Category Archives: January to June 1917

108. J H Martin

2 Replies

John Herbert MARTIN (4257)
5 Battalion KIA 2/3/17

John Herbert Martin was born at Richmond and grew up in Melbourne (Abbotsford). He attended Melbourne High School and then trained as a teacher. In early 1913, he was appointed as the teacher at Hiawatha. His tenure at this local state school in the Shire of Alberton was only a few months. When he enlisted 2 years later, in August 1915, he was teaching at Warrnambool High School.

J H Martin is recorded on the honor roll for Hiawatha SS, and when this roll was unveiled in November 1917 – commonly, the school honor rolls were created during the War and names added progressively – mention was made of the ‘supreme price’ that he had paid (Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative, 7/11/17). While he was obviously known in the local area, his name is not included on either the Shire of Alberton Roll of Honor or the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial. His mother gave Warrnambool as the location with which he was ‘chiefly connected’. Both students and staff at Warrnambool High School placed in memoriams in the local paper – Warrnambool Standard (5/4/17) – when news of his death reached the town. The former teacher was described as a ‘highly respected and beloved teacher’ who ‘did his duty as a teacher faithfully, and died doing just as faithfully his duty as a loyal subject and brave soldier.’

Private Martin enlisted in Melbourne on 3/8/15 and he was taken on reinforcements for 5 Battalion. At the time, he was 24 yo and single. His enlistment form shows that he had had some military experience as an instructor with the cadets and he left Australia with the rank of acting corporal. However, with one exception, all the records in his file indicate that his substantive rank throughout his service was private. The exception was that the inventory for his personal kit, returned after his death, referred to him as Sgt. Martin. Presumably, at some point in his service he reached the rank of acting sergeant.

He gave his father – Richard Martin of Abbotsford – as his next-of-kin. His religion was Presbyterian.

His group of reinforcements left Melbourne on 28/12/15 and, after some additional training in Egypt, reached Marseilles on 4/4/16. He was taken on strength with 5 Battalion on 17/5/16.

He was wounded twice in the second half of 1916. On the first occasion, 25/7/16, he remained on duty but he was hospitalised for nearly a month after the second (6/11/16) – GSW L hand. He rejoined his unit after convalescence on 2/1/17 and was killed in action on 2/3/17.

The war diary for 5 Battalion shows that at Ligny-Thilloy on 2/3/17 there was a German attack on the front line trenches held by the battalion. The raid was repulsed and the German casualties were given as 19 killed and 19 taken prisoner. The casualties for 5 Battalion were 8 killed, 3 wounded and 9 missing. Later that day 5 Battalion was relieved by 7 Battalion.

There is a Red Cross report for Private Martin. Presumably, his parents wrote to the Red Cross seeking more information on the circumstances of his death. The statements in the file indicate that he was shot through the head, possibly by a sniper, while manning his Lewis gun during the German raid. The most detailed statement was provided by J G Leslie on 26/9/17, nearly 7 months after the death.

Re your enquiry about the death of Pte. J. H. Martin No 4257, I was not on the same post that he met his death in, but was just alongside. His friend Pte J. H. Knox 4845 A. Coy 5th Battn was with him and he wrote to Pte Martin’s people explaining his death. Pte Martin was a man about 5 ft 8″ in height and dark. His occupation in civil life was that of a School Teacher. One of the schools he had taught in was down at Warrnambool. He was also fond of motor bikes and shortly before enlisting had been for a trip on his bike through Tasmania. He left Australia as a Sergeant in the 13 Reinforcements of the 5th Battalion. Early in the morning of the 2nd of March we were in the line in front of a village on the Somme, named Thilloy and the Germans came over and while my friend was defending his post with his Lewis gun one of the enemy shot him. The bullet hit him just above the right eye and death was instantaneous. He was buried just where he was killed and a cross was put up to mark his grave. Since then the Military Authorities have fixed up his grave. It is on the right of the main Albert to Bapaume Road just in front of the village. He was a great friend with all the boys and we were all very sorry when he was killed. The Officer that was there at the time collected all his things and sent them home.

The statement describes how Private Martin was buried where he fell. Such ‘isolated’ graves were identified at the time and then after the War the remains were transferred – with every measure of care and reverence in the presence of a Chaplain – to formal cemeteries. Private Martin’s remains were transferred to the Beaulencourt British Cemetery shortly after October 1919.

In February 1918, the family received the following personal kite:

9 Books, Scarf, Balaclava Cap, Pr Mittens, 10 Handkerchiefs, 2 Brushes, Goggles, Pack Playing Cards, Razor, Kit bag handle [?], Fly veil, Metal pencil case, Arabic Book, Chevrons.

References

National Archives file for MARTIN John Herbert 4257
Roll of Honour: John Herbert Martin
First World War Embarkation Rolls: John Herbert Martin
Red Cross Wounded and Missing file: John Herbert Martin

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

Warrnambool Standard

Appleyard, D 1999, Hiawatha: From Pioneers to Pines, Dumbalk South Gippsland

107. A J Godfrey

Leave a reply

Albert James GODFREY (417)
1 Tunnelling Coy. DoW 21/2/17

Albert John Godfey was born in Melton in 1884. He came from a very large family of 14 children. His father – Horatio Nelson Godfrey – married Ruth Mansell in 1870 and there was 1 child from this first marriage. After the death of his first wife in 1872, Horatio Godfrey remarried – Fanny Jane Jeffery Curtis – in 1874 and the couple had 13 children over the period 1875 -1895. Albert was the eighth child.

The locations entered for each birth registration reveal that the family moved about a good deal. It appears that they lived in the Alberton district for about 10 years from the late 1880s. The father ran a blacksmith business at the time. Albert was a student at the Alberton State School and his name is included on the school’s honour roll. In fact, records indicate that in 1891 the father was fined for the non-attendance of 3 of his children, Albert was one of them, at the school. There are other records indicating that the father was also involved in other legal disputes – offensive language, assault – in the district at the time. Then in late 1896 or early 1897 the family moved to Western Australia. While most of the family, including the mother, remained in the West, the father returned to Alberton in 1897. In the same year, he died at Alberton aged 53 yo. He was buried in the Alberton cemetery. The local paper – Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative – reported at the time (28/4/97) that he had recently returned from WA, had been in ill health for several months and that he committed suicide. He killed himself on his 53rd birthday.

Five of the 8 boys in the Godfrey family enlisted in WW1, but only Albert was killed.

Albert Godfrey enlisted in Perth in February 1916 (11/2/16). He gave his mother – Fanny Jane Godfrey, widow – as his next-of-kin and he also gave her address – Morowa, WA – as his own. By that point he had been living in Western Australia for 20 years. When his mother completed the information for the (National) Roll of Honour she gave Sandstone WA as the place with which her son was ‘chiefly connected’. By the time Albert enlisted his link to the Alberton district was tenuous and it is hardly surprising that his name is not included on either the Shire of Alberton Roll of Honor or the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial. At the same time, the family would definitely have been known in the local area and Albert, and siblings, had attended the local state school where, as indicated, his name was duly acknowledged on its honour roll. From information provided by the mother, Alberton SS was the only school he attended.

When Albert Godfrey enlisted he was single, 31 yo and he gave his occupation as miner. His religion was Church of England.

His unit – Mining Corps, No.1 Company – embarked for overseas, from Sydney, less than 2 weeks later. He would have been one of the last miners recruited, in haste, for the new Mining Corps. The unit reached Marseilles on 5/5/26 and then Hazebrouck on 8/5/16.

The Australian Mining Corps had been formed from late 1915 to support the work of the British engineers and tunnellers on the Somme front. In Europe in mid 1916, the Australian Mining Corps was re-formed into 1-3 Tunnelling Companies and Sapper Albert Godfrey found himself in 1 Tunnelling Company which, in early November 1916, replaced the Canadians at the infamous Hill 60.

The degree of difficulty and danger associated with the work of the tunnellers on the Western Front was extreme. Added to the ever-present everyday risks associated with mining, the war time environment meant that the enemy was also actively engaged in counter operations to locate and destroy the allies’ tunnel system and also endeavoured to mine and blow up the allies’ above ground trench system and other fortifications. There was also the risk that regular above-ground bombardments could also collapse underground works. Much effort went into locating the enemy’s tunnels and mines and, concurrently, preventing them from locating your works, both offensive and defensive. It was acknowledged that the military service of the tunnellers was nerve-wracking and extremely dangerous.

On 26/1/17 Sapper Godfrey was admitted to hospital suffering from ‘suppuration of the gums’ and ‘pyorrhoea’. He spent nearly 2 weeks there before being transferred to the Australian General Base Depot (AGBD) at Etaples on 11/2/17. The AGBD facility was employed to accommodate men coming from England who were still to join their units in France, and also men returning to their units from hospital who were still in need of some short period of convalescence.

On 20/2/17, at the AGBD, Sapper Godfrey shot himself in the face. He was taken immediately to No. 26 General Hospital but died from his wounds early the next day. On the day he died (21/2/17), a court of enquiry was convened at Etaples and determined that:

No. 417 Sapper Godfrey shot himself in the cheek while in an unsound state of mind.

The finding was confirmed by Brigadier-General Thompson on 7/3/17:

I am of the opinion that No. 417 Sapper A. J. Godfrey, 1st Tunnelling Co. A.I.F. committed suicide whilst of unsound mind.

The witness statements taken at the court of enquiry describe what happened. Godfrey had been quartered in a tent with several other men. They had decided to go for a cup of tea – it was 4.45 in the afternoon – and Godfrey had said he would join them but he stayed behind when they left. There was a single shot. People ran to the tent where they saw Godfrey stagger out. There was a rifle on the floor of the tent. Medical assistance was called for. The wound was described as ‘a hole in the roof of his mouth extending into the left cheek.’ Godfrey did not say anything to those there.

The evidence presented at the court of enquiry certainly suggested that Godfrey was not in a sound state of mind at the time.

Sapper A Langmead who was in the tent with Godfrey, and whose rifle Godfrey used to shoot himself, stated:

I had only known Sapper Godfrey since he had come from hospital about a week ago. He seemed very melancholy and sometimes used to sit for half an hour with a vacant stare and then jump up with a start and leave the tent, and return and sit down without saying anything.

Similarly, Driver J Archer, who also shared the tent, testified:

We left him alone in the tent [when the others went for the cup of tea]. I have known him for about a week and thought him strange in his behaviour, and he did not seem right in his mind. He seemed weak and was unable to step over the flap of the tent in entering.

The Company Clerk – Corporal C Coravan – added another dimension to the general picture of mental instability:

He came to me several times and complained of being infested with lice. He was put of the Sick Report and examined by the Medical Officer and found to be clean. I did not think he was quite right in his mind, as he seemed not clear in his ideas and very slow to grasp the meaning of anything he was told.

Finally, there was the evidence of L/Cpl A W Porter AAMC who was the person who dressed Godfrey’s wound at the tent immediately after he had shot himself. Porter had also obviously had contact with him over the ‘supposed’ lice infestation.

His left cheek was severely lacerated and bleeding profusely. I plugged the wound and bandaged it up. I noticed that his right boot was off. He had been attending for lice. He did not appear to be quite sound in his mind.

Clearly, the court of enquiry would have had no difficulty in reaching its finding that Sapper Godfrey shot himself ‘in an unsound state of mind.’

However, there was one other witness statement which did not fit with the general picture  given above. It was prepared by the doctor – Capt. L M Snow – who treated Sapper Godfrey when he was hospitalised with the pyorrhoea. It was dated 2/3/17 so, presumably, was not considered by the court of enquiry, which convened and gave its determination on 21/2/17.

Sapper A. J. Godfrey No. 417 was admitted into my ward on 31/1/17 suffering from Pyorrhoea. He had an upper and lower plate repaired and his teeth attended to.

He was signed up for convalescence camp on Feb. 8th 1917. During his stay in hospital he was most helpful in the ward and showed no signs of any mental trouble.

Interpreting a person’s mental condition with only limited evidence, and across an interval of 100 years, is obviously a fraught exercise. However, taken at face value, this last statement does at least suggest that notwithstanding the possibility of some pre-existing, congenital mental health condition and the very apparent indicators of a serious mental breakdown, it could well have been the specific fear of returning to the front line at Hill 60 that drove Godfrey to suicide. Arguably, he could not face the reality of going back, and as the certainty of returning drew closer his mind unravelled.

The mother, as next-of-kin, was notified of the death within one week. The cable was dated 26/2/17. However it is not clear if the mother was ever informed of the precise circumstances of the death. The Report of Death (Army Form B. 2090A) does indicate ‘Died of Wounds (Self-Inflicted)’. However, the Nominal Roll shows only ‘DOW 22/2/17’ and the entry on the (National) Roll of Honour shows ‘Accidental (Injuries)’ as the cause of death. When the mother was sent the information form to complete for the (National) Roll of Honour she would have read that her son’s death was described as ‘Died of Injuries’. It is also hard to believe that any friend or acquaintance of her son in the AIF would have ever written to give her the true account of how her son had died. At the same time, a family member – identity not given – did request that the Red Cross ‘obtain the fullest details possible of the wounds, death and burial of [A J Godfrey]’. The request was dated 3/10/18. The various statements provided to the Red Cross by the relevant AIF units made it clear that Albert Godfrey had died from self-inflicted wounds. For example, the OC of the hospital where Godfrey was taken wrote:

I beg to inform you that this man was brought into this Hpl. about 5 p. m. on 20-2-17, suffering from a self-inflicted wound of the face, caused by a single bullet. He was in a very bad condition and gradually got worse and died at 4-5 a.m. on 22-7/17. He was buried the following day in the British Military Cemetery at Etaples, according to the rites of the Church of England religion.

There is no record of the information that the Red Cross subsequently provided to the family.

As indicated, Sapper Godfrey was buried in the Etaples Military Cemetery.

The mother wrote in May 1917 (25/5/17) seeking information on her son’s will and effects. There is an urgent tone to the letter:

I wish to make enquiry concerning my sons will and any property he may have had at the time of his death. His name Sapper Albert John Godfrey 417 First Australian Tunnelling Company. He enlisted from Meekatharra West Australia. Died of wounds somewhere in France on 22 February 1917. He sailed from Fremantle on the first of April 1916. If you have no record of the case in your office will you kindly tell me how to go about the business. I am a widow. Please let me know by first mail.

The typically few personal effects arrived in August 1917 (14/8/17):

Identity disc, Leather Purse, Ring, Pencil, Bullet, Match Box Cover, Mirror, Pipe, Leather Belt, Handkerchief.

It is impossible to know what the mother would have made of the single bullet returned with her sons’ belongings. And it seems incredible that it was ever sent.

Clearly, it is not possible to say definitively where the bullet came from or what it meant. However, we do know that Sapper Godfrey did not have his own weapon in the tent – he used Sapper Langmead’s rifle – and that when the tent was searched there was no ammunition found. Langmead also insisted at the court of enquiry that he had not left his weapon loaded and that he had never seen any ammunition in the tent. The only round found was the spent cartridge in the rifle Godfrey had used to shoot himself. One explanation is that Sapper Godfrey had been carrying 2 rounds of ammunition on his person, and that, in a macabre twist, the redundant round was, unwittingly, sent home in his personal kit.

Overall, Albert Godfrey’s was a tragic case but it does at least begin to show the personal horrors and ever-present terror men had to manage, even away from the front lines. The son’s death was also a tragic echo of his father’s fate.

References

O’Callaghan G (Comp) 2006, Clonmel to Federation: Guide to people in the Port Albert area 1841-1901, Vol 2, The Alberton Project

National Archives file for GODFREY Albert John 417
Roll of Honour: Albert John Godfrey
First World War Embarkation Rolls: Albert John Godfrey
Red Cross Wounded and Missing file: Albert John Godfrey

106. J O Mason

3 Replies

James Oliver MASON (2236)
46 Battalion DoW 11/2/17

James Oliver Mason was born at Won Wron in 1898. His family was then living in the Shire of Alberton and it appears the father had been farming in the local area for at least 10 years. The father – William Wallace Mason – had held land at Devon, Bulga, Calignee and Won Wron. He had also worked as a contractor (roadworks) for the local council. However, it appears that there were financial difficulties round the time James was born. There was a mortagee auction of land – 183 acres at Bulga – held by the father in 1896.

By the time James Mason enlisted in 1916, the parents and at least some of the children had moved to Gobur. An older brother – Christopher Mason – was still in Yarram. It appears he ran the local dealership for Dodge cars. Also, another older brother – William Mason – had remained farming in the district at least up until 1915. The children had attended the local state schools. James and another brother who enlisted – Richard – had their names recorded on the honor roll for Tarraville State School. On the information form for the (National) Roll of Honour, the mother recorded that James had also attended the state schools at Yarram and Stradbroke. Significantly, she also gave Yarram as the place with which her son was ‘chiefly connected’. An ‘in memoriam’ published in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 28/2/17 remarked how the brother  – Mr. Chris Mason – lived in Yarram. It also praised the enlistment of both James and Richard, and noted of James,

The young hero who has made the supreme sacrifice for his country, was well known in Yarram, as in his boyhood days he attended the local State School.

Notwithstanding the family’s close association with the district and the mother’s explicit identification of Yarram as the place with which her son was ‘chiefly connected’, James Mason’s name is not recorded on either the Shire of Alberton Roll of Honor or the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial. Similarly, the names of the 2 other brothers who enlisted – Richard Wallace Mason and William Hickman Mason – are not included on the Shire of Alberton Roll of Honor.

James Mason gave his age as 18 yo when he enlisted in March 1916 (7/3/16). Because he was under 21 yo, both parents were required to sign the enlistment form. The age given on the form both parents signed was ’18 yrs 7 mos’. However, when the mother completed the information for the (National) Roll of Honour she specifically noted that when he died (11/2/17) her son was ’18 years 7 months’. Also, the in memoriam referred to earlier, specifically noted that he was only 18 yo when he was killed. The memorial card featured below also has the age as 18 yo. It appears that, with his parents’ support and blessing, James Mason enlisted as a 17 yo. By early 1916, at least according to the AIF authorities, this type of underage enlistment was not supposed to happen.

James Mason gave his occupation as labourer while his mother noted that he was a ‘shearer’. His religion was Church of England and he was single.

Private Mason embarked as reinforcements for 46 Battalion on 16/8/16. There was further training in England until the end of December 1916. Whilst undertaking training, he was charged in November 1916 with being ‘absent without leave’ – in Salisbury – and travelling on the train network without a ticket. He was given 14 days detention. It was a not uncommon story with the Australian troops in training camps in England.

Private Mason reached France just before Christmas, on 22/12/16. In January 1917, he spent a short time in hospital with influenza. Finally, on 7/2/17, he joined 46 Battalion in the field. He was one of 32 men who were taken on strength with the battalion that day.

Just 4 days later (11/2/17) he was wounded – S.W.[shrapnel wound] Chest Penetrating, Right Thigh and Right Leg. He was admitted to a casualty clearing station (South Midland) but died of wounds the same day (11/2/17). 

In February 1917, 1 Anzac Corps held the front near Gueudecourt. The conditions for the troops were particularly severe. Throughout February, there were several attacks on the German lines which were characterised by fierce, close-quarter bombing exchanges, including both rifle and hand grenades. According to its war diary, 46 Battalion relieved 13 Battalion on 4/2/17. On 11-12/2/17 it was involved in a ‘minor operation’ where the objective was to extend its position in Cloudy Trench. Employing both grenadiers firing rifle grenades and bombing parties armed with Mills hand grenades, the plan was to push along and take control of another 200 yards of the trench. Overall, the attack was described as ‘most successful’, but there was the inevitable German counter-attack. The war diary gave the casualties as ‘2 killed & 4 wounded’, at least one of whom, Private Mason, died of his wounds. The Germans lost 5 killed, and 1 was taken prisoner. The relatively light casualties would not have accurately reflected the ferocity of the close-quarter fighting.

Word of their son’s death reached the family in just over a week (19/2/17). He was buried in Dernancourt Communal Cemetery. In late February 1918, one year after his death, the personal kit reached the parents: Letters, Photos, Pocket Books 2, Religious Book, Belt, Handkerchief, Badges, Diary, Coin.

As indicated, there were 2 other brothers who enlisted. Richard, who was 2 years older, enlisted in January 1915. The other brother, William, was 12 years older. He first enlisted in January 1916 but was discharged as medically unfit less than 2 months later. He subsequently re-enlisted in early December 1917.  Both these brothers survived the War.

Memorial Card for J O Mason, courtesy Yarram & District Historical Society

 

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

O’Callaghan G (Comp) 2006, Clonmel to Federation: Guide to people in the Port Albert area 1841-1901, Vol 2, The Alberton Project

National Archives file for MASON James Oliver 2236
Roll of Honour: James Oliver Mason
First World War Embarkation Rolls: James Oliver Mason

 

105. The soldiers’ vote denied

Leave a reply

In early March 1917 (2/3/17), the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative published the mesage that Birdwood had sent to all members of the AIF immediately prior to the first referendum conscription, 4 months earlier. In the letter, included here in full, Birdwood is obviously calling for a Yes vote from the men.

To members of the A.I.F.- As General Officer Commanding the Australian Force, it is not for me to interfere in any political matters or to influence the voting of our men on the coming Referendum.

I know well that in any case all will vote as seems to them necessary in the best interests of Australia and the Great Empire to which we belong, whose freedom has been, and still is, in danger of being turned into slavery by Germany. I feel, however, that I can inform you all of how really essential it is that we should get all the men available to keep these magnificent Australian forces, which are now in the field, and whose name is renowned throughout the Empire, up to their strength.

Every single man would, I am sure, bitterly resent and regret it if we had to reduce a single battalion, battery or company, every one of which has now made history, and established a tradition which we all hope will last as long as the British flag flies over our world-wide Empire. But it is, I think, probable that all ranks do not know as well as I do the absolute necessity of keeping our reinforcements right up to strength, and the present system is not doing this. I feel sure all know the great feelings of regard and pride which I have for every man of this force who has up to now come forward of his own free-will and after great sacrifice.

Many brave men have given their lives for the sake of our Empire and the freedom of the world – lives which have been uselessly sacrificed if we relax our efforts in any way until we have the Germans right down on their knees. Remember, too, boys, that the word freedom does not only mean for ourselves, but what is far more important, freedom for our children and our children’s children. For them, I know no sacrifice can be too great.

In the magnificent manifesto, which our Prime Minister, Mr. Hughes, has sent us, he has fully shown what exemptions there will be when universal service is adopted. It will be seen from this that members of families, some of whom have already come forward, will be fully safeguarded, and no man need fear that there is danger of, we will say, the brother who has been left behind to look after the affairs of the family, being ordered to come out. The shirker, however, will be caught, and made to do his share, instead of staying at home as he has done up to now, not only evading his duties, but getting into soft jobs which we want to see kept for our boys here when they return, or for the representatives of their families who have been left in Australia.

I have nothing more to say, boys, except to point out to you as strongly as I can that the necessity does exist, and I hope that after these two years, during which we have been soldiers together, we know each other well enough to realise that I would not say this without good reason. Having said it, I leave it to you to act according to your conscience, for the good of our King and country, the honour of our people, and the safety of our wives and children.
W. R. Birdwood
Lieut. General G.O.C., A. I F.
October 16th. 1916

The copy of the letter, the paper explained, had been provided by B P Johnson who had obtained it from his brother. [Johnson’s brother was Sergeant Norman C Johnson who had enlisted  – 4 LHR – in August 1914 and who had been repatriated to Australia in April 1916 after having been wounded at Gallipoli.]

The publication of the letter suggests that while the referendum had been defeated, Imperial Loyalists in the local community – like Johnson and Rossiter, the editor – were still steadfastly commited to conscription. Voluntary enlistments had not picked up after the referendum, and, in the minds of people like Johnson and Rossiter, the arguments for conscription remained as valid as at the time of the referendum. The publication of Birdwood’s message to his ‘boys’ reminded everyone of the apparently indisputable logic for conscription. As Rossiter wrote in his introduction to the piece, it was … a powerful appeal for the “Yes” vote. Moreover, the case for conscription was reinforced by the claim that the AIF had in fact voted Yes in the referendum.

Specifically in terms of the soldiers’ vote, the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire reported as early as 20/12/16 that the majority had supported conscription. On that occasion, Hughes was reported as stating in federal parliament that … a majority of soldiers of the A.I.F. abroad was substantially in favor of the referendum. When he was pressed for the exact numbers, Hughes declared that he could not divulge them because … the desire of the military authorities in England precluded that [possibility]. The pressure on Hughes to release the precise numbers continued and, finally, at a speech in Bendigo on 27/3/17, he claimed that the number “For” was 72,000 and the number “Against” was 58,000: a majority of 14,000. The numbers were reported in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire on 30/3/17. [The figures given in the Official History were 72,399 Yes and 58,894 No: a majority of 13,505.]

At the end of March 1917, as far as Hughes and his supporters were concerned, the arguments for conscription had always been – and still remained –  beyond dispute; and they had the support of the highest levels of the AIF command. Further, the soldiers themselves voted for conscription by a clear majority. Therefore, the logic ran, the men overseas had been betrayed by the No vote back in Australia.

However, there was a very different version of the story of soldiers’ vote which, at the time, was concealed. Hughes had his way with his version of the truth and the episode reveals just how comprehensively the Government was able to manipulate the narrative of the War.

The alternative version comes, ironically, from the personal diaries of CEW Bean, the Official War Historian. Bean was certainly an advocate of conscription and indeed he did his best to ensure that the soldiers’ vote was Yes. But at the same time, his personal diaries expose the deceit and manipulation that characterised Hughes’ desperate attempt first to win over the soldiers’ vote, and then, when it did not suit him, effectively bury it.

Hughes’ intention was to have the AIF vote held before the vote back in Australia so that the assumed strong Yes from the soldiers would influence the national vote. However, as the vote neared he was informed by his supporters in England, including Murdoch, that the soldiers’ vote was not guaranteed. At this point Bean became involved. He was given the task of contacting Birdwood and encouraging him to make a representation to the soldiers urging them to vote Yes. This is all set out in detail in the following extracts from Bean’s personal diaries. Bean’s role in all this is very apparent. He was most definitely a key participant in the history he came to write. Bean wrote in a form of shorthand but for present purposes, I have written the diary notes in full prose, without changing any of the content.

On Sunday 15 October 1916, Bean wrote in his diary:

Last night [Sa 14/10/16] White told Bazley not to let me go on any account without seeing him.
[CBB White, Brigadier General, General Staff, Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. Working under Birdwood but generally regarded as the real power in the AIF in France at the time]
[AW Bazley, nominal ‘batman’ to Bean but really a colleague]

Hughes had sent a cable to Birdwood from Burnie in Tasmania. It said that the opposition to conscription in Australia was due to the formidable intrigues of the ultra-socialists and the Fenians; and that everything depended on the lead which the vote of our own force in France gave to Australia. He called on Birdwood, with all the earnestness he could put into the cable, to put aside precedent and to use his great influence with the troops to get them to carry conscription by a big majority and give a lead to the people.

White wanted me to see Birdwood and urge him to do a really big thing for the Empire, and take this step. At the moment we both took it that what Hughes wanted was a message to the Australian people.

I hesitated a moment. Perhaps I am weak. I knew that White’s decision, whichever way it was, would have settled me in mine. But I have a very great fear of anyone in Birdwood’s position – a military servant of the State using his influence in a big question at the polls. I should have taken a few minutes to think. I wasn’t sure which way White was. Then he told me he “wants the little man to play the man – and to take a big opportunity of doing a great thing for the Empire.” The loss of this measure would be a terrible smack in the face of the Empire. It would count enormously. It seemed to me that Birdwood might very well tell the Australian people what the military necessity was for reinforcements, as their chief military adviser. It would have enormous effect. White added: “Yes, and get him to point out that every effort that we have made up to the present would go for nothing- would be utterly wasted – if this were lost.” White means, I think, that it would lose us the good name which our energy and public spirit have so far won.

When I got to London I started to search for Birdwood. … After a fair hunt, I heard of Birdie at the Charles Buckleys, where his daughter often stays. Birdie was at Clifton and would not get back till 8.20. I decided to miss the train and stay and see him. Fortunately I found out that the train left at 11.15. [PM]

Birdie, who hated the idea of being made to give evidence at the Dardanelles Commission during the war, had got away quietly to Lincoln and only went to Clifton on his last day.

He came in to the Buckleys with his pretty daughter, the little Harefield nurse, at about 8.45. We had a long talk in Mrs Buckleys sitting room, by ourselves; Mrs Buckley had been exceedingly kind in telephoning all over London for me to find out if he had returned.

Birdie pointed out at once that what Hughes wanted was, clearly, for him [Birdwood] to give a lead to the soldiers. He never hesitated a moment. I too could see at once a reason for this. If the soldiers voted No – that would kill the question, the people at home would never vote Yes if their army here voted No. The Australian vote was to be later, after the result of the A.I.F.’s vote was known. I fancy Hughes had arranged this thinking that the A.I.F would be certain to vote Yes. Anyway, it was no use Birdie sending a message to Australia if the A.I.F. voted No. The thing to do was to get the army to vote Yes.

Birdie told me that he had seen Lloyd George. While he was there Murdoch asked if he might come in. Murdoch wanted Birdwood to send a message to Australia. Lloyd George agreed, too, that B. [Birdwood] should do this, until Birdwood pointed out that if he did, it might be said by opportunists that he was ordering the soldiers how to vote. L. George agreed, and it was decided not to do this; but Murdoch got letters of introduction to Haig and Joffre and started for France to get messages from each of them if possible.

This shows how Ll. George hangs on the Australian attitude – how important he thinks it. Birdwood didn’t hesitate. He got me to sit down and write, to his dictation, a message to the men saying that he wanted them to vote by their consciences and not to influence them in any way. But he added that he probably knew better than they did, the need for reinforcements. He was sure they would not like to see any of the units, with all their traditions and history, broken up. There was a need for men. If the effort of Australia were relaxed now, all the brave lives sacrificed before would have been sacrificed in vain. The Govt has told them what exemptions were to be – they need not fear that the brother left at home to mind the business would be called to enlist; the men it would especially get were the shirkers who were at present filling all the nice fat billets which we wanted to see our men in on their return, or their relations at home.

The poll was to be tomorrow [Mo 16/10/16]. I urged that if possible this [Birdwood’s statement] ought to and could be wired tonight. But the A.I.F Headquarters said it couldn’t. I think it still could. However, Col. Wright said not. So B. asked if the poll could be put off a day or two. Wright, who is under Anderson (who is managing the business of getting the vote taken) said it could. So B. asked them to wire postponing it.

I don’t know one bit the effect of these steps. They are very risky I am sure. I should have tried every way I could to have got the wire across without postponing the poll, but I didn’t put my reasons strongly enough though B. could see that I wanted it.

There it is. I hope it does the business. For I am sure conscription is right.

Bean’s diary entry is striking at many levels. The tone is anecdotal and free-flowing. He places himself at the very centre of the action. He claims close familiarity with the leading political and military figures. He is a confidant and trusted messenger.

The actors seem caught up in the moment of a ‘good idea’ or a ‘desperate plea’ from Hughes and no one is prepared to step back and apply any sort of critical thinking. Bean talks about the unprecedented act of having a military commander intervene in an obviously political situation but there is no evidence of any deep reflection from anyone on just how significant the matter was. The narrative appears to be on the lines of a select group of powerful individuals determining, on the run, that despite the risks something had to be done.

Essentially, all the key characters involved were attempting to influence the soldiers’ vote – despite all the transparently false qualifications Birdwood included in his message –  and Birdwood, acting on Hughes’ request, was using his military status and reputation to intervene directly in a critically important political matter. Moreover, the delay to the voting schedule, so that Birdwood’s message would have the chance to influence the outcome, was obviously intended to manipulate the voting process.

Subsequent entries in Bean’s diary reveal that the political intervention did not achieve the desired outcome. In fact, it probably had the opposite effect. The following entry was dated 21/10/16, immediately after the troops had voted, and it points to an additional strategy which Hughes was keen to employ. Separate from the actual soldiers’ vote on the referendum, Hughes wanted a series of resolutions in favour of conscription passed by public meetings of the soldiers in France.  He intended to use such resolutions to promote the Yes vote back in Australia.

Murdoch tells me that Young (S.A.) O.C. Beale and another have gone across (at his request, by Haig’s leave) to address meetings upon conscription, amongst the men and see if they cannot send some resolution calling on the Australian people to send more men. If the resolution is in favour of conscription, it will be telegraphed to Australia; if against, it will perhaps be telegraphed to Hughes, but he will not publish it. I shall send the results of all these resolutions or none at all, to my papers. Hughes says that Sinn Feiners have sent agents to Australia and that the Irish and I.W.W are against him. I believe the women will carry him through.

Murdoch undoubtedly is a fine strong helper. …

Everybody here exercised [?] about the Referendum. Birdwood’s circular to the troops did little good – rather the reverse. Col. Anderson thinks Hughes is getting as nervous as can be about it. Anything favourable from here will be telegraphed out to give Australia a lead. Anything unfavourable will be suppressed. Sir Newton Moore did not issue Hughes memorandum to his troops at all. Anderson, who is his enemy, hints that this was because Moore would like to see Hughes and Labour out of office as a result of the loss of Referendum, in order that he (Moore) might get some job or position from the Liberal Govt that would follow. But this is absurd.

Anderson is a clever man but a jealous and ambitious one. He has saved a lot of money for Australia, but sometimes his motives are not purely public spirited.

The 2 men that Murdoch had sent to visit the troops in France in an attempt to secure the resolutions in favour of conscription were (Sir) Frederick William Young and Octavius Charles Beale. Young was the South Australian Agent General at the time. He was only 40 yo. Beale was a successful Australian business man living in London at the time. He was much older at 66 yo. Both men were staunch Imperialists. Young was knighted in January 1918 and he was even elected to the UK House of Commons. He effectively lived in England until his death. Beale returned to Australia after the War but he did achieve English honours, including being admitted as ‘freeman of the City of London’ (1918).  Beale was obsessed with the fear of ‘racial decay’.

Anderson, was Brigadier-General Robert Anderson who was Commandant, AIF Administrative Headquarters, London. He was credited with improving efficiencies in the AIF. He was also spoken of as a nationalist, in the sense that he stood up for the AIF’s interests vis a vis the British Army. (Sir) N J Moore was at the time Brigadier-General in charge of all the AIF depots and training centres in Britain. He had been Premier of Western Australia. He was also a very successful business man. Moore was yet another significant Imperialist. He was also elected to the UK House of Commons (1918-23).

Bean’s tone is again anecdotal and once again he places himself in the centre of the politics and intrigue. Once again, people’s motivations are represented as fairly pedestrian. Hughes clearly had no intention of allowing any negative news from the soldiers in France to make it back to Australia. If there was no support for conscription from the troops – either via the vote itself or the passing of various ‘resolutions’ in favour of conscription – then all the related news was to be withheld.

Obviously word was coming in by this point as to how the troops had voted and the intelligence was not encouraging. Bean believed that Birdwood’s message had backfired. A last minute attempt was required to get some sort of resolution in favour of conscription, from at least some of the troops. Hughes was desperate.

There is another diary entry for Sunday 22/10/16. In it, Bean talked about the last minute efforts to get support from key military leaders and the then urgent mission of Beale, Young and one additional, unnamed, agent.  Bean also revealed the apparent failure of the vote amongs the front-line troops.

In London. Lunched with Murdoch at The Times office. He has seen Joffre, Haig and Pollard and each of them has given him an interview. Haig would only make it a message, stating how much France and the allies needed the troops. Birdwood has promised to send a message on the military need for reinforcements. The vote in France has been taken and (up to the present count) the result is a ten per cent majority against conscription. They are accordingly sending to France O. C Beale, Young, and one other, to address public meetings in favour of  [conscription?].

The last diary entry was dated 25/10/16. In it Bean discloses the dismal failure of the efforts of Young to secure a resolution in support of conscription from the troops. Bean also defends his actions in pressing Birdwood to issue his message in support of conscription, but he clealry has reservations about the whole episode.

I can see (though he doesn’t say so) that White thinks I made a mess of my errand to Birdwood. He thinks I ought to have got a message to the people of Australia and not to the troops, and that the message to the troops may be interpreted as an attempt at exercising a dangerous influence and that the putting off of the voting for two days was a dangerous matter. Anderson told White he would not have let him [Birdwood] do it and perhaps I ought to have told him [Birdwood] plainly the dangers I saw in it. But there we are. As White says, I don’t know that Anderson would have found it so easy to stop him [Birdwood].

However, he really did nothing which was not perfectly defensible. He had a perfect right to tell the men his opinion on a point so important – and he had no control whatsoever over the voting. As a fact, I suspect he lost votes rather than gained them.

Bazley tells me that Young, Agent General for South Australia and a very able man, came over as arranged and asked the troops at a public meeting to send a resolution to Australia in favour of conscription. Haig had permitted the meeting provided there were no speeches, except Young’s, and no officers were present. Young put it to them that at present Australia stood first among the Dominions in the eyes of the British nation and that they would lose that regard if the country did not vote for compulsory service. The attitude of the men was quite clear. They said that they did not care whether Australia came first or last in the opinion of the British people. They wanted enough Australians left to maintain Australia’s present character after the war. They did not want so many Australians killed off that the population of immigrants flowing in, should alter the characteristics of the country. They could repopulate it by immigrants but they wanted it populated by Australians. They thought Australia had given enough to the war without forcing those who did not wish to come. They knew what it was like, now, and they were not going to ask others to come into it against their will. Young was going to wait till Sunday, but he went away on Saturday. The 23 and 21 Bns, which he saw, were almost unanimously against him.

They are funny beggars, but they have a lot of sense. It can’t be called a selfish attitude, anyway.

The 2 battalions that Young addressed – 21 and 23 Battalion – appear to have then been in their billets at Steenvorde. Both had recently been in the front lines. It is difficult to identify when Young spoke to the men but the most likely date was Friday 20/10/16. This was also the date that 21 Battalion voted in the referendum. The date for 23 Battalion’s vote is not given in the unit’s war diary but it must have been round the same time. The point is that Young was speaking to the men at the time that they were also voting – or had already voted – in the referendum. Consequently, the arguments they gave for not supporting any resolution that Young proposed were the same ones that shaped their vote. The arguments they gave, as represented by Bean, went to the core of Australia’s national, not imperial, identity. Australia had done enough. Young realised he had failed and went back early to Britain..

Historians generally argue that the overall success of the Yes vote in the AIF came not from those on the Western Front – their vote represented the clear rejection of conscription – but from those on the troopships, in the training camps in the UK  and serving in the Light Horse in Egypt.

The attitude and votes of the soldiers on the Western Front were effectively hidden. Back in Australia, as was evident in its publication in the local paper, Birdwood’s message to the troops continued to be used as a justification for conscription and, after the defeat of the referendum, Hughes was able to represent the vote of the AIF as being in favour of conscription. However, he was not able to use their vote, as he had intended, to influence the vote back in Australia.

Bean’s diary entries reveal Hughes’ determination to control, absolutely, the politics of the conscription vote. They also point to the human frailty, weakness and ordinariness of many of the key actors of the time who, coincidentally, exercised the power of life and death over their fellow countrymen. In Bean’s account, no one emerges with much integrity – or even intelligence – except for the troops themselves: the funny beggars in Bean’s words.

References

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

Bean, CEW 1941, Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, Volume XI – Australia During the War, 7th Edition 1941

Australian Dictionary of Biography

Bean’s diaries

There are digital versions of Bean’s diaries available from the Australian War Memorial website:

AWM 38: Official History, 1914-18 War: Records of CEW Bean, Official History

Item number 3DRL 606/61/1 – October 1916

Item number 3DRL 606/62/1 – October 1916

Item number 3 DRL 606/63/1 – October-November 1916

General histories

Beaumont, J 2013, Broken Nation: Australians in the Great War, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest NSW. (see PP 243-244)

Connor, J, Stanley, P, Yule, p, 2015, The War At Home, Vol 4 The Centenary History of Australia and the Great War, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. (see p 113)

 

 

 

 

104. Hughes and Mannix, late 1916 – early 1917: the national and local scenes

1 Reply

Even though he had lost the support of his own party and his referendum on conscription was defeated, PM Hughes continued to drive the political landscape in the 6 months from the end of October 1916 through to the overwhelming success of the Nationalists at the federal election in May 1917. By the end of this period, Hughes had re-established himself as, apparently, the only one who could provide the necessary war-time leadership. He had triumphed, while the ALP itself had been broken and defeated.

Over the same period, Archbishop Mannix emerged as the most high-profile, outspoken critic of the War. He became the focus of Hughes’ anger and frustration. Hughes and his supporters saw Mannix as undermining the War effort. And Mannix’s politics and status raised the fundamental issue of where the Catholic Church stood.

As well as playing out at the national level, the same tension and conflict began to emerge at the local level in the Shire of Alberton.

The national scene

The formal end to the ongoing division within the ALP over the conscription referendum and Hughes’ leadership came on 14/11/16 when Hughes broke away, dramatically, with 23 of the 64 members of the federal caucus. The breakaway group took for itself the name ‘National Labor Party’.

Hughes managed to retain his position as PM when, with support from the Liberals, he survived a no confidence motion in the House of Representatives on 29/11/16. Over the next 2 months he was able to establish the new National Party, as an alliance between his National Labor Party and the Liberals, under Cook. Even though his numbers were smaller, Hughes remained as PM in the new party and he even managed, against much opposition, to retain Pearce as his Defence Minister.

In March 1917, Hughes was forced to a federal election. His National Party won the election (5/5/17) with majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Clearly, Hughes was the driving force in Australian politics. His success at the time was in large part due to the image he had established of himself as the ‘natural’ war-time leader. In 1916 in the UK he had been feted in the press – both in the UK and back in Australia – as a no-nonsense, tireless, inspirational and decisive leader. He was closely identified with the AIF. He was an Imperialist of the highest order. He was also a survivor of consummate political skill and he promised a safe pair of political hands. His political messages were simple and consistent.

Hughes also retained the powerful support and backing of the media, business and the Protestant churches which he had enjoyed in the conscription referendum. Hughes and his backers found it relatively easy to portray the old ALP – the ‘Official’ ALP – as confused and contradictory in both its commitment and policies to pursue the War. It was also portrayed as ‘unrepresentative’ and driven by the industrial rather than than the parliamentary wing. It was claimed to be more interested in pursuing and destroying Hughes and settling factional disputes than it was in forming a national unity government. It was said to have become more ‘radical’ and ‘socialist’ than the original ALP and it was unduly influenced by ‘outsiders’, even Americans. Against the apparently enormous political risk the Official ALP presented, Hughes and the Nationalists promised a unity government that had risen above party politics and was committed to the single-minded  pursuit of victory. Hughes also pledged to honour the results of the referendum; but he also made it clear that he had not given up on the idea of conscription. The deal he made with the electorate was that it would never be introduced without a (successful) referendum.

In the reductionist politics of the time, with Hughes presented as the single person who best represented Australia’ s commitment to the Empire and the War, the arch-villain of the popular press had firmed as Archbishop Mannix.

With Mannix, the critical episode appeared to be the report of his speech at the opening of a Catholic school at Brunswick on 28 January 1917. The speech was reported the next day in The Age (29/1/17 p 7) under headline: Cause Of The War. Archbishop’s Remarkable Utterance. ‘An Ordinary, Sordid Trade War’. As reported, Mannix’s assessment of the War’s cause was bound to stir outrage:

They had heard much during the progress of the war of how the war came about and how they were fighting for the rights of little nations. They could believe as much of this as they liked, but as a matter of fact this was a trade war – simply an ordinary, sordid trade war.

The response was both predictable and immediate. The papers were full of denunciations and demands for Mannix’s prosecution under the War Precautions Act. And it was not just Imperialists and Protestants. Many of the letters to the editor attacking his claim was signed by the likes of  ‘Loyal Catholic’ or ‘Irish Catholic’ or ‘Australian Native’ or ‘Catholic Loyalty’. Similarly, individual members of Catholic associations denounced his views as unrepresentative of Catholic views and sentiment.

Not surprisingly, Mannix was damned even more when his position was supported by the Socialists. The Argus (1/2/17 p 9) reported, under the headline Archbishop Mannix. Socialists Approve:

At a meeting of the Socialist party held last night, the following resolution was moved by Miss Adele Pankhurst (organiser), seconded by Mr. R. S. Ross (secretary), and carried unanimously: –
“That this meeting of the Socialist party of Victoria expresses its warm admiration of Archbishop Mannix for his recent bold and clarifying utterances on the nature of the terrible European war, and deems it its duty to put on record its appreciation of Dr. Mannix’s splendid courage especially on account of the malicious abuse and misrepresentation to which he has been subjected…. “

At the time Mannix’s claim was clearly incendiary. It stripped bare the dominant narrative of the War. His simple phrase of ‘sordid trade war’ denied the official narrative of the War as the monumental and defining conflict between democracy and civilised society on one hand and German militarism and barbarity on the other. The comment undercut the high ideals of ‘supreme sacrifice’, ‘Christian love and duty’, ‘liberty and justice’ and ‘Imperial loyalty and patriotism’. Mannix had definitely crossed a line; and his opponents demanded that the Government prosecute him. Mannix at this point was still only the Co-adjutor Bishop of Melbourne – he did not become Archbishop of Melbourne till Carr’s death in May 1917 – and he had only been in Australia for 4 years. However, as far as Hughes was concerned, Mannix’s role in the referendum had been the deciding factor that led to the success of the No vote. Now, not only was Mannix anti-conscription, he was also challenging the very nature of the Empire’s struggle against Germany.

Hughes himself addressed Mannix’s claim a few days later in an address at Ballarat East. It was reported in The Age (31/1/17 p7). Remarkably, as reported, Hughes’ claims actually appear to support Mannix’s observation on trade as the root cause of the War.

People had been told the other day that the war was a trade war, a mere sordid struggle for self, but the causes of this war were not to be sought in the effort to obtain trade. Germany had already secured trade during times of peace to an extent that her claws were in our very vitals. Had Germany’s competition continued in peace for another ten years Germany would have got the kernel of the world’s trade, leaving us and others the shrivelled husk. Germany had fought the American millionaire in trade on his own dunghill and beaten him. Australian trade and commerce before the war was finding its way by devious channels into the maw of Germany. This was not a trade war. It was a war that sprang out of Germany’s lust of world empire.

In the same speech, Hughes also decried the news reports from Germany that represented the defeat of conscription as proof that Australians were ‘against the war’ or at the least ‘war weary’. He urged the people there to show that, even though the referendum had been lost, they still supported ‘the continuation of the war’ and they were prepared to ‘lay aside party feeling, and fight as a united nation’.

As far as Hughes was concerned, the War was now to be waged not just against Germany but also, at home, against public indifference, political infighting and the deliberate sabotage of the likes of Mannix.

The local scene

The sense of disappointment in the Shire of Alberton following the referendum defeat has been covered in Post 93. The common belief was that patriotic and loyal regions such as Gippsland had been betrayed by the voters in Melbourne. There was also a sense of disillusion which translated to a withdrawal of support. For example, by  the end of December 1916 the local recruiting committee had disbanded. Correspondence from the Shire Secretary ( G W Black) dated 5/12/16 noted that while he was still prepared to assist with recruiting on a personal basis, the local recruiting committee itself ‘has ceased to exist’. On 18/12/16, the Shire President (Charles Nightingale) called a public meeting to set up a replacement recruiting committee but, as reported in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative ( 20/12/16), There were not half-a-dozen present, and the meeting had to be abandoned.  The paper also reported (15/12/16) the views of Cr Barlow – a prominent member of the previous recruiting committee – expressed at the December council meeting. Barlow believed that … the men whom the country could ill-afford to lose would join the colors now, while the shirkers and cold-footers would still remain behind, as nothing had been done to make them go.  He stated that while he was still prepared to help, he … would not take the same interest in recruiting as before. The local recruiting committee would eventually be re-established in late April 1917; but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum defeat there was considerable anger, and support for conscription remained as strong as ever in the Shire.

As indicated in earlier posts – see for example Post 91 –  there was not even any organised support for the No vote in the Shire of Alberton in the first conscription referendum. Also, while there were significant differences over religious belief and, importantly, schooling, and also obvious tension over Ireland, Catholic loyalty and support for the War had not been questioned.  Fr Sterling, the local parish priest had only recently (October 1916) joined the AIF as Captain Chaplain.

The St Patrick’s Sports offered further proof of Catholic loyalty. As has been mentioned previously, local sports competitions were very important in the local community. Such sports competitions – involving athletics, wood chopping, bike races, horse competitions, novelty events  …. – were held annually at locations including Yarram, Carrajung, Won Wron, Madalya, Fairview (Hiawatha), West Alberton and Goodwood. Of all of them, the most important was the St Patrick’s Sports at Yarram, held round the time of the feast day. It was a major Shire event and while it was run by the Catholic parish it was so large that its organizing committee and the judges and officials were drawn from a much wider circle than just the local Catholic community.

The sports carnivals were also important local fund raisers. Typically, the smaller ones at places like Madalya would return approximately £20, while the St Patrick’s carnival at Yarram would bring in £100. In 1914, St Patrick’s raised £94 for the Catholic parish and in 1915 the amount was £100. Then, as explained in Post 84 , in 1916 the Catholic parish donated the funds raised to 2 charities – the Victorian Sick and Wounded Soldiers’ Fund and the Red Cross – related to the War. The amount raised and donated (approximately £700) was very significant and, in fact, would have represented the largest donation raised at a single event in the Shire over the course of the War. It was yet further evidence that the local Catholic community was behind the War effort.

At the same time, the 1916 arrangement was intended as a one-off, and in 1917 the profits from the St Patrick’s Sports were directed once again back to the Catholic parish. Approximately £200 was raised, and the money went to pay off the debt associated with the construction of the new St Mary’s church.

Against this background, the following letter which appeared in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 19/1/17 is not as innocent as its author implies. It came immediately prior to the first meeting of the organising committee for the 1917 St Patrick’s Sports. It was written by Rev Francis Tamagno, the local Presbyterian minister.

Through the co-operation of many agencies last St. Patrick’s day a handsome sum was raised for the Red Cross and the Australian Soldiers’ Fund. I hope that somebody at the meeting next Monday night  will suggest that the money raised this year by St. Patrick’s sports be given to the Belgian Fund. Belgium has given many lives for Australians and her sacrifice demands and requires our sincerest sympathy. Belgium is pronouncedly a Catholic country.

While local Catholics would have found the letter patronising and the accusations thinly-veiled, others in the community would have agreed with its sentiment: now was not the time for Catholics, of all people, to be raising money from the local community for their own sectional interests.

The claim that local Catholics had a particular responsibility to Catholic Belgium was a common theme. An editorial in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 30/3/17 focused on a pastoral letter to the Belgians written by Cardinal Mercier. Mercier was an outspoken critic of the Germans, many of his priests had been killed and he himself had been imprisoned. The theme of the pastoral letter covered the need to speak the truth about the evil of the German occupation. It began:

The truth must be above all, for sincerity is the most essential of all duties. We cannot without cowardice allow untruth to run unencountered. We have protested against violence….

and it ended:

We have made our voice heard for the safeguarding of the liberty of home and labor, demanded the respect due to the dignity of man; and you have stood faithful by our side. We bless God for having made you understand your duty so well. It is nothing less than the fulfilling of the fundamental law of Christianity.

At this point, Rossiter, as editor, added:

Australian Catholics with others of military age will fulfill that law by enlisting.

Again, the local Catholic community was being singled out and, effectively, preached at. Also, the focus on German ruthlessness and atrocities undercut Mannix’s apparently simplistic assertions about a ‘sordid trade war’.

While the 2 examples raised here appear low level, it is the very deliberate way that they have been fed into community discourse that is telling.

By the end of the period under review (May 1917), the antagonism towards and suspicion of Catholics had become far more apparent for the local community.

Reporting on Anzac Day commemorations at Port Albert, the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative (27/4/17) stated that Rev Tamagno praised Hughes and the ‘Nationalists’ for their non-partisan approach to the urgent challenges facing the nation, and publicly denounced Mannix as a ‘missioner of mischieviousness since he has come to our land.’ Rev Walklate attacked the backers of the No vote for not supporting the soldiers and praised the Anzacs as ‘descended form British stock.’ Both clergymen attacked those who refused to enlist. They wanted them shamed and punished. It was as if the conscription campaign was still running.

A week earlier, GH Wise, local member of the federal parliament, had addressed a packed meeting at Yarram. There was a very detailed report in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative on 20/4/17. Wise was an outspoken supporter of Hughes. According to Wise, Hughes had proved himself in the UK in 1916 when he had been … ‘admitted to the secret counsels of the Empire’. Hughes had returned aware that conscription was required to maintain the AIF in France but he had been blocked by the ALP platform. After the defeat of the referendum Hughes had risen above the party politics of the day and created a genuine National Government. And it was only the National Government led by Hughes that could win the War.

Mannix is not mentioned in Wise’s panegyric of Hughes but it is very evident that Wise promotes the War as a moral struggle of the highest order. It was certainly not some ‘sordid trade war’. He gave a striking – even bizarre – anecdote to establish German evil:

They had read recently of the trial of an outraged French girl for the murder of her child. She did not speak till the trial, when she said she strangled her child because its father was a German, and she was acquitted. Could anyone who had any thought for the women and children and for the aged, not realise the horrors of a German invasion without resolving to do all in his power to keep the war 12,000 miles from Australia? Did they not realise that it was time to throw party politics aside, and make a united effort to win the war in the name of civilization. (Applause.)

Mannix had been mentioned in another report that appeared 2 days earlier in the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative (18/4/17). It was headed Dr. Mannix and the War. and it detailed a Presbyterian meeting at Bendigo on 10/4/17 by Rev F A Hagenauer. The meeting passed, unanimously, a motion … the effect of which was that the Presbytery of Bendigo, believing that the whole energy of the nation ought to be directed towards winning the war, was of the opinion that Dr. Mannix should be prosecuted for his recent statements. [sordid trade war].

However, the focus was broadening beyond Mannix, for the same meeting explicitly called into question the loyalty of Catholics generally. Hagenauer noted that it had become … necessary to discuss the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church. He presented 2 scenarios: the Catholic Church agreed with Mannix … or might disagree, but be impotent to silence him. Even though he acknowledged that many individual Catholics had criticised Mannix, Hagenauer was inclined to believe that Mannix’s views were supported by the Church:

What evidence was there that the church as a whole agreed? There was the silence which representative Catholic bodies and societies had maintained and the approving receptions given to Dr. Mannix.

He added that Mannix … claimed that he spoke expressing the views of the Catholic Church, and was applauded.

For good measure, he also refererenced the ‘official’ view that … the Irish vote killed conscription in Australia.

The threat that the Catholic Church now posed to the successful pursuit of the War was being made very public in the local press:

If the Catholic Church did agree with Dr. Mannix, it was a menace to our liberties, second only to the menace of German militarism. If it disagreed with him but was impotent to silence him, the position was almost as serious, for the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy upon the laity was admittedly great.

By the end of April 1917, local Catholics in the Shire of Alberton were reading in their local press that their Church was being charged with disloyalty. Increasingly, they were being forced to choose between the 2 extremely polarising figures of Mannix and Hughes. The ambiguity and respected – and respectful – differences that had characterised past community relations were under extreme pressure. This was the local community that Fr Sterling returned to on 17/4/17 when his appointment as Captain Chaplain in the AIF finished.

References

The Age

The Argus

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative

Archives, Shire of Alberton
(viewed 2014)

The activities of the 1916 Yarram Recruiting Committee came from:
Shire of Alberton
Archive One
File Number 703B
“Recruiting & Enlisted men”
Bundle headed “Defence Department, Enlisting Recruits 1914-15-16”

For a detailed account and assessment of Mannix’s speech at Brunswick see: Brunswick Coburg Anti-Conscription Centenary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

100. E T Gay

1 Reply

Edward Thomas GAY (19797)
8 FAB Died of illness 2/1/17

Edward Gay was 19 yo when he enlisted on 31/12/15. He was single and he gave his occupation as ‘farm labourer’. He must have been working and living in the local area because his first medical was in Yarram (29/11/15) and, also, he was given a formal farewell from the Shire (23/2/16). He was born at Tarraville (25/4/1896) and grew up in the North Devon area, attending the state school there. His religion was Methodist. When his father, as next-of-kin, completed the information for the (National) Roll of Honour, he gave Devon, South Gippsland as the place with which his son was ‘chiefly connected’. Edward Thomas Gay’s name is included on both the Shire of Alberton Roll of Honor and the Alberton Shire Soldiers’ Memorial.

Gunner Edward Gay joined 8 Field Artillery Brigade (30 Battery). There was another person with the same surname in the same unit. This was Gunner Allan Richard Gay. It is difficult to establish the relationship between the two of them. They were not brothers but, given that they enlisted in the same unit and they were farewelled together – according to the Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative (1/3/16) there were 200 people at the farewell at North Devon – it is highly likely that they were cousins.

Gunner Edward Gay disembarked at Plymouth on 18/7/16. But at this point there were serious health issues. In fact, he was admitted to hospital the day after disembarkation (19/7/16). He was discharged 2 weeks later but then readmitted on 14/8/16 and it appears he remained in hospital – Military Hospital Fargo, Salisbury Plains – until his death on 2/1/17 (’tuberculosis of lungs’).

The family back in Australia were notified in November (22/11/16) that he was ‘dangerously ill’. Another cable on 2/12/16 advised that the condition was ‘stationary’ and another one at the end of the month (30/12/16) gave the condition as ‘still stationary’. However, the next cable on 4/1/17 brought the news that he had died 2 days earlier (2/1/17). He was buried at Durrington Cemetery, Wiltshire.

The personal kit was returned to the father in June 1917. The kit was extensive – although the items were mainly small –  presumably because he had never seen active service but, instead, had been a patient for most of his service in the UK:

Postcards, 2 shaving brushes, Cards, Hymnbook, Letters, Soldiers’ Guide, Cotton bag, 2 Brushes, Pr. Mittens, 2 Fly nets, Spring razor strop, 4 Badges, Pr. Scissors, Holdall, 2 Mirrors (one in case), 8 Handkerchiefs, 2 Razors in cases, Cycling jersey, 2 Combs, fountain pen in case, Housewife, 2 Knives, Wallet (damaged), 2 straps, Diary, Note book, 3 Devotional Books, 4 Military books, Leather belt, 2 identity-discs, Wristlet watch and strap, 4 coins.

As indicated, when he enlisted, Gunner Gay gave his father – Caleb Thomas Gay – who was then living at Kyabram, as his next-of-kin.  The records indicate that the father did receive all relevant correspondence, including the cables about his illness and death, as well as returned kit, medals, cemetery records etc. The records also indicate that there did not appear to be a will.

Correspondence in the file suggests that family relations were both complex and fraught and this may have been another reason why there was no will.

As already indicated, the father was living at Kyabram at the time Edward was living and working in the Yarram area. The mother – Sarah Gay – and at least one sister were living in Queensland. Moreover it was not just a case of physical separation because essential information did not appear to be shared between family members. For example, the file contains a letter from Gunner Gay’s youngest sister – Helena – seeking information on her brother’s death. She was the sister living in Brisbane. The letter was written some seven months after his death.  Incredibly, it appears that she had only recently found out about the death, and not from any family member but from a friend living in Traralgon.  Her request to Base Records in Melbourne sought the information that normally other members of a family would provide. She also appeared to have scant details on his enlistment.

Would you be so kind in helping me to find news of my only Brother Edward Thomas Gay late of South Gippsland Victoria [.] The news I have received from a friend in Traralgon my poor Brother died in England on 2.1.1917 [.] Will you find me his Battalion and where he enlisted from & also what part of London he died in & could I have a chance of getting one for (sic) his Photos [photographs of the grave ] [.]I am his youngest Sister & would love to get any news about him [.] Hoping to hear from you soon [.]

In May 1917 (19/5/17) there was letter to Base Records from an uncle, Richard Giles Gay of ‘The Willows, North Devon via Yarram’. The uncle was the younger brother of the father. The letter requested a copy of the death certificate and enquired as to whether there was any will:

Will you kindly send me Certificate of death of E T Gay deceased who died in Hospital England January 2nd 1917 and also let me know if he left any Will or Assignment of any kind.

Interestingly, even though the letter did not state that the writer was acting on behalf of the father, the formally designated next-of-kin, the uncle was sent a copy of the death certificate (‘report of death’) and advised that there was ‘no notification of a will to date.’  It also appears that the same uncle at least initiated a claim with the Australian Mutual Provident Society. It appears that even though the father was the designated next-of-kin and was in communication with the military authorities over his deceased son’s affairs, other members of the family were also pursuing their own enquiries and actions independent of the father.

Lastly, there is yet another letter in the file that touches on the same matter and highlights both past and present family tensions. The letter was written in November 1917 (12/11/17) by Edward’s grandmother (Catherine Gibbett) of Devon North. She was obviously seeking some sort of monetary claim against his estate, on the basis that she had cared for him as a child, right through, presumably, to the time he enlisted.

Please can I put in a claim for cash, or the half of money, left by my grandson, late Gunr Edward Thomas Gay son of Mr Caleb Thomas Gay now of Kyabram late of Devon North [,] because I had the said Edward Thomas Gay when a young child [.] His mother Sarah Gay left him without anyone to care for him so the father brought the said Edward Thomas Gay to me before he was old enough to go to school [.] When old enough I sent him to school and kept him seventeen [?] years [.] Surely I have a claim for keeping the said late Edward Thomas Gay.

Uncovering the family dynamics of 100 years ago is obviously a great challenge but it does appear that Edward Gay’s childhood and youth would have been difficult. Perhaps he saw in the AIF the sense of belonging which had eluded him in his own family.

References

National Archives file for GAY Edward Thomas 19797
Roll of Honour: Edward Thomas Gay
First World War Embarkation Rolls: Edward Thomas Gay

Gippsland Standard and Alberton Shire Representative