organiser from the Victorian branch of the RSSILA who came to speak on behalf of the proposal. This person noted that there were no local councillors present at the meeting and claimed that … It is a general rule for them to attend meetings of this description. He continued:

Many of the councillors made promises of what they intended doing for the men who went to the war, but, unfortunately, the same men have turned out to be nothing more than lip-loyalist. (Laughter).

Johnson was again chair of the meeting and he made some attempt to cover for the absent councillors, but it was evident that there were clear divisions in the community on the specific issue of the club rooms, and the broader question of how the returned men were being treated in the Australia for which they had fought and sacrificed so much.

In mid September 1919, the executive responsible for fundraising for the soldiers’ club rooms purchased a two-story building in Yarram. It was on the corner of Bland Street and Commercial Road. It was purchased from C J Allin for £1,000. Allin had purchased it a few years earlier from Councillor Barlow. Later there would be suggestions that the soldiers paid too much for the property. The executive then set about making necessary changes to the building and intensifying the fund raising effort. The date for the gymkhana was officially set for November 12, 1919.

In early October there was a formal welcome for the returned soldiers of the shire in Thompson’s Hall. The report of the function was in the local paper on 10/10/19. It was a full house and the chair for the evening was the Shire President, J J O’Connor. O’Connor touched on all the then current themes: the debt of gratitude owed to the returned soldiers; the need for the soldiers to ‘stick together’ and become organised through their association (RSSILA); the enormous challenge of repatriation and the need for the returned men to be patient; the glory of the dead; the greatness of the Australian soldiers and their acknowledged status as ‘among the best soldiers in the world’; the decency of those who had tried to enlist – many times – only to have been rejected and, equally, the disdain for … ‘disloyalists’ in our midst; and, of course, the greatness and power of the Empire. Amongst all this, the chairman … made a stirring appeal for contributions towards the establishment of soldiers’ club rooms in Yarram. He declared:

The club rooms were required, and the appeal provided an opportunity for residents to show their gratitude for what the soldiers had done for them.

But the money was not forthcoming. Residents did not contribute to the appeal; and this, of course, created more division and rancour in the community.

Johnson had a letter in the local paper on 22/10/19. He pointed out the cost of the clubrooms (£1,000) and noted that to that point the total raised was under £200. He insisted that people across the shire knew about the appeal. He concluded that there was … no excuse save selfishness and base ingratitude for neglect to subscribe [to the appeal]. He declared that:

It is no wonder that the boys feel that the lavish promises which were made to them when they went away are not going to be honored, and that most of the people have forgotten the war and all that was done for them.

In a real sense this was vintage Johnson as the classic, high-profile, Imperial Loyalist, in that the appeal to moral righteousness and, critically, the attempted shaming of all who fell short, was so characteristic of all the previous appeals – from 1914 on – to support the War, smash Germany, defend the Empire, encourage enlistment, and, of course, support the introduction of conscription. There were no shades of grey, and no ambiguities, inconsistencies or opposing views in this world view. So Johnson held nothing back:

The soldiers have now purchased a building, and are now fitting it up for occupation, and after all they have done and suffered, it will be an everlasting shame and disgrace to the whole of the district if they have to find one penny of the cost. I venture to say that there are very few men in this Shire who cannot pay £1 at least to in some way show their appreciation of the soldiers’ wonderful deeds. It is all very well to turn up at welcomes, where the admission is free, and cheer and wave flags, etc., but the proper course is to sacrifice something. Don’t calculate how little you can give – the boys offered all, and nearly 60,000 of them paid in full – but see how big you can make your contribution, for, after all, the man who gives as little as he can, or who fails to subscribe, really puts a price on his womenfolk and himself. Let every man realise that everything he owns he owes to the soldiers, and, then this disgrace will soon be removed.

But now, one full year after the War, the local community was clearly sick of being told what to do by the likes of Johnson. Nor did they appreciate his attempts at moral blackmail and his superior tone. But he was not about to give up. There was another letter on 5/11/19. Johnson this time published the full list of individuals and groups that had contributed to the appeal. The total came to less that 70, with about 65 individual contributions. Clearly, there was not widespread support for the appeal. What was equally clear was that while previous attempts to shame people into contributing had not worked, Johnson had no other strategy:

It will be seen that a few pounds have come in since I last wrote, but the response is still an absolute disgrace to this magnificent district. Have the people as a whole no sense of gratitude? Some, I hear, will not subscribe because they cannot agree with the soldiers that club rooms are required. Such people surely forget what they owe these men. They want the rooms and it is little enough to do for the people to give them. It is anything but pleasant to be ashamed of the place one lives in.

In the end, the gymkhana generated a significant profit – over £500 – and the funds required for the club rooms were realised. Perhaps people had intended all along to support the gymkhana and had rationalised that that support would represent their contribution to the soldiers’ club rooms. At the same time, the number of individuals, across the whole of the Shire of Alberton, who did subscribe to the formal fund set up for the club rooms was very small.

Doubtless, there were many reasons for this lack of support. As already argued, many would have taken exception to Johnson’s tirades. Locals had tired of being told what they must do. There was also the question about whether the soldiers’ proposal was actually inferior to the one put forward by Rossiter and his paper. And sitting behind this question was the suggestion that the soldiers should not be ‘selfish’ and want just their own club rooms. There was also the view that the returned men should not be deliberately withdrawing themselves from the wider community and setting themselves up in their own exclusive facility. Surely, the thinking ran, now that the ‘boys’ were ‘home’ again, they should be fitting back into the community and they should be grateful that the locals were keen to give them a facility, within a much grander public memorial to both them and their fallen comrades. And if the returned men could not see that, then why should anyone support their proposal. Moreover, the soldiers’ club rooms were hardly a memorial so would it not be better to wait and contribute to a proper memorial when the shire finally decided on one. As already noted there were also questions on who was actually representing the returned men’s interests and were the returned men speaking with one voice. So there were any number of reasons why locals could have convinced themselves that contributing to the fund for the soldiers’ club rooms was not essential.

The rooms were opened on the first anniversary of the Armistice (11/11/19). However, the division and recrimination did not end with the opening of the soldiers’ club rooms. The editorial in the local paper at the time made it clear that there was still considerable disquiet over what had happened.

Quite frankly, we say that the building is not what the public desired the returned men should have. It is not good enough nor is it in the true sense a memorial. A memorial is something of a more stable character, and worthy of the great and gallant deeds done by our boys in the recent war. It should be something in memory of the dear departed. Instead, the League has purchased a building that is like a reed shaken by the wind. It sways in a moderate gale, and the time cannot be far distant when radical and costly alterations must be made if stability is to be any desideratum.

The paper continued its list of concerns, claiming to speak on behalf of the community:

We are voicing the opinion of the great majority of the people when we say that disappointment is expressed at the purchase [of the building for the soldiers’ club rooms]. It may serve its purpose in a way, but with large hearts and determination to do something grand, the public had in view a building which would be a credit to town and district, and a much more fitting memorial of services rendered – a building that would provide much more than the men themselves asked for – a building in which the public would be perennially interested, and upon which would have been lavished care and attention by a warm-hearted public in memory of those they loved. The present building cannot command the same attention because the deep sentiment that was assured does not invest it. There exists a sort of feeling “Well, boys, you have so decided; we will do what we can for you.

There is no way of knowing if in fact the local paper was representing the view of the majority of locals. However, what is true is that people at the time would not have seen the soldiers’ club rooms as any sort of formal, public memorial to all those men from the Shire of Alberton who enlisted and served and, more critically, the dead. The soldiers’ club rooms, or the ‘Diggers’ Club’ as it was also known, was a facility set up exclusively for the use of the returned men and as a head quarters of the local branch of the RSSILA. This meant that the question of the Shire of Alberton’s formal, public memorial remained unresolved. We will see later that the Shire decided on the cenotaph – featuring the list of the dead – which stands in the main street of Yarram. But, again, this decision was also marked by more division. For example, the local paper again called for something more utilitarian, even a public memorial swimming pool.

Another concern of locals, sitting just below the surface of public debate, was the question of what the soldiers would do in their club rooms. As we have seen in previous posts, there was a very strong temperance sentiment in the Shire. Local clergy had been active in trying to restrict wet canteens in the Melbourne army camps, and the dangers of drink in the AIF were constant preoccupations, as was the push for prohibition and ‘early closing’. Another social evil very much on the community’s mind was gambling, and previous posts have shown that this fear extended even to chocolate wheels at fetes. The possibility that the soldiers might drink and gamble to excess in the privacy of their ‘club’ was a concern and, in fact, the backers of the proposal gave public assurance that the club would not seek a licence and that gambling in all forms would be strictly prohibited.

Even after the club rooms were opened, the high level of criticism continued. For example, in an editorial published on 3/12/19, not even one month after the official opening, Rossiter questioned whose interests were being served by the facility:

A soldiers’ club having been established in Yarram, for ‘members only’, it is important that all returned men should join. The public liberally responded at the gymkhana, presumably for something of benefit to all Alberton Shire soldiers, not to a small proportion. It is felt that the Yarram branch of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers’ Association is not the ‘live wire’ it ought to be!

The paper suggested that too often key decisions were being taken by just a few of the returned soldiers. It called for all returned men to become involved. Also, there was another issue at play here, because the reality was that club rooms in Yarram were not going to be as accessible to returned men who lived in the outlying townships and settlements of the district. A soldiers’ club rooms in Yarram was always going to serve, principally, those returned men who lived in Yarram.

The formal meeting that saw the transfer of management from the committee that raised the funds for the club rooms to the Yarram sub branch of the Returned Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Imperial League (Australia) took place in early December 1919. It was written up in the local paper on 12/12/19. The business of the meeting was the report from the ‘Building Committee’ (Johnson’s committee) and the approval of the constitution for the club rooms.

According to the constitution adopted, the name of the club rooms was fixed as the ‘Diggers’ Club’ and the facility was for the use of all returned soldiers in Alberton Shire. Importantly, the returned men did not have to be members of the RSSILA:

All district soldiers, whether belonging to the League or not, are eligible to join the club. The procedure is by ballot. All soldiers who fought with the Allies in the great war, or any previous wars, are eligible to join.

The Yarram sub branch of the RSSILA had been set up mid 1917. See Post 148. Returned Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Imperial League (of Australia) for more background, including local tensions over its creation.

At the end of the War, local membership of the sub branch was approximately one hundred. At the end of 1919, Dr Rutter was serving as president of the sub branch. E T Benson, a local bank manger, was treasurer and W A Newland, who had earlier served as the local recruiting sergeant, was secretary. All committee members were obviously returned men.

The relationship between the Yarram sub branch of the RSSILA and the Diggers’ Club was not perfectly clear. The public’s perception at the time would have been that, effectively, the two agencies were the same; and, certainly, it appears that the sub-branch ran the Diggers’ Club as its property. However, the constitution of the Diggers’ Club clearly stated that membership of the RSSILA was not a prerequisite for membership of the club. Moreover, the same constitution stated that the ‘property’ of the club was vested in ‘three soldier trustees’ – members of the club – and that, if membership was ever to decline to the extent that the club was no longer viable, the trustees had the power to hand over the property of the club to the president and councillors of the Alberton Shire. Presumably, this arrangement reflected the fact that the money for the Diggers’ Club had come not from the RSSILA but from the local community, in fund raising overseen by civic leaders and formally supported by the Shire.

At the end of 1919, the auditors appointed to the local RSSILA sub branch were B P Johnson and B Couston. Presumably, this was to maintain a link with the committee that had been responsible for the fundraising for the Diggers’ Club. This link with the civic leaders who had supported the push for a separate soldiers’ club rooms was strengthened when there was an amendment to the Diggers’ Club membership rules in mid December 1919 which provided for ’soldiers’ fathers’ – both Johnson and Couston, for example – to join the club. There was also broad provision for ‘honorary members’. These membership changes effectively highlighted the distinction between the Diggers’ Club and the local branch of the RSSILA.

The Diggers’ Club – the building, at least – was destroyed in a major fire in March 1923.

Overall, it is clear that the establishment of the Diggers’ Club in Yarram at the end of 1919 represented many levels of the community division and social disquiet that sprang up when the ‘boys’ came home. In fact, the common use of the very term ‘boys’ goes to the heart of so much of the division and disquiet. For many locals, the simple story was that the ‘brave lads’ or ‘boys’ had enlisted from a sense of duty, fought with courage and earned the praise of the nation and the rest of the world as amongst the ‘greatest soldiers in the world’ and now, still ‘boys’, they were home again to take up the life they had briefly given up. Everything and everyone would go back to normal. In the world to which the soldiers returned, their parents’ generation and ‘betters’ were still there to tell them what to do; and they were expected to simply fit back into the previous social order. They were to be feted as heroes but it would all be done on the terms of the ‘old order’. They could have a dedicated clubroom but it would be within a much grander, memorial public hall which would benefit the whole community.

But many, if not most, of the returned men did not see it like that. Their years in the AIF had changed them profoundly. Many had had their heath compromised, if not completely ruined. They were all mentally and emotionally scarred. Many were profoundly disillusioned and desperate. They were anything but ‘boys’. True they were glad to be home and they looked forward to their future but they wanted it to be on their terms. They also expected that the countless promises made to them would be honored. They did not want to be ‘mucked around’. They desperately wanted to hang on to the sense of camaraderie or ‘mateship’ that had characterised their time in the AIF and they saw this soldierly mateship as exclusive in nature and reserved for those who had been there. They needed to be together by themselves or, at the very least, those they chose to be with. They were not about to be told by their parents’ generation how they should fit in and what the social boundaries were to be. If they wanted a separate club rooms for their exclusive use and that annoyed the rest of the community and left them open to claims that they were selfish, stand-offish and ungrateful then so be it.

It is worth finishing on yet another editorial from the local paper that once again found fault with the attitude of the returned men. It was a plea from the editor for the men to live up to the high ideals in which the local community held them. For people like Rossiter, there was this picture of the returning heroes of which the heroes themselves needed to be reminded. As mentioned, the gymkhana in early November 1919 was the key fund raiser for the Diggers’ Club. It was a large event with over 1,200 people in attendance. On the day, there was a procession led by the Yarram Town Band to the showgrounds. The returned men were invited to march. But not too many did. This lack of enthusiasm was not lost on the editor who, in his editorial immediately after the gymkhana, could not resist some criticism:

What few soldiers “processed” looked warriors every one but if the number of returned men be 400 in the district, 40 was not a good proportion. Even if the League members’ roll number is 120, then there were two-thirds elsewhere. We would like to have seen the full strength of the returned men in uniform on Wednesday. Those who turned out were so soldierlike in appearance but it made the others conspicuous by their absence.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative


Adams, J 1990, From these Beginnings: History of the Shire of Alberton (Victoria), Alberton Shire Council, Yarram, Victoria

210. Rev George Cox and his ‘Notes on Gippsland History’ (2): versions of history and the question of race

Rev George Cox deserves recognition for his very earlier research on the history of (European) Gippsland. At the same time, while Cox definitely saw himself as a practising historian, he did not write any definitive history of either Gippsland or any specific location in Gippsland. Cox was more the researcher of history than the writer of history. It is critical to appreciate this different emphasis. Anyone reading the articles Cox published in the local paper from 1912 onwards was obviously extending and deepening their understanding of the history of Gippsland – outcomes Cox was obviously keen to promote – but their understanding was being formed in an episodic, piecemeal and even disjointed and contradictory manner. Cox never wrote his final, coherent, single history. Rather what he did was publish, on a regular basis, primary sources touching on several themes to do with Gippsland history which he then critiqued, with the intention of trying to uncover the historical truth. The period he covered stretched from the 1840s to the 1860s. Cox did provide considerable commentary and opinion along the way and he certainly did see himself as building the picture of the history of Gippsland, but there was no final history, for example in the style of Adams – From these beginnings: history of the Shire of Alberton (Victoria) – who, as we know, relied to a significant degree, on the articles Cox had written 80 years earlier.

Any assessment of Cox’s work has to focus on the sources he used. For Cox, it was all about uncovering primary resources – including those found in folk lore, and collective and personal memory – and matching them with what was already known of the history. There were often inconsistencies, contradictions, and different emphases encountered in the various sources and there had to be attempts to reconcile such tensions and make informed judgements. The other critical perspective was that, as Cox himself had argued, the history of Gippsland had been neglected. As already seen, Cox gave several reasons for this, including a general reluctance for locals to dwell on its earliest lawless period. The effect of this ‘neglect’ was that any sources Cox did present to his readers effectively served to tell the story for the first time. It was a case of Gippsland history being ‘discovered’ by Cox for his readers.

Cox himself described his central focus on primary sources. His very first article (Article 1, 31/1/1912) emphasised both the range of primary material he was trying to cover:

The sources of information are numerous, and of many kinds. Parliamentary reports, official correspondence, Road Board and Shire minute books, contemporary newspapers, Church minute books and reports, private correspondence, maps, legal documents and private diaries, have been generously placed at the disposal of the writer, and form the principal channels of information, such being supplemented by personal reminiscences of old residents, after careful enquiry.

It also presented the open-ended nature of his work and the potential limits of his approach:

But the writer is deeply conscious of two things, – first that he has by no means exhausted the storehouse of information, and secondly that he is not by any means possessed of such gifts as would preclude possibility of error. In connection then, with the first shortcoming, further sources of information will be most gratefully welcomed: and for the second criticism, and correction where needed, will be thankfully received.

This is very much a claim about ‘history in the making’ via a careful and sustained historical methodology. Overall, Cox saw his considerable effort as work-in-progress; but he saw this reality as a strength: history was being written, tested and refined through the dialectic. This was the proper function of a historical society. As noted, he also saw himself as providing research material for others who would follow.

At the same time, Cox obviously saw himself as offering more than critical insights on historiography. He definitely saw himself as ‘teaching’ the locals their (European) history. Moreover, he wanted them to understand, identify with and celebrate their history. For example, he took pride in the fact that his material was used at the local school for lessons associated with the celebration of events such as Discovery Day. As he stated (Article 26, 9/4/13):

Friday, April 18th. will be observed as Discovery day in State schools, therefore this and the succeeding article will be devoted to the subject of the early exploration of Gippsland.

Cox was also proud of the popularity his articles enjoyed and the fact that readers requested back copies. He made efforts to meet the demand. For example, he wrote the following introduction in one of his very early articles (Article 21, 20/11/12):

Before proceeding to the consideration of the subject matter of this paper a foreword about the paper itself may be advisable. In the first place, many requests have been received for back numbers of these papers which unfortunately cannot be supplied. But as special interest attaches to the subject of Count Strzelecki’s journey, it being included in the State school curriculum, and some additional matter of considerable interest has been received, it has been decided to republish portions of an article already in print, together with such additional matter. [The additional matter was material relating to the wreck of the Clonmel, in early January 1841.]

After the War was over and he had finished his service in the AIF, Cox resumed his series of articles and in Article 71, 25/11/21, he offered himself some degree of self-congratulation when he stated that his articles … have proved useful and have been recognised as a reliable authority by those engaged in historical study. He was keen to take up the work again and he committed to new material:

The compiler, since his discharge from military service, has had exceptional opportunities for research work in connection with the early discovery and settlement of the province, which will enable him to add considerably to the articles already published, and provide much new material as well.

Again, he pointed out the difficulties in reproducing earlier articles. He also indicated where such earlier material could be accessed:

Copies of all previous articles should be available for reference at several places locally, probably the Shire Hall and Mechanics’ Library, as well as the “Standard” office; while students further afield will find them in the Public Library and Historical Society’s Office, Melbourne, and the Mitchell Library, Sydney.

Cox’s attempts to generate interest in his work and have the locals, particularly the ‘pioneers’ who were still alive, engage in discussions and debate were successful. Cox definitely did focus the attention of his local community on its (European) history. In fact, there would have been few regional communities in Australia at that time who were as well served, in terms of their local history, as the Shire of Alberton. Moreover, this interest in local history – and, as noted earlier, Cox always saw his history as more than merely ‘local’ – was occurring at the very outbreak of WW1, the time when the new nation was preoccupied with its national identity or character.

As just the briefest example of Cox’s basic approach, consider the issue of exploration and what Cox saw as the competing claims associated with the vexed question of ‘Who discovered Gippsland?’ It was a question that preoccupied him. In fact, this very question first served as the title for an article in April, 1913 (Article 27) and the same question was still serving as the title of articles in 1922 (Article 80), 1923 (Article 81) and 1924 (Article 101).

The nature of the controversy related essentially to questions of motivation and transparency. On the one hand, there were dedicated ‘explorers’ who were either tasked by authorities, or took on the responsibility themselves, to chart ‘unknown’ territory and determine lines of travel or communication between the ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ districts. They had to ‘explore’ the coastline and ‘discover’ various overland routes. Count Strzelecki was the name most identified with such ‘exploration’. This group tended to write detailed accounts of their treks. On the other hand, there were opportunists – most commonly, squatters coming into Gippsland from NSW – who, in the pursuit of their own material interests, pushed into and exploited the same ‘unknown’ areas. But this second group did not necessarily want recognition, or, at least, not immediately. Their more self-interested motivation was to limit competition for the same new pastures. The name most associated with this second group was Angus McMillan. The efforts of this second group often went unrecorded, and often this was deliberate on their part. Of course, the major qualification in this particular ‘discovery’ controversy is that the areas were ‘unknown’ ‘un-mapped’ and ‘un-named’ only to Europeans. Indeed, there are numerous references in the various primary sources examined by Cox which highlighted how the Europeans relied on ‘blacks’ or ‘black fellows’ as guides and protectors in their travels in Gippsland.

Obviously, the theme of European discovery, exploration and occupation is tied absolutely to the critical theme of the dispossession and subjugation of the Indigenous population (Ganai/Kurnai). Yet this is not a theme covered by Cox. He touches on it, alludes to it, refers to it in passing but he does not present it as a critical historical theme in its own right. For Cox, this fundamental issue is more something that just happened, via a ‘natural’ process. It might have had some regrettable dimensions to it and there may well have been cruel excesses but, for Cox, the overall process to ensure a more productive and profitable use of the land, the establishment of settlements and towns, and the creation of a secure, civilised and God-fearing White community was both inevitable and justified. It was what ‘colonisation’ meant. Moreover, by the time that Cox was writing, the ‘foundation years’ and the ‘early days’ had well passed and there was little memory of and scant interest in them. In fact, certain frontier memories were repressed.

It is possible to see how Cox handled the issue of early contacts between the European ‘occupiers’ and the Indigenous population by looking closely at two episodes to which he was particularly drawn. The first was labelled the ‘White Woman of Gippsland’ and the second involved the death of Ronald Macalister and the subsequent massacre(s).

White Woman of Gippsland

In mid 1912, Cox wrote 2 articles on the White Woman of Gippsland. He was responding to several pieces which had appeared recently in The Mercury. The material covered … the oft repeated story of a white woman in the early days having lived in captivity amongst the blacks of Gippsland. Cox represented his work as an exercise in determining the real history in the romantic saga.

In his first article – Article 6, 22/5/12: The “White Woman” and other matters (1) – Cox gave the details of the essential narrative. The claim was that there had been a white, female survivor of a wreck on the Gippsland coastline in the early 1840s who had been captured by the ‘blacks’. Subsequently, over the next few years, there had been sightings of the woman by various European parties but none of these had been able to catch up to her captors and rescue her. There were variations on the basic story. One had the woman escaping her captors and making it all the way back to Sydney. Another had the ‘white woman’ as nothing more than a ship’s figurehead, painted white, which the local ‘blacks’ carried about with them.

At this point, Cox believed that, while the basic story made for ‘interesting reading’, it was ‘not exactly history’. He pointed to all the inconsistencies, contradictions and factual errors in the basic narrative and, finally, dismissed it. He came down on the side of the painted ship’s figurehead and concluded, She is dead – let us bury her.

But, clearly, the idea of a white woman being captured by and forced to live among the ‘blacks’ of Gippsland was a story bound to appeal to the public. It was one not easily dismissed.

A few weeks later, Cox had another article – Article 7, 5/6/12: The White Woman (2) – on the same topic. He began:

It was thought that when the last paper was written that this subject as disposed of, but it has since been disclosed that there are still some who believe in the story as fact. In the “Argus” of 25th May last an article appeared under the name of “Historicus” containing much valuable information not otherwise accessible. The writer being known to the compiler of these notes, permission was sought and readily granted for its reappearance in this form for the benefit of those who believe and for the interest of all others.

Cox reproduced the article from The Argus (25/5/12) in its entirety. The article focused on another key primary historical resource: Journal of an expedition which started from Melbourne on 6th March, 1847, in search of a white woman, supposed to be detained amongst the aboriginals of Gippsland. In fact, there were two expeditions – one in late 1846 and the other in early 1847 – and the journal Cox relied on was the account of the second expedition.

Again, the basic story outlined was that the woman survived a shipwreck and was captured by the ‘blacks’. She was seen by various parties and even left signs of her existence. It was a compelling narrative. As the writer of the piece, ‘Historicus’, explained, the Victorian community was deeply affected:

A white woman detained as a prisoner, or worse, amongst the savage natives of Gippsland, and she, poor soul, putting out signals of distress, hoping against hope that she may be released from her terrible captivity. This surely, was a circumstance demanding, not inquiry only, but prompt and energetic action. Thus it presented itself to the community of settlers who then formed the citizens of Melbourne.

Historicus then outlined how the two expeditions were conducted. No captured woman was found but, again, the explanation based round a ship’s figurehead came up. When the second expedition finally caught up with the ‘tribe’ reported to have been holding the ‘white woman’, the promised handover went as follows:

On the appointed day there was brought into the camp and handed over to the party a white woman indeed, but one carved in wood, and bearing a trident in her hand. The natives had long ago found on the beach the figurehead of the Britannia wreck, and had carried it about with them as the incarnation of one of their deities.

Then at the very end of his article, Cox reintroduced himself to say that yet another article had appeared in The Argus (20/7/12) and that after having read another primary historical resource referred to in this article – NSW Parliamentary Papers for 1846 – he was not sure that that there was not some truth to the basic claims. He was no longer definite that he was dealing with a ‘myth’. He concluded:

My attitude now is that of suspending judgement until a more favourable opportunity of fully discussing the matter.

Several years later Cox again returned to the white woman saga. In Article 70 (19/7/18) he referred to yet another story that had appeared in a magazine called Life in August 1913. The story was entitled, The Broken Honeymoon. An Extraordinary Tale of a White Woman among the Blacks. According to this story, a newly married woman had been abducted by ‘blacks’ from the Stockyard Creek gold diggings (Foster) in the 1860s. Rescuers tracked the woman to the ‘neighbourhood of the Gippsland lakes’ but then, at the point of her liberation, tragedy struck:

… the rescuers were doomed to disappointment, for while crossing one of the channels, when the police boat was not far distant, the woman stood up to appeal to them to hasten, and whether her movement upset the canoe or split the bark of which it was composed, the fact remains that it sank in view of the would-be rescuers, and the woman sank with it. A strong ebb tide was running, and the woman was not seen again.

After the article appeared, Cox wrote to the magazine and challenged the basis of the story. He claimed the story represented yet another version of the earlier 1840s saga. He pointed out that the gold diggings at Stockyard Creek dated from 1870 and so the time frame for the story had to be incorrect. Cox’s letter was published in the magazine. Then followed reply and counter reply between the author – George Hermann – and Cox over several editions. Cox insisted that while Hermann’s account was … a most interesting and romantic story it was not historically accurate. One of the claims Hermann had made was that the … white woman was being carried about by the Port Albert tribe. This was supposed to have been in the 1870s – Hermann did subsequently revise it back to the 1860s – but Cox argued, using primary sources, that by the 1870s there was effectively no ‘tribe’ left in the vicinity of Port Albert. Conversely, by another public set of data, in 1874 there were more than 1,000 settlers living … within a radius of ten miles of Port Albert. Moreover, Cox also argued that even as early as the 1850s the Indigenous population (Brataualang) had virtually disappeared from the local area.

The correspondence between Hermann and Cox appeared to run though to the end of 1913 when the magazine stopped publishing Cox’s letters. Cox’s criticism, based on primary sources, of Hermann’s story appeared valid. It represented credible historical argument which, of course, was what Cox claimed to practise. But Hermann was not impressed by such an approach. His attitude to the newly emerging historical societies and their historical craft was fairly negative. He had a more personal and open approach to history:

Historical Societies are properly precise and exact, but they must not fall into the error of holding that only tales which have been recorded in ancient records, chiefly official, can possibly be true. I wrote the tale with the intention of giving information which I possessed, and which I knew had not been recorded, and which was unknown to any but possibly two or three persons. Because it was unknown and unrecorded and strange, does not take way from its accuracy.

In the 100 years since Cox wrote on the topic, much more has been written on the ‘white woman of Gippsland’. For a background, see The La Trobe Journal, No 63 Autumn 1999, The Great “White Woman” Controversy. Interestingly, a good deal of the piece in the journal covers the tension between formal academic history and local history, particularly oral history which is passed down the generations. There are distinct shades of the very argument made by Hermann in 1913 in his defence of his ‘tale’. It is also important to note that historians today see the various versions of the ‘White Woman’ saga that circulated back in the mid 19C as having served as a general justification for intensified attacks on the Indigenous population.

What do we take from Cox’s interest in the White Woman? Why did he devote so much attention to the issue? One answer is that it provided a perfect example of all the critical boundaries between romance and reality, fiction and fact and myth and history. The role of the emerging historical societies and their backers, including Cox, was to write serious, fact-based history based on primary resources. The task was to uncover truth through research. Hearsay, folk lore, the tales of pioneers, collective memory – all of these could be considered and it was important to gather and record them; but there were definite limits and all these forms had to be tested against primary written sources. So, in a real sense, the various tales surrounding the white woman represented a natural and very rich focus for Cox and his methodology.

But I think it is reasonable to argue that there was another significant motive at play. Wittingly or otherwise, Cox was tapping into and giving voice to the deep-seated attitudes and fears of the first Europeans in Gippsland. His readers, over 100 years ago, would have been close enough in time to recognise those same attitudes and fears in their forebears. The occupation and settlement of Gippsland were still within collective memory. The story of the white woman served as a kind of essential fable. It sat at the edge of memory and represented the fear that from this strange and dangerous landscape, the original people – described as ‘blacks’ and ‘savages’ and completely ‘alien’ and ‘primitive’ – could reach out and exact some sort of vengeance by taking and abusing a ‘white woman’ who represented all that was ‘innocent’, ‘pure’ and ‘vulnerable’. Effectively, by dwelling on the story, Cox was rationalising the experiences and actions of the first generation of Gippslanders.

Death of Macalister and subsequent punitive expedition(s)

In Article 15 (25/9/12), under the heading, ‘Bloodshed’, Cox gave his first account of the death of Ronald Macalister. He stated that … the first murder of a white man by the blacks occurred early in 1842. His findings appear to have been based on recollections of local people.

Ronald Macalister was the nephew of Lachlan Macalister, a local squatter. Lachlan Macalister had land at … what is now Alberton East, south of the Brewery Road near the Tarra as a camping ground in connection with the shipping of cattle. On the land, there was a ‘bark hut’ which later became the home of Parson Bean.

Cox also described how there was a ‘party of blacks’ camped near Alberton and how when the men of the group were away hunting, stockmen of Macalister … in sheer wantonness, took a little blackboy from the camp and made a target of him. Cox then describes how when the men returned from hunting they … determined naturally on revenge. The nephew, Ronald Macalister was targeted:

Young Macalister riding from the hut at Alberton East to go through the bush to “Greenmount” had not proceeded far when he was set upon by two blacks and speared with ten spears, the body being badly mutilated.

Cox then explained the inevitable consequences:

This led to a punitive expedition on the part of the settlers, and a great massacre of the blacks followed.

Cox was keen to identify exactly where this massacre had taken place. He had three possibilities and he appealed to the local readers to come forward and provide more information. This was an excellent opportunity to involve the locals and draw on their folk memory:

No less than three different sites have been indicated as the scene of this massacre, viz Warrigal Creek, Gammon Creek, and Freshwater Creek. Between these the writer [Cox] is unable to determine. Perhaps there are some among the readers of these papers who can give the information. Those who escaped massacre were chased as far as Merriman’s Creek, and one who escaped death, in explanation to Mr. Lucas, stated he did so by ‘shaming dead’.

Mr. Lucas was one of the key sources for Cox’s account.

It is generally accepted today that all three locations mentioned saw killings, specifically in relation to punitive actions after Macalister’s death.

The first article on the killing and subsequent massacre created interest and response and so, not surprisingly, there was soon another article (Article 16, 15/10/12). Cox highlighted correspondence from the head teacher of Woodside State School, Mr W H Thomas. Thomas and a friend (Mr Lamb) gave details of a find they had made – ‘a quantity of human bones’ – buried in the sand on the beach near Warrigal Creek. The two men examined the skulls and concluded that the … remains were those of aboriginals. The men also noted that … all the skulls were fractured, a piece being broken away at the base of the skull, as though caused by a blow from a tomahawk. The men also noted that in conversation with a Mr Chas. Kuch, senior, they heard that there had been … a massacre of blacks in that neighbourhood. Unsurprisingly, they made the connection to … the massacre which took place in revenge for the murder of Ronald Macalister.

Cox then offered his opinion on the information provided by the men. First he argued that the remains pointed to ‘tribal warfare’. His view – naive and, arguably, convenient – was that Macalister’s men would have used firearms, and only firearms. Second, he was now fixed on the idea that the massacre had occurred at Freshwater Creek. This position appeared to be based on additional conversions he had had with the previously mentioned Mr Chas Lucas.

There was another article later the same month (Article 17, 30/10/12). Clearly, Cox’s articles on the topic were stirring interest, long-held memories and stories passed down the generations. This time there was different account of the reasons given for Macalister’s murder. It was clear that even though he reported it, Cox did not find the claim credible.

… the cause of the murder was, that when the blacks came too freely about the camps of the settlers and stockmen, and became a nuisance, the whites scattered about hot coals from their fires, and the blacks burnt their feet. The murder was in retaliation for this.

Also by this point, Cox had firmed on the idea that the massacre had not taken place at Freshwater Creek but at Warrigal Creek. His chief source for his change in position was a certain Mr Walpole. Cox quoted him:

I always understood that Warrigal Creek was the locality where the blacks were overtaken and killed. In fact, about 41 years ago [this would have made it round 1871, and 28 years after the massacre], when stockriding on the Warrigal run, I remember, close to the ’Sunville’ boundary gate, near Red Hill, there was a portion of a human skeleton, said to be the remains of one of the blacks killed. How much truth there was in the the report I am unable to say, but on the Red Hill the remains of several blacks have been uncovered by cattle scraping the sand way, and the action of the wind, etc..

Walpole then added:

As far back as I can remember there were all sorts of tales in connection with this killing business, and it seemed to me everyone was more or less ashamed of the affair.

Cox concluded his article by noting that given the ’natural reticence’, it was hardly surprising that it was proving so difficult to uncover exactly what had happened.

In September the following year (Article 33, 24/9/13), Cox again took up the investigation of Macalister’s murder. This time he quoted extensively from a story he had uncovered in the Port Philip Herald of the 29th July 1843. In the story, the claimed date of the killing is later than the one previously cited by Cox. Cox appeared to accept this revision – July 1843 is now accepted as the date – and he described the material he quoted as ‘more authentic information’:

Extract of a letter from Port Albert to a mercantile house in town [Melbourne], received by the ‘Jemima’ cutter, and dated the 20th instant: – “The blacks have commenced fresh outrages, and a few days since killed Mr. Kenneth (sic) Macalister, within half a mile of his station at Port Albert. He was on horseback at the time, and armed with a brace of pistols. This marks five persons murdered within little more than 12 months.”

The extract quoted by Cox did not offer any detail of the circumstances leading to the killing. Nor was there reference to any subsequent ‘punitive expedition’:

It is reported that Mr. Macalister was decoyed from his station by a party of blacks on pretext of having found a flock of sheep that had been missing, and that having got him to a spot favourable for their murderous purpose, they set upon him with their waddies, and despatched him under circumstances of the utmost barbarity.

The same extract decried the fact that the settlers were obliged to pay ‘licences and assessments’ but they received ’no protection from the Government’.

For his part, Cox corrected Macalister’s name – Ronald not Kenneth – and he noted that … other accounts of this murder state that he [Ronald Macalister] was speared.

There is one final article worth looking at. It was number 37a and it appeared on 6/2/14. Again, Cox quoted extensively from the Port Philip Patriot (21/9/1843) but the article itself came from the The Sydney Morning Herald of 6/9/43. Cox did not provide any commentary or criticism of the material presented. His readers read it, presumably, as a factual account; although the introduction did describe the statements to be ‘highly coloured’. The Indigenous population is described as the settlers’ ‘most bitter enemies’:

‘Crimes are as openly perpetrated as the sun at noonday. And such is the force of habit that since the departure of our police magistrate the public look upon these occurrences with indifference- as matters of course.’ For instance, Mr. Macalister was dragged off his horse and cruelly murdered in the township of Alberton, his head being so totally disfigured that his countenance could not be recognised amongst his most intimate friends (this outrage being committed) by these harmless, innocent denizens of the wilds of Gippsland, bearing the anomalous cognomen of Her Majesty’s most liege subjects (we give it as our gratuitous opinion, most bitter enemies). Nor is this the only instance of the sacrifice of Christian blood by these liege subjects. Since we last did ourselves the honor of addressing your Excellency, a servant in the employment of Mr. Foster, a settler here, was killed, his body mangled and some of its members carried off, making in all within the last eighteen or twenty months the number of five precious lives sacrificed at the shrine of the implacable savages, besides a variety of hairbreadth escapes by flood and field all gone down the stream of oblivion without one question asked or given on authority.

Cox did not pick it up, but the last reference in the quote appears to be a cryptic reference to some sort of ‘frontier justice’ at work, given that the authorities were not present. Indeed, the next section of the article goes on to describe a very lawless and dangerous frontier. Alberton, specifically, was full of ‘lawless villains’ and the ‘most lawless rogues’. Highway robbery was rife and the whole place was full of sly grog shops.

Cox does not use the Macalister death and subsequent killings as a lead-in to examine the whole question of frontier conflict. He does not, for example, focus on the immediate and background reasons for the killing of Macalister. Nor does he attempt to catalogue the various killings on the same frontier. Rather, he writes about the Macalister episode as a single, isolated event. For Cox, the effort is to uncover primary sources and, to the extent possible, have the readers contribute to the discussion. The focus is on the methodology rather than the critically important history that the methodology is uncovering. Moreover, there are concerns about the methodology itself. While it is true that Cox looked at a variety of primary sources, there are other sources that he did not use. A good example is George Dunderdale’s The Book of the Bush which had been published in 1890. Dunderdale included an account of Macalister’s death and the subsequent killings, but Cox did not refer to him.

One interesting note here is that Cox certainly knew of Dunderdale’s work. In fact, he had already criticised Dunderdale’s writing. He used Dunderdale’s work to demonstrate the difference between what he saw as the two extremes of ’romance’ and ‘history’. In Article 18 (8/11/12) both Cox and ‘A W Grieg, hon. sec. Historical Society of Victoria’ had used ‘historical facts’ to expose ‘untruthful statements in Dunderdale’s “Bush Tales”’. Admittedly, there were errors – dates, places, names – in Dunderdale’s work and his style did tend towards over-writing. At the same time, his detailed description of the bloodshed and savagery on the Gippsland frontier is impossible to ignore or gloss over. Consider, for example, the following account of the operation of Tyers’ ‘native police’:

There were now ladies as well as gentlemen in Gippsland, and one day the commissioner [Tyers] sailed away in his boat with a select party. After enjoying the scenery and the summer breezes for a few hours, he cast his eyes along the shore in search of some romantic spot on which to land. Dead wood and dry sticks were extremely scarce, as the blacks used all they could find at their numerous camps. He was at length so fortunate as to observe a brown pile of decayed branches, and he said, “I think we had better land over there; that deadwood will make a good fire”; and the boat was steered towards it. But when it neared the land the air was filled with a stench so horrible that Mr. Tyers at once put the boat about, and went away in another direction. Next day he visited the spot with his police, and he found that the dead wood covered a large pile of corpses of the natives shot by his own black troopers, and he directed them to make it a holocaust. (p 276)

The following is Dunderdale’s account of Macalister’s killing and the events that followed:

At this time the blacks had quite recovered from the fright occasioned by the discharge of the nine-pounder gun, and were again often seen from the huts at the Old Port. Donald Macalister was sent by his uncle, Lachlan Macalister, of Nuntin, to make arrangements for shipping some cattle and sheep. The day before their arrival Donald saw some blacks at a distance in the scrub, and without any provocation fired at them with an old Tower musket, charged with shot. The next day the drovers and shepherds arrived with the stock, and drove them over Glengarry’s bridge to a place between the Tarra and Albert rivers, called the Coal Hole, afterwards occupied by Parson Bean. There was no yard there, and the animals would require watching at night; so Donald decided to send them back to Glengarry’s yards. Then he and the drovers and shepherds would have a pleasant time; there would be songs and whisky, the piper would play, and the men and maids would dance. The arrangement suited everybody. The drovers started back with the cattle, Donald helped the shepherds to gather the sheep, and put them on the way, and then he rode after the cattle. The track led him past a grove of dense ti-tree, on the land now known as the Brewery Paddock, and about a hundred yards ahead a single blackfellow came out of the grove, and began capering about and waving a waddy. Donald pulled up his horse and looked at the black. He had a pair of pistols in the holsters of his saddle, but he did not draw them: there was no danger from a blackfellow a hundred yards off. But there was another behind him and much nearer, who came silently out of the ti-tree and thrust a spear through Donald’s neck. The horse galloped away towards Glengarry’s bridge.

When the drovers saw the riderless horse, they supposed that Macalister had been accidentally thrown, and they sent Friday to look for him. He found him dead. The blacks had done their work quickly. They had stripped Donald of everything but his trousers and boots, had mutilated him in their usual fashion, and had disappeared. A messenger was sent to old Macalister, and the young man was buried on the bank of the river near McClure’s grave. The new cemetery now contained three graves, the second being that of Tinker Ned, who shot himself accidentally when pulling out his gun from beneath a tarpaulin.

Lachlan Macalister had had a long experience in dealing with blackfellows and bushrangers; he had been a captain in the army, and an officer of the border police. The murder of his nephew gave him both a professional and a family interest in chastising the criminals, and he soon organised a party to look for them. It was, of course, impossible to identify any blackfellow concerned in the outrage, and therefore atonement must be made by the tribe. The blacks were found encamped near a waterhole at Gammon Creek, and those who were shot were thrown into it, to the number, it was said, of about sixty, men, women, and children; but this was probably an exaggeration. At any rate, the black who capered about to attract young Macalister’s attention escaped, and he often afterwards described and imitated the part he took in what he evidently considered a glorious act of revenge. The gun used by old Macalister was a double-barrelled Purdy, a beautiful and reliable weapon, which in its time had done great execution. (p224)

Clearly, in terms of a primary resource, Dunderdale’s account is a critical reference and one of which Cox would have been aware and could have included. In fact, Dunderdale did explicitly comment on the conflict on the frontier. For example, there was this insight of Tyers’ approach to the ‘troublesome blacks’:

The blacks were still troublesome, and I heard Mr.Tyers relate the measures taken by himself and his native police to suppress their irregularities. He was informed that some cattle had been speared, and he rode away with his force to investigate the complaint. He inspected the cattle killed or wounded, and then directed his black troopers to search for tracks, and this they did willingly and well. Traces of natives were soon discovered, and their probable hiding-place in the scrub was pointed out to Mr. Tyers. He therefore dismounted, and directing two of his black troopers armed with carbines to accompany him, he held a pistol in each hand and walked cautiously into the scrub. The two black troopers discharged their carbines. The commissioner had seen nothing to shoot at, but his blacks soon showed him two of the natives a few yards in front, both mortally wounded. Mr. Tyers sent a report of the affair to the Government, and that was the end of it. (p. 265)

There was also this revealing detail:

This manner of dealing with the native difficulty was adopted in the early days, and is still used under the name of “punitive expeditions.” That judge who prayed to heaven in his wig and robes of office, said that the aborigines were subjects of the Queen, and that it was a mercy to them to be under her protection. The mercy accorded to them was less than Jedburgh justice: they were shot first, and not even tried afterwards. …

The white men brought with them three blessings for the natives– rum, bullets, and blankets. The blankets were a free gift by the Government, and proved to the eyes of all men that our rule was kind and charitable. The country was rightfully ours; that was decided by the Supreme Court; we were not obliged to pay anything for it, but out of pure benignity we gave the lubras old gowns, and the black men old coats and trousers; the Government added an annual blanket, and thus we had good reason to feel virtuous.

When every blackfellow in South Gippsland, except old Darriman, was dead, Mr. Tyers explained his experience with the Government blankets. They were now no longer required, as Darriman could obtain plenty of old clothes from charitable white men. It had been the commissioner’s duty to give one blanket annually to each live native, and thus that garment became to him the Queen’s livery, and an emblem of civilisation; it raised the savage in the scale of humanity and encouraged him to take the first step in the march of progress. His second step was into the grave. The result of the gift of blankets was that the natives who received them ceased to clothe themselves with the skins of the kangaroo, the bear or opossum. The rugs which they had been used to make for themselves would keep out the rain, and in them they could pass the wettest night or day in their mia-mias, warm and dry. But the blankets we kindly gave them by way of saving our souls were manufactured for the colonial market, and would no more resist the rain than an old clothes-basket. The consequence was that when the weather was cold and wet, the blackfellow and his blanket were also cold and wet, and he began to shiver; inflammation attacked his lungs, and rheumatism his limbs, and he soon went to that land where neither blankets nor rugs are required. Mr. Tyers was of opinion that more blacks were killed by the blankets than by rum and bullets. (p 268)

Equally, there were other accounts of conflict on the frontier for example, G H Haydon’s Five Years Experience in Australia Felix (1846), that Cox could have used. Cox obviously knew of Haydon’s work because he used it in other of this articles. But Cox was not, as it were, pulling all the threads together. He was not attempting to highlight the theme of frontier conflict and the violent dispossession and subjugation of the Indigenous population. Rather, his series of articles was offering anecdotes: individual and self-contained stories about notable events from the past. Possibly, Cox sensed that there was a ‘dark past’ but he did not set out to expose it in any great detail or depth. Nor was there any attempt to explore the fundamentals of the conflict, nor hold anyone or any party responsible. It was more a case of ‘these things – some truly evil and wrong – happened in the past but there is no direct link between that past and our present’.

Of course, it can be argued that criticising Cox for issues that his approach, 100 years ago, failed to address, is at the very least problematic and presumptuous. However, the basic tension does highlight how history comes to be written and what people choose to draw from history.

Cox’s pioneering work in the local history of Gippsland 100 years ago is very important. He certainly deserves recognition for his efforts in setting up the first, regional sub-branch (‘centre’) of the (Royal) Historical Society of Victoria. The essential methodology he employed, with its focus on uncovering primary resources, assessing such resources against each other and incorporating memory – both personal and folk – as a historical resource, and recognising its limits, was ground breaking. His ability to popularise and promote the study of (local) history and his success in having the locals become involved were also very significant. He did the locals a sense of their history.

At the same time, it is essential to locate Cox within his own history. As indicated in numerous posts, he was a staunch Imperial Loyalist, arguably the most significant one in his community at the outbreak of War. He saw the strength of the British Empire as the high point in European history. And he saw the settlement and rapid and successful growth of Gippsland as a micro manifestation of the greatness of the same Empire. For Cox, ’settlement’ – in this instance, the settlement of Gippsland – brought prosperity, progress and civilisation. Occupation and settlement as features of ‘colonisation’, were natural and proven phenomena. The sacrifices and struggles of the ‘pioneers’ would sustain the future generations. Colonisation itself was a proven model of human improvement that ‘Great Britain’ – and other European powers – had employed on a world-wide basis. Essentially, the (white) European world claimed ownership of ’new’ land and proceeded to develop it for its own interests, pushing aside, marginalising and effectively eliminating the (non-white) Indigenous population. There could be violent and cruel side-effects as this process unfolded; but the process itself was natural and inevitable and the final – as opposed to interim- outcomes were overwhelmingly positive.

As a Christian minister, Cox additionally saw the ‘hand of God’ at work. Working from a strongly narrative lens, Cox was particularly interested in uncovering and describing the role played by the Church in the settlement of Gippsland. There was a strong emphasis on how the Church laboured in the young, raw and challenging environment of Gippsland. Coincidentally, at the time he started writing – just prior to WW1- many of the local churches were celebrating their 50th anniversaries. Several of his articles focused on these celebrations: For example, Article 24 (5/3/13) covered St. John’s at Port Albert and Article 34a (8/10/13) St. Luke’s at Alberton. For Cox, the Church had survived its infancy in Gippsland, thanks to the efforts of the first clerics – ministers like the famous ’bush parson’, Rev Willoughby Bean – and was embarking on its formative phase.

As the War progressed and the focus on ‘national character’ and ‘national identity’ intensified, Imperial Loyalists such as Cox crafted a strong relationship between the ‘pioneer’ and the ‘Anzac’. As already noted, the link was made repeatedly at local farewells for those who had enlisted.

Not surprisingly, Cox was not about to look to the history of Gippsland to call into question or critique the very theoretical supports that defined and shaped his world: the greatness of the British Empire, the strength of the Church in a new and challenging environment, the pursuit of the (unique) Australian character, and the White Australia Policy. Like everyone, he was a person of his times. Cox was an agent of the Lord, in the service of his flock, researching the European occupation, settlement and development of Gippsland, in a White Australia that was an integral component of the British Empire.

References

Cox, G  1990, Notes on Gippsland History, Vol 1- 6, ed. Adams J D, Port Albert Maritime Museum.

Dunderdale, G 1898, The Book of the Bush. Containing Many Truthful Sketches of the Early Colonial Life of Squatters, Whalers, Convicts, Diggers, and Others Who Left Their Native Land and Never Returned. Ward Lock, London.

Haydon, G H 1846,  Five years’ experience in Australia Felix, comprising A short account of its early settlement and its present position, with many particulars interesting to intending emigrants. Hamilton, Adams & Co., London
See Chapter VI, Narrative of a journey from Westernport to Gipp’s land, with extracts from the journal kept on the route.

For more contemporary research on the frontier clash in Gippsland, one readily accessible source is the website of Peter Gardner, historian from East Gippsland.

Another readily accessible source is the University of Newcastle’s site Colonial Frontier Massacres in Australia, 1788-1930 and its map of massacre sites.

209. The White Australia Policy: always in the background

Before returning to Rev G Cox and his quest to uncover and present the history of Gippsland, immediately prior to, and in the first few years of, WW1, it is important to consider the reach and strength of the White Australia Policy. At that time, belief in and commitment to this national policy were essential, taken-for-granted realities.

Much has been made of Cox’s commitment to Empire and his determination that Australia had to fight for and with Britain to defend the Empire. Defence of the Empire was the defence of Australia. But within this simple formula, defence of Australia more specifically meant defence of White Australia.

At the time, White Australia was very much a work-in-progress. Much had been achieved and more was promised; but there was always the existential threat that the protective shield of the Empire – or, more specifically, the Royal Navy – could disappear and, left to itself, Australia and its dream of White Australia would fail.

By the outbreak of WW1, it was possible to see signifcant elements of the White Australia Policy in place. To begin, the dispossession and subjugation of the Indigenous population – most commonly simply referred to as the ‘blacks’ – had been achieved. Australia had been made white by eliminating the original inhabitants. As we will see later with Cox, this was a particularly violent process on the frontier in Gippsland. However, at the time, no one was keen to dwell on the violence. It was more a case of simply accepting the end result as an inevitable and desirable outcome. A ‘natural’ process had taken place. What had happened in Australia was not unique, merely another expression of Imperial policy, the economics of colonisation, European theories on race, superior technology and any number of beliefs – many of them religious – to do with manifest destiny and the ‘white man’s burden’. What was unique about Australia was that by the start of the 20C the subjugation, marginalisation and effective removal of the Indigenous population had been so complete and so effective that (white) Australians conceived of their land as one that had been, effectively, unoccupied. In comparison to other nations, Australia was a ‘new’ nation – still in its infancy –  with the promise of true greatness ahead of it.

By the time of federation, the focus of the White Australia Policy had settled on the issue of immigration. The universal political drive was to keep Australia white, even at a time when Imperial support for such a singular focus on race was becoming increasingly problematic, particularly given the rise of Japan. The theories that underpinned the highly selective immigration policy – the natural intellectual and moral superiority of the white (British) race, the inherent advantages of a homogeneous or mono-cultural society, the grave dangers of miscegenation, the industrial threat of cheap, non-white labour … – were reflected across all aspects of society, and Australia entered WW1 fully committed to its White Australia Policy. Moreover, it emerged from the War still committed to the policy. PM Hughes was feted for saving the White Australia Policy.

The critical point is that at the start of WW1, and the time that Cox was writing his history of Gippsland, the ideal of White Australia was uncontested. It was a reality that had been created by the settlers and pioneers and it now needed to be protected and enhanced, principally via a highly selective immigration policy . The dream that Australia could come to represent the ultimate flowering of the British race – in the style of C E W Bean’s writing on national character – was tangible. As a consequence, the defining attitudes to race that were integral to the White Australia Policy were commonplace and accepted as everyday realities. They were as common as people’s identification with, commitment to and belief in the Empire.

The following is a simple exercise intended to highlight such attitudes and world views. It takes short pieces from the local paper – Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative – over the period of WW1 and uses them to reveal just how common the attitudes to race that underpinned the White Australia Policy were. The reporting at the time gave no sense that the attitudes revealed were remarkable, controversial or in any way contested or disputed.

The first is a short article that appeared in mid 1914 (29/5/14). It featured a brief note on the number of “black fellows’ tomahawks” (stone axes) that people had been finding on burned-out ridges in the district (Bulga). The writer noted that the number of such artefacts found were so numerous that virtually every local household had them. They then raised the question of why that particular area had had so many ‘blacks’ and even suggested that the local historical society – this was, of course, the newly established group that Cox had set up – could investigate:

Possibly the local branch of the Historical Society could throw some light on the matter. Information regarding a tribe that has so completely passed away, and left such a number of relics behind, would prove highly interesting.

The Indigenous population – the ‘tribe’ – had ‘completely passed away’. That part of the district’s history had vanished, to the extent that it was just a passing curiosity.

There was another apparently unremarkable reference to former ‘blacks’ in the district in April 1917 (25/4/17). It was as short account about a very tall – 100 ft – tree which had recently been felled on Turton’s Track. People had noted that about 30 ft from its base, ’tomahawk incisions used for climbing’ had been cut in the tree. The question was who had made them: the ‘blacks’ or ‘white settlers’. The writer concluded that the marks were most likely the work of early settlers because they were said to be 20-30 years old whereas the ‘blacks’ had been gone some ‘fifty years’. By this reasoning the Indigenous population had ‘disappeared’ by the end of the 1860s. Again, there is this sense that even though the historical period is relatively short – some ‘fifty years’ – an entire population has simply ‘disappeared’ and virtually nothing is known about them.

Often, an ‘in memoriam’ for an old pioneer would touch on the issue of ‘disappearance’. For example, there was one on 16/6/15 for Mrs Peter Hunter who had died at 95 yo. She had been born in Scotland and arrived in Port Albert in 1858. The detail makes it perfectly clear that the settlers took over ‘occupied’ land. The Indigenous population was dispossessed. The ’success’ of ‘settlement’ saw the ‘blacks’ disappear.

They (the Hunter family) acquired property on the Sale road, where they lived to the end of their days. When first settling on their homestead they lived in a tent, and it was no unusual occurrence to have a visit from the notorious aboriginal King Morgan and members of his tribe. These blacks would come in and make themselves quite at home. The swamp on the property was the common camping ground of the blacks. These hardy pioneers successfully passed through the difficulties of early settlement, and lived to see more peaceful times.

There was another tribute to an old pioneer in the paper on 27/2/18. The deceased was Charles Thomas Lucas who died at Stradbroke in February 1918. The family had had strong connections with Yarram. The headline for the tribute described Lucas as ‘The Oldest Australian Native’ :

He was, at the time of his death, the oldest Australian native, having been born at Launceston, Tasmania, in 1822, and died in his 96th year.

The use of the term ‘native’ was employed to describe a long-standing association with the ‘new’ land of Australia and with the first colonists or early arrivals. At the time, the term was increasingly being employed to denote a sense of ‘national authenticity’, as in the Australian Natives’ Association (1871) whose membership was originally restricted to white men born in Australia. In a real sense, it was a term being re-interpreted.

Charles Lucas was described as the grandson of a public figure who came in the First Fleet. His father – one of 15 children – had moved to Tasmania where Charles was born in 1822. The family moved back to NSW in 1834 and subsequently moved into Gippsland from Omeo as ‘overlanders’. They eventually settled on 300 acres on opposite sides of Tarra Creek at Yarram. Charles Lucas married in 1856 and by that stage he was living at Bruthen. He subsequently moved to Stadbroke.

The article suggests Lucas was important because of his family’s rich history as original pioneers in so many locations and, obviously, because of the distinction of being, supposedly, the longest surviving link right back to the First Fleet.

Interestingly, in the detailed account of the family’s pioneering history, there is a reference to the dangerous sea voyage from Tasmania to Sydney in 1834. The boat had to be abandoned at Twofold Bay and the survivors had to … travel over 300 miles of wild country, infested with blacks to reach Sydney. Further, they nearly perished at the hands of the same ‘blacks’ who captured them and had … agreed upon a feast, and decided the whites should be killed at break of day. They were saved thanks to the intervention by one the ‘blacks’ … who had had dealings with early colonists, and had picked up a little broken English. The brief commentary serves as a reminder of the dangers faced by early settlers at the hands of the ‘blacks’. Before they ‘disappeared’ the ‘blacks’ had ‘infested’ the bush and posed great risk.

There were other pieces that focused on the ‘natural’ inferiority of the ‘black race’. For example, on 29/5/14 there was a piece which appears to have been taken from one of the metropolitan dailies under the headline, Life in Rhodesia. Victorian Woman’s Views. Black Servants. It detailed the opinions of a certain Mrs W E Dick who had .. . spent years in Southern Rhodesia before coming to live in Melbourne. In the piece the interviewer asks, Do you think the Kaffir makes a good servant?

Her reply was characterised by attitudes that were clearly unremarkable for the time:

Certainly; that is if you train him yourself. The first boy I had was an awful stupid, and could not do anything correctly. One morning, instead of filling the water jug with fresh water, as I told him, he pored the water into the milk jug and spoilt the day’s supply. Soon afterwards another boy presented himself, looking for work, so I engaged him, and dismissed the other one.

Similar attitudes appeared in soldier’s letters during the War. The long voyage to Great Britain served to confirm the sense of racial superiority. One such letter was from Gunner Percy Rendell. It appeared in the paper on 28/2/17. Of the transport’s stay in Durban, he wrote of some entertainment the troops had at the expense of the ’natives’:

The natives were very funny and we used to throw pennies to them and they would fight like bulldogs for them.

His impressions of Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, were not favourable. It was certainly not a place for white people:

The streets are not formed, and the natives squat down in the street and sell their wares, fruit, etc., while the picaninnies crowd round a fellow and ask for pennies. The population is practically all natives, and you could count the white population on the fingers of one hand. The climate is very unhealthy, which is the reason so few white people live here. After a long and tiring time of 15 days in this undesirable place the troopship got orders to put to sea…

There was also the issue of non-white labour in Australia itself and the role of the trade union movement in protecting the interests of white workers. The issues could be complex and loyalties divided. For example, in the edition of 5/2/15, there was commentary on labour disputes on the wharves in Fremantle. The issue was that some of the workers in the union there were ‘full-blooded negroes’ and, as unionists they were being given preference over white non unionists. Obviously, the implication of this arrangement was that it undermined the White Australia policy. The piece noted:

Now, it would seem that the negro can be and is in the union; and that if a married white man does not belong to a union the ‘nigger’, who does, ought to have preference.

There were also views on Australian ‘blacks’ as workers. The edition of 7/8/14 featured a description of tin mining at Bamboo Creek, 40 miles north of Marble Bar in WA. The article claimed that the ‘gins’ were employed to clean the ore while the ‘bucks’ were working on the local stations as ‘outriders, shepherds, bullock-drivers etc.’ It also noted that they … take to it fairly well, being in physique a better class than most aboriginals. There was further patronising commentary:

When left to themselves the bucks make the gins do all the work outside of hunting and fighting. They imitate the whites in dress and sport, and in many cases have acquired the art of dressing neatly.

It is also worth pointing to the number of times a direct relationship was drawn between the White Australia Policy and the protection and support of the Empire. In a piece (26/5/15) on the local celebration of Empire Day, the Rev Walklate, another key Imperial Loyalist in the local community, made the direct link between the White Australia Policy and the strategic importance of Great Britain:

People sometimes ask the question, what is the use of Empire Day? I want you to think what would Australia have been today without the help of Great Britain. Without British prestige behind us our White Australian (sic) Policy would have been impossible.

Walklate even alluded to Australia’s great fortune in this endeavour, as other jurisdictions that had attempted the same policy had failed because of the intricacies of international relationships. He cited the case of California as one example:

California could not carry out a White California policy; there would have been war with Japan.

Similar claims had been made by Senator McColl at Yarram at very start of war. The local paper (7/8/14) quoted him telling a local audience, at the same time as he announced Australia was to send an expeditionary force of 20,000 men, that Australia’s White Australia Policy was under threat:

The nations of the earth would object to our holding Australia unless we could fill it, and the Government proposed to meet this problem by bringing suitable white people here who could assist in developing the country, opening it up and defending it. The only thing that kept this country for us was the British fleet and if anything happened to it, then good-bye to a White Australia.

The preoccupation with the need to increase the population to protect the White Australia Policy was a constant. For example, this piece was from just a week earlier (31/7/14). It was on the celebration of Australia reaching a population of five million:

We reached our first million in 1858, soon after the discovery of gold showed itself an influential factor in bringing about the rapid settlement of the country. The second million arrived in 1877, the third in 1889, and the fourth in 1905. Droughts delayed the fourth; there is always a close relationship between plentitude of food and plentitude of life: prosperity means more Australian babies, more adult Australians for the future. A period of unexampled prosperity has hastened the five millionth, and he should be here in the record time of nine years from the fourth.

The five millionth baby was expected later in 1914. The need for population increase both to hold Australia and to keep it white was emphasised through the War and used as a means of recruiting. But, equally, there was a counter argument pushed by anti-conscriptionists: white Australians were being killed at an unsustainable rate and this shocking loss of life represented some sort of race catastrophe that threatened the very basis of White Australia.

As an example of the appeal – from all sides – to protect the White Australia Policy consider comments written in the paper at the time of the unveiling of the honor roll at Devon North State School (25/5/17). The claim was that people were prepared to talk ‘White Australia’ but they were not prepared to defend it. Presumably, the ‘coloured nations’ is a reference to, primarily, the Indian troops fighting as part of the British Army:

There were fit men at home talking White Australia, yet they would not fight for it: they let the blacks fight for them. The time would come when the coloured races – those who had fought for our nation – would become the inhabitants of our fair land.

There were related claims about one month later (27/6/17). This time a letter from the Creswick Advertiser – was reproduced. It was from an Australian soldier who attacked those back in Australia using the White Australia Policy to justify the No vote in the 1917 conscription referendum. The use of abusive racial stereotypes to drive home the message is taken as a given:

… we are being butchered by the people for whom we are fighting. I saw a vote ’No’ card over here, and it was ‘Keep Australia White’. Oh, my God, they ought to; if Australia was filled with men like the Ghurkas it would be a lot better off than it is at present – overrun, as it is, with such a lot of ‘Dirty Skulking Curs’. … The lowest breed of nigger is better than the majority of Australia’s present population. They don’t mind staying at home and letting us fight for them, yet the won’t come and give us a hand. What would happen if we gave up fighting?

The last example is taken from an editorial in August 1919 (27/8/19) at the time PM Hughes had returned to Australia. The editorial gave a brief account of the tumultuous welcome Hughes was given in Perth. It was taken from a longer piece in The Age (25/8/19).

When he returned to Perth, Hughes was feted. Two hundred soldiers literally pulled his car through the streets of Perth. He was the returned troops’ hero and protector. In the speech reported in The Age , Hughes acknowledged that the returning soldiers would take a while to settle back into civilian life and would almost certainly create trouble. But he declared that he was inclined to look at such transgressions with a ‘very lenient eye’. The War was over but Hughes was still attacking those who had not volunteered. He declared that it was really only the returning men who truly knew what war was like and they were the only ones who had saved the nation and kept it white.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) was enthusiastically welcomed to Perth last Saturday. Soldiers dragged the car in which Mr. and Mrs. Hughes were seated through the streets. In the course of his speech he said, vide “Age”: – The great bulk of the people of Australia know nothing of war, and very many of the people of Australia have done nothing towards bringing the victory about. (Cheers.) But for the men who went out from this country to fight, Australia would have been in chains. (Cheers.) Australia is free to-day, and is white to-day. (Renewed cheers.) It owes nothing to to those who being able to fight remained behind, but it owes everything it has to those who being able to fight went out and fought. (Cheers.)

All the above are only the briefest, local examples of the extent to which all the elements of the White Australia Policy, and all the associated attitudes, were integral to any sense of national identity, national debate and national interest at the time. By the conventional standards of our time, 100 years later, the policies and perspectives appear crude, dangerous and, of course, inherently racist. However, that was the history; and any understanding of Australia’s involvement in WW1 that does not acknowledge the influence of the White Australia Policy is manifestly deficient. Equally, for present purposes, the White Australia Policy was a significant lens through which Cox, writing at the time of the War, researched and wrote his version of the history of Gippsland.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

For Bean’s writing on national charcater, see:

First World War Official Histories
Volume 1 The Story of ANZAC from the outbreak of war to the end of the first phase of the Gallipoli Campaign, May 4, 1915 (11th edition, 1941)
Chapter 1 Australia’s position At The Outbreak

208. Rev George Cox and his ‘Notes on Gippsland History’ (1)

 

Rev G Cox, courtesy of Yarram & District Historical Society

Several previous posts have covered the importance of the the Rev George Cox, the Church of England rector who was appointed to Yarram in 1911. Cox was one of the most important Imperial Loyalists in the local community.

Prior to his own enlistment in 1915, Cox had been actively involved with the local Rechabite Lodge and he spoke at local temperance meetings. He had supported the local Boy Scouts and had served on the committee for Yarram State School. When the War broke out he helped establish the Belgian Relief Fund Committee. Most significantly, he was very involved in the local Recruiting Committee.

Even when he was serving with the AIF, Cox maintained a connection with Yarram and his former congregation. For example, in November 1917 he returned to Yarram to preach. In his sermon, he pointed to the differences between the ‘shirker’ and the soldier in the trenches prepared to sacrifice everything. He reminded his congregation that he had always supported the ‘voluntary system of enlistments’ and he declared that he still believed this was the best method. But now, faced with such peril, Cox urged everyone to support the Hughes Government in ‘any measure brought forward which would compel the shirker to do his bit.’ That night he gave a public address in the Shire Hall to young men on the topic of ‘The National Peril’. The National Peril was the scourge of ‘venereal diseases’. There was a write up of Cox’s visit in the local paper on 21/11/17.

Cox enlisted in September 1915. In fact, Cox had tried to enlist one year earlier in late September 1914 but was rejected by the local doctors. Most probably his age would have been a factor. He was born at Edinburgh in Scotland in 1871 and was then 43 years old. Even after he enlisted, his health was still an issue and he was actually discharged (May 1916) – rheumatic fever – before he re-enlisted, but only for home service. He served with the Australian Army Medical Corps at both the Isolation Hospital, Langwarrin and the Clearing Hospital at Broadmeadows. He held the rank of a/sergeant and he was formally discharged in January 1919. Cox’s determination to enlist and, equally his determination to continue to serve in the face of poor health, would have served as a striking example to the local community.

Cox was one of the most important advocates of support for the Empire.  He used his pulpit to promote the righteous cause of the Allies, remind everyone of the greatness of the Empire and the dire challenges it faced and, in a very practical gesture, make a strong call for volunteers. For a reminder of how Cox effectively fused Christian teaching – for example, the ideal of Christian sacrifice – with support for the War refer to Post 26. Soldiers of Christ.

Another striking example of how Cox presented the Empire of Britain and the Empire of God as overlapping and mutually dependent came in the sermon he preached at Yarram on Sunday 23/5/15. It was reported in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 26/5/15. It was just before Empire Day and it also coincided with the feast of Whitsunday (Pentecost). Cox saw the British Empire as the civil and temporal manifestation of the Heavenly (Christian) Empire:

Tonight we are met for a two-fold commemoration. We stand on the eve of Empire Day, that day on which we commemorate the birthday of Her Most Gracious Majesty, the late Queen Victoria, and we commemorate her memory because of her life and character. She has left us an ideal of what a Christian ruler ought to be. And it was during her life that the British Empire received its greatest development, and was consolidated and established. And today, Whitsunday, we commemorate the birthday of the Christian Empire.

As well as offering both Christian legitimacy and active support for the War effort, Cox provided the local community with another considerable asset. From 1911 when he arrived in Yarram to 1915 when he enlisted, Cox provided the locals of the Shire of Alberton – and the broader community of Gippsland – with a running presentation of the history of Gippsland.

Previous posts that looked at recruiting drives and formal farewells and welcomes home have examined the themes that were commonly employed in speeches on such occasions and the theme of the young soldier as a worthy descendant of the original pioneers was very common. Possibly, even without Cox’s efforts, this theme would have been paramount but there is no question that Cox had provided both the background detail and the renewed interest in the early history of the local area and that there was a natural synergy between his history articles and support for the War effort. In Cox’s world view the success of the European settlement of Gippsland mirrored, admittedly only on the small scale, the inevitable success and greatness of the British Empire. Cox and his readers also saw the very real threat of defeat in the War as the denial of the very British virtues and strengths that had enabled the successful colonisation of Australia. Defeat would represent the very reversal of Australia’s history.

Cox’s efforts as a local historian were considerable. His articles on Gippsland history – Notes on Gippsland History –  which were published regularly in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative were detailed and extensive. As indicated, they ran from 1911 to September 1915 when he enlisted. In that period there were approximately 65 articles published. The articles recommenced in 1921 and continued to 1930. In this instance I am only looking at the articles published prior to and during the War, although this also includes a handful (4) that he wrote after he enlisted.

Interestingly, the articles were written and published in the style of a contemporary blog. Cox often revised earlier texts in view of additional research on his part, or in response to comments or criticism from readers or other researchers. He actively encouraged comments on his work and appealed for additional resources. Also, the topics on which he wrote were ordered somewhat randomly and the various threads and themes in his work were not handled in a strictly sequential manner. The work was definitely in the style of a ‘work in progress’ rather than a finished history. At the same time, the overall scope and detail of his work was very impressive and he gave the community a significant picture of its history, albeit from a particular perspective: the triumph of British colonisation.

John Adams wrote a formal history of the Shire of Alberton in 1990 and in his preface he acknowledged the value of … the many articles published by the late Rev George Cox in the Gippsland Standard. The value of the articles as resource material was always recognised, and in 1997 the Port Albert Maritime Museum re-published all the articles in a 6 volume work. John Adams also wrote the introduction for the series and, again, he acknowledged the significance of Cox’s work – These articles have for many years proved to be important research material for students and historians of Gippsland history … – and also presented an overview of their scope:

From 1911 to 1930 there appeared in the Gippsland Standard, Yarram, a series of articles which went under the heading of ‘Notes on Gippsland History’. These articles, many of them up to 2000 words in length, were the result of detailed and painstaking research on the early history of Gippsland by the Anglican minister, Rev. George Cox. They covered the explorations of Gippsland, the settlement of Port Albert and the subsequent development of Alberton and Tarraville, the early squatters and the cattle trade, the first overlanders in Gippsland and the beginnings of churches and schools in the Alberton area, concentrating to a large extent on the first twenty years of Gippsland.

The other significant feature of Cox’s work was that it was undertaken under the auspices of the (Royal) Historical Society of Victoria. The society had been established only recently in 1909 and, in fact, Cox established the first branch outside Melbourne, at Yarram, in 1911.

Cox addressed the local Australian Natives’ Association (ANA) branch at Yarram in September 1911 – the paper he presented that day became the first of the published articles in the local paper – and revealed his motivation for setting up the first ‘sub-centre’ of the (Royal) Historical Society of Victoria. He was concerned that there was no definitive history of Gippsland and that the challenge was time critical because the essential material resources were fast disappearing. As well, the ‘pioneers’ were dying. He wrote often about ‘our few remaining pioneers’. Recording the past efforts of the pioneers and celebrating their successes were of paramount importance to Cox. In the same paper, he explicitly referred to the duty of honouring the pioneer generations:

Let it be clearly understood between reader and writer that this is a national work, a work of public interest, in which all may take a share, for the honouring of those – our pioneers – who have borne the heat and toil and burden of the day, and for the instruction and inspiration of those who shall come after.

This was history with a high moral purpose, a history that could teach future generations of the enterprise, values and success of the original European pioneers. It was hardly surprising that the theme of the young soldier following in the footsteps of the pioneers became so common in local recruitment appeals.

Cox’s comments ascribe a ‘national’ dimension to the work. While the history Cox pursued was definitely focused on Gippsland, he was at least conscious of the need for a sense of Australia’s national history. Also, it is reasonable to argue that in focusing on the local history of a particular area in Victoria, he was consciously offering a model for other districts and regions to employ. All such work would thus contribute to the overall national history. This idea that a national history was required and that it could be realised, at least in part, by the work of local history groups such as the one Cox had formed needs to be seen in the context that, at the time, both the idea and ideal of an Australian Nation or Commonwealth were in their infancy. Australia has just reached the end of only the first decade of Federation. Truly national history was in only its infant stages. Of course, as matters turned out, WW1 – and particularly the Anzac Legend – would come to claim an extraordinarily powerful place in the national history.

At another meeting, this time to the (Royal) Historical Society of Victoria in Melbourne in June 1914, Cox gave a rationale for the focus on Gippsland and highlighted some of the difficulties faced. The paper was covered in an article published in the local paper on 24/7/14. Cox made the case for what he referred to as ’Neglected Gippsland’. In his view, the history of Gippsland had been omitted from what national history there was at the time. Critical explorations in Gippsland had been ignored and … the opening up of the interior of this magnificent pastoral country half a century later does not seem to have been considered worth mentioning.

Cox gave several reasons to explain why the history of Gippsland had been ignored. The issue of geographic isolation was key. In fact, Cox detailed how isolated Gippsland still remained by describing how long it had taken him to reach Melbourne that very day for the meeting. In other articles Cox emphasised just how isolated the early settlements in Gippsland had been before there was an ‘overland’ route to Melbourne. This was one of the main preoccupations in his history of exploration. Another unique feature of Gippsland’s geography that had complicated the issue of identity related to the way that the focus of the settlement changed so significantly. The centre of settlement had proceeded from Port Albert to Tarraville to Alberton and finally to Yarram and Sale. As Cox put it:

The other feature which creates much difficulty lies in the fact that instead of one place forming a permanent pivot around which settlement has developed, place after place has become the centre of an ever widening and progressive area.

Cox also gave another reason why there were such significant gaps in the history of Gippsland or, from another perspective, why there was only limited enthusiasm for uncovering the past, particularly the very early European past. There were episodes and characteristics there to which people did not want to draw attention. At the same June 1914 meeting, Cox spoke about … the fact that for several years of its early existence as a pastoral settlement it [Gippsland] was a sort of no-man’s land, its inhabitants a law unto themselves, the government apparently having neither men nor money to spare on its administration.

Interestingly, Cox himself was not a local yet he took on himself responsibility for providing the local community with its history. At the time he undertook his series of articles there was effectively no readily available, written history of the area. As Cox himself noted, the history was an oral one and there were locals who knew this oral history and who, as it were, held it in trust on behalf of the community. Cox was keen to access the oral history, match with it primary sources, identify and resolve the inconsistencies and contradictions and come up with a more definitive and critically-tested, written version of the history.

Cox knew his work would stir controversies and upset vested interests but he incorporated this tension into his basic methodology, pointedly acknowledging the different perspectives. Cox would have been able to draw on his status as the local rector to add status and gravitas to his work. The fact that Cox’s version of the history of the local area presented such a glowing vindication of European settlement – set against a background of Imperial expansion, the spread of ‘civilisation’, the ‘opening-up’ of the land, and the innate superiority of White Australia – reinforced its appeal.

This is the background to the extensive series of articles that appeared in the local paper from 1911. A future post will consider the scope, emphasis and omissions of the history.

References

Adams, J 1990, From these Beginnings: History of the Shire of Alberton (Victoria), Alberton Shire Council, Yarram, Victoria

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

207. Complete list 6 (T-Z)

This is the final list of all those, with an association to the Shire of Alberton, who enlisted. It covers 86 individuals with surnames T to Z. This takes the overall total to 816. Strictly speaking, there were 813 men and 3 women, all nurses (Alice Cocking, Elsie Engbloom and Ethel Horton).

It is also important to acknowledge 3 additional names:

  1. John James Lord
  2. A B Nuttall
  3. Ernest George Mitchell

These men left the Shire of Alberton to work as munition workers in the United Kingdom. At least two of the three – Lord and Mitchell – had been previously rejected for the AIF on medical grounds.

The overall figure of 816 men is dramatically at odds with the total of 446 names for the Honor Roll of the Shire of Alberton (Post 24. Honor Roll of the Shire of Alberton).

Overall, there appear to be 3 critical reasons for the discrepancy. The first is that the current list includes all those identified on the many honor rolls of local state schools. Obviously, there were cases where former students had, by the time of the War, left the district and enlisted outside the Shire and even, in some cases, in another state. Notwithstanding the fact that such individuals were no longer ‘local’ in the strict sense of the term, they were clearly still sufficiently  ‘local’ to be included on the school honor roll, which sought to honour them as past students of the ‘local’ school. It is also relevant in this context that, given the young ages of enlistment for many of the cohort, even if they were no longer living in the Shire of Alberton, their association with the Shire was often very recent.

The second critical consideration is that this current list includes all those who initiated the enlistment in process in Yarram – most commonly with a medical and the signing of the attestation papers in the presence of the Shire Secretary – and who were then recorded as having been given a railway warrant to travel to Melbourne to complete the enlistment process. Often there were men in this group who were itinerant workers and who were not well known in the district. They might have only been there for a short period of time. It is often very difficult to uncover background information on such men. At the same time, they were definitely there in the Shire and must be included for an accurate overall picture.

The third main reason for the discrepancy relates to the accuracy of the original Honor Roll of the Shire of Alberton. There are many cases where this record failed to pick up someone who was ‘local’. For example, men who lived and worked on the boundaries of the Shire – for example, Gormandale – were sometimes omitted, even though the local paper featured a farewell or a welcome home for them. Equally, there were cases where a young English immigrant, who had been working for a local farmer for a year or less, enlisted and went overseas. Some, but definitely not all, slipped from the collective memory of the local community, particularly if they opted to be demobbed in the United Kingdom. It is also important to note that, at the time, across Australia as a whole, attempts to compile the local tally of all who enlisted were often ad hoc and not as rigorous as they needed to be. Also, after the War there was a degree of ‘war weariness’ that compromised such local record keeping.

The extensive data set that sits behind this list of 816 names is very significant. As far as I have been able to pursue the research, the data set represents the complete and comprehensive picture of the AIF involvement of the total male population of one regional area of Victoria in WW1.

This final list features the 5 Willis siblings from Alberton. Two of the brothers were killed – David and Henry – and another brother – Sydney – received a medical discharge (gsw 2/10/17).