10488 5RL57N

3 ^Oe,T 01900 967 8

m

TiiE Accepted for the award of

on...A.MM.JlS.^. I, Alexander P. Kidd, hereby state that this thesis has not been submitted in whole or in part to this or any other university for the purposes of a higher degree. The dissertation is an original piece of research. It is based on primary sources and, except where otherwise acknowledged, all conclusions are my own. All primary and secondary sources are acknowledged in the citations which are correct to the best of my knowledge.

(A. P. KIDD )

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One of the outstanding things I discovered when researching the material for this thesis was the unfaihng courtesy and interest I met where ever I went. My thanks are due to the many who helped, included in which are the archivist at Lambeth Palace Library, the librarian at Trinity College, Cambridge, Dr David Thurley at the S.P.C.K. office in , the librarian at Rhodes House Library at Oxford, Capt. Smith of the Church Army, Blackheath, , Dr Brenda Haugh of the Centre in London, Ms Susan Lockridge, librarian of St Francis' Theological College, assistants at the State Archives and at the John Oxley Library, and many others. Because the list is so long I have omitted some, but nevertheless, they are remembered with thanks. The majority of the material used in the thesis, however, comes from the archives of the of . Mrs Patricia Ramsay has my especial thanks for her kind hospitality and great help through many hours spent at the Archives, and Professor Paul Crook, for his unfailing interest and patient supervision. The Most Reverend St. Clair George Alfred Donaldson, D.D. of Brisbane. 1904 - 1921 ABSTRACT

In August 1903 the third of Brisbane died. It was not until some seventeen months later, in December 1904, that St Clair Donaldson became its fourth bishop, and in the following year its first archbishop and metropolitan of the Province of Queensland. The events leading up to his appointment, the state of the diocese he presided over for seventeen years, and the part he played on the national Church stage form the background of this thesis. Donaldson inherited a diocese which financially was not strong, and during his time in Brisbane there were more lean years than fat. Finance was a limiting factor to his achievements as a builder, and to expansion within the diocese. Nevertheless five years after his arrival the first section of the new cathedral had been completed (if not paid for), and at the end of his term the building of St Martin's Hospital had been started. These were his legacy of stone and mortar to the diocese.

His reaction to some of the problems which arose from the conditions under which the clergy worked, his hopes for training a native clergy, and the state of diocesan finances are discussed. Donaldson's attitude to public morality, the Empire, conscription for the war, his views on education, and the start of the diocesan secondary school system, and his masterly handling of the Yarrabah crises reveal something of his character, and his success as a diocesan bishop and metropolitan.

But Donaldson was concerned not only with local issues. His unshakeable behef in the ideal of a national Church, and his efforts to achieve his ideal through the strengthening of the powers of General Synod, and the breaking of the nexus which bound the Church of England in and the Church in England together placed him at the forefront of other churchmen of his day who held similar views. This and his diocesan ascendancy assured his place in Australian Anglican history as a great episcopal statesman. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I INTRODUCTION i

II BACKGROUND AND CHURCHMANSHIP An outline of Donaldson's family background, and of his churchmanship, as well as a brief look at the churchmanship in some ofthe in Australia at the time of his arrival. g

III THE RELUCTANT BISHOP tj The death of Bishop Webber, Donaldson's predecessor, the attempts to elect a new bishop, and the events leading up to Donaldson's eventual appointment.

IV GENTLEMEN OF THE CLOTH 3 6 The state ofthe clergy when Donaldson arrived, his ideas for training a native clergy, and his attempts to increase clergy numbers.

¥ HIGH FINANCE ^^ The state of parochial and diocesan finances when Donaldson arrived, and his attempts to improve them; the cost of building the cathedral and St Martin's Hospital.

VI FOR THE WELL-BEING OF SOCIETY 90 A discussion of some ofthe social issues ofthe day, and Donaldson's response to them.

VII WRANGLE FOR RELIGION 116 The dispute between Donaldson, Frodsham, and Garland conceming the Bible in State Schools League.

VIII EDUCATION HAS FOR ITS OB.IECT THE 140 FORMATION OF CHARACTER The genesis of the Church school system and the founding of St John's College. IX THE DEBACLE AT YARRABAH ^^Q The difficulties in mrming the mission station at Yarrabah, and goverment intervention.

X LAD'S IMMIGRATION SCHEME iso The pre-war immigration scheme of English lads for farm work in Queensland, sponsored by the Church. XI FOR GOD AND EMPIRE 19 2 Donaldson's thoughts on the strength of the British Empire; his involvement in the conscription referenda.

XII ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS 220 Donaldson's efforts to establish parity between the various denominations in the war-time chaplaincy service, and the spiritual well-being of the forces.

XIII NEXUS 2 30 Donaldson's belief in a national Church for Australia, and his efforts to break the nexus between the Church in England and the Church in Australia.

XIV REFORMATION OF GENERAL SYNOD 251 AND A.B.M. Donaldson's efforts to reform General Synod to provide for coercive powers so that its determinations would be effective in all dioceses; and his efforts to make Church its own missionary society through the A.B.M.

XV CONCLUSIONS: 271

Appendix I. 2 7 6

Abbreviations. 2 7 8

Bibliography. 2 7 9 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

On 3 August 1903 the Right Rev. William Thomas Thomhill Webber, D.D., third Bishop of Brisbane died. After several abortive attempts to elect a bishop, the Diocesan Synod of Brisbane delegated its responsibility to the . The Archbishop's choice was St Clair Donaldson, of Homsey, an appointment Donaldson accepted reluctantly. He was enthroned as the fourth Bishop of Brisbane on 21 December 1904.

Donaldson brought with him a strong belief in a national Australian Church, a belief which was not shared by many of his fellow . In the struggle for autonomy Donaldson played a significant part, but since that time his reputation of being one of Australia's greatest Church statesmen has largely lived on in the minds of scholars. This thesis looks at the problems Donaldson encountered as a diocesan, at how successful he was in overcoming them, at the very great contribution he made to the national Church scene, and in the process learn something of the man himself

His family background and education were important influences on his work as Archbishop and on his churchmanship which was middle-of-the-road, so to speak: neither high nor low, and thus he became a sounding board for the Evangelicals and high churchmen alike.

Donaldson's episcopate seems to fall naturally into two parts: his achievements as diocesan bishop, and the part he played in the wider affairs of the Australian Church. For this reason in this work his diocesan activities have been divided from his attempts to reform General Synod and the Australian Board of Missions, and his role in trying to achieve autonomy for the Australian Church. One of his first and enduring pieces of work, which indirectly cormects both phases of his episcopate, was to preside over the formation of the Province of Queensland. Although the spade work had been done before he arrived, he was able to overcome diocesan jealousies to convince his Synod of the need to change the Bishop Election to make smooth the transition from being an independent diocese to becoming the metropolitical See.

Most of his time of course was occupied as diocesan bishop, and in line with his desire to see the creation of a national Church, he wanted to have a clergy bom and trained in Australia. He expanded the theological college and was successful in having it become the training centre for the province. He took the Church to the bush by

1 expanding the embryo bush brotherhood. The conditions under which his clergy worked were generally poor, and these he tried to improve, not altogether successftiUy, and not through any fault of his own nor for the want of trying. His efforts, as in so many other areas, were hampered by the poor financial state of the diocese, a problem he was unable to amend because of the disinclination of Anglicans to give generously to their Church, years of drought, and year •; of war.

Webber left to Donaldson the mammoth task of building the new cathedral. Even with such financial straits in the diocese the first section was completed, although not paid for, within five years of his arrival. After the war he initiated the building of St Martin's Hospital. These two buildings were his lasting memorial in stone and mortar.

Throughout his episcopate Donaldson was concerned with the moral turpitude of society, both public and private, evidence of which was to be found in such things as gambling, excessive drinking, and lack of attendance at Sunday worship. He spoke out strongly against such slackness and he encouraged those bodies which tried to improve the situation by lending his name to them. The rise of the labour movement gave Donaldson much pleasure. He envisaged a working class able to enjoy the cultural benefits the movement would bring. With improved education and improved working conditions they would be able to grasp the pleasures of literature, music and art and so widen their cultural horizons to the extent that they might even embrace a more religious way of life. His enthusiasm for the labour movement ended in disappointment when it became politicised. The strike of 1912 and the unions' tactics during the war destroyed his illusions.

In 1890 Webber founded the Bible in State Schools League, the impetus of which had slowed over the years. Donaldson rejuvenated the league, and owing to his leadership the League was eventually successfiil in having Bible readings introduced into State schools. The success of the campaign, however, was the catalyst which ignited a sectarian brawl which lasted for many years. This was an eventuality he foresaw, but for as long as possible he kept aloof fi-omth e unpleasantness it produced.

A sound education Donaldsons believed the basis on which character was built. When he arrived the primary school system which had existed for some years was almost defunct. Donaldson saw no merit in trying to regenerate it, and after the victory of the Bible in State Schools League there was not the need to do so. Instead he made plans for a secondary school system which he achieved through building new schools, and also through purchasing schools already in existence. To-day the Church secondary school system stands as another monument to his beliefs. Donaldson believed in conciliation rather then confrontation and when trouble befell a mission station in North Queensland run by the Australian Board of Missions in , but under the supervision of the Bishop of North Queensland, it was necessary for Donaldson to step in to provide a solution to the problem and thus circumvent a takeover of the mission by the Queensland Government. He placated an angry government, and appeased a fractious bishop. It was in matters such as this that his statesman-like qualities were apparent.

Donaldson had a passionate belief in the greatness of the British Empire. Although he did not initiate the scheme, Donaldson was instrumental in carrying forward the immigration and settlement on farms of British lads who were anxious to try their arm in a new country. Not only was the scheme a means of helping unemployment in England, it also strengthened the bonds of empire by helping fill the empty spaces in so a vast land. The scheme was run in conjunction with the Church Army in England and in human terms was a great success.

When war came the Lads Immigration Scheme closed and the Empire was in trouble. Australia had a duty to send men to defend the Mother country, and Donaldson was one of the greatest advocates for recruiting. He was disillusioned with the Roman Catholic Community who he believed was not pulling its weight in the numbers it sent to the war fi-ont,an d he was also disappointed with the labour movement for much the same reasons. His disappointment at the failure of both conscription campaigns was enormous. He fought strenuously to improve the number of chaplains who were allocated to troopships, as well as to improve the spiritual conditions of the men.

Donaldson's vision extended far beyond the diocese, and the province of which he was metropolitan. On the national front three of his most cherished projects were the breaking of the nexus with the Church in England, the reformation of General Synod, and the reorganization of the Australian Board of Missions. These three strands were in some ways all part of the one object. Donaldson considered autonomy to be the essential factor in moulding a national Church, and although he did not live to see his dream come true, he did much to lay the foundations for autonomy. It was Donaldson who suggested the course of action to be taken initially, that is, to define the nexus and then to see how it could be broken. It was Donaldson who finally persuaded the General Synod in 1921 shortly before his translation to Salisbury, to accept in general the principle of autonomy. This was an enormous achievement, and if for no other reason Donaldson's place in Australian episcopal history is assured. Without plenary powers, he considered the General Synod to be a toothless tiger. He was of opinion that General Synod should be the governing body for the Church in Australia, with provinces being subordinate to it, and in turn dioceses being subordinate to provinces. Although he tried valiantly to achieve his wish, he was not successful.

In 1939 Dimot and Batty published their biography, St Clair Donaldson, K.C.M.G., D.D., D.C.L, Archbishop of Brisbane 1904 - 1921, Bishop of Salisbury 1921- 1935, ^ and in 1962 K. Rayner presented his thesis, A History of the Church of England in Queensland. -^ These are the only major works which deal with Donaldson in any way. In the former work, the section dealing with Donaldson's Brisbane years came mainly from Batty's recollections, and personal knowledge of Donaldson's efforts to bring autonomy to the Australian Church. Rayner's work, as its name implies, was one of broad scope, covering the history of the entire of Queensland. Because of the inherent constraints in such a work, he was unable to give unlimited space to the Diocese of Brisbane, let alone in any one episcopate. This thesis differs from Rayner's in that it is concerned with only one episcopate in only one diocese, for a period of some seventeen years.

When Rayner's thesis was written most of Donaldson's correspondence and many official records were not accessible for research purposes. What remains of Donaldson's Brisbane correspondence is now available to researchers, and it is fi-om this source and from diocesan records that most of the material for this dissertation has come. The correspondence covers the entire period of Donaldson's episcopate and seems to be fairly complete. There are some gaps in it, but these were filled in with originals of the missing letters held in the Lambeth Palace Library records. Very little material is closed to researchers. Registry correspondence is complete and most of it is available to researchers. Diocesan official records such as minute books, registers, and so forth are extensive. In England, apart from official and semi-personal correspondence held at the Lambeth Palace Library, the only private correspondence which appears to have survived is a small collection of letters at Trinity College Library, Cambridge. The result is that the public man overshadows the private man, and yet the glimpses of the private man raise questions of adjustment which a biographer would long to solve.

Of published works relative to the Donaldson era dealing with his endeavours in the national field Giles's A Constitutional History of the Australian Church, published in 1929, mainly covers the pre-Donaldson period, with only a brief description of later events. Again, Micklem's Principles of Church Organisation (1921) gives no detailed analysis of the period under discussion. Clarke's Constitutional Church Government in the Dominions Beyond the Seas and in other parts of the (1924), while doubtless of great importance to constitutional scholars, was not of great help. John Davis's Australian Anglicans and their Constitution (1993) traces how the present Anglican constitution was achieved, but its great usefulness concerns the post-1921 period, and so contained very Uttie information on the period under discussion. Donaldson gets very Uttle, if any, mention in any these works. This posed a difficulty because there was littie against which to assess Donaldson's contribution, especially in the nexus debate, except for the quotation from Dimot & Batty in Donaldson, p.72, and what can be gleaned from his correspondence with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It has been necessary to rely heavily throughout the thesis on primary sources which might be described as being somewhat one-sided, but as most of the primary material has never been used before it is therefore valuable in expanding our knowledge of Donaldson beyond that contained in the small amount of pubUshed material. What emerges is a somewhat different picture than the usually perceived one of Donaldson. This treatise sets out to explore Donaldson's effectiveness as a diocesan bishop, to look at his achievements in the national field, particularly in the movement towards autonomy, and by augmenting the scant knowledge available, to confirm his standing as a great Church statesman. CHAPTER TT

BACKGROUND AND CHURCHMANSHIP

St Clair George Alfred Donaldson was bom in London on 11 February 1863, the third son of Sir Stuart and Lady Donaldson. He came of a family 'which has rendered distinguished service to both Church and State'. ' John William Donaldson, D.D. was his uncle, and his eldest brother, Stuart, also entered the Church, later to become Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. From their mother, formerly Miss Amelia Cooper, daughter of Frederick Cooper of Carleton Hall, Cumberland, the Donaldson family acquired 'the evangelical spirit which had been characteristic of her homes', and:

although they would not have called themselves evangelicals, at all events in opposition to Anglo-Catholics, yet they retained an evangelical simplicity of belief and conduct in their sentiments no less than in their actions'. ^

Donaldson's father, bom in 1812, was educated privately, and in 1832 was sent by his father to Mexico to obtain some business training in the silver mines. In 1834 he went to Australia, joined his father's partner, Mr William Jones, at Sydney, and soon afterwards was made a partner in the firm of Donaldson, Jones, and Lambert. In 1838 he was appointed a magistrate in New South Wales. He 'realised a rapid fortime in wool and sperm oil, and became the owner of a large sheep-mn'. 3 He entered politics and in 1848 was appointed a member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, and in 1854 became President of the Council. When the new Constitution Act of New South Wales was passed in 1856 he was called upon to form the first ministry imder the Act, 'taking himself the offices of First Minister and Colonial Secretary'. His ministry was short, but after filling other govemment positions, he retumed to England in 1857. On his return to England he became director of a number of companies, and attempted unsuccessfiiUy to enter parliament for Dartmouth and Bamstaple. He died on 11 January 1867 at Carleton Hall, Cumberland.'*

In 1876 the young Donaldson went to Eton where he had a distinguished sporting career, particularly in rowing, and became editor of the Eton College Chronicled Apparently he won no prizes, but he was 'sent up for good' to the Head

' C.T. Dimot & F. , St Clair Donaldson, K.C.M.G.. D.D. D.C.L, Archbishop of Brisbane 1904-1921, Bishop of Salisbury 1921-1935 (London: Faber & Faber. 1939). p. 1. ^ Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, [short citation] p.12. 3 Dictionary of National Biography, (London 1888, Vol.XV.) 4 Ibid 5 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p. 13. 6 Master ten times during his stay at Eton, once at least while in the Head Master's own division. ^ It was in itself quite an achievement to reach the sixth form. It consisted of only twenty boys; 'the best in the school'. Many of his contemporaries were unable to make it. ^'

The principal subjects of study at Eton at the time were Latin and Greek, 'and a great deal of verse composition in those languages was required'. Although he may not have been in the very top flight, 'the "sent up for good" suggests a more than adequate competence'. ^ He was also notable for his very high character, and for 'setting a high moral tone'. He used to have prayer meetings in his room.^

Donaldson won a scholarship in 1882 to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he maintained the reputation as an oarsman which he had won at Eton, lo At Cambridge he obtained first class honours in both classical (1885) and theological (1887) tripos. Fenton John Anthony Hort, and Brooke Foss Westcott were the Professors of Divinity under whom Donaldson sat at Cambridge, i' Westcott and Hort were 'broad' churchmen, neither evangelical nor Anglo-Catholic and Donaldson, with his home religious background and influenced by these men was also a 'broad' churchman. St Clair Donaldson received his theological training for ordination at Wells Theological College where Dr E. C. S. Gibson was Principal. '2

On 27 May 1888, the day of his ordination, he wrote to a friend: 'I was ordained at St Paul's to-day, and at last I am going to begin work. I cannot tell you what a relief this is to me, and with what content and keenness I look forward to the future'. 13 He was appointed to Bethnal Green in 1888, and later in the same year he became chaplain to E. W. Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury. After three years at Lambeth he was appointed to the Church Eton Mission at Hackney Wick, 1891-1900. In 1901 he became Rector of Homsey, and Rural of Homsey the following year. In 1903 he was elected President of the London Junior Missionary Association. His time at Hackney Wick and his rectorship at Homsey gave him some experience in Church work generally, but perhaps more important for his fiiture appointment as Bishop of Brisbane was his time spent at Lambeth Palace. On 28

Being 'sent up for good' was a marl: of iiigh distinction where a boy reported to the Head Master for personal commendation. ^ Eton College Archivist to A. P. Kidd, 5 November 1992. ^ Ibid ^ Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.13. ^^ Ibid.r,. 14. Extract from History Register of the University of Cambridge, supplied by Uni. of Cambridge. '2 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson. p.l6. '3 Donaldson to H. Babbington Smith, 27 May 1888, Trinity College Library, Cambridge [TCL]. 7 October 1904 he was consecrated in St Paul's Cathedral, London. He was 41 years of age.

Just thirty years before Donaldson was bom, on 14 July 1833 the Rev. John Keble preached his famous sermon on 'National Apostasy', an event which was to transform the Church of England. Keble's sermon was an attack on erastianism, sparked off by the government's plan for suppression of Irish bishoprics. This was the springboard from which the Oxford Movement was launched, and led to the publishing of Tracts for the Times by a group of Oxford men, later to be known as the Tractarians, concemed with the issues raised by Keble in his sermon. '^

The Oxford Movement began the revival of the High Church tradition which had largely been overshadowed early in the eighteenth century by latitudinarian views and held in check by 'the dominance of the liberal Whig bishops'. ^^ The Movement numbered among its luminaries such people as Newman, Pusey, and Wilberforce. It appealed to many people not only for the intellectual approach it offered but for the more tangible aspects of worship to be found in the rich tapestry of ritual, vestments, and music.

The Movement's momentum slowed when Newman was converted to Rome in 1840, but continued to affect the direction of the Church, and deepened the division between the High Church Anglo-Catholics, heirs to the Tractarians, and the Evangelicals who were opposed to anything Roman. They took a literal approach to the Bible as against the Anglo-Catholics who supported a scientific approach to biblical criticism. In between these two schools of thought came the 'broad' churchmen, of which Donaldson's Cambridge professors were two. It was this group and the influence of his parents' home that made the greatest impression on Donaldson.

As almost all the bishops and many of the clergy in Australia had been trained in England they brought with them the various strands of churchmanship to which they adhered at home, so that the clergy, if not all the laity, had been influenced in one way or another by the Tractarian movement. At this point it seems appropriate to look very briefly at the religious complexion of some of the Australian dioceses at the time of Donaldson's appointment.

William Saumarez Smith, Archbishop of Sydney and of Australia and Tasmania, followed in the line of earlier evangelical bishops. After his confroversial

''^ R. K. Ward, Modem England - From the 18th Century to the Present (London: Unwin University Books, 1969), p.230. ^^ Ibid 8 appointment 'party politics began to regroup both to ensure the dominance of Protestant theology and practice and the Evangelical succession ofthe diocese'. '^ To leading evangelical clergy such as Mervyn Archdall, and Nathaniel Jones, the Principal of Moore College from 1897 to 1911, there were signs ofthe imminent second coming of Christ, and 'this focus upon the imminent retum of Christ, biblical literalism and separation from the surrounding world of decay became a theological base for a generation of Anglican clergymen in Sydney'. i7 The evangelical ethos of the diocese was revitalised in 1891 by a series of missions in Sydney led by a Church of Ireland clergyman, George C Gmbb. As a result of this visit Church Missionary Associations were formed. '8 These societies, which were very much an adjunct of the evangelical movement in England, were later to cause Donaldson some difficulty in his efforts to reform the Australian Board of Missions.

If the religious climate of the Sydney Diocese, which was also the primatial seat, was evangelical, although it had not always been so, the climate of its neighbour, the Diocese of Newcastle, was Tractarian. Bishop Stanton, first bishop of North Queensland had been educated at Oxford where he was exposed to the Oxford Movement. He was translated to Newcastie in 1891, to be followed by Bishop Stretch in 1905. Stretch had been Webber's (Donaldson's predecessor) co-adjutor prior to his going to Newcastle as Dean.

In , Charles Riley was neither Evangelical nor Tractarian. 'He did not wish to carry a party label and was prepared to accommodate himself to the traditions of his congregation', i^

When Bishop Montgomery retumed to England in 1901, he advised the Archbishop of Canterbury that

There are no extreme men in Tasmania - no high ritual, no vestments used. But the clergy ahnost to a man are 'good Churchmen.' Eastward position is ahnost universal. On the other hand Tasmania is very conservative and in ritual is forty years behind England. I do not think it would help the Diocese to have a Bishop who cared for ritual. 20

The Diocese of Adelaide had adopted some of the High Church ritual within the city of Adelaide itself and some of the larger towns, but in the country generally a more conservative element prevailed.

' ^ William James Lawton, The Better Time to Be - Utopian Attitudes to Society amnong Sydney Anglicans 1885 to 1914 fSvdney: University of New South Wales Press, 1990), p. 16. '' S. Judd and K. Cable, Sydney Anglicans, A History oftheDiocese (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1987), p. 151. 18 Judd and Cable, Sydney Anglicans [short citation], p. 152. '9 Fred Alexander, ed., Four Bishops and Their See, (Nedlands: University of Westem Australia Press, 1957), p.51. 20 Geoffery Stephans, The Anglican Church in Tasmania: A Diocesan History to mark the Sesquicentenary: 1992 (Hobart; Trustees ofthe Diocese, 1991), p. 139. 9 The Diocese of Brisbane and the dioceses that were shortly to become the Province of Queensland were regarded by some other dioceses as being of advanced churchmanship, and the province when formed was the most cohesive of any. Donaldson's predecessor, Webber, was 'a mildly ritualistic Tractarian', 21 and Donaldson felt quite at home in this environment. The Diocese of Brisbane and indeed the Province of Queensland were free of the party politics which were evident in some ofthe other dioceses.

Generally, then, the religious climate of the Anglican Church in Australia when Donaldson arrived was to be found in the middle ground, neither extremely high nor extremely low. Evangelical or Tractarian. When provinces were formed, the dioceses within a province were not necessarily of the one style of churchmanship, but whatever their leanings Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics did not as a rule venture into the extreme.

So far as other denominations were concemed, Donaldson inherited a good working relationship. The nonconformist Churches were friendly and the tensions which were later to emerge between Anglicans and Roman Catholics were not then apparent. Dunne, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, thought the Anglican clergy 'possessed those gentlemanly qualities which their Catholic counterparts lacked and gave a good tone to colonial life. They were also serious about temperance'. Dunne mourned Webber's death in 1903 and described him as 'an active and decorous man, the best they have ever had'. 22

Although Donaldson was not of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion he was absolutely firm in his insistence of the catholicity of the Church of England, and he impressed upon the clergy that they were not to force upon their congregations practices which were distasteful to them, and that any change was to be made slowly. To one clergyman whose churchwarden objected to the use of boys as servers, he expressed his surprise. There was nothing in the practice disloyal to the Church of England, and it was good for boys 'to have a bit of church work in which they can be interested'. They were of great help to the minister in preparing the church for the service. To the churchwarden's suggestion that their employment would cause 'great indignation in the parish' he thought that this was an exaggeration of the matter. He would not ask the priest to desist from a practice 'which is very widely in vogue in the Church of England and with the occurrence of all sensible men'. There had to be

21 Australian Dictionary of Biography. 22 Neil J. Byme, . Archbishop of Brisbane (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press 1991) p 171 10 consideration for others, however, and he suggested that some services be held at which servers were not employed. This, he thought, would probably get over the whole difficulty. ^3

On the question of vestments, he was fairly cautious. The catholic revival saw a retum to the wearing of vestments in English churches where the priests had adopted more ritualistic forms of worship, but vestments and lights were not always acceptable to Low Church congregations in the Brisbane diocese, who were not of advanced churchmanship and who saw such innovations as the first step on the road to a Roman take-over of the Anglican Church. The general acceptance of these symbols within the diocese was very slow and some years later when his permission was sought by the Head of the Charleville Bush Brotherhood for the wearing of vestments at Holy Conmiunion services, Donaldson explained the decisions with regard to the Ornaments mbric in the diocese. The diocesan constitution amounted 'practically to accepting the Privy Council as if it were a Church court', and although fresh evidence had been produced during the past twenty years which would probably upset the existing verdicts, nevertheless, when considering the diocese's position:

I hold that we must not challenge criticism by increasing the number of churches in which vestments are used, and I am therefore obliged to withhold my approval in all cases where the clergy have asked for it, and I am afraid I cannot make an exception in the case of Charleville.24

At that time there was no appellate tribunal within the Australian Church, and the Privy Council was often regarded as the final court of appeal. In England some time previously the Privy Council had mled against the wearing of vestments, but because of their more wide-spread use any future appeal to the Privy Council would probably produce a different result.

Donaldson himself did not eschew the wearing of some vestments on particular occasions. When arranging the details of a confirmation visit to a country parish, he decided on a choral Eucharist at 11 a.m., confirmation at 3.00 p.m., and an evening service at which he would preach. He asked the priest if he should bring a cope for the choral Eucharist and the confirmation service, and 'I must however warn you that I am a terrible bungler at choral celebrations. If it is to be at all elaborate you will have to coach me before hand'. 25

-' Donaldson to Attkins, 7 Mar 1918, Anglican Diocesan (Brisbane) Archives [AA], 2'* Donaldson to Light, 13 Sep 1917, AA. 25 Donaldson to Oakeley, 13 Nov 1916, AA. 11 The Province of Queensland was regarded by some dioceses, particularly Sydney, as being of 'advanced churchmanship' but there were different degrees of churchmanship within the province, some higher than others. From 1909 until the end of 1916 a sea of change swept over the senior ecclesiastical members of the province. Bishop Dawes retired from Rockhampton in 1909 to be replaced by Halford; Frodsham retired from North Queensland in 1912 to be replaced by Feetham; and in 1911 Sharp replaced Stone-Wigg in Now Guinea. In 1915 when Gilbert White, a man for whom Donaldson had a very high regard and affection, was translated from Carpentaria to Willochra, there remained none of the bishops who was in Queensland when Donaldson arrived. On 21 September 1915 Donaldson consecrated his coadjutor, Henry Le Fanu, and Henry Newton as Bishop of Carpentaria. This meant that all the bishops in the Province had been consecrated by Donaldson. ^6 Despite these changes the ethos of the province held firm.

At a time when the Bishop of Adelaide was having trouble with a priest of extreme catholic leanings, Donaldson wrote to Bishop Feetham of North Queensland saying that he could not see how the bishop, whose duty it was to see that his clergy remained loyal to the Prayer Book, could tolerate 'the extra services of Roman colour'. He thought it was time to redefine the position of the province in such matters. 27 The Province of Queensland was the most cohesive of all the Australian provinces in matters of docfrine, so Donaldson would have felt no imeasiness on that score. According to the 'spikes', 28 Donaldson said, nothing had been rightly abolished in the Church of England at the time of the Reformation except the infallibility of the . This he did not accept:

Now I belong to the old-fashioned ones who hold that the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of our relation to the saints, and of our relation to the departed generally, as held by Rome at that time, was indeed wrong, and I do not want to go back to it. 29

When the Primate sought Donaldson's opinion on the use of 'the Common Cup', Donaldson replied that it would be hard to say that the question of the common cup was bound up theologically with the doctrine of the Holy Communion. 30 it was certainly tme to say, however, that the question of the common cup was symbolically connected with the doctrine of the Holy Commimion, and he considered that so far as

26 K. D. Rayner, A History, [short citation] p.374. 2'^ Donaldson to Feetham, 14 Mar 1919, AA. 2° Clergy of hard unyielding "high church" views'. 29 Ibid ^^ 'The Common Cup' referred to a single communion challis. In many evangelical churches the use of individual cups at communion was still practiced. 12 the wine was concemed the divided cup destroyed the symbolism of unity. He went on: The Communion, I think, clearly subsists in the wine which we drink, and that, no doubt is the essential thing. But nevertheless, the common cup is the symbol of unity and brings home to us, even more effectively than the bread, the conception of our membership one with another. ^^

Because of his broad churchmanship Donaldson enjoyed a special place in the councils of the Church. He was appealed to by many of the other bishops, knowing that his views would be unprejudiced by extremes. His objectivity enhanced his reputation as a Church statesman.

Donaldson was in England when war was declared, in 1914. On his retum he was faced with the problem of mnning a diocese in which the perennial shortage of priests was exacerbated by many of the younger men becoming chaplains. He threw himself in to the recmiting campaigns, and at the same time tried to bolster the spirits of his people at home, but he was bitterly disappointed at the failure of the conscription campaigns.

In 1916 Donaldson was appointed to the Senate of the University of Queensland as a representative of the University Council. As a member of the Senate Donaldson served on the Education Committee, which was concemed with teaching within the University, and on the Library Committee, until he resigned in 1921. At the University's Inauguration Ceremony on 1 June 1911 Donaldson was admitted as a Master of Arts ad eundum gradum (AEG).

When the war was over, he had to restart the theological college, and recmit extra priests when possible, as well as deal with the perennial problem of money. As 1919 drew to a close the Archbishop's thoughts tumed to his forthcoming visit to England for the 1920 Lambeth Conference He was regarded by the Church leaders in England 'as one of the ablest and wisest of the men working abroad'. His attendance at Lambeth had been eagerly awaited, and the Archbishop of Canterbury required his help in preparing for the conference. ^^ Donaldson did not approach the visit with great pleasure, but his presence and activity at Lambeth reaffirmed his stature in the eyes of the English ecclesiastical establishment and was to affect his own future, and that of the Diocese of Brisbane. He retumed to Brisbane in Febmary 1921.

31 Donaldson to Wright, 17 May 1917, AA. 32 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson. p,71. 13 In April 1921 there appeared in the Argus a paragraph to the effect that Donaldson had refused the Archbishopric of Melboume, the reason being the possibility of his succession to Canterbury. So laughable was it, he told the Bishop of Gippsland, that he did not propose to make any public contradiction.^^ Shortly afterwards, in May, The Rt. Rev. F. E Ridgeway, Bishop of Salisbury died and the post was offered to Donaldson. The Archbishop of Canterbury put forward his name to the Prime Minister, Lloyd George. Another candidate, A. C. Headlam had also been recommended to Lloyd George by an unidentified nominator.^4 Lloyd George accepted Donaldson's appointment, but when approached, Donaldson, who was anxious at the time to take part in the debate on autonomy at General Synod, asked whether 'acceptance would involve movement before General Synod October'. ^^ Lloyd George was not pleased by Donaldson's apparent reluctance to retum immediately, and wrote to Davidson on 3 June saying that he thought Donaldson should come at once. Canterbury replied giving reasons for Donaldson's delay, and on 13 June Davidson received a message from Sylvester, the Prime Minister's secretary saying that 'the PM, who is in Wales, decides that Donaldson must be told either to accept the post and retum at once or to decline'. ^^ •

Davidson promptly replied to the Prime Minister: 'You will not think me disrespectfiil if I say that while of course it rests with the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown to nominate to a vacant See it rests with the Archbishop to decide at what date he is to take up his work in the new office'. ^^ Davidson had the backing of Lord Stamfordham, the King's private secretary, and shortly afterwards received a letter from Lloyd George explaining that his anxiety for Donaldson to come at once was because he was 'apprehensive of the criticism...which might ensue from delay, that the important diocese of Salisbury had been left without a shepherd "except a provisional one" for a period extending over several months'. ^^

When Donaldson wrote his pastoral letter of 4 July 1921 he seemed to be uneasy in his mind that the election of his successor might be clouded by some unseemly dissension: '...there is always the danger lest anxiety should degenerate into impatience and divisions, opinions may group themselves too impetuously round special names, and personal feeling may be aroused'. Citing St Paul's protestations against the partisanship of those who proclaimed themselves spiritual leaders for

33 Donaldson to Bp of Gippsland, 18 Apr 1921, AA. 3'' Stamfordham to Davidson, 18 May 1921, A. letters, LPL. -'-' Donaldson to Davidson, 28 May 1921, AA. 36 Davidson to Stamfordham, 13 Jun 1921, A. letters, LPL. 3'^ Davidson to Lloyd George, 13 Jun 1921, A. letters, LPL. 38 Lloyd George to Davidson, 14 Jun 1921, A. letters, LPL. 14 Paul, or ApoUos, or Cephas, ^^ he concluded that there were dangers in the election process, and went on:

We want to avoid all these dangers. A right choice depends largely upon a right atmosphere in the Archbishop Election Committee, with whom the appointment lies. And that again depends on a right atmosphere throughout the diocese.

Donaldson's happiness at his appointment was overshadowed by anxiety not only on his own behalf:

The skies are rather grey just now. The decision was bad enough; but my experiences since the news became known have been ahnost worse. It is going to be a bad four months until I leave... I indeed seem half to have expected it but I am anxious about Le Fanu. My own belief is that the interests of the Church could be best served if he was my successor. But he is very unpopular in some quarters and I am not sure that his chances are poor [sic]. He has done really wonderful work here - creative work, like the building up of the Sisterhood, and St Martin's War Memorial Hospital: administrative work in helping with the schools and with finances generally: and his loyalty to me has been something I can hardly speak of And now as coadjutor Bishop he is thrown out into the wilderness. ^"

Bishop Le Fanu, Donaldson's coadjutor who had come with him from England in 1904 was on holiday in Ireland when the Archbishop's translation to Salisbury was announced on 21 June. On 23 June there appeared in the Brisbane Courier paragraph saying that Bishop Long of Bathurst was a likely candidate, a rumour strongly denied by , Bishop of New Guinea and chairman of the Archbishop Election Committee. Donaldson was not the only one concemed for Le Fanu. The Rev. J. W. S. Tomlin, one time principal of the Theological College in Brisbane, and by that time Principal of St Boniface's College, Warminster, wrote to Le Fanu:

I am interested about the Brisbane election. Without flattery or friendship I want you, but failing that the Bishop of New Guinea. Least of all the Bishop of Bathurst. I say that with some knowledge. Your humility could, I believe, work with Batty but it wouldn't be proper. ^^

Sharp was duly elected Archbishop of Brisbane on St Matthew's Day, 21 September 1921, which produced another letter from Tomlin to Le Fanu:

I heard of the Bishop of New Guinea's appointment the other day at Oxford...from old Mrs Tufhell. As the lot did not fall upon you, we are very glad that it fell upon him and I expect that you feel more able to go on working within than you could have done with anyone else. ^^

39 Corinthians 1: 1-12. ^^ Donaldson to Davidson, 28 Jun 1921, AA. •^' Tomlin to Le Fanu, 27 Aug 1921, AA. •^2 Tomlin to Le Fanu, 1 Oct 1921, AA. 15 Sharp's election was not without controversy as it took place before the incumbent had relinquished his see, and as Archbishop-elect he accompanied Donaldson to the General Synod.

Donaldson sailed for England after the October 1921 General Synod, but his cormexions with the Diocese of Brisbane continued until his death in 1935.

16 CHAPTER III

THE RELUCTANT BISHOP

When the See of Brisbane became vacant with Bishop Webber's death early in August 1903, the task of appointing a new bishop proved to be difficult and long drawn-out. Eventually the matter was delegated to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and after an interregnum of some seventeen months The Right Reverend St Clair George Alfred Donaldson D.D., was enthroned in St Luke's pro-Cathedral, Charlotte Street, on 21 December 1904 as the fourth Bishop of Brisbane.

William Thomas Thomhill Webber was bom in 1837, the son of William Webber, surgeon. He was educated at Tonbridge School and at Pembroke College, Oxford. He was ordained priest in 1862. Webber was curate at Chiswick, London from 1860 to 1864 when be was appointed vicar of the Church of St John the Evangelist , Red Lion Square, London, 'which he developed from a working-class mission district in Holbom into a new parish with a church and clergy house designed by J. L. Pearson R.A.', later appointed architect of St John's Cathedral in Brisbane.

Webber was 'skilled in fund-raising, administration, and the style of team organisation identified with irmer-London clergy houses'. Webber was 'a mildly ritualistic Tractarian,' and 'held strongly anti-erastian views of the exclusive rights of Bishops and Synods to determine church matters but insisted that the Church of England had a "duty to care for the Nation's life".' • Webber was an educationalist:

Not only were his own schools a model of what parochial schools should be, but he became a prominent and valued member of the School Board of London, where he was able to exercise considerable influence upon the educational schemes for the great metropolis. ^

He was the prime mover in trying to have religious education taught in State schools, in 1893 he founded the Brisbane Theological College, and was a keen advocate for the founding of a university in Brisbane.

Webber had been appointed to the See by Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1885, and the job facing him on his arrival was enormous. His mission was to place the comparatively young diocese on its feet in matters of faith and finance, and to create a diocese rather than a collection of parishes. To these ends he gave himself unstintingly. Webber realised that the diocese, which had been formed without the

Australian Dictionary of Biography. 2 Church Chronicle fChCh.], 1 Nov 1903, p.21. 17 benefit of govemment endowments, needed more capital than could be raised from his flock. He had to raise £10,000 so that the See of Rockhampton could be formed. The floods of 1893 'almost wrecked the diocesan resources and disaster was only warded off by Webber's appeal to England for funds. ^ He made several fund-raising visits to England, his last being to secure finance for the building of the new cathedral. Between 1885 and 1895 he raised £65,000 towards diocesan projects, and by 1903 he had raised another £32,000 towards the cost of the cathedral.

Towards the end of his last visit, in 1901-1902, Webber became desperately ill. At one time it was thought unlikely that he would ever be able to retum to Australia. Despite doctors' predictions, however, his hope of ultimate recovery buoyed up his spirits. 'If nothing more, he hoped to be spared to come home to die'. 4 Because of his absence overseas, the 1902 Synod was postponed unfil 18 December 1902, by which fime it was expected Webber would have retumed. It met briefly, but Webber's illness detained him in England. It was sfill expected he would be well enough to retum early in the new year, so the Synod was adjoumed, and reconvened on 24-25 March 1903. Again the Synod met without its bishop, sfill detained in England by illness. It was not until 11 May 1903 that Webber arrived back.

During Webber's absences from Brisbane, the Venerable A. E. David, of Brisbane, acted as the Administrator of the diocese, but there was no episcopal oversight. Bishop Stretch, who had been appointed as bishop coadjutor in 1895, had taken up his new appointment to the of Newcastle in 1900. During Webber's absence confirmations were conducted by Bishop Dawes of Rockhampton, not altogether a satisfactory arrangement.

When the postponed 1902 Synod reconvened on 24 March 1903, David voiced his concern at Webber's failing health, and explored the possibility of appointing a coadjutor bishop with the right of succession. This, in his opinion, was the only reasonable approach to the problem as no priest would consider being consecrated to become bishop coadjutor of a diocese for what obviously would be a short and uncertain tenure of office. The problem was held in abeyance for further discussion at the next session of Synod, expected later in 1903.5

By April 1903, towards the end of his life, Webber, too, became aware that he would not be able to carry the heavy burden of duty much longer. Too ill to attend the

^ ChCh., 1 Sep 1903, p.20. ^ David to Montgomery, 14 Aug 1903, Society for the Propagation of the Gospel correspondence, [SPG letters] Rhodes House Library [RHL]. 5 Year Book of the Diocese of Brisbane [YB] 1902/03, p.21. 18 June 1903 Synod, Webber had David read to it a letter in which he proposed the appointment of a bishop coadjutor with the right of succession to the See. The letter was virtually a repetition of David's suggestions at the reconvened March 1903 session of the postponed 1902 Synod. Webber was not actually suggesting that nominations be made at that time. What he wanted was canonical provision for the appointment of a bishop coadjutor with provision for the right of succession. The Canon to Provide for the Appointment of Coadjutor Bishops of 1889 made no such provision. If Synod accepted this recommendation and nominations were made, the person appointed should be 'an exceptionally strong man'. Webber, for his part 'would not be unwilling to accept such a nominee of Synod, and should contemplate, if need be, an earlier resignation: and further, I would see that by this arrangement the diocese would not be put to any heavier expense on account of the bishop's infirmity'.

The 1903 Synod agreed in principle to this arrangement, 'provided that the nomination or delegation of the person to be so appointed vest in Synod'. The appointment was to be subject to suitable financial arrangements being made for the coadjutor bishop's maintenance. Synod instructed the Diocesan Council to prepare a suitable Canon which was to be presented to a special Synod to be convened for the purpose at a suitable time, after 1 October 1903. "^ Webber died before any action could be taken.

Death came quietly to Webber in the evening of 3 August 1903. 'His last conscious words repeated over and over again were "false hopes, false hopes".' ^ Webber had endured great illness and had retumed in the hope of seeing the Cathedral built. He died without his dream being realised.

Under the provisions of the 1890 Canon to Provide for the Election of Bishops, when a vacancy occurred in the See 'the person next in ecclesiastical rank in the diocese to the bishop' (in this case Archdeacon David) had to convene a special session of Synod 'on a day not less than forty or more than ninety days from the date of the issue [of the citation] thereof to elect a successor to the bishop'. At that session the clergy, if they wished to proceed with an election, were to submit to the President of the Synod, in writing, a list of the names of those whom they wished to nominate.

David considered bringing forward to the clergy the name of Bishop Harmer of Adelaide, who had recently passed through Brisbane, but who had not seen much

6 YB 1902/03, p. 124. •^ Ibid ^ David to Montgomery, 14 Aug 1903, S.P.G. letters, RHL. 19 of the place. His wife, however, had told Mrs David that his present intention was to spend another four years in Adelaide, and then retum to England. Despite this, David felt that an offer might prove acceptable and should be made. ^

The Reverend Bemard Wilson was also considered. Wilson, Vicar of Portsea, the largest and one of the more important parishes in England, had worked in Brisbane for only five years, retuming to England in 1890. The impact he made on the Church in Queensland, however, 'was out of all proportion to his short ministry in the colony', 'o Webber apparently wished Wilson to be his successor, " and at some time must have approached him about that possibility should the Coadjutor Canon be amended as envisaged. Shortly before Webber died, Wilson wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury for advice, to which Davidson replied:

If you were called now to one of our foremost dioceses, or to the Primacy of Australia, or of Canada, or of India, I should feel that, other things permitting, you were bound to go. I cannot, however, put Brisbane on that level... I dare not say that for Brisbane you ought to leave Portsea. '2

David, himself, had been an outstanding administrator during Webber's long visits overseas, and it might have been supposed that he would be the obvious choice as next bishop. In explaining the situation David wrote:

My own position is an uncommonly difficult one. People talk as though my election were a foregone conclusion, but I know the difficulties of the diocese only too well, and I shall do my utmost to try to secure the election of a better and stronger man, so that whatever happens one's own conscience may be clear. '^

After consulting the Diocesan Council, David fixed the date for the special session of Synod for 28 October 1903.'4 When Synod convened, the attendance was quite large: forty-nine clergy and sixty-nine laity answered the roll call. Shortly after the opening procedures, the Synod adjoumed to allow for private discussion. '5 Forty- seven clergy and sixty-three synodsmen were present when the Synod met at 4 p.m. next aftemoon. The clergy's list of nominees was presented, and as David had been nominated, (as had been Green of Ballarat and Stone-Wigg of New Guinea) he was imable to preside. As a consequence the Ven. A. R. Rivers, Archdeacon of Wide Bay and Bumett, took his place as President. On the second day, in addition to the members of Synod, both clerical and lay, 'a large number of the general public were present'. The Diocesan Treasurer, Edgar W. Walker, sought and received permission

9 David to Montgomery, 14 Aug 1903, S.P.G. letters, RHL. '0 K, D. Rayner, A History, p. 217. '' David to Montgomery, 14 Aug 1903, S.P.G. letters, RHL. 12 Davidson to Wilson, 14 Aug 1903, Archiepiscopal Correspondence [A. letters.] Lambeth Palace Library [LPL.]. '3 David to Montgomery, 14 Aug 1903, S.P.G. letters, RHL. ''* Diocesan Council Minutes [DCMins.], 6 Aug 1903. ^^ ChCh, I Dec 1903, p. 72. 20 to address Synod. He informed Synod that a meeting of the lay members had been held the previous evening, and they had agreed:

that the person nominated who should receive the highest number of votes at that meeting should be unanimously supported by the whole body ofthe laity; and he had to report that the Rt. Rev. Arthur Vincent Green, Lord Bishop of Ballarat, having received the majority of votes, would be unanimously supported by the lay members of Synod. 16

Frequent conferences followed, and eventually in addition to David, Green, and Stone-Wigg, the clergy nominated the Bishop of Adelaide (Harmer), the Bishop of Perth (Riley), Bishop Stretch (Dean of Newcastle), the Rev. W. O. Burrows (Vicar of Holy Trinity Church, Leeds, and Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Wakefield), the Rev. W. I. Carr-Smith (Sydney Diocese), and the Rev. J. H. J. Ellison (Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury). These names were on a sheet of paper signed by Rev. T. Jones, Rev. Canon E. C. Osbom, and the Ven. A. R. Rivers as representing the nominations by the clergy.'"^ Although Webber had preferred Wilson as his successor, Wilson's name was not put forward by the clergy, who wished to proceed to ballot. When the President read out the result of the ballot, he said that David had received a very large majority ofthe clergy votes. The result ofthe clergy vote was:

Archdeacon of Brisbane, David 40

Bishop of Ballarat, Green 29

Bishop of New Guinea, Stone-Wigg 16

Bishop of Adelaide, Harmer i

Bishop of Perth, Riley 4

Rev. J. H. Ellison 3

Rev. W. I. Carr-Smith I

Dean of Newcastle, Bishop Stretch I

Rev. W. O. Burrows §

Informal 1 '^

The laity, however, had given a majority to Green. The election process under the Canon was by exhaustive ballot until one nominee received an absolute majority

^^ Ibid. Although there is no record to indicate it, the laity's meeting may not have been unprecedented. When the clergy and laity could not agree upon a successor to Tufhell, appointment lapsed to the Australian bishops, under the existing Canon. •'7 Official Minutes ofthe Proceedings of Synod, 28 Oct 1903, AA. ^^Ibid 21 by both clergy and synodsmen. Although the first ballot was inconclusive it clearly showed that the clergy wanted the next bishop to be a man with Australian experience. With the exception of Ellison and Burrows, all the nominees were already in Australia. This preference was later to be overlooked by the Archbishop of Canterbury when the selection of the new bishop was delegated to him.

Synod faced a difficult task. As the laity were determined not to change their stated posifion, the clergy had two options. They could maintain their vote for David and force the Synod through six ballots after which time if there were no defections from either side so as to give a clear majority to one or other of the candidates, the appointment of a bishop would lapse to the Australian Bench of Bishops. On the other hand, after showing that David was their choice:

some of them would deem it for the well-being of the Church that they should transfer their votes to the other name and so escape a dead-lock and the consequent danger of a serious breach with the laity. ^^

A second ballot was held, the result of which showed that in the main the clergy were prepared to recede from their position to avoid a serious breach with the laity. The numbers were not made known to the public, but upon receiving the results from the scmtineers. Rivers called for all members of the Synod to rise, and then announced that Bishop Green had received a majority of votes of both clergy and laity, and was therefore elected Bishop of the Diocese of Brisbane.20 Green, who had not been consulted in the matter, might have been willing to accept the appointment to the See where he had recently been a priest. The people of Ballarat, however, had no intention of going through the upheaval of another election so soon after Green's election to Ballarat in 1900. They brought pressure to bear on him to decline the Brisbane appointment. The Minutes of the Diocesan Coimcil meeting of 12 November 1903 record that: 'The Archdeacon read a letter from the Bishop of Ballarat regretting his inability to accept the Bishopric of Brisbane and giving his reasons for the same'. 21

It was then resolved that a committee consisting of the entire Diocesan Council be formed 'for the purpose of preparing the nominations or taking such other steps as might be thought desirable'. The Diocesan Council met under the chairmanship of Ven. A. E. David. The meeting decided on a fiirther special meeting of Synod on 3 Febmary 1904 either to receive a progress report, or to ratify the

19' ,ChCh.. 1 Dec 1903, p. 73. ^^Ibid20 2' DCMins., 12 Nov 1903, AA. 22 appointment of the new bishop, if the Diocesan Council were successful in appointing one.

As Green was unable to accept the invitation, the meeting of the Diocesan Council on 12 November 1903, in accordance with the resolution just passed '... to take such steps as might be thought desirable', resolved that the Rev. Bemard Wilson of Portsea be cabled by the Administrator as follows: 'Diocese in difficulties, have unanimously elected will you accept Bishopric. Cable reply'. 22

At the same Diocesan Council meeting it was resolved that should Wilson decline, a circular be sent to all clergy asking them whether they favoured delegation to an appropriate authority, or continuation of the process of nomination, and if the latter, to give the name or names of their nominees.23 If delegation were decided upon, under the Canon the only persons to whom delegation could be made were the of Canterbury and York, and the .

At another special meeting of the Diocesan Council on 15 December 1903, David stated that he had received from Rev. B. R. Wilson the following cable: 'After anxious consideration must decline'. Wilson wrote to Canterbury expressing his views on the situation in Brisbane:

It is evident that these Brisbane laymen have rather kicked over the traces and they are now landed in a hole and want a little handling. The awkward thing is that having deliberately exhausted the Australian possibilities, they are now in a fix. 24

In Wilson's view delegation was the only course to follow: 'In any case the nomination must not go to the Australian Bench. That would be deplorable and wreck the whole concern'. Brisbane, he thought, was at present the strongest centre of Church life in Australia, and it would be:

a cruel thing if the tradition painfiilly impressed during 18 years of Bp Webber's administration should be flung away and the tone - which now stands very high - should be lowered, i.e., as to the standard of candidates, tone of clergy, etc.

He also suggested that Canterbury should write direct to David 'to strengthen his hands. A little papal authority would perhaps be wholesome at this moment'. 25

David wrote to Wilson expressing disappointment but understanding at Wilson's decision, and expressed the hope that Synod would decide on delegation as he did not want to mn the risk of another abortive election with the consequent

22 Ibid 23 Various Minutes Book, 12 Nov 1903, AA. 24 Wilson to Davidson, 4 Jan 1904, A. letters, LPL. 25 Ibid 23 dela\ s. The tendency of the laity was in the direcfion of seeing someone in Australia appointed to the post. If the matter went to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Synod might mention any strongly favoured names 'in such a way as not to fetter his discretion'. One example was Stone-Wigg, who would probably accept if Wilson, Montgomery, 26 or the Archbishop of Sydney advised him to do so. 27

In accordance with the resolution of the previous meeting of the Diocesan Council, David sent a circular to all the clergy: replies were received from only twenty-six. Of these, fifteen were for delegafion, and eleven nominated David. Of those for delegafion, two suggested that the Bishop of London, Winnington Ingram, be asked to choose. One suggested that the name of the Rev. J. H. J. Ellison be mentioned to whoever delegation was given. Two suggested that David, rather than the clergy, become the nominator, a suggesfion he declined. 28

Considerable discussion followed, and it was resolved that the Treasurer be requested to call a meeting of laymen on 12 January 1904, and that a circular be sent asking laymen if unable to attend the meeting, to write and state whether they were in favour of election or delegation. The meeting was to be held in All Saints' schoolroom, Ann Street. 29

The Diocesan Council committee, appointed to prepare the business for the special session of Synod on 3 Febmary 1904, met on 21 January 1904 in the Diocesan Registry. Walker, the Treasurer, informed the meeting that he had sent out the circular as directed and a meeting had been held. The results were nineteen for election and thirty-nine for delegation, and the meeting of the laity recommended to the special meeting of Synod that delegation be made to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 30

Prior to the Febmary Synod meeting David wrote an explanatory letter to Davidson expressing his hope that 'the English connexion' would be maintained, and went on to say that he was convinced that in the interests of the diocese he should resign on the arrival of the new bishop. One of the deplorable results of an open election by Synod 'is that it leaves behind soreness and a tendency to party spirit'. He could see this, he said, operating distinctly among the clergy; and among the laity, especially outside Synod, 'there is a strong feeling of antagonism at what has been done'. Because of his long and close association with Webber, David was seen by

2° Montgomery, formerly Bishop of Tasmania, then Secretary General of S.P.G. 27 David to Wilson, 1 Feb 1904, A. letters, LPL. 28 Various Minutes Book, 15 Dec 1903, AA. 29/i,rf. 30 Various Minutes Book, 21 Jan 1904, AA. 24 some as a 'Webber man', and thus likely to have a strong influence in the diocese. It was possibly for this reason that the laity did not vote for him but instead plumped for Green. If he departed from the diocese, the sore would be quickly healed, but if he stayed it would make difficulfies for himself as well as others. He considered that the continuity of the diocese would not be affected, as Archdeacon Rivers had been there for twelve years, and the Treasurer had been in office for about eight years. There would be no shortage of capable advisers to the new bishop.^i

Attached to the above letter was a private report on what David considered were the qualifications for the new bishop. As Brisbane was soon likely to become a metropolitical See, the new man should be a leader of other bishops. Preferably he should be married: 'A good wife here would be of untold assistance. The women have had no ecclesiastical head. A woman's influence among them is sorely needed'. Social work had largely been left in the hands of the Salvation Army, although something had been done lately in this direction. A bishop experienced in social work 'would have a great opportunity'. Episcopal support was needed for the sisterhood, (The Society of the Sacred Advent), which ran an orphanage, a rescue home, a women's shelter, and an industrial workshop, all of which were in their infancy.

The special session of Synod on 3 Febmary 1904, confirmed the Diocesan Council's recommendation to delegate the appointment to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and on 4 February 1904 David cabled to Davidson: 'Synod authorises you make appointment Bishopric income one thousand formal confirmation Synod action by Australian bishops certain'. 32 Davidson accepted the task of finding a bishop.

Meanwhile, Wilson, despite Davidson's earlier advice to him, felt some misgivings about his refusal. He wrote to Davidson on 31 January 1904: 'I feel a most absolute worm and I tmst your Grace will forgive me if I wriggle'. He had heard from Stone-Wigg (Bishop of New Guinea) who was obviously hoping that he, himself, would be considered for Brisbane. In the event Stone-Wigg's name was not put forward. 'But', Wilson told Davidson, 'is it right to ignore the strong appeal from the poor old chap who is killing himself by inches in that beastly climate?' 33

Wilson thought that if the Synod persisted in election, eliminating all the good men, 'the situation is lost' and if the laymen referred it to the Australian bishops 'no good result is likely'. Wilson's disquiet arose from the possibility of another deadlock occurring: by accepting the offer he could save it, and his conscience would be

3' David to Davidson, 23 Jan 1904, A.letters, LPL. 32 DCMins., 11 Feb 1904, AA. 33 Wilson to Davidson, 31 Jan 1904, A. letters, LPL. 25 touched if he did not make the effort to try to avoid a stalemate. He suggested to Davidson in his letter of 31 January 1904 that a loophole might be given to David by sending a cable on the following lines: 'If Synod still adheres to election in last resort Wilson would go if choice unanimous'. 34 Davidson did not accept Wilson's suggestion.

Montgomery attempted to influence matters, and in his letter of 5 Febmary 1904, urged Davidson to accept the task of selecting a new bishop, and expressed regret that Synod had rejected Dawes (Bishop of Rockhampton).35 Montgomery, too, had his ideas on what some of the new bishop's qualifications should be. In his letter of 5 Febmary 1904, attached to which was his aforementioned memorandum of 6 Febmary, he wrote:

It is a very important post, and needs a man of spiritual rather than financial attainments to balance the late Bishop. The person chosen will be an archbishop soon. He ought to be a missionary-hearted man because (1) the late Bishop was in no wise this; (2) because the Archbishop of Brisbane has in his Province two of the greatest missionary bishops in the world, Carpentaria and New Guinea,...and the Province is wholly missionary. All the great 'alien' problems are in Queensland and the Northern Territory which is now in Carpentaria. 36

Genuinely devoted to his office as a bishop, Webber lived only for his work, but Montgomery explained that he had said some disagreeable things about Webber, merely to show the kind of person the new bishop should be. He should be 'a great missionary personality', and New Guinea was within his Province. (Montgomery was looking to the future as the Province of Queensland had not been formed at that time.) The new man would probably have great weight with the State govemment. Because the episcopal sfipend was small (£1,000), with a large house and grounds to keep up, and with very extensive travelling to be done without any allowance for travelling expenses, it was not a post for a married man. Montgomery concluded this summary of qualifications by saying: 'The climate is hot. It requires the grace of God in fiill measure for an Englishman to go and to stay'. 37

A. A. Orme, Secretary to the Diocesan Coimcil, who was in England during February 1904, made an appointment to see Davidson, 38 at which meeting he offered his services, if they could be used, to suggest the names of likely candidates for Brisbane. Davidson declined the offer, and later wrote to Orme saying that as the

34 Ibid 35 This was the first time Dawes's name had been mentioned. The Synod may have looked at Dawes, or this may have been Montgomery's own thoughts on the subject. 36 Montgomery to Davidson, 5 Feb 1904, A. letters, LPL. 37 Montgomery to Davidson, 6 Feb 1904, A. letters, LPL 38 Orme to Davidson, 10 Feb 1904, A. letters, LPL. 26 Synod had delegated the appointment to him, it presumably wanted someone 'uncormected with the region itself 39

Davidson approached the Rev. St Clair George Alfred Donaldson, Rector of Homsey, whom he knew personally. Although why Davidson chose Donaldson is not clear, it might be assumed that his friendship with Donaldson, Donaldson's comparative youth, and his presidency of the London Junior Missionary Association might have swayed his thinking. The Province of Queensland, when it was declared, would hold within it several missionary dioceses, and would require the supervision of a man who might be expected to remain as archbishop for some years. In response to Davidson's approach Donaldson wrote:

I have tried to give your Grace's suggestion the earnest consideration which it demands. But two obstacles stand in the way of my going further in the matter.

(1)1 have four times already refused to go abroad on account of my mother; and the circumstances are not changed now. I do not know whether this reason commends itself to your Grace. But I feel as assured as it is possible to feel about anything, that I decided rightly on this point in 1901.

(2) I found when I came here [Homsey] that there is a very great deal to be done to set things in order: and if I left now, my two years here would have been well nigh useless.

I think I can honestly say that this answer is one that I write with pain. But I feel I can take no other line. Under these circumstances I ought not to trouble your Grace to see me, but I will come of course if you wish it. "^^

Davidson's powers of persuasion prevailed and Donaldson's reluctance was overcome. In his letter of 28 April 1904:

I write to say that I will undertake the work in Brisbane which your Grace has offered. May God who as I believe has led me to this decision give me the grace to carry the commission through to the end.

Donaldson requested that the news be not made public until he had informed his family.41 His appointment was greeted with universal approval by the churchpeople of Brisbane, clerics and laity alike.

In a letter to David, Davidson wrote:

39 Davidson to Orme, 23 Feb 1904, A. letters, LPL. ^*^ Donaldson to Davidson, 22 Mar 1904, A. letters, LPL. Donaldson's reply to Davidson contradicts a passage in Dimot and Batty, Donaldson, p.30, which reads: From 1902 to 1904 he [Donaldson] was Rural Dean of Homsey. But his thoughts were now definitely turning to the possibility of giving his service to the Church overseas. He became Chairman of the London Junior Missionary Association, and told his friends that he was only waiting for the arrival of the right moment to offer himself to be sent wherever the Church might need him. This was no new or sudden resolve... ^^ Donaldson to Davidson, 28 Apr 1904, A. letters, LPL. 27 I am more and more convinced that he is the very man for the position. His experience, his strength of character, his total freedom from any partisan views, added to his intense personal devotion, and the buoyancy and energy of his temperament, mark him out as a man who ought to do admirable work as a bishop in a great colony. ''^

David told the 1904 Synod that after careful consideration he had already forwarded his resignation to the bishop-elect, in order that the happy relations then existing in the diocese would not be imperilled. •*3 He had been a great administrator, but the last few years had been an enormous strain on him. The diocese had been pracfically without an episcopal head for several years, and he himself had been busy with the theological college and other matters. A few weeks after Donaldson's arrival in Brisbane, Archdeacon A. E. David left the diocese and retumed to England. Unfil his death in 1915, David remained as one of Donaldson's commissaries in England.

When preparations for the enthronement and reception of the new Bishop of Brisbane were put in hand. Mrs Boyd, President of the Girls' Friendly Society, was asked to undertake the organisation of providing refreshments. ^4 A setback came, however, when a meeting of lady representatives of the parishes told Mrs Boyd that it was impossible for the parishes to provide the refreshments, or to raise funds for the same. '^^ After a discussion as to whether the reception should take the form of 'a conversazione or a free public meeting' the Diocesan Council decided on the latter. 46 The Exhibition Concert Hall was engaged for the night of the reception, and tickets priced at 6d. each were sent to the various parishes for sale. Sir Samuel Griffith, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and formerly Premier of Queensland, was invited to preside, and failing him, the Premier. Neither the Chief Justice nor the Premier was able to attend, and the Attomey-General, Mr. J. W. Blair (later Sir James Blair) presided. '•^ The decorafions of the hall, arranged by the Rev. S. C. Harris, Organising Secretary of the Board of Missions and Educational Work, and Mr R. S. Dods, Diocesan Architect, consisted of 'ropes of greenery round the gallery, and barmers and palms on the platform'. '^^

At Donaldson's enthronement on 21 December 1904 there were about 600 people present in the church which had been designed to hold about 400. The temperature that day was 103 degrees Fahrenheit. The Primate, W. Saumarez Smith

"^2 Dimont & Batty., Donaldson, p. 34. '*3 YB 1904, pp. 49-50. '*'* DCMins., 11 Nov 1904, AA. 45 The incident is unimportant in itself but serves to illustrate either the impecunious state of the diocese or the unwillingness of Anglicans generally to give. It was a problem which continued throughout and beyond Donaldson's eoisconate ^"DCMins, 21N0V 1904,AA. H ^^upaic. 4"^ Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.39. ^^Ibid 28 and all the bishops of the future province were present. The State was represented by the Lieutenant Govemor (Sir Hugh Nelson), the Chief Justice (Sir Pope A. Cooper), and the Premier (Hon. A. Morgan). All but six of the fifty-three priests in the diocese attended the service. 49

That evening at his welcome Donaldson made a good impression. According to Batty, whoever reported the event in the Church Chronicle noted that Donaldson had 'the gift of conveying much in a few words'. He had 'a fine, round voice, and an absolutely natural and self-unconscious manner', so in reply to a speech of welcome by a Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Sweyn Macqueen, Donaldson quickly made it known that he at least did not perceive the Church of England in Australia and Tasmania as the established church: 'Here the Church of England is a denomination among other Christian denominations.' He would gladly take up the challenge Mr Macqueen had laid down, he said, 'that here, men are to be judged, not by the trappings, not by the extemals of their office but for what they are really worth', ^i In the years ahead, Donaldson had to prove that he was in every way worthy of the challenge.

The speeches of welcome, as reported in the Brisbane Courier, were full of the usual platitudes, but told nothing of the man himself. For that it is necessary to look elsewhere. The Rev. Sir Paget Bowman, who worked under Donaldson at the Eton Mission, recalled that:

I always held him in the greatest respect. He was about the strongest character I ever met, but he was very reserved and seldom let himself go. I think he was the most self-disciplined man I ever came across... He was always very kind and pleasant, and came to the common room of the Eton House for meals. But he never came to our rooms, and only met the staff on Monday mornings for business. He sat with us all on Sunday nights after supper when Fuller and I had to read to him Alice in Wonderland, or Dickens, when he smoked a long-stemmed pipe, till he fell asleep. He was a prodigious worker...^^

The traits of self-discipline, kindness and affability, and detachment in personal relationships he brought with him to Australia, but the latter quality made him appear to be somewhat aloof and prevented him from making many close fiiends. At times it seemed to lead to great loneliness. To the public Donaldson had always seemed bright and happy, but Donaldson's apparent cheerfiil disposition concealed a feeling of depression.

49 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.38. S^ Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.42. 5' Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.40. S2 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p. 21. 29 Some time after her retum to England in 1912, and before Donaldson's forthcoming visit, Mrs Lawley, his sister May, who with her husband 53 had spent nearly twelve months in Brisbane with her brother, went to see Winnington Ingram, Bishop of London, who was impressed by her comments expressing disquiet at her brother's state of mind. Winnington Ingram apparently passed on to the Archbishop of Canterbury something of Mrs Lawley's concem. Davidson enquired of the Bishop of London, 'Do you really think it is desirable that I sh: aid suggest to the Prime Minister to offer Donaldson a home bishopric'? He thought that such an offer would place Donaldson in a false position, especially if it came with their backing. Donaldson had gone to Australia, he said, 'after much deliberation with a sense of a definite call'. His sister had been 'violently opposed' to Donaldson's going to Australia. She had told the Archbishop of Canterbury that she would never speak to him again, because he had encouraged it. 'I did not take this seriously', he said, 'but she did'. Although Donaldson was a dear friend, Davidson thought he should not suggest such a change, and Donaldson was doing 'a great work in Australia'. What was London's opinion? 54 London replied:

Mrs Lawley gave me the most glowing account of the state in which she and her husband found Donaldson on arrival. So depressed, and uninterested that he did not seem even glad to see them. 'He has not had a man of education or a real gentleman to talk to for years. He was afraid of coming home as it was so awfijl to contemplate going back', and so on. 55

Davidson replied to the Bishop of London that he would better be able to judge after Donaldson had been to stay, in the near future, but his present feeling was that he at least could not initiate the suggestion that he 'should give up the work to which he went so solerrmly at our request and with our benediction'. 56

Even allowing for an affectionate sister's perhaps slightiy biased assessment of the situation, a letter to a fiiend in England before he retumed for the 1920 Lambeth Conference throws some light on his feelings of personal isolation. To Lady Elizabeth Babbington Smith he wrote:

I am rather dreading my visit to England next year. For one thing the Lambeth Conference is bound to be an anxious exacting affair. That underneath all else is a horrible sense of darkness and loss of interest in English things, which seems to grow on one after the years of exile. Better a thousand times to be home-sick and remembering all the time, than to forget and be content with exile. And yet you can't throw yourself into new work - to expressing a ... as my work here without trying to

5^ The Hon., the Rev. Algernon Lawley, Prebendary St Paul's Cathedral, and later third Baron Wenlock. 54 Davidson to Winnington Ingram, 30 Dec 1913, A. letters, LPL. 55 Winnington Ingram to Davidson, 1 Jan 1914, A. letters, LPL. 5° Davidson to Winnington Ingram, 3 Jan 1914, A. letters,LPL. 30 think of the old dear things at home. So the prospect of reawakening is formidable. 57

How did Donaldson see himself? 'I am not, I believe, by nature a controversialist or propagandist. I am slow to take a side at all. My danger is indolence and timidity and softness. Therefore let me seek the manly, prompt, direct decision of Saul'. 58 Further aspects of his character are revealed in his Meditations:

Often opposition or persecution arises from some action of ours, which is more than we expected or bargained for. But often, too, such opposition is the avenue of epoch-making advances to the Glory of God, if only we will go through with it.

The difficulty is not so much lack of courage. 1 think, but of steadfastness of mind: one is haunted by the fear of being overpersuaded. of changing one's opinion under stress of opposition. 59

But St Paul shows here that human affairs cannot be rightly conducted without compromise and exceptions. Such concessions are not weakness: they are recognition of the facts, of human life. ^^

After his enthronement there was little time for Donaldson to draw breath before being plunged into the business of miming the diocese. The day-to-day administration Donaldson considered to be a dull job. It was not one of his favourite pursuits, nevertheless he saw the necessity of it:

Administration may seem in itself a colourless non-moral department of life. But negatively it is altogether on the moral side: it prevents evil. The inevitable tendency of human society is towards decay and confiision and dissolution, unless there is a watchful eye and ready hand to correct and adjust details every day.^'

Within the first six months of 1905 Donaldson travelled widely within the diocese, and presided over his first diocesan Synod in May 1905 which allowed him to form opinions which he was quick to convey to the Archbishop of Canterbury:

That Synod certainly marked an era for me. It was my first public appearance (five months after my arrival), and I learned a great deal durmg the week of the people I had to deal with, and they learned a great deal more about me. It was very encouraging. A good spirit prevailed. ^^

The people were friendly and expansive as 'they are no longer mled by King Stork. Bishop Webber was, I fear, terribly unpopular; and it is said all round that his unpopularity hindered the work, and closed men's pockets'. ^3

5'7 Donaldson to Lady Elizabeth Babington Smith, 13 Aug 1919, TLC. 58 Donaldson, St Clair, A Meditation on the Acts of the Apostles: studied with a view to Church Extension (London; Faber and Faber, 1937), p.40. 5^ Donaldson, St Clair, A Meditation, p.46 [short citation]. ^^ Donaldson, St Clair, A Meditation, p.73. ^' Donaldson, St Clair, A Meditation p. 40. ^2 Donaldson to Davidson, 12 Jun 1905, A. letters, LPL. ^^ Ibid. 'King Stork' - An oppressively active ruler (O.D.) 31 There were no contentious subjects for discussion at Synod, and Donaldson's presidential address was brief After such a short time in office he had hardly had time to grasp all the intricate strands of administration which required his attention and understanding, a point he made himself ^"^ Perhaps the two most pressing matters at Synod were the tabling and accepting of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Province of Queensland Committee, and the passing of the Bishop Election Canon. These two acts cleared the way, so far as the Diocese of Brisbane was concemed, for the formation of the province.

When Donaldson arrived in Brisbane late in 1904 there was only one ecclesiastical province in Australia; New South Wales. The Province of Victoria was soon to be proclaimed, and the groundwork for the establishment of the Province of Queensland was well advanced. There were ample reasons for its formation:

It was the traditional unit of ecclesiastical organisation from very early days of the Church; it provided a safeguard against unbridled diocesanism, which was always a threat in the Australian Church, where strong-willed bishops and clergy were prone in their comparative isolation to initiate and cultivate particular diocesan interests and customs. "^

Furthermore, a province provided the means by which the Church 'could speak with a imited voice on matters of public concern'. ^^

Provincial formation was contingent upon the federation of a minimum of three dioceses. In 1904 there were three other dioceses in Queensland, Rockhamption, North Queensland, and Carpentaria, and one in New Guinea, where churchmanship was of a similar kind, a factor in producing the extraordinary cohesiveness of the Province of Queensland when it was proclaimed in 1905.

Donaldson's enthronement had provided an opportunity for the diocesan bishops to meet in conference at Church House on 13, 14, and 17 December 1904 to consider a draft provincial constitution prepared by the Chancellor of the Diocese of North Queensland, his Honour Mr Justice Chubb. ^V David had urged Donaldson to have matters put forward at the 1905 diocesan Synod so that they could be presented for ratification to the General Synod in October 1905:

The Primate is opposed to the formation of a Province for Queensland and will try to block the movement. Consequently everything should be ready some time before General Synod which meets in October next year, so that, if need be, an appeal can

64 YB 1905, p.32. 65 K. D. Rayner, A History, p.273. 66 Ibid 67 ChCh., 2 Oct 1905, p.89. 32 be made to that body. The Primate has no discretionary power in the matter and must be forced to submit the proposals for the formation of a Province to the bishops of Australia and Tasmania. He is inclined to assume a power which under General Synod he does not possess. He must be kept to the strict terms of the Determination. 68

David's apprehension might have stemmed in part from the actions of the Primate of New Zealand who had usurped some of the powers of his own bishops. Frodsham, too, was concemed with the attitude of the Primate. He wrote to Montgomery:

I hear from David that you have been troubled, not unnaturally, by the attitude of the Primate towards the Queensland Province. I see that he has put the matter down to be discussed at the meeting of Bishops, but 1 do not anticipate that they will stand out against a united Queensland. We are getting all things in order as though no difficulty existed. I made a protest against his unfair treatment of the provincial question as Metropolitan of New South Wales ... ""

The Primate's long-standing aversion to the formation of provinces was well known. In 1892 Montgomery spoke to his diocesan Synod of the desirability of forming a province, which he suggested should comprise the dioceses of Tasmania, Melboume, Adelaide, and Ballarat. His suggestion was not favourably received by all the dioceses:

Ballarat heartily concurred; Adelaide was only luke-warm; and Melboume was distinctly against the idea. The Primate, too, thought that forming provinces was to be deprecated. '"

The Church in Queensland was perceived by the more conservative elements of the Church in the Diocese of Sydney to be of rather 'advanced churchmanship'. The influence of a united fi-ont being presented by an Anglo-Catholic bloc in Queensland, and 'the provisions of the proposed provincial constitution' might well have seemed intimidating to the Primate. ^^

The main objection to federation in Queensland concemed the election process of the successive Bishops of Brisbane. If the Bishop of Brisbane were to become Metropolitan of the province (and assume the title of Archbishop), then it was only fair that all the dioceses in the province should have a say in the election of any future Metropolitan. In his charge to the 1905 Synod, Donaldson explained that '... most people will agree that since the Bishop of Brisbane will have metropolitical rights over the affairs of the province, the dioceses through their bishops ought to have some voice in his election. In my opinion our rights are fairly and justly

6° David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. 69 Frodsham to Montgomery, 17 Oct 1905, S.P.G. letters, RHL Geoffrey Stephens, The Anglican Church in Tasmania. A Diocesan History to mark the Sesquicentenary 1992 (Hobart: Trustees of the Diocese, 1991), p.117. ^1 K. D. Rayner, A History, p.275. 33 safeguarded'. ^- The proposal was for the Brisbane diocesan Synod to elect a committee to act conjointly with a committee appointed by the bishops of the province, 'and that these should proceed to elect by concurrent majorities'. ^^ in his notes to Donaldson, David expressed the opinion that there would be no opposition to such an amendment to the Brisbane diocesan constitufion. Heeding Donaldson's words, the Synod adopted such a canon to Provide for the Election of Bishops. Under the new canon a hiatus similar to that between Webber's death and the appointment of Donaldson was never likely to recur.

Under the guidance of Frodsham, Bishop of North Queensland, the above formula overcame that diocese's objections. The other dioceses of the province-to-be had also to ratify the provisions of the provisional constitufion, and then the approval of the Australian bishops had to be obtained. In the unlikely event that consent was not forthcoming the matter would be referred to General Synod. The matter would only go to General Synod if a majority of the bench of Australian bishops rejected the Queensland proposal. The Primate did not have the right of veto, and apart from persuading the bishops to his point of view, and thus having the matter aired in General Synod, there was little he could do. A defeat in General Synod would have been a great loss to the presfige of the Primacy. In the event, a majority of Australian bishops agreed to the formation of the Province of Queensland.

In due course the various amendments to the proposed constitution were validated by the respective authorities, and at the Diocesan Council meeting of 7 September 1905 Donaldson reported that the Primate had advised him that a sufficient number of consents had been given by the bishops of Australia and Tasmania to enable the Province of Queensland to be formed, and that the Primate and he had signed the declaration re the formation of the Ecclesiastical Province of Queensland and that the document had been sent to the other Queensland bishops for their signature. '^^

The Determination of General Synod of 1896 had conferred the title of Archbishop on the Metropolitan of a province, but despite the urging of churchmen generally, and Montgomery in particular, Donaldson had been most reluctant to accept the title because he felt it was pretentious, having regard to the size of Queensland's population. While he thought that eventually Brisbane would become an archiepiscopal see, it was yet too small. He appealed to the Archbishop of

"^2 YB 1905, p.42. David to Donaldson, Notes,AA. '^'^ DCMins 34 Canterbury ^^ who advised him to accept the title as did the bishops during private meetings before General Synod in October. Despite this he was still somewhat reluctant: 'I still feel that Queensland is rather near the line of absurdity (in Euclid's sense) in taking to itself an Archbishop. But perhaps it is just above the line'. ^^ Wise counsel prevailed, however, and at the Diocesan Council meeting on 9 November 1905 Donaldson informed its members that the declaration of the formation of the province had been signed by all the diocesan bishops concerned. He read a notification from the Primate of Australia declaring him to be his Gi^ace, Archbishop of Brisbane. The Rev. T. Jones on behalf of the clergy, and Mr G. Eddington on behalf of the laity 'expressed great satisfaction at the action taken by his Grace. The Council very heartily concurred'. ^^

Another milestone was passed in October 1906 when the first provincial Synod of Queensland was held. The establishment of the province had proceeded smoothly and was a credit to all concemed. The main business was the passing of a canon To Constitute the Provincial Synod of Queensland. Despite its importance only scant reference was made to the forthcoming provincial Synod in Donaldson's 1906 diocesan presidential address, and he made no reference to it in his charge to the 1907 Synod. The Church Chronicle, however, recorded its approbation: 'The Synod is to be congratulated upon what it did not do as well as upon what it did. In the first place it showed no sign of any tendency to disunion or inter-diocesan jealousy'. It was also to be congratulated on 'curbing any tendency to over-legislation'. ^^ The Synod did not involve itself with 'delicate ecclesiastical points' but 'confined itself to such technical legislation as was necessary for the efficient working of the industry'. ^^

Inherent in his appointment were a number of matters to be resolved. The training of a native ministry was high on Donaldson's list of priorities, as was education, and the building of the Cathedral. On the national level Donaldson recognised the need to reform General Synod and the Australian Board of Missions, the achievement of autonomy for the Church in Australia, and reunion with other Churches. Throughout Donaldson's episcopate he spent much time in trying to remedy the two greatest deficiencies, the shortage of clergy, and the state of diocesan finances.

^5 Donaldson to Davidson, 12 Jun 1905, A. letters, LPL. ^^ Donaldson to Davidson, 17 October 1905, A. letters, LPL. •^•^ DCMins., 9 Nov. 1905. ''^ ChCh., 1 Nov 1906, p.77. ^^Ibid 35 CHAPTER IV

GENTLEMEN OF THE CLOTH

The Diocese of Brisbane covered an area of 542 030 square kilometres, and its population, according to the census taken on 1 April 1901 was 328 320. Thirty-seven per cent of the population nominally were Church of England. In 1901 there were fifty-eight priests in the diocese and one himdred and thirteen churches to accommodate 19 978 people.' To cater for their spiritual needs in 1905 there were fifty-two clergy and one himdred and forty churches with accommodation for 21 684 people.2

The clergy, almost without exception, were the products of English universities and theological colleges, and their churchmanship was usually of the more 'advanced' kind. Their training had exposed them to the effects of the nineteenth century catholic revival in the Church of England, and they had adopted tractarian principles as expounded by the Oxford reformers in their Tracts for the Times, 'doctrines which for years past had been virtually forgotten in the Anglican Church'. 3 'Too enthusiastically English', was Webber's opinion in 1900. ^

In 1904 there were in the diocese fifty-four priests of whom seventeen held the degree of Master of Arts, eight of which were from Cambridge, seven from Oxford, one from London, and one from Durham. Eight held the degree of Bachelor of Arts, of which three were from Cambridge, two from Durham, two from Oxford, and one from London. Three had graduated as A.K.C., (Theological Associate of King's College, London). Four priests held the award of Th.L. (Licentiate of Theology).^ As is sometimes the case, the ideas were way ahead of the practice, but the churchpeople within the diocese were not always in tune with catholic practices in their services. In some parishes there was a strong 'low church' element which existed for many years. ^

Donaldson's inheritance, so far as the quality of the clergy was concemed, was rather better than that of his predecessor. In 1905 there were fifty-two priests and

' yB1901,p.3. 2 KB 1905, p.3. 3 K. D. Rayner, A History, p.6 [short citation]. 4 YB 1900, p.3 5. 5 ra 1904, pp. 12-13. ^ In 1924, for example, at the Brisbane synod, there was a stormy debate over changes in ritual, and when talking to a visiting clergyman from Brisbane after Archbishop Wand's retum to England in 1943, Wand remarked that of high church' practices which were still not accepted entirely by Anglicans in the diocese, he really had had not much trouble with the wearing of vestments The real problem was lights on the altar. (Interview with Rev. S. Cowen, 19 Jan 1990). 36 one hundred and forty churches with accommodation for 21 684.^ The clergy on the whole were not efficient, although there were certainly some outstanding men, and the clergy were not numerically sufficient for such a widespread and diversified diocese. David told Donaldson that numerically the diocese was 'desperately weak' and there were 'some black spots' but on the whole the standard was 'universally high', 8 an opinion Donaldson was later to revise.

Webber came 'to a very rough and disorganised diocese full of bad and useless clergy, and financially to pieces. He cleaned out something like 20 inferior clergy and then manned the diocese with a really excellent set of men',9 but relations between Webber and his clergy during the last few years of his life were not always happy, and according to Montgomery ' ... most of the clergy have got to hate the bishop'. 1^ After Webber's death, David, in a letter to Montgomery, wrote:

It was a true instinct that brought him back here to die, because both directly and indirectly it made for reconciliation. He was able to see a good many of those who had become alienated, and people generally seemed to understand him better through the grim struggle of the last few months. It has done the Church good."

One of Donaldson's immediate concems was bridge-building between clergy and bishop. Webber's death opened the way for a fresh start.

Bishop Montgomery, General Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, in London, and formerly Bishop of Tasmania, in a memorandum written to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the See of Brisbane, thought Webber to have been devoted and hard working, but a man who had 'an English view of the clergy needed for the diocese'. When clergy went to see Webber on spiritual questions, they felt he was bored. 'I don't think he ever took a quiet day', said Montgomery. 'I don't think he could have. His love of missions was only "official".' To Montgomery, however, Webber had always been most affectionate, and Montgomery was able to see 'his best side'. 12

In Montgomery's opinion Webber 'more or less deprecated the training of colonial clergy' and 'obtained yoimg and able English priests' to go out to Brisbane for five years. '3 Montgomery considered it a great mistake that the diocese was almost entirely staffed in this way:

"^ ra 1901, pp.10-1 Land 75 1905, p.3. David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. Undated. Donaldson to Davidson, 12 Jun 1905, AA. '0 Montgomery to Davidson, 6 Feb 1904, A. letters, LPL. j' David to Montgomery, 14 Aug 1903, S.P.G.Letters, RHL. *2 Montgomery to Davidson, 6 Feb 1904, A.letters, LPL, Montgomery's viewpoint is somewhat at odds with Webber's remark about the clergy being 'too English' ysi900 p 35 37 The laity complained that they were a practising shop for English clergy to gain colonial experience. The clergy have been a rope of sand. 14

Webber had thought of the foundation of a 'Foreign Service Order' of young clergy, who would give five years' service in the colonies, and in 1894 gave a paper on the subject at the Anglican Missionary Conference. Under this scheme English clergy spent two years in an English parish after ordination, and then contracted to go to a colonial diocese for five years. Many young clergy who were not prepared to offer themselves for an indefinite period of overseas service, saw the serving of a limited period in colonial service as a stepping stone to high preferment upon their retum to England. Webber insisted on his recmits being unmarried, which meant that there were no difficulties such as family ties, in sending them to country parishes. One of the benefits of having an imported clergy, however, was the infusion of new ideas which emanated from them.'^ The 'five year plan' was continued for many years, and its use was extended to newly ordained clergy in Queensland.

Donaldson was seized with the gravity of the clergy shortage, and stressed the matter in his inaugural address to Synod in 1905. If the Church were to do her work 'of witness and education' the essential requirement would be 'an adequate staff of clergy'. The scarcity of men in the diocese at present amounts to a crisis', he said. There had been a leakage going on for some time past, and new recruits had been 'disastrously few'. Young men were drawn to more financially rewarding professions, and parents were disinclined or unable in some cases to support their sons until such times as they were receiving a living wage after ordination. In England a scarcity of candidates was also causing great anxiety, (a fact noted by the 1908 Lambeth Conference), and there was an incessant demand upon the English clergy from the whole world. Donaldson believed that the training of a native clergy was the long- term solution, but in the meantime, the only way to overcome the present shortage of clergy was to attract them from England. Some clergy from England would be coming out from time to time, 'and we shall hail their advent with delight, but we must lay our plans for a native ministry, and nothing but a native ministry, carefully selected and adequately trained, can supply our need'. '^ Donaldson was not alone in this. Bishop Thomas of Adelaide told his Synod in 1907, 'Our first need is an enthusiastic, sympathetic, cultured, educated South Australian Ministry'. •'^ Donaldson was corrmiitted to the idea of a national Church, and for this to be tmly

•'^ Montgomery to Davidson, 6 Feb 1904, A letters, LPL •5 K.D.Rayner, A History, p.213. •6 YB 1905, p.34. '^ David Hilliard, Godliness and Good Order - A History of the Anglican Church in South Australia (Netley, South Australia: Wakefield Press, 1986), p.59. 38 'national' he believed it must be staffed by a clergy of Australians, trained in Australia, with an Australian outlook. Donaldson had seen the Church in Ireland become independent, and New Zealand was also pushing for independence. Just as children grow up and became independent of their parents, so the Church in new nations should become independent, he believed, and yet remain in communion with the mother Church. He was also aware of the drawbacks which came with an established Church, where the Church was subordinate to govemment authority. Donaldson's ideas received support but with some reservations, from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Donaldson pointed out that one of the difficulties in securing men from home, if they could be got, was the uncertainty of the amount of stipend in any parish, and even when a fixed amoimt had been agreed, there was no guarantee that it would be forthcoming. In country parishes, in times of drought or other natural set-backs, stipends were often reduced or not paid. Frequently the amount paid depended upon the character and personality of the man involved. Indeed in some cases, where the incumbent for some reason or other failed to please the parishioners, the stipend was withheld, or paid on a very reduced scale. This was extremely unbusinesslike, and was to be found in no other profession. The system of direct payment by result was a system 'which in spiritual things works disaster'. The clergy were driven to resort to popular methods:

They are tempted - I do not say that they yield to the temptation - 'to prophesy smooth things, prophesy deceits', and the people are tempted to rest content if the services are well conducted and successful, and to forget that the object of all is the glory of God and the deepening of the spiritual life.'^

In many cases a private income was almost a necessity for a priest to maintain any standard of living.

One example of the difficulties produced by the non-payment of stipends was to be found at the Trinity Church, Fortitude Valley. The Rector, Rev. J. Spooner, wished to resign his , and the arrears in his stipend amounted to about £700. He indicated to his churchwarden that he would resign 'on receiving a simi not exceeding £500 in liquidation of the arrears of stipend'. i9 Three months later the warden wrote to inform the Archbishop of the current state of the situation: 'So far only between £60 and £70 has been collected, mostiy in promises, as the collectors

•8 YB 1905, p.36. '^ Bland to Donaldson, 12 Sep 1905, AA. 39 were unwilling to accept cash for a specific purpose when there seemed but small prospect of the end being obtained'. 20

Another example of the financial problems which beset the diocese in paying the clergy, was illustrated by Archdeacon Rivers. The St George area had practically been without services for three years, until the Gayndah Brotherhood took it over. The income for the year 1903 amounted to £30, but the diocesan assessment for St George for the year ended 31 March 1904 was £33.21

Systematic almsgiving was not a characteristic of the Anglican community. Used by tradition to sporadic giving, the laity did not enthusiastically embrace any of the several envelope systems which some parishes had tried to introduce in the 1890's.22 Systematic and increased giving obviously would overcome the shortage in church finance generally, and Donaldson propounded the solution to what was a very imsatisfactory state of affairs regarding clergy stipends. As there were very few parishes in which the stipends were not perpetually in arrears the answer was to have all stipends paid through the central office, 'but I see that we shall not succeed in this until we can offer some bait in the shape of grants from a sustentation fund', he wrote.23 Under such a scheme all parishes would pay into a central ftmd all receipts for stipends. This would secure 'a stipend for their clergyman, increased, if need be, according to a duly graduated scale from the central fund'. Interest from investment of the central ftind would allow small increases in stipends to be made where necessary, and so help parishes over small difficulties. The establishment of a capital fund in the first place, was the major hurdle to overcome.24 The implementation of the plan was some way off, but in the meantime, Donaldson suggested, parishes might make a start by paying their stipend receipts into a central fund.

Donaldson's plan was not original. Webber had proposed such a scheme, and in 1886 and again in 1890, he referred to it in his inaugural address to Synod.25 A Synod committee in 1892 recommended the payment of stipends from a central fund but nothing fiirther was done. In 1898 the matter was revived when Synod passed a canon making it mandatory 'for a parish to pay the fiill stipend guaranteed to a rector on his appointment to the parish'.26 Synod also passed a resolution recommending

20 Bland to Donaldson, 11 Dec 1905, AA. 21 Financial Committee Minutes, 8 Mar 1904, [FCM]. 22 K.D.Rayner, A History, p.287. 23 Donaldson to Davidson, 12 Jun 1905, AA. 24 YB 1905, p.36. 25 YB 1886, p. 15, and YB 1890, p. 51. 26 Ibid 40 £300 as the minimum salary.2^ The canon and the resolution were frequently honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

By 1912 the payment of all stipends through a central fund, as suggested by the Archbishop in 1905, had not been achieved. There was no canon which made it mandatory for stipends to be remitted to the diocesan office, and there was no possibility that the diocese could make up any shortfall in stipends, where a parish was unable to ftilfil its obligation in this regard. There was provision under The Canon, however, for the reduction in parish status to that of parochial district, where certain conditions were not met. It was the church wardens who were responsible for collecting church dues and paying the clergy in their own parish, and remittance to 'head office' was purely voluntary. Where the wardens were unable to collect sufficient monies to pay the priest, he went without or was paid at a reduced scale. Thus priests were still at the mercy of their parishioners.

One priest, when queried by the Registrar as to why he had not remitted the diocese's share of marriage fees, replied that although he was sorry to behind in remitting the fees the fault did not lie entirely with him. His stipend had been paid only up until July 1911, and was thus nine months in arrears. Ready money was very short, he wrote, but if the diocese were to send a grant of £30 to the churchwardens before the 20th of the month, he would be able to remit the license fees before the month's end. 28 His plight was not unusual. From another parish, the treasurer wrote to the Registrar, complaining of the conditions which evolved when several important centres were excised from the parish. The parish still had to find the same rate of stipend, as it had formerly done, when it had the benefit of the other centres. 29 The conditions in that particular parish were typical of other parishes which had been split up.

The 1912 Synod again tumed its attention to the financial welfare of the clergy. Infroduced by a layman, a resolution was passed which affirmed 'the desirableness of a general raising of clergy stipends'. 30 While the cost of living was continually increasing, and wages and salaries were rising, the rates of clergy stipends had not risen over the past ten or twenty years. 3i From figures presented by Archdeacon Rivers and the Rev. A. Davies, the conclusion was that it was impossible for a married man to keep and educate his family, and feed his horse on the present

27 Ibid 28 Sanger to Registrar, 1 Mar 1912, Reg. Corres., AA, 29 Treasurer, St JJohn'so , Harrisville to Diocesan Secretary, 23 Apr 1912, Reg. Corres., AA. yS 1912, p.38. Ibid. Minimum stipends were £250 without parsonage and £200 with parsonage. If not met after a period of two years the parish would be reduced to a parochial district. 41 stipend. The Archbishop, 'in a few weighty and forcible words, supported this contention', and eventually the motion was carried without dissent. ^^

The 1913 Synod passed the Canon to Amend the Benefices Canon which provided that a priest was entitled to receive £300 per year, or £250 where a rectory was provided. If these sums had not been paid during the preceding two years, then that parish would be reduced to the status of parochial district until arrears were met and jtipends paid for a continuous period of two years. 33 The amendment of The Benefices Canon was just that: an amendment. While it stipulated the conditions under which a priest might be employed, it did not have the teeth to enforce the collection and payment of the stipend. Indeed there was no way any canon could do this.

In 1917 the Diocesan Council set up a sub-committee to enquire yet again into the whole matter of stipends. 34 Stipends were still nominally at the rate of £250 for a parish with rectory, and £300 for a parish without a house. By 1920 these rates had fallen prey to inflation. The 1914 stipend of £250 was worth £125, and the editor of the Church Chronicle commented that 'we do not see any layman's movement to bring up the parson's pay to the level which makes existence possible in a civilised community'. 35

Over the years very little had improved. One rector wrote complaining that in April 1918 he had received his stipend for the previous November and his stipend was still over £50 in arrears. Because of this he had had to go into debt. He requested fiirther payment.36 In reply he was told that the diocese was continually out of pocket on account of his stipend, and that when more came in from the parish it would be sent on to him. 37 Another clergyman who was invalided home after more than two years chaplaincy service abroad, found he was not able to accept full-time parish work. He did not receive a pension, and his only income was £60 per year which a church paid him for one service on Sundays. An approach to the Diocesan Council for a small grant imtil his health improved was refiised, and he had had to eke out some sort of living by milking a few cows. 38

Despite Donaldson's having Synod approve increases to minimum rates of pay, there was very little improvement, if any, in the majority of cases. The payment

32 Ibid 33 75 1913, p.40. 3^* Various Committees Mins., 17 Jul 1918. 35 ChCh., 1 Apr 1920, p.67. 36 James to Act. Secretary of Synod [Cook], 6 Apr 1918, Reg. Corres. 37 Cook to James, 10 Apr 1918, Reg. Corres. '° Maxwell to Treasurer, 3 Apr 1918, Reg. Corres. 42 of Stipends through a central fund had not been altogether satisfactory, and despite Donaldson's concem. he had been unable to ensure that stipends would be paid punctually, and at the proper rate. The scheme, which by its nature relied on voluntary parish participation was flawed because of its dependence on the parishes to remit to head office the funds for the stipends. When a parish was in arrears, which was frequently the case, the clergyman had sfill to wait for his stipend, so little was achieved.

The 1921 Synod passed yet another resolution encompassing a graded scale of stipends, the suggested minimum for married rectors or vicars being £300 with a house.39 Webber had been unsuccessfiil in bringing stability to clergy stipends. Donaldson was not much more successfiil, but not for the want of trying. He had suggested the central pool, and had spoken in Synod on clergy conditions, but he had no means other than pleading to have people dig deeper into their pockets. The diocese was unable to force parishes to remit their assessments, which in many instances they were unable to do, and the diocese did not have a reserve fund from which stipends could be drawn. Where obligations were not met the one recourse was that the priest could be withdrawn and the status of the parish down-graded to that of parochial district, but this might not produce the desired result. Parishes were often unable to meet their assessments, not through any lack of will on the part of parishioners, but in country areas through the economic conditions which prevailed. Lengthy droughts were frequent, and thus incomes were reduced. The financial standing of many parishioners in rural towns and provincial cities were similarly influenced. The priest, too, was sometimes the cause of the problem. If he were for some reason unpopular with his parishioners, church attendance declined, with a subsequent reduction in collections. The problem of irregular stipend payments continued for several successive episcopates.

Getting sufficient priests to work in the diocese had always been a problem. Getting sufficient priests for the great outback areas was particularly difficult. There were vast areas to be covered, sparse population, difficult climatic conditions, and if a priest were married, often harsh living conditions for his wife and family, as well as poor schooling facilities. These conditions were general throughout the province. Two years after Webber delivered his paper at the Anglican Missionary Conference, during a visit to England in 1896 Nathaniel Dawes, first Bishop of Rockhampton, saw the work done by the Oxford House at Bethnal Green, and the Oxford Mission to Calcutta. Their modus operandi offered a possible solution to the problem of staffing

39 YB 1921, p.42. This is the same stipend recommended in 1890. 43 his far-westem parishes. After discussion with Brooke Foss Westcott, Bishop of Durham, who had been largely responsible for the Oxford Missions, in 1897 Dawes established at Longreach the first of the Australian brotherhoods. '*o

In 1901, with the Longreach Brotherhood as a model. Archdeacon Rivers established at Gayndah 'a kind of "Bush Brotherhood" ' where the Rev. H. Gradwell worked with him. Shortly after, they were joined by the Rev. H. L. Puxley, M.A. and the Rev. Bertie Peregrine Walker, M.A.^i A catechist, and an honorary lay reader followed, and an honorary bursar was appointed. The area covered not only the Bumett and Dawson districts, but extended through down as far as St George. Although this was the foremnner of the Charleville Brotherhood, later to become the Bush Brotherhood of St Paul, it was not in the strict sense a brotherhood. It had no constitution, and no set of orders such as followed later. Its base was a clergy house whence the staff visited and held services in outlying churches.

Shortly after Webber left for England in 1901, the diocese received an offer from an anonymous donor for the endowment of a brotherhood to be established 'in the westem districts of the diocese'. The donor, in fact, was the Rev. J. W. S. Tomlin, later Principal of St Francis' College.42 Armouncing this very generous offer, David quickly pointed out, no doubt to allay the fears of the Protestant section of the community of an intmsion of Roman practices, that the establishment of a brotherhood did not herald a retum to 'a strict system of monasticism'. ^^ By 1903 the tmst deed had been executed, vesting in English tmstees the sum of £4,600, the income of which, subject to certain conditions, and for a period of twenty-one years, was to be devoted to the establishment and maintenance of 'a Brotherhood in the westem and south-westem districts of the diocese'. 44

In a note for Donaldson's guidance, David advised that under the terms of the tmst, the Brotherhood had to be started by May 1905, with at least three priests. Synod was to appoint an advisory committee, and had delegated this task to the Diocesan Council. In this regard, David had taken no action until a Head had been appointed 'who might have something to say as to the personnel of the committee'. The tmst had been drawn up on David's advice 'very stringently to prevent malversation of which there was some danger'. The income was estimated at £200 and

4^ K.D.Rayner, A History, p.214. Although it is generally accepted that Dawes's visit to Westcott was the genesis of the brotherhood system in Australia, Rayner is of the opinion that it was Webber's proposals at the Anglican Missionary Conference of 1894 that were responsible. 41 SC, 18 May 1905. 42 William & James, (Solicitors) to Donaldson, 31 Mar 1905, AA. 43 YB 1902/03, p.29. 44 ys 1902/03, p. 132. 44 would be paid over by the English tmstees. Trotter had promised to find another £100, and David thought another £300 could be raised locally. The expenses, he considered, should not be more than £600 per year. As to a Head, unless Tomlin were appointed, he did not know who would be capable of fulfilling the duties of the post.45 The Committee of Management when appointed, was comprised of Archdeacon Rivers, Archdeacon Trotter, the Treasurer of Synod (Walker), The Rev. Canon Osbom, and Messrs G. Eddington and R. M. Chapman. 46

The choice of Charleville as the site for the westem centre of operafions was foreshadowed by David in his Synod address in 1903. The excellent work done by Rivers and his band of clergy made him hopeftil 'that a similar institution, if established under Archdeacon Trotter in the west' would prove equally successfiil.47 In the event. Trotter did not establish the new centre at Charleville. Trotter had done good work in the westem region, but David, in his notes to Donaldson, recorded that Trotter 'should not be directly cormected with the Brotherhood except as archdeacon'. There had been some little friction between him and Rivers 'as to the respective boundaries of their archdeaconries'. The boundaries had never been properly delineated. Rivers, as Diocesan Organiser, had been accustomed to take up work wherever needed. Trotter, on the other hand, thought that he had taken over the whole area over which Bishop Stretch, as coadjutor, had presided. This was not the case, and the area w£is too large for him to oversee. 48

Puxley's appointment to the Headship of the Charleville Brotherhood was announced in January 1905 49 but did not take place officially until 1 April 1905. Donaldson, reminiscing some years later, recalled that immediately upon his arrival in Brisbane in 1904 he asked Puxley, then at Gayndah, to start a Brotherhood at Charleville, 'and I have always remembered the immediate answer he made - "I came out here to do what I was told".' 5o A. E. Bevan and Austin Eva were Puxley's first colleagues, thus fulfilling one of the requirements of the tmst, and they were joined soon afterwards by Cecil Holmen, J. S. Gibbs, and W. E. C. Barrett, 'and so began the goodly line of "great-hearted gentlemen", who by horse and wheel have carried the witness of our holy religion throughout south-western Queensland for 21 years'. 5i In notifying the English solicitors for the Tmst, Donaldson wrote:

45 Ibid 46 YB 1905, p.50. 47 Ibid 48 David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. '^'^ChCh.. 1 Feb 1905. ^^ Bush Notes. 6 Sep 1926. ^^ Ibid 45 On April 1st of this year I had admitted three clergymen to the Bush Brotherhood: 1 shall be glad therefore if you will kindly regard that date as the date of its formal establishment. Two more clergy I am thankful to say have volunteered for next November. 52

The Charleville Brotherhood ministered to an area which stretched from Warra west to the South Australian border, and from the New South Wales border to the southem boundary of the Rockhampton Diocese in the north. It covered an area of approximately 518 000 square kilometres.53 In the centre of this area was the established parish of Roma which was under parochial administration. In addition to the headquarters in Charleville, a centre was established at . More closely settled areas were somewhat better off, but without the handful of men in the Brotherhood, large areas of the diocese would have been without pastoral care.

Donaldson's attachment to the Brotherhood did not mean it received favoured treatment. While the Brotherhood was still at Gayndah, a farm of one hundred and sixty acres had been leased at Yeulba for two years.54 When the size of the Brotherhood territory was increased, without consultation with Puxley,55 to take in the St George area, the farm was essential as a stepping-off point for visits to the eastem part of the district, 56 and for agistment for the Brotherhood horses. From a practical point of view it was better to buy the farm rather than lease it. The cost of the farm was £180,57 and with fiimiture a sum of £230 was needed. Donaldson presided at a public meeting on 3 May 1905 in the Albert Hall, at which, among others, Puxley and Rivers spoke and urged the gathering to subscribe £230. Although the meeting was crowded and enthusiastic, the amounts collected and promised in the hall amounted only to £104.15.1,58 another example of the apathy of Anglicans to giving to their Church.

In 1906 and 1907, owing to the failure of the wheat crop, the farm produced no income for the Brotherhood coffers, but the only allowance made from diocesan fimds in 1906 was £5. 59 The Brotherhood was supported entirely from the English tmst and from public donations. According to Puxley:

...we have not had a penny from any diocesan funds. This is so entirely opposed to all expressions of opinion by those in authority in the diocese in the past, as to what

52 Donaldson to Williams & James, 25 May 1905, AA. 53 SC, 18 May 1905. 54/6,-rf. 55 Puxley to Iliflf, 23 Feb 1906, Reg. corres., AA. 56 YB 1906, p.p. 77/8, and YB 1908, p.80. 57 DCMins., 1 June 1905. 585c., 4 May 1905. 59 YB 1906, p.78. 46 wd be done by the diocese in the way of funds that I do not think it unreasonable to ask for grants to help us with out work in the future. 60

Once the Brotherhood was established at Charleville, Donaldson wasted very little time in arranging a visit, and on 4 July 1905 he set out on the first of what was to become almost an armual pastoral visit to the Bush Brotherhood district. That tour touched on Cunnamulla, Hungerford, Thargomindah, Adavale, Augathella, and Charleville. The journey was undertaken with eight horses (for saddle and buggy), and the actual drive occupied just five weeks, 'during which we covered over seven hundred miles'. 6i It was not merely a formal visit. It was one in which he played his part not as a prelate, but as one of the brothers, and expected no special treatment because of his rank. One of the brothers who accompanied Donaldson on the track recorded that: 'There was a strong frost in the moming, but the bishop insisted on going off early after the horses, and running them up bare-back'. 62 Of the visit, Donaldson himself wrote:

The whole trip has been one long picnic to me, and I am only afraid that my impressions of the West are too rosy. I do not know what the country is like in the summer, and to the regular wayfarer, but I have found that to a bishop travelling in the winter, there is nothing but luxury and ease, and, I fear, a great deal too much of that.63

During 1906 he twice visited various country areas with the Bush Brothers, with whom he had great rapport, and held confirmations. 64 in November 1906 he was present at the Brotherhood's quarterly meeting in Charleville.

One of the impressions Donaldson gained during his first visit to the Brotherhood district was 'the potent influence which this country is exerting on the character of the people'. The scenery was like nothing he had seen elsewhere:

To my English eyes, I confess, it is not beautiftil. I see nothing picturesque like the Thames valley, nothing grand like the Alps, nothing soft and reposefiil like the Italian lakes; and yet it has a character of its own. In its general character, no less than in its fauna and flora, I recognise that this country is unique.65

'The scenery out here is insipid and monstrous', was a subsequent judgment.66

One of Donaldson's deep concems was the maintenance of a Christian presence in the bush. Without the Brotherhood, whose influence was far greater than

60/iW. 6' ChCh.. 1 Sep 1905. 62 Bush Notes, 1 Sep 1905, p.2. 63 Bush Notes, 1 Sep 1905, p.l. 64 Ibid 65 YB 1905, p.33. 66 Donaldson to Henrenry Babbington Smith, 17 Nov 1905, TCIL 47 the smallness of its numbers would suggest, the outback would largely have been without spiritual guidance. Although the Queensland outback scenery never held any charm for him, he came to have a strong regard for the people the Brotherhood served. In some matters he might not be able to condone their way of life, but there was warm sympathy and a sneaking admiration for them. On one occasion he visited Boorara Station, and there he made detailed notes of the property, and the men who worked on it; the manager, an overseer, a time-keeper, four boundary riders, aid four or five men at the station (blacksmith, groom...).

In his notes he described the shearers, and the rouseabouts, and their respective jobs, how they lived, what they were paid. He also described the boundary riders and their way of living. It was, he wrote, 'as lonely a life as you will find on this earth'. The effect of loneliness was that 'these men usually hate anyone to come near their place'. As an instance of this he described how one man, after the ration cart left some vegetables for him, built a strong fence aroimd his hut to keep out intmders.

Alcohol was not allowed on the run, but when the men had holidays, they usually took their cheques into town and stayed until they had drunk it all. 'One can understand from this how the hotels keep going in these lonely spots', he wrote. Of the boundary riders, the time-keeper told him, 'they all take to drink'. Donaldson showed his understanding of the men's condition: 'Can one blame them, when the reaction sets in after months of loneliness?' In this he might well have been revealing some of his own feeling of loneliness which from time to time seemed to engulf him.

67

After a visit to the Brotherhood in 1911, in a letter to his friend, Henry Babbington Smith, he had more to say of these people:

I have just completed a month's tour of the wilder parts of our Bush Brotherhood district. Very interesting. I have stayed with some strange and uncommon people, notably one family who were implicated some years ago in a murder case, and who though innocent themselves, supported the murderer for weeks in a hiding place near their selection. (The wife rode out to him regularly with provisions.) They are the Australian analogy of the English poacher. They live by snaring opossums, wallabies, kangaroos, etc. for skins, and are technically known as scalpers. And they break every law bearmg on the pursuit without exception. The wife is an unsaddled rider, and can sit any buck jumper as well as a man. She and her husband spend more than half their time after opossums. She dresses in trousers like a man. They are just as rough and bohemian as you could imagine. 68

67 Hand written note in Donaldson's papers, AA. 68 Donaldson to H. Babbington Smith, 29 Jul 1911, TLC. 48 Years later, in a letter to his godson, Bemard Babbington Smith, he passed judgment on the people of the west: I am on my travels, and am in the far west of Queensland, where the population is very thin, and you can go all day through the bush without seeing a soul. They are very primitive people, and don't know very much about the land - only about sheep, and cattle, and the life of the bush. But they are a fine manly race...^

By 1912, in perhaps what amounted to the largest parish of all, the Brotherhood area, matters were in a desperate state. The chronic shortage of priests was exacerbated by the resignation of several members, and in the first six months of 1912 the Brotherhood was trying to minister to the entire area with a staff of three. Most of the far west was left without any ministrations at all, and two new railway camps within the district received scant attention. ^ Inadequate as its resources were, the Brotherhood was the only hope of providing Christian nurture to westem districts, which they continued to do for many years.

The Bush Brothers were a remarkable body of men of whom it might be tmly said: The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad of them'. The earliest ones were nearly all from England, many of them from public school and university backgrounds, backgrounds totally different from any they found in Australia, but 'they possessed the adventurous and imaginative spirit which was capable of making a whole-hearted response to the appeal, which reached them as a call'. 3 Donaldson might not have changed his mind about 'the insipid and monstrous scenery' of the country, but he had great admiration for the Bush Brothers, and sympathy for the people who lived in the west. Some time after his translation to Salisbury, he wrote: 'I think the best times I had in Queensland were my trips (usually in July) through the Brotherhood district in the days before the motor car'. 4 The brotherhood scheme was in an embryonic form when Donaldson arrived, but 'its success and durability' were due 'in no small measure to the inspiration of his leadership at the time of its foundation'. ^

In 1910 the brotherhood system was of interest to some young men at Magdalene College, Cambridge, who envisaged starting a brotherhood in the diocese, staffed entirely by men from Magdalene, as an on-going thing. The idea had Donaldson's approval in principle, although he doubted the possibility of sufficient

^ Donaldson to B. Babbington Smith, 4 July 1916, TCL. 2yB1912,p.l61. 3 ^ Frederick Hulton-Sams, The Fighting Parson (Longreach, Qld: Theo F. Barker, Printer, 1915), p.39. 4 Bush Notes, 6 Sep 1926, p.284. ^ Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.44. 49 Magdalene men being available to keep such a brotherhood in existence. He thought it might be better for them to throw in their lot with the Charleville Brotherhood. Donaldson expressed his doubts to his brother:

The question is this: are they strong upon being separate from others, or only on working together. If the latter is the real point, and I expect it is, they could work together in the Charleville Brotherhood. 74

He also wrote to Beaumont-James, whose idea it was, expressing the same doubts, and suggesting they work with the Charleville Brotherhood, but he did not entirely throw cold water on the scheme:

If after conferring with my brother you still incline to the project of a separate Magdalene Brotherhood I could no doubt arrange it, but my own judgment goes the other way. 75

Perhaps working with the Charleville Brotherhood was not acceptable, but for whatever reason, nothing more was heard of Beaumont-James or of the projected Magdalene Brotherhood.

Donaldson was concemed at the serious lack of religious education in the far- flung areas of the diocese, in the parishes, the schoolroom, and also in the wider sphere of the fraining of clergy and clerical assistants. One example was that the number of clergy on the Darling Downs had not increased, and indeed had diminished, since the days 'when the whole area consisted of great sheep mns having a light population'. 76 The area was being more closely settled and there was a rapidly increasing population. Donaldson had had a conference with the Downs clergy from which a scheme which 'contemplates only the bare and immediate necessities' was formulated. A number of men were wanted immediately, at least six of whom had to be priests.

There was a faint glimmer of hope from England when the Rev. R. T. Gardner, Honorary Secretary to the Council for Services Abroad, wrote to the Archbishop on 17 December 1905, offering his assistance in finding clergy for the diocese. Gardner had at one time been a priest at Pittsworth and at Rockhampton. Donaldson replied setting out 'a few urgent needs'. 77 As Gardner knew the country, Donaldson specified a few of the more important places. Warwick required two extra men to form 'a sort of brotherhood' to service country needs (Killamey, Yangan, Swan Creek, Talgai, Pratten, South Toolburra, etc.). Clifton had to become a parish.

74 Donaldson to Dr. S. Donaldson, 1 Jun 1910, AA. 75 Donaldson to Beaumont-James. 1 Jun 1910, AA. 76 Donaldson to Gardner, 7 Feb 1906, AA. 77 Ibid 50 Toowoomba required a curate, and at Cabarlah a priest was urgently needed to help with the students and the Cabarlah brotherhood. 78 For the Warwick 'brotherhood' men were wanted who would be willing 'to work for the present for their keep and pocket-money'. 79 There is no record of how many men, if any, the Archbishop's letter to Gardner produced.

The Archbishop's hopes of recmifing men in England, however, were not entirely vain. As a losult of the 1908 Pan-Anglican Congress, the Rev. H. P. Hale volunteered his services to Queensland and travelled to Australia on the vessel Ophir, as did the Archbishop. The Archbishop travelled first class, while Hale came second class, where he ministered to the religious needs of fellow Anglicans. Ophir arrived on 2 October 1908.

Donaldson believed that as Metropolitan his duty was to send men to where the need was greatest, anywhere within the province, and Hale, on the Archbishop's instructions was sent first to Mackay, in the Diocese of North Queensland, for what was to be from five to six weeks, ^o At the end of that time no instructions had come for Hale to retum to Brisbane, and he was becoming restless. The work he was assigned to was not urgent, and he felt he lacked the ability to do it well because of the very trying climatic conditions. He also had personal reasons for wanting to retum to Brisbane. Two letters to the Archbishop requesting instructions went imanswered. Eventually he wired the Archbishop, and in reply received an order to await the retum of the Bishop of North Queensland who was still overseas. By the end of January 1909 when no fiirther word had been received, he wrote twice more, both letters remaining unanswered. In desperation he wired, 'Returning Tuesday by steamer imless I hear'. This brought a command to retum to Brisbane immediately. Donaldson was not very pleased with such insubordination. According to Hale:

He was very wroth and accused me of proposing to desert my post. 'In the army that would end in your being shot'. I continued by saying 'I volunteered for five to six weeks not three months, and had a perfect right to retum at the end of five or six weeks'. The Archbishop was magnanimous enough to admit the cogency of my contention. But he did not overlook my independence, gi

Another grievance Hale had concemed a grant made to him personally by the S.P.C.K. for his chaplaincy work on Ophir. The letter containing the grant was addressed to him care of the diocesan offices, and was opened by the secretary. Without being consulted Hale was 'forced "willy-nilly" to hand over the grant to the

78 Ibid 79 Ibid. This is the first mention of a brotherhood at Warwick. °" H. R. Hale, Extracts from 'Reminescences', AA. ^1 Ibid 51 diocese'. When it came to the matter of work, the only parishes offered to him were ones unable to provide him with a stipend of more than £180 per year and without a house:

The Archbishop's £200 a year and a house went seriously by the board. He seemed to presume that I was prepared to take anything because I had some private means...! was to learn that many of my brother clergy in the Diocese were smarting under similar grievances. Promises made at home to them, both as to their spheres of work, and pay, were not fulfilled. 82

Hale's experience was almost like history repeating itself. According to Montgomery similar incidents were commonplace under Webber:

They say he [Webber] brought them out on false promises of income - hardly ever were these promises realised. When upbraided, the bishop used to say, 'If you were worth more you would get it'.^^

A shortage of clergy there undoubtedly was, but if Hale's experience was not exceptional, the shortage might have been exacerbated by a less-than-efficient use of the available resources. Some help was offered from afar, however, when on 4 July 1911, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop's brother and commissary, who was the Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, a meeting was held in London. No less than fourteen clergymen who had previously served in the Diocese of Brisbane were present, including the Rev. J. W. S. Tomlin, who acted as secretary. It was owing to Tomlin's inspiration that the meeting was held. The object was that the Archbishop's commissaries, both past and present, and clergymen working in England, who had previously worked in the Diocese of Brisbane, should form an association 'to assist the Archbishop:

(1) by combined and systematic intercession on behalf of the diocese;

(2) by aiding the commissaries to find clergy for the diocese;

(3) by raising money or giving help in other directions towards the training of clergy locally'. ^4

The association fimctioned for a number of years and made valuable contributions to the diocese.

It was not only the shortage of clergy that was a problem. The location of city churches was another when considering the best allocation of resources. The site of

°2 Ibid. Although there is no documentary evidence to support Hale's story, there seems no reason to doubt its veracity. Hale had some private means, and it is likely that this weighed with Donaldson when it came to appointing him to a parish where he could supplement the stipend with his own money. °^ Montgomery to Davidson, 6 Feb 1904, A.letters, LPL. *4cACA.,lSepl911,p.l67. 52 the new cathedral posed difficulties for one of the older churches in the city. It was only a very short distance away from All Saints' in Wickham Terrace. Donaldson saw that another church practically on the cathedral's doorstep was a waste of assets. There was also the problem of what to do with the new pro-cathedral, St Luke's, when the new cathedral was finished. At the Easter meeting of 1906, the parishioners of All Saints' were asked to give serious consideration to the possibility of moving their parish base to St Luke's when the new cathedral was opened in 1910. The proposal was not accepted and the matter was allowed to drop for the fime being. 85

On 17 June 1909, however, Donaldson took the chair at a special meeting of parishioners at which he again suggested that the congregation move to St Luke's, and that the all Saints' property be sold, 'part of the proceeds to be used to endow St Luke's and the rest to go to the cathedral ftmd'.86 Three options were proposed to a parochial council meeting held a fortnight later. These were:

1. That All Saints' should continue as it was.

2. That the property be sold and the proceeds be used towards the endowment of St Luke's and the cathedral fiind.

3. That the All Saints' parish be amalgamated with the cathedral parish.

On 14 July the parishioners voted by ballot on the proposals, and the first proposal won overwhelmingly, 200 voting to continue with only nine against. The parishioners opened a subscription list to wipe off the £400 debt on the church, and £117 was promised before the meeting closed. Mr Mant, the people's warden, advised the Archbishop of the decision. ^7 Donaldson was disappointed, and wrote to the Wardens:

The All Saints' parishioners have in my opinion missed an opportunity of doing a really public-spirited thing, and setting a fine example to the diocese in the interests of the Church. If All Samts' could have thus looked beyond parochial interests, the whole church would have been inspired by their action. I quite recognise, however, that what I asked of them was a hard thing but, while I regret their decision, I do not intend to place any difficulties in their way.

My fear is that All Saints' and the cathedral may hmder one another and that the cathedral may be prevented from becoming a really strong centre for the city and diocese owing to the competition of a church so near at hand...^^

^5 D. L. Kissick, All Saints'Church. Brisbane 1862-1937 (Brisbane: Shipping Newspapers 1937), p.91. 86 Ibid 87 Ibid OQ °*^ D.L.Kissick, Ail Saints' Church [short citation] p.92. The original letter was not found in Donaldson's correspondence 53 And there the matter rested for several years.

On 5 January 1911 the Brisbane Courier announced to the world that a meeting was to be held by the outraged All Saints' congregation to protest at the dismissal of the rector. Rev. Douglas Price, by the Archbishop. Price had been rector of All Saints' for some seven years, and had been one of the early lecturers at the Theological College under David. The Archbishop had asked Price for his resignation to take effect at Price's discretion within six months. The ensuing unpleasantness was the focus of much public attention, and was fully reported in the press. A meeting of parishioners, 'and others who are interested in the welfare of one of the oldest of the Anglican Churches of Brisbane' was shortly to be held in All Saints' hall to consider the future of the church. 89 According to the Brisbane Courier: 'It has only been by the strenuous efforts of the rector himself that the members of the congregation have been prevented [previously] from protesting in no gentle terms concerning his treatment'. The article continued:

The members of the congregation feel that they have a perfect right to say what manner of man they shall have as pastor, and they contend that the Archbishop, in his zeal for the welfare of the new cathedral, has been tempted to exceed his jurisdiction. It is understood that a strongly-worded protest against the action of the Archbishop will be the outcome of the meeting, and this is to be presented to his Grace...

Price was 'a particularly well-known figure in clerical circles' who had made 'a prominent mark on the intellectual life of the city through lectures, sermons, and the publication of a journal of essays on religious, social, and philosophical questions'. The reason Price's resignation had been requested was that of imorthodoxy: 'and the term may be applicable to a greater or less degree to every believer of the Church's doctrine, for no two divines, it is held, interpret the articles of the Church's faith in exactly similar maimer'. 90

Price was 'a modernist or a new theologian', and modernism. Price said, was a world-wide movement which was bringing about excoirmiunications and resignations in the various Christian Churches. The Archbishop, Price said, was doing nothing unusual. He was merely following the example of Churches in other parts of the world. Modernism resulted from a clash of science and modem Biblical criticism with the old theological ideas of their forefathers and the old creeds and systems. 'Modernists believed they could find a spiritual Divinity and worldwide religion not based upon the Bible or on the teaching of any person, but on the constitution of

89 5C., 5Janl911. 54 human nature', ^i Modernists, broadly speaking, believed that Jesus Christ was first among the sons of God, but they did not look on him as God the Son. They did not believe that his death was an atonement for sin, nor did they believe that the Bible was specially inspired. ^2

A meeting of the All Saints' Parish Council was held on 8 January 1911 after the evening service, and Price, as chairman, read Donaldson's letter requesting his resignation:

1 have now made a fairly thorough study of the sermons you were good enough to let me see, and I cannot any longer delay saying what I feel it my duty to say in the matter. My object in asking for them was to endeavour by first hand experience, to reassure myself as to your theological position, or at least to find such incidences of orthodoxy as would enable me to discount much of what I have heard to the contrary, both from others and in conversation with yourself I confess that my hope has in no sense been realised. I find such an entire absence of any positive teaching about the great verities of our faith, and incidental allusions as clearly opposed to it, that I cannot any longer cling to the hope that 1 was taking a one-sided view when I questioned your right to remain in the ministry of the Church of England... ^3

When it was suggested at the Parochial Council that Price should resist the Archbishop's demand, he told the meeting that if he were 'a permanent rector he could not be got rid of except by a theological trial'. He could not claim that process, however, because his licence had 'really ended in October last'. Price was requested by the meeting to refrain from resigning until after the protest meeting. ^4

Price decided to accept the recommendation of the Parochial Council to defer tendering his resignation until after the protest meeting, and in fact he had been given no specific time in which to nominate the time of his going, except within the next six months. On the following day, and before the protest meeting was held, the Brisbane Courier reported a fiirther development. It would appear, said the article, that the Archdeacon of Brisbane, Le Fanu, acting as administrator during Donaldson's brief absence in Sydney, had requested that Price resign instantly. Price had received his resignation papers from Orme, the Diocesan Regisfrar, 'who informed the rector that he had been instructed by the Archbishop to forward the papers at once'. ^5

On 12 January 1911 the protest meeting was held, under the auspices of the Church of England Men's Society. The All Saints' hall 'was crowded to the doors long before the commencement of the meeting, those who were unable to find seating

9' BC. 13 Jan 1911. '•^ Ibid. Donaldson had already spoken at length on the 'new theology' in his inaugural address at the 1907 Diocesan Synod. " Donaldson to Price, 30 Dec 1910, quoted in BC, 9 Jan 1911. Donaldson's letter was not sighted in the Archiepiscopal correspondence, nor do Prices's sermons appear to have survived. 94/6W. 95 BC, 10 Jan 1911. 55 accommodation standing at the rear of the hall'. The chairman was Mr E Buckland, chairman of the local branch of the C.E.M.S. At Buckland's request Price made a statement as to why he had been asked to resign. 96 Price had no animosity towards the Archbishop, he said, and his removal had nothing to do with the possible closure of the church. In fact, Donaldson had given a written statement to the effect that the church would not be closed. 97 The action the Archbishop was taking also had nothing to do 'with the glorification of the Cathedral'. The Archbishop wished to replace him as rector, and appoint someone else in his place. He could do this because the Archbishop had not renewed his licence, and thus he. Price, did not have recourse to a theological court. 98

Price explained to the protest meeting that he could not fight the Archbishop's order for his resignation because he had nothing with which to fight. When he was appointed rector he had taken an oath of obedience to the Archbishop and the laws and constitution of the Church. He had no legal or constitutional rights. Although he did not agree with the Archbishop, he thought Donaldson showed the courage of his convictions 'in bringing about a position which must excite much hostile criticism'. Price said that he had as yet not signed his resignation, but when he did the date for his going would be 30 June.

Several speakers followed Price, including the rector's warden and the people's warden, both of whom said they had already approached the Archbishop asking that Price be allowed to remain with them, but the Archbishop had told them that his decision was final. Despite this, the meeting decided to present a petition to Donaldson, which was signed by ninety-six people before the meeting concluded. 99 The petition, containing two hundred and forty-two signatures, was presented to Donaldson on 23 January 1911. Several members of All Saints' spoke to Donaldson, urging him to reconsider his decision, but he 'refiised to reopen the question or to reconsider his decision', loo

A very vigorous correspondence flowed through the coluirms of the Brisbane Courier, some for and some against Price's dismissal, and some very critical of the Archbishop's stance in the matter. Even the Congregational Church spoke out. While admitting Price's ability, devotion to his congregation, and so forth, the Rev. W. H.

96fiC., 13 Jan 1911. 9^ In 1906 and again in 1909 it had been suggested that All Saints' close and the congregation move to St Luke's. Both proposals were rejected by the parish. 98 BC, 13 Jan 1911. 99 Ibid 'O^BC, 26Janl911. 56 Lewis thought what it came down to 'was not a question of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, but one of Christianity versus some other religion', 'oi

The suggestion was made to Price at several of the meetings which were held, that he should start an independent Church, but he had demurred, unless there was sufficient work for him to do, and sufficient remuneration was forthcoming. When Price left All Saints' shortly afterwards, with the aid of some of his congregation he founded a break-away Church which had but a short life. Several years later he committed suicide.

Kissick, in her All Saints' Church, '02 is fairly scathing of the part Donaldson played in the affairs of All Saints' but concedes that the suggestion that Donaldson found no reason to question Price's orthodoxy until after the congregation had refused his request to move to St Luke's was unfounded. The Archbishop accepted in good part the wish of the parishioners to retain their church, but he had to stand firm against the intrusion of unorthodox theology. Kissick agrees that Donaldson acted 'rightly' in dismissing Price, but condemns 'his attitude in causing almost constant friction between All Saints' on the one hand, and himself and the Cathedral on the other...' This she says was recorded by the Rev. F. M. Nightingale, Price's successor, during the early years of his rectorship, 'o^ but is not substantiated by correspondence or other records. The events at All Saints' required firm handling by the Archbishop and did not bring him any joy, but the way he did it is indicative of his ability to act firmly with clergy as well as with refractory parishes when the occasion arose.

Donaldson was ever anxious to improve the educational standard of a clergy which he as well as other Australian bishops thought to be deficient in this respect. During his stay in England in 1914 when he attended the Lambeth Conference, at the behest of the Australian bishops he tried to recruit two lecturers to supply some 'intellectual and spiritual stimulus' to the clergy whose intellectual standard in Australia was 'lamentably low'. i04 xhe lecturers were to visit the five mainland capital cities, lecturing mainly to clergy, but with occasional lectures open to the public. Donaldson's efforts were unsuccessful but he was able to deal to some degree with the ever-pressing problem, the shortage of clergy. His visit produced several recruits for parishes but men were also badly needed for the Bush Brotherhood, a plea for which he made in an article in the S.P.G. periodical. The East and the West, los

'0' BC. 17 Jan 1911. •02 D. L. Kissick, All Saints'Church. There appear to be no records of that period of All Saints' extant, nor is there any reference to any on-going discension in archiepiscopal or registry correspondence. '^^ Donaldson to Rev Neville Figgis, Mirfield 17 Oct 1914, AA. '"5 The East and the West, Vol II 1914, RHL. 57 The country had been at war some nine months when Donaldson addressed the Synod in 1915. The war and its effects occupied a great deal of his time, thought, and energy, exacerbated the chronic shortage of clergy, and increased an already oppressive workload. Since his arrival in Brisbane, the population of the diocese had grown by some 95,000. lo^ Donaldson travelled extensively throughout the diocese, within the province, and on frequent trips to Sydney. The sheer grind of so much travel, especially in outback Queensland, was exhausting. The burden became too much for one man, and while Donaldson had always had the able assistance of his chaplain, Francis Batty, and the Archdeacon of Brisbane, Henry Le Fanu, both of whom came from England with him in 1904, he had never had the help of a coadjutor bishop. No one could begrudge him an assistant, and the 1915 Synod approved Le Fanu's appointment. The armouncement was withheld, however, pending the receipt of the Primate's approval, which he delayed for no apparent reason, 'o^ In a letter to Le Fanu the Archbishop added a post script: 'That old toad in Sydney has not even yet answered my letter'. i08 Le Fanu's appointment relieved the Archbishop of much coimtry visiting, confirmations, and the day-to-day rurming of the diocese, but there were many other matters to occupy his attention.

Not only were there too few clergy in actual numbers, but the problem was compotmded in 1914 by several of the clergy being on leave overseas, some of whom were not retum because of the war. Donaldson always had to contend with a shortage of clergy, but the poor conditions under which they worked, and which he was unable to improve, were no inducement to attract men to the cloth, and the problem was exacerbated by war, when clergy ranks were reduced still fiirther by the number of clergy becoming military chaplains. At the end of 1917 a provincial recruiting committee was established in England, with representatives for the dioceses of Brisbane, Rockhampton, North Queensland, and Carpentaria, io9 but England, because of the war and because of the shortage of clergy in English dioceses, could no longer be relied on to supply priests for the province, and the shortage of priests was desperate.

In 1917 the Archbishop of Melboume wrote to Donaldson expressing his dissatisfaction 'that some of the clergy ordained have neither educational qualifications nor suitable social manners', iio and Donaldson heartily agreed.

'06 According to the 1905 Year Book the population in the diocese was 318,134. The 1916 Year Book gives the population as 413,221 based on the 1911 census. '07 Donaldson to Stone-Wigg, 26 Aug 1915, AA. •08 Donaldson to Le Fanu, 26 Aug 1915, AA. '09 Donaldson to Bp of North Queensland, 26 Dec 1917, AA. 1 '0 Clarke to Donaldson, 8 May 1917, AA. 58 Melboume wanted the Th.L as the basic educational requirement for deacons' orders, but admitted that many of the country's theological colleges were not properly equipped for the work they undertook, i" Donaldson had long lamented 'the utter want of principle' which allowed each bishop to get his own way and lower the standard 'to his heart's content'. i'2 Donaldson was alluding to the proliferafion of theological colleges throughout the country. Instead of there being perhaps one college in each province, a number of diocesans opened their own colleges, with teaching resources he considered to be sub-standard. There was also no common standard for entrance to theological colleges, or indeed no standard qualificafions at the end of the course. He suggested that a letter to all bishops signed by the four Metropolitans might go a long way to solving the problem. If some theological colleges were to close he would rejoice. Colleges should be provincial, he believed, instead of small and inefficient diocesan efforts. ii3 Donaldson took advantage of a meeting of the Bishops of Rockhampton, Bathurst, Goulbum, Grafton and Armidale, and Bishop Le Fanu to ascertain their feelings on Melboume's proposal. All concurred, and Donaldson said he felt safe in adding the approbation of New Guinea, Carpentaria, and North Queensland, since all students from those dioceses passed through St Francis' College, 'i^

The Bishop of Adelaide was prepared to accept the Th.L standard, but he proposed making certain exceptions for postulants at the Front, when they retumed. Apart from such 'special cases' he thought that Greek and Latin, acquired at great cost by the ordinary candidates to pass the Th.L., were practically useless after ordination, and in some cases deterred some candidates, otherwise well qualified, for the priesthood. I's Donaldson agreed about the 'special cases', particularly with the language requirement. He would insist on Biblical and doctrinal knowledge but he was not yet prepared to give up Greek for ordinary students. He urged Adelaide to fall into line with Melboume.

When the war was drawing to its close Donaldson suggested to Wright that as Primate he should prepare a letter to be signed by the Metropolitans to be sent to individual soldiers, inviting them to undertake training for Holy Orders. Applications would first be made to a central agency, such as the Australian College of Theology. Donaldson thought the bishops should also agree on the minimum course of training

iii/6,d. 112 Donaldson to Clarke, 17 May 1917, AA. ^^^Ibid • •"* Donaldson to Clarke, 29 May 1917, AA. • 15 Bp of Adelaide to Donaldson, 1 Jun 1917, AA. 59 required. 116 The Primate concurred in Donaldson's proposal, but said he was not prepared to delegate to any authority either the selection or training of any candidates for Holy Orders for the Diocese of Sydney. He would choose them personally, and their training would be carried out in his diocese. > '"^

Donaldson, at the Primate's request, drafted the letter "8 which the Primate promptly mislaid. Donaldson later sent him another copy. '19 j^ the meantime, at Donaldson's instigation the subject was discussed when the bishops met in October 1918, and with their approval he also drafted a leaflet, copies of which when printed were to be sent to every chaplain. The letters signed by the Metropolitans were to be addressed to individual soldiers. '20 Donaldson was not sanguine as to the Primate's co-operation. The Primate took no further action, and the leaflets, which had been left with the Registry in Sydney for transmission to the Chaplain General in Perth, were not forwarded. Nothing further was done. Because of the Primate's indifference to recmiting retuming soldiers, the Archbishop's dream of 'a rich harvest' of applicants was not realised.

Some of Donaldson's problems disappeared with the cessation of hostilities but new ones arose, one of which was getting the diocese back to a peace-time footing. The establishment of soldier settlements meant that clergy were needed to minister to them usually outside the normal bounds of parish work. There was little prospect of finding permanent chaplains for this purpose, but Donaldson asked the Rev. David Garland to inspect and report on the settlements at Beerburrum, Pikedale, and Enoggera. '21 Eventually Donaldson offered a Mission Chaplaincy to Maitland Woods 'to take temporary work filling gaps and to look after the soldiers settlements. '22 The great shortage of priests was emphasises when Donaldson wrote: 'and the best thing we can do in the present distress is to send a man to spend perhaps a week or a fortnight at a time on the settlements in tum, so that they all get visits about once a quarter'. '23 There was also the ever present shortage of money. 'With regard to the financial arrangements', Donaldson wrote, 'the enclosed exfract from the minutes of the Diocesan Council will I hope be clear. It is not too generous, but then the Diocese is pretty nearly bankmpt!' '24

1 '6 Donaldson to Wright, 17 Jun 1918, AA. 1 ''7 Wright to Donaldson, 24 Jul 1918, AA.

1 '9 Donaldson to Wright, 10 Dec 1918, AA. '20 Donaldson to Riley, 11 Dec 1918, AA. '21 Donaldson to Garland, 8 Jun 1921, AA. '22 Donaldson to Maitland Woods, 20 Sep 1921, AA. 123/6/rf '2'* Ibid. Reference to D.C. Minutes merely recorded that 'reference was made by the Chairman to the need for more Church work in the soldier settlements. His Grace made known that he had in mind the appointment of the Rev. Maitland Woods for this work if finances would allow'. 60 The shortage of priests was also illustrated in the bush. The Bush Brotherhood had never been very numerous, five or six being the maximum at any one time. During the war several members had retumed to England, or gone as chaplains into the army and had not retumed to the Brotherhood. In September 1919 the Bush Brotherhood was reduced to two members, both of whom were 'time expired' and were staying on simply in the interests of the Church. Donaldson sent 'an emergency man' to help for one year, and a roster was made of men from settled parishes to make visits in tum, varying from two Sundays to three months in the Brotherhood district. '25 The district wanted at least six men, and Donaldson appealed to Lawley, his brother-in-law, to try to find suitable applicants. Donaldson intended using the native ministry far more than in the past for this work, but in the meantime he had no suitable men. '26

Although Donaldson wanted a native ministry, his ambition to have a clergy of university graduates had come to nothing, and his opinion of his locally-trained priests was not high. He wrote to Campling:

I wonder what you would think of the calibre of our men. 1 fear it may be rather a shock to you. They are almost all State school boys, some of them very rough. The whole question of recruiting the ministry will be one of the many which we must talk over. '2^

While he was dissatisfied with the standard of his native clergy, Donaldson did not seem over enthusiastic about the rest of his clergy. 'The clergy', he wrote, 'are mostly English and represent the common English theological level, and have only the haziest ideas of the theological aspect of a question'. '28 This standard had deteriorated and appeared to be not merely provincial but Australia-wide.

Donaldson's aim of having an educated and locally trained native clergy had preceded him. Archdeacon David, a graduate of New College, Oxford, and former vice-Principal of Leeds Theological College, also subscribed to the ideal of a native ministry and as long ago as 1891. When the University's Commission was investigating the possibility of the foundation of a university in Brisbane and the faculties it might contain, David argued the case for the establishment of a school of theology within the university when it was established. He was of opinion that theology could be studied in a university school, as at Oxford, 'which had no

'25 Donaldson to Lawley, 11 Sep 1919, AA '26/i,w. J27 Donaldson to Campling, 11 Jul 1919, AA. '28 Donaldson to Jenks, 26 May 1917, AA. 61 denominational bias'. '29 The opposite view was taken by Durme, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, who 'could not conceive of theology being studied outside a denominational context' and objected to any Chair of Divinity or Theology being inaugurated at the yet-to-be established university. This was also the view of the Hon . G. Thom, and Mr J. G. Anderson who gave evidence to the Commission.'30

Webber, in 1900, drew attention to the 'deliberate exclusion of the "science" of theology from the subjects in which a degree may be given' in the University Bill introduced into parliament in 1899:

The Bill m effect proposes, as you may possibly be aware, that, if (say) a Queensland student of theology desire to register his attaiiunent in that important branch of literature in the form of a degree, he is to be precluded from doing so; and must be referred to Great Britain, or elsewhere, for a degree which he cannot obtain here - a policy of exclusion which is utterly contrary to all liberal principles.'3'

As much as he would have liked to have seen a university established in Queensland, Webber would rather wait 'another decade than create difficulties for the ftature by a narrow, illiberal measure now'. '32 During the debate in the Legislative Assembly in 1909 Mr Vincent Bemard Joseph Lesina, Labour member for Clermont, spoke strongly against the inclusion of a school of theology citing the New Zealand Act creating a university in that country. The Secretary for Public Instmction who introduced the Bill said that the first three faculties would be Arts, Science, and Engineering. '33 The matter, however, seems to have been decided not by debate but by govemment policy. The Hon. A. H. Barlow, Minister without Portfolio, when speaking on the Bill in the Legislative Council on 17 November 1909 stated govemment policy: 'We [the govemment] want a thoroughly unsectarian university'. His remarks were greeted with 'Hear, hear'. '34 Kidston, with the long-nmning battle with the Bible in State Schools League fresh in mind, was not sympathetic towards a non-secular university. He was on safe grounds, knowing that the cause of a of Theology would never become an issue because of lack of public interest. When the University of Queensland was established, a school of theology was not included.

While the establishment of a university was still some way off, at the Lambeth Conference in 1908 Donaldson was a member of a committee which studied the

'29 Rev. A. E. David, M.A., Evidence given before the University Commission of 1891, 3 Apr 1891, Report (University Commission). 130/6W. '3' yfi 1900, p.44. '32/6,v/. '33 Official Record of the Debates of the Legislative Council and of the Legislative Assembly during the First Session of the Eighteenth Parliament, Vol. CFV, p.93. '34 Official Record, p.259 [short citation]. 62 supply and training of clergy, and interchange of service at home and abroad. Its chairman was the Bishop of London, and among its members were the Bishop of Adelaide (as Secretary), the Bishop of Grafton and Armidale, H. E. Cooper; the Bishop of Wangaratta, T. H. Armstrong; and the Archbishop of Melboume, H. L. Clarke. The committee's report, which resulted in Resolution 6 of the Lambeth Conference, illustrated a twenty-year decline in the number of men in England offering themselves for Holy Orders, a situation not unique to the Provinces of Canterbury and York, but a world-wide phenomenon. This was not entirely the case in the Diocese of Brisbane where there was a slight reversal in the trend of falling numbers. Between 1888 and 1898 seven deacons and eleven priests were ordained, and in the following decade eleven deacons and thirteen priests were ordained. '35 These numbers, however, were inadequate to minister to a growing population.

The causes of the downtum were several. Some young men went to university with the full intention of being ordained, but abandoned their intention before they left. Another cause was 'to be found in the manifold and interesting openings in all parts of the world for the youth of to-day'. The main cause, however, not only in England but throughout the rest of the British Empire, was financial. Many of the clergy and professional men were no longer able to afford to send their sons to university. Parents, moreover, who felt themselves responsible for the future of their sons, dissuaded them 'from a profession which may leave them poor men all their lives', and this applied equally to the colonial dioceses. '36

As regards the training of clergy, the thrust of the report and Resolution 6 was largely towards the adoption of Donaldson's expressed views for the training of theological students: a university degree followed by one year's training at a theological college, and for non-graduates a theological college training of at least three years. '37 The report also recommended the 'bush brotherhood' system which had operated in the Dioceses of Brisbane, Rockhampton, and Bathurst for a number of years, where some four or five clergy lived together and worked a large district, and after some period of absence retumed 'to their centre for spiritual communion with one another and a time of reading and study'. '38

The looked-for coming of the university was of great interest to the diocese, not only in the wider educational aspects but also because of the benefits the Church perceived it would bring to the training of the clergy. With its establishment would

'35 Clergy Register 1886-1956. '3° Conference of Bishops, p.82 [short citation] 1 "^7 .'11 '•" Conference of Bishops, p.87. '38 Conference of Bishops, p.92. 63 come the possibility that some if not all ordinands would obtain university degrees as part of their training. Australia's experience to date had not been at all encouraging and unless Donaldson took exceptional steps in this direction little would come by way of a benefit. As there was no university in Brisbane graduate candidates had to have come from interstate or overseas universities, but the shortage of applicants for the Theological College was acute. '39

Webber, in 1893 established the Theological College in Brisbane but it was Archdeacon David who as Principal 'set the standard of theological training built around an ordered devotional life...' '^o As there was no university in Queensland at the time, the ideal prerequisite for anyone seeking admission to the theological college was to have already a university degree. Without this, the minimum qualification for admission to the diaconate was the Th.L. awarded through the Australian College of Theology in Melboume, on the results of examinations held under its auspices at the college.

The students were originally accommodated in David's own home. In 1903 the number of students had so increased that David proposed fumishing All Saint's Rectory, which was vacant at the time, as a temporary residential college, with the Rev. Douglas Price in charge. The granted 'a sum not to exceed £50' towards the cost of fiimishing the rectory for the students. '""

The College's urgent need was the acquisition of a permanent home with suitable buildings, including a chapel, and a staff who would make the college 'the first consideration in their work'. David and Price gave what time they could spare 'from other duties to the six students, two of whom are non-resident, and I may add that the time occupied in the preparation and delivery of lectures represents no small proportion of each working day'. ''•2 Suitable candidates might have been few but apparently there was no shortage of those seeking Holy Orders as David had had to refuse 'a good many applications from men on account of their lack of education'. '43

Some finance was available for a new site. Webber had left about £1,200 to the College, and Stone-Wigg, Bishop of New Guinea, proposed to leave 'an equal amotmt'. '"^^ The site for the proposed university was a complicating factor in selecting a site for the College. While it might be desirable to have the college

'39 YB 1907, p.44. '40 K. D. Rayner, A History, p.219. '41 Chapter Mins., 22 May 1903. '42 YB 1904, p.49. '43 David to Donaldson, Notes. '44/6/rf. 64 somewhere near the university so students could attend lectures, David did not think that a combined hostel and theological college 'would prove to be a workable plan'. i^-'^ David possibly had in mind the example of Trinity College, Melboume founded by Bishop Perry in 1870, among its objects being the training of ordination candidates. The college opened in 1872 and theological teaching began in 1878. '46 In the event Melboume's example was not follo'ved. When St John's College was founded St Francis' Theological College was not i^icorporated in it.

Donaldson set about finding a suitable Principal for the College. When such a man was found, he hoped the College would become the theological college for the province. He hoped to get graduates of Melboume and Sydney as students, and he had his eye on one or two, 'but first we must train them ourselves: and for this I look hopefully to S.P.G. and the New Candidates Department'. '47 The problem of suitable accommodation for the college was solved when the Sisters of the Society of the Sacred Advent decided to move the Eton High School at Nundah to another site. At Donaldson's suggestion the Finance Committee inspected the property and by July the high school buildings had been purchased. '48

The Theological College re-opened at Nundah, in January 1907. with Canon Tomlin as Principal. '49 After selection by the Archbishop, candidates had to pass an entrance examination 'upon general knowledge'. Those without degrees were expected to pass the Th.L. of the Australian College of Theology within two years, and it was assumed that the majority of students would spend not less than three years in college. Between the time of passing their Th.L. and their last year's residence in college, students might be expected to spend a period of twelve months or more as lay readers, imdertaking practical training in parish work. During residence in college, they were not expected to undertake any large amount of practical work, but were required to take Sunday school classes 'and such other parochial work as the Principal shall think fit', '^o Students were expected to share in the domestic work of the college, and provision was made 'for gardening and recreation'. Upon being ordained as deacons, students had to place themselves in the hands of the Archbishop for work

'45 Ibid '46The Trinity theological school is now part of an integral part of the university college of that name. In 1910 Ridley College was founded as a theological college, and in the 1960's was affiliated to the University of Melboume. Although its status is that of a University College, Ridley remmains prdominantly a theological institution. Bp James Grant, Melboume, to A. P. Kidd, 13 Jun 1995. 147 Donaldson to Davidson, 12 Jun 1905, AA. 148 DCMins., 4 Jul 1905. •49yBi907, p.43. 150 K5 1907, p.44 65 in the Province for a period of five years, during which time they were expected to set aside all thoughts of marriage. '5'

In 1907 there were eight students during the first term and the number increased to ten during the second term. ' ^^ There was, however, a dearth of new applicants. 'The response of the young men, and especially of educated young men, is utterly inadequate', said Donaldson. Until there was a great increase in the number of applicants, an adequate selection process was 'well-nigh impossible', and until selection was practicable, a satisfactory standard of work could not be reached. '53

The College prospectus foresaw the possibility that many students would not be able to pay their fees. In cases of necessity tuition fees were to be remitted entirely, but upon ordination, students who had been assisted financially were expected to pay back the whole or part of the cost of their tuition. The life of each student was insured for £100, and the policy was held by the College until the whole cost of the student's tuition had been repaid, at which time the policy was transferred to the ex-student. '54 Webber's bequest provided the capital for the purchase of the College premises from the Sisters of the Society of the Sacred Advent, but no fiinds were available to subsidise additional indigent students. Nearly all the students were without private means, and 'we are therefore living hand to mouth, and we do not know how we shall be enabled to maintain the students we have'. '55

Some pecuniary relief was provided by the S.P.C.K. At the end of 1907, in response to an appeal by the Archbishop, five 'studentships' were granted to a value of £420. Donaldson had applied for six, but the sixth application was refiised because in the opinion of the selection committee the man for whom it was claimed 'had not gone out as a bona fide colonist'. Had he been an Englishman in secular employment for some years in the colony, 'the committee would have stretched a point and given him a studentship'. The committee had decided not to encourage people to go out from England with a promise of ordination after training. After much discussion and carefiil consideration and many meetings, they concluded:

that as a matter of principle the Society should have nothmg to do with such a class of theological students...While most anxious to encourage a native ministry, we dread lowering the standard for Holy Orders, and we fear that an Englishman thus attracted to a colony by a virtual promise of ordination will in a few years drift back

'5'/6W. '52 KB 1907, p.43. 153 ra 1907, p.44. 154c/iC/i., 1 Dec 1906, p. 109. 155 yfi 1907, p.44. 66 to England, as an ordained man. The colonist or native bom is not so liable to this temptation. 156

To be able to maintain the present students was a problem, and mled out the possibility of expansion, even if more men were available. In 1908 there were eight resident students, two of whom came from the Diocese of North Queensland, and two were being trained for the Diocese of Carpentaria. In 1913 there were thirteen students at the college, seven of whom were being trained for Brisbane. Thus, in its early days, the College could be seen as fulfilling its role as the provincial theological college, but supply was not keeping pace with demand for the Brisbane Diocese.

In 1911 there was a decline in entrance standards at St Francis' College, as it had then become, a change which was not welcomed by the Archbishop. Because of an alteration in university regulations, the standard of matriculation had to be abandoned as the minimum educational requirement for admission to the college. Instead, passing the Junior Public Examination became the basic requirement, the subjects passed to include Latin and Greek. Although this was the minimum requirement, it was 'much to be desired' that an increasing proportion of applicants would further qualify themselves by obtaining degrees 'and so forward the object of establishing a graduate native ministry'. 157 Of the students who took the final part of the Th.L. examination in October 1912, two achieved first class passes, two received second class, and five passed. Of the five who sat for the first part of the examination, three passed, 'and the remaining two were held over till the completion of the examination'. i58 On these results, the overall academic standard of the students was not high.

St Francis' College by 1916 was almost at a standstill, having lost most of its students to the war, and was shortly to close. It reopened on 1 July 1919.

Donaldson, by moving the College to Nundah, thus allowing for its expansion, had laid the groundwork for a native ministry, but the men emerging from the college were still too few. Other ways of giving some measure of relief to overworked clergy had to be found. One such way was the use of catechists, and in 1906 at Cabarlah, outside Toowoomba, Archdeacon Rivers had established 'a small brotherhood' of catechists who worked the Highfields, Crows Nest, and Goombimgee districts. At the same headquarters he had founded a 'college' which served the twofold purpose of

156 w. Osbom B. Allen, Secretary of S.P.C.K. to Donaldson, 3 Dec 1907, AA. 157/5 1913, p.154. '58/6/rf. 67 training lads for the office of catechist, and giving a preliminary training to lads who might enter the ministry.

Catechists were part of a ministry of laymen, the Archbishop said. They did not actually form an Order in the Church, but were in fact in the nature of a Minor Order. Their appointment signified that they had obtained a certain standing 'through training or examination'. 159 Prospective catechists required no qualifying examination for entry to Cabarlah, but had to be over seventeen years of age, and were expected to offer themselves 'in any capacity for the work of the Church'. i60 They were required to pass the first examination of the Australian College of Theology, and those accepted by the Archbishop were commissioned as catechists and licensed by him. '6i

Donaldson made it clearly understood that catechists would not offer themselves for ordination, but their importance was underlined by the passing of a canon on 8 June 1906 To Provide for Infirm and Disabled Catechists and to Assist in the Maintenance of the Widows and Orphans of the Catechists. Every parish where a catechist was employed fijll time was to pay into a central fund £1 per quarter, or 1/- per service rendered by the catechist where he was employed for a shorter period. Of the money collected each year, 'not less than one-tenth' was to be invested at interest, and not less than one-half of the interest 'derived from such investments in every year' was to be invested at interest until the accumulated sum reached £2,000. The remainder of the receipts together with the remaining investment income was to be used to pay for the management of the fund. Any surplus after the discharge of payments, was to be invested, the proceeds from which were to go into the accumulated fund. By 31 March 1921 the capital of the fund had reached £1,570.17.

6. '62

Classes at Cabarlah were to be held for probationers on four days a week during term, with four terms of ten weeks each year. Subjects included Bible, elementary Latin and Greek, elocution, and parish work. They were to receive two years' tuition, board and lodging free, and ten shillings per month pocket money. The Archbishop, at his discretion, might select some of the probationers as candidates for Holy Orders. '63 There is no record of how many probationers ever went to Cabarlah.

At the same time, fifteen boys and young men had joined the Order of Postulants, some of whom were boys with Granmiar school education, but some had

'59 ys 1906, p.39. '60 y5 1907, p.43. '6'c/iC/i., lOct. 1906, p.98. '62y5 1921,p.58. '63c/)C;i., 1 Oct 1907, p. 126. 68 'only had a State school education'. '64 It was intended that the postulants eventually would be sent as probationers to Cabarlah i65 but it is unlikely that many of them went there. Such training as they received was usually at the hands of their local rector before entering St Francis' College.

Shortly after Cabarlah's incepfion. Rivers applied to the Diocesan Council for a loan of £50 from the Church Society Loan Fund. In addifion to restoring the house, the rent of which was £52 per year, and fiimishing it. Rivers proposed to build three or four detached bedrooms, which had to be furnished. He also required at least four more horses and saddlery. i66 Rivers gave generously of his own private resources, but the diocese found it impossible to supply the exfra financial support needed for long-term stability. During the three years of its operation catechists and student catechists held services regularly in nine centres, and at six other centres where occasional assistance was given. i67 A committee of 'leading laymen' found that the Cabarlah establishment was not viable, and it was closed at the end of 1909.

In the seventeen years of Donaldson's episcopate the increase in the number of clergy had not kept pace with the increase in population, and Donaldson's prospect of a native clergy, although in its infancy, was not achieved. His achievement of a highly educated clergy, one preferably in which all the clergy had university degrees, but at least with a minimum Th.L., was beyond Donaldson's reach. Within his term the standard of qualifications actually fell, as the following tables show:

TABLE I

Year Uni. Deg. Th.L. AKC None 1905 26 3 20 4 1921 24 2 51 28

TABLE II

Year otal Priest %Uni. Degs. Other Quals No Quals 1905 53 49 43 8 1921 105 23 50 27

This was for several reasons. The priests who had come from overseas were usually not of the high educational standard Donaldson expected and because of the poor state of diocesan finances he was unable to attract men of a higher calibre. So

164 YB 1908, p.75. State scholarships were introduced in 1873. The first State secondary schools commenced in 1912, so the boys would have reached scholarship standard. 165 yfi 1908, p.75. 166 Rivers to Diocesan Council, 2 April 1906, Reg. Corres., AA. 167 ChCh.. 1 Oct 1909. 69 far as local men were concemed, he was disappointed with the quality and number of his recruits. They came not as he had expected from the church schools, but from the State school system which he thought to be inferior to the Church system.

Donaldson's hand was strengthened in 1915 when Le Fanu was consecrated bishop, which gave him the extra help he had long needed, and relieved him of some of the burden of travelling. It allowed more oversight of his priests, and to make better use of the resources he had. One of his great strenv,ths was the use he was able to make of the Bush Brotherhood, but he was not always so successful in the appointment of clergy to suitable parishes, as in the case of Hale. The war wreaked havoc upon his clergy, and some of his best men never retumed. His scheme to recruit retuming servicemen did not come to fulfilment, not through any fault of his, but through the lack of interest by the Primate.

So far as training was concemed, he had virtually to start all over again after the war to rebuild the college. Two of his disappointments were in the quality and number of young men presenting themselves for the priesthood, and in their lack of university training. He did his best, however, to make the most of what he had by providing the best training he could, and the post-war appointment of Campling as Principal of the Theological College, was an astute move. Despite the war and other set-backs, Donaldson was able to report to the 1921 Provincial Synod that half the clergy in the Brisbane Diocese were Australian bom and trained. i68

Donaldson's efforts in managing a far-flung diocese with inadequate resources must be seen as being as successful as conditions would allow. Donaldson had done his best to improve the lot of his clergy, but even he was unable to get financial blood out of the stone of parochial resistance to any form of systematic giving, a resistance reinforced by lack of community spirit because of distance and sparsity of population, and through many years of drought. These were things over which he had no control. The dearth of money, however, was the basic weakness of Donaldson's plans.

168 Proceedings of General Synod of Queensland, 1921, p. 5. 70 CHAPTER V

HIGH FINANCE

Two of the biggest problems that plagued Donaldson throughout his episcopate in Brisbane were the shortage of money and the shortage of clergy. The shortage of money largely determined the number and quality of clergy that could be employed, and limited the expansion of the Church's many activities in a diocese where the population was wide-spread, and increasing. The Diocese of Brisbane, as was the case with the other Queensland dioceses, had had no govemment endowments. From its inception it had never had abundant financial resources, and Webber made several visits to England for the express purpose of raising money for the various needs of the diocese, including the building of the cathedral. The ways of collecting money were limited: funds to pay for clergy stipends, diocesan administration, and welfare operations had largely to come voluntarily from parish assessments, benefactions, and special appeals. Capital works programmes had to be funded mainly through mortgages, but mortgage repayments and interest were another drain on the fragile diocesan income.

When Donaldson arrived, parochial finances as distinct from the diocesan, were 'in a lamentable condition', ' but parochial and diocesan finances were two sides of the one coin. Webber, with all his fund-raising ability in England, had been unable to put diocesan finances on a really sound basis. Even the bishop's own stipend was not secure. The difficulty had been inherited from Webber's predecessors. It was left to Donaldson to try to solve an insuperable problem. Through inheritance Donaldson was financially independent and his affairs were handled by bankers in England. On a personal level he had no need to worry about money, and he had no particular skills in the area of finance, at least not in fund-raising. Donaldson's efforts in overcoming these problems were not altogether an unqualified success, but many periods of drought, coupled with a flock uncommitted to generous and sustained giving made his task all the harder.

At a special session of Synod in 1899, Webber berated its members for their failure to secure a sufficient see endowment. In his opinion the diocese could not be administered on an income of less than £1,000 per year. Against this the net armual income as shown in a printed statement presented by the Treasurer was £250.^ Should the Synod at that time have had to appoint a successor, the diocese would

1 Donaldson to Davidson, 12 June 1905, AA. 2 yS1899, re Special Synod p.30. 71 have owed 'the estate of the (ex-hypothesi) late bishop a sum of upwards of £1,200'. ^ Webber's castigation continued:

You would have had to stoop to the humiliation of searching for some rich clergyman willing to administer the diocese at his own cost, but who (even if found), might possibly have been destitute of any particle of leadership or other qualification for the post...'*

The outcome of this harangue was that the Lesser Chapter of the Cathedral agreed to pay £300 per year 'to the bishop as dean' during Webber's episcopacy, and to his successor, if the state of diocesan finances rendered it necessary, but this payment did not form a permanent part of the See Endowment Fund. The payment was to cease when the diocese was in a position to pay a net income of £1,000 to the bishop, and when the arrears 'at the rate of £1,000 per annum due to the bishop shall be paid'. ^ Synod also pledged itself 'to use its best endeavours to increase the capital of the See Endowment Fund'. ^

Webber's strictures bore some fruit. David's presidential address to the 1904 Synod showed a slightly brighter outlook. For those who had followed the trend of diocesan finances over the past fourteen years, he said, it was obvious that many of the difficulties were due

not to any lack of vigorous leadership or spiritual earnestness on the part of the Bishop and Synod, but to the entail of trouble caused by a too generous expenditure upon diocesan objects shortly after the late Bishop arrived in Queensland. '

Much of the expenditure had undoubtedly been necessary to make up lost ground during previous years 'when, whilst a stream of immigrants was being poured into this State, the work of Church extension had not been prosecuted with that vigour that the occasion demanded'. ^ At the time, expectations had run high, which had led the diocesan authorities to guarantee 'an episcopal income far in excess of their resources.' Heavy expenditure in enlarging Bishopsboume had also seriously depleted the See endowment. ^

Some improvement in diocesan finances had occurred with the discharge of the remaining portion of the accumulated debt on the Bishopric Sustentation Fund, the fund from which the bishop's stipend was paid. There was, however, grave concem regarding the reduction in the See Endowment Fund owing to the repayment

3 Ibid 4 Ibid 5 Ibid 6 Ibid •^ 75 1904, p.41. 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 72 of £3,500 to lift the mortgage on Bishopsboume. Previously any emergency shortage of funds had been met by increasing parish assessments. David thought this was not a satisfactory solution. In the first place the assessment was often too great a burden on a majority of parishes; secondly, although the bishop's stipend was secured under canon, 'it is highly undesirable that so large a portion of the bishop's income should be dependent upon parochial contributions'. '^

The first set of armual accounts after Donaldson's arrival, which closed on 31 March 1905, showed the Registry and Executive Fund had a debit balance of £11.13.4. The Synod bank account had a debit balance of £46. 0. 2. The See Estate and Bishopric Sustentation Fund was overdrawn by £159.0.0. ^^ Total income had in fact been £1,014. 9. l.^^ Under these conditions, as regards stipend, the bishop was in not much better a situation than his clergy. Since Webber's exhortations of 1899, the situation had improved but slightly, and some of the other accounts were in better shape, but Donaldson had to tum his attention to improving this generally less than buoyant situation.

Improving finances was a concem of the Anglican communion world-wide at the time, and ways to improve the situation were discussed at the Pan-Anglican Congress in 1908. One conclusion reached at the Pan-Anglican Congress, which had some relevance to the state of the Diocese of Brisbane's finances, was that although large sums of money were often collected for church and charitable purposes there was no system for such collections. ^^ It was doubtful whether large sums of money were collected in the diocese for charitable purposes, but there was no question as to the haphazard methods by which money was collected. As early as 1892 a Synod committee urged the adoption of an envelope system in parishes to encourage systematic giving. The effect of this proposal was somewhat limited partly because of poor organisation, and partly because 'many Anglicans accustomed to a long tradition of sporadic and small offerings to the Church, objected'. Such a system implied that pressure was being placed upon them. ^'^

One of the immediate results of the discussion at the Congress was the appointment by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York of a committee to investigate the financial system of the Church in those two provinces. As the methods used in other provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion might be of benefit

10 Ibid 11 rai905. 12 yfi 1905, p.87. '3 75 1910, p.lOO. 11 K. D. Rayner, A History, p.287. 73 in its deliberations, the committee sent to Donaldson, among other bishops, a questionnaire, and asked his assistance by completing the questions in so far as they applied to the Diocese of Brisbane. ^^ The questionnaire has not survived, but a draft of Donaldson's reply throws some light on the way in which Brisbane diocesan finances were raised, and in some cases disbursed:

(a) The stipends of clergy were paid entirely out of the offertories and voluntary contributions of the respective parishes. The stipends of the Cathedral staff were paid out of the Cathedral endowment.

(b) Parochial requirements were met by Church collecfions, voluntary contributions, pew rents, entertainments, etc. These matters were in the hands of the churchwardens, often assisted by a system of voluntary lady collectors.

(c) The clergy were paid by the churchwardens, except in a few instances, where the amount was remitted to the Diocesan Registry and the stipend was paid through the Registry. Clergy were paid monthly.

(d) The expenses of general diocesan administration were met mainly by contribufions by the clergy of one third of offerings (up to £3. 3. 0.) they might receive from celebrating marriages. Not more than one guinea was to be paid to the Registry out of such offerings. Contributions towards diocesan administration were from parochial assessment.

There were several special diocesan funds supported by special annual offertories under canon passed by Synod and by volimtary contributions.

(e) Whitsunday offertories were devoted to the Home Mission Fund. There were also branches of the Home Mission Fund in nearly all the parishes, from which contributions were received quarterly.

Christmas Day offerings were devoted to the Clergy Superaimuation & Clergy Widows and Orphans Fund.

Good Friday offertories were devoted to the Diocesan Board of Missions.

Offertories at Ordination, Confirmation, and Institution Services were devoted to the Archbishop's Fund for Mission Chaplains; the income (largely derived from capital) was entirely under the control of the Archbishop and was applied in the payment of stipends of 'Mission Chaplains' appointed by the Archbishop.

1^ Abp. of Canterbury's Committee to Donaldson, 15 Jan 1910, AA. 74 (f) An annual assessment was levied on the parishes, £450 of which was appropriated towards the stipend of the Archbishop, the balance (about £350) being appropriated towards the expenses of general diocesan administration.

The ordinary income of the parish was assessed, and an assessment of 5% was levied on incomes over £300 (5% discount for prompt quarterly payments); 5% on incomes over £200 (10% discount), and 3% on incomes under £200 (10% discount).

The payment of parish assessments, quarterly, was provided for by canon. Non-payment debarred lay representatives from speaking and voting in Synod; and also disenfranchised parochial nominators in the choice of a rector of a parish.

(g) There was an Ordination Candidates Fund raised by voluntary contributions and administered by the Cathedral Chapter and the Principal of the Theological College.

(h) There was a diocesan fund for assisting in the building of churches and acquiring sites, but its resources were very meagre. When application was made to S.P.C.K. a grant of \0% of the cost of building the church was usually given. ^^

The reply outlined the theory: the practice was often much more different. Parish assessments were frequently behind hand in being remitted, and clergy stipends were frequently in arrears.

Demands on the diocesan bounty were extensive, and the way in which they were financed was generally most unsatisfactory. Such was the precarious state of finances that at the 1909 diocesan Synod a motion was carried requesting the Diocesan Council to appoint a commission 'to enquire into and consider the whole question of Church finance'. ^^ The commission's report was presented to the Synod in 1910.

The overall state of diocesan finances could easily be seen from an inspection of the capital accovmts in 1910, all of which were woefully under-capitalised. Some substantial means had to be found to increase their bases. The income for most of the accounts was derived from mortgages on real estate. The See Endowment Trusts capital amounted to £17,649.15.10. Of this £7,031. 6. 8. came from mortgages on real estate, £2,610.15.0 from properties on hand, £7.14. 2 from a Trust Account, and

16 Donaldson to Committee, 24 Feb 1910, AA. 1'^ yB 1909, p.64. 75 £8,000.0.1. was the imputed value of the See house and grounds. Of the £17,649.15.10 only £7,031.6.8. generated income. This was pretty much the story of all the Capital Accounts. The Clergy Superannuation and C.W. & O Fund, for example, amounted to £5,525.14.10 of which £4,018.4.10 was derived from mortgages. '^ The picture which emerged was that the diocesan finances were in a precarious state as what little income there was derived from real estate mortgages, or from rents. There was no investment in interest-bearing bonds, and there was no significant injection of capital from parish assessments or other diocesan sources, but selling the Bishopsboume estate was considered. In 1909 a suggestion by Cameron Brothers, who for many years handled diocesan real estate transactions, that a buyer might be fotmd for the Bishopsboume estate '^ was considered by the Diocesan Council who decided that it would consider an offer of £20,000. ^^ This amount was very different from the imputed value of the house and grounds in the 1910 accounts. In Cameron Brothers' estimation the reserve of £20,000 was above market value, and no further action was taken.

The commission's report presented to the 1910 Synod concluded that as there were no large endowments, such as existed in some other Sees, or in other parts of the world, the best way to improve diocesan finances was to improve parochial finances. Taking as their starting point the number of professed adherents to the Church of England in Queensland as 134,660, or thirty-seven per cent of the population, they assumed that of these 30,300 were aduh males, 23,500 were adult females, and 80,700 were minors. If the males gave on average one shilling per week, the females six pence per week, and the minors one permy per week, £126,815 would be raised per year. If this figure were cut by one half, it would produce £63,407 or more than double the total parochial receipts for the previous year. ^^

From these figures it was obvious that a very large proportion of so-called churchpeople gave very little or nothing towards the upkeep of the Church. The commissioners continued their analysis which proved the obvious, and which highlighted, in terms of the average given, just how niggardly in general were parishioners on whom rested the burden of improving church finances. The analysis showed that of those who attended church, only about seventy-three per cent at moming services and sixty-six per cent at evening services gave anything at all and their average offering was only four pence per head. 22 These grossly insufficient

1^ 75 1910, pp. 108-9 1^ Cameron Bros, to A. Dawson (Treasurer), Reg. Corres, AA. 20 DCMins, 14 Oct 1909. 21 75 1910, p.lOl. 22 75 1910, p.102 76 offerings were augmented by the proceeds of social gatherings, dances, whist drives, and similar activities. From such scant funds had to be paid the parochial assessment which, in many cases was in arrears, despite the inducement of a rebate for payment by due date. There was very little left over for the clergy stipend, and all the other expenses which were needed to run a parish. There had to be a better way to put parochial and diocesan finances on a sound footing. ^^

The commission reconmiended that a system be instituted whereby regular contributions were secured from all professed churchpeople, and in particular 'that more systematised efforts should be made to reach the pockets of those who, through non-attendance, or thoughtless disregard of their obligations, give little or nothing to the support of their Church'. ^4 J\^Q commission, however, was not prepared to recommend 'so complete and radical a change as would be involved in centralising all the revenues of the Church into one general fund'. The commissioners considered that while parishioners might be more or less easily 'stirred to contribute to the needs of their local Church, they would require a considerable amount of educating before a spirit of parochialism gave place to the broader idea of centralisation'.^^

The recommendations, in fact, contained nothing very innovative. The Treasurer was directed to prepare a statement of diocesan requirements for the following year, and the Finance Conmiittee was to suggest the amounts required from each parish. The parishes were to raise these amounts by whatever means they found most expedient. The commission also recommended the payment of all stipends through a central fund, and it was suggested that the Archbishop explain to the some ways in which a more systematic collection could be made, for example, by making sure the parish roll was up to date so that regular residential calls might be made by collectors.

The commission's report was received by Synod, but its adoption seemed to have had very little effect on diocesan finances. There was an increase of approximately £4,000 between the total capital accounts from 1910 to 1911, which was due mainly to several legacies, a grant from S.P.C.K., one from S.P.G. for Glennie School, and from the sale of debentures for that school. The following year there was a similar increase, this coming from the sale of part of the Bishopsboume estate amounting to £2,050, and from grants, and from the sale of debentures for

23 Centralised payment of stipends did not occur within the Uniting Church (Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist) until 1977. During the period under discussion, the parishes of those Churches were responsible for clergy stipends as in the Church of England. (Source: Mr K. Neill, Secretary of Uniting Church Brisbane Synod). 24 yB1910,p.l03. 25 Ibid 77 Glennie School. There was no overall marked improvement generally in the financial situation either in the short or long-term through increased giving. 26 The inability to improve finances was due to no failure on Donaldson's part. People were simply unwilling to give or unable to increase their giving.

As if the overall financial position was not difficult enough, Donaldson was saddled with the task of financing the building of the new cathedral. Webber's legacy was not one Donaldson received with relish. He had unburdened himself earlier to the Archbishop of Canterbury:

The Cathedral weighs heavily upon my spirit. I am afi-aid I am not altogether grateful to Bp Webber for having such big ideas. He had left me a gigantic task, even after all his work. We have £31,000 but the contractors may want anything up to £50,000 or £60,000. The fact is that no one in Australia understands how to build so elaborate a structure. The tenders will be in any time now. I think we shall certainly Start building at once, and beg as we go on.^'

From Donaldson's point of view, the building of the cathedral was perhaps the least important of the problems he faced, but the one which bore most heavily on the financial resources of the diocese.

Webber saw the cathedral as the hub of the diocese, as well as a great monument to the glory of God. The existing pro-cathedral was clearly unsuitable. It was badly built, and although it had already been extended it was still too small. Webber had plans drawn up for a new and more fitting building by the English ecclesiastical architect, J. L. Pearson, who had previously designed Webber's church at Red Lion Square in London, and . In 1899 when the Queensland govenmient decided to build the Executive Building on a site contiguous with the cathedral land, Webber considered the William Street site to be unsuitable for the new cathedral, and the Cathedral Chapter commissioned architect J. H. Buckridge to investigate possible properties.^^ Buckridge visited and reported on six sites:

(1) The Museum site, at the comer of Wickham Terrace and Albert Street.

(2) Comer of George and Charlotte Streets.

(3) Lands Office site

(4) Comer of Arm and Boundary Streets.

(5) All Saints' Church ground.

26 75 1911, 1912. 2^ Donaldston to Davidson, 12 June 1905, AA. 28 Buckridge to Cathedral Chapter, 8 Jun 1899, AA. 78 (6) Adelaide and Ann Street site.29

Chapter aimounced in September 1899 that it had found 'a considerably larger area in a central and commanding position and one which is of historic interest, as being the site of the original Govenmient House'. ^^

The old St John's property was sold to the govemment, and the difference 'in commercial values between the two sites' enabled the Chapter 'after replacing the Residentiary House, and the "Church House", containing Synod Hall, Diocesan Offices, and Institute, which they are bound to replace', to deposit some £5,000 in the Cathedral Building Fund. The increased building area at the new site gave Webber the opportunity to send the plans back to England to have extensions made to the original plan.^^ The nave and aisles were lengthened by one bay. ^^

John Pearson, the architect of the cathedral, died in 1898, and the design work was taken over by his son, Frank. The original idea for the new site was for a cathedral close, similar to those existing around many of the English cathedrals. There was provision for a bishop's residence, a deanery, houses for canons, and cloisters. Owing to the expense, it was decided not to proceed with these auxiliary buildings.

Webber's cathedral fund-raising visit to England which lasted from August 1901 until the onset of his illness towards the end of 1902, was, according to A. E. David, the subject of a good deal of criticism in Church circles, both as to the method employed in securing the necessary money, and in leaving yet again the diocese without episcopal oversight for a lengthy period. The Synod had requested Webber to go to England for this purpose, and therefore the responsibility lay with the Church itself. 'This captious criticism of policy to which we had committed ourselves was neither logical nor honest', said David.^^

For a number of years it had been Webber's intention to link the building of the Cathedral with the monarchy:

At the Council meeting held Thursday, 31 March [1887], a scheme was discussed and adopted for the collection of subscriptions towards the Cathedral, the startmg of which is to be the Church of England's commemoration in this colony of the jubilee of Her Majesty's happy and prosperous reign over the great British Empire.^'*

29 Ibid 30 ChCh., 1 Sepl899,p.25. 31 Ibid 32 Pearson to Webber, 2 Feb 1900, AA. 33 YB 1902/03, p.22. David did not specify the source of the criticism, and no evidence of such criticism was found. 3"* St John's Parish Chronicle, Vol. I Oct 1886-Dec 1887, Apr 1887, p.8. 79 Queen Victoria's death in January 1901 caused an outpouring of sentiment throughout the Empire, tangible expressions of which were to be seen by the many statues raised in her memory. A proposed statue in Brisbane was to be financed by public subscription. Webber saw no difficulty in churchpeople subscribing to it as citizens, but the Church had a greater memorial than this. 'Remember that this [the Cathedral] is our Church of England memorial to Queen Victoria, and our thanksgiving for the blessings of her unexampled reign', he told the 1901 Synod.^^ The laying of the foundation stone on 22 May 1901 by the late Queen's grandson, the Duke of Cornwall and York, (later George V), added lustre to the occasion, and was an outward sign not only of the bonds of Empire, but also of the mistaken perception of an established Church.

Webber, when he retumed to Brisbane in May 1903, brought with him complete plans and specifications for the erection of the Synod Hall and diocesan offices, as well as some of the plans for the cathedral, but the working drawings and specifications of the cathedral had not been completed. Pearson estimated that Synod would not be in a position to call tenders for the cathedral for a further nine months.^^ Webber died without seeing any work started on his great plan. The committee appointed to select an appropriate memorial to the late bishop decided that the choir stalls and episcopal throne would fulfil this purpose.^^

When the selection of materials for the great enterprise became a reality, Pyrmont 'purgatory' stone which was a hard durable sandstone, was chosen for external dressed surfaces of the cathedral. The local porphyry was all right for wall surfaces, and would do also for the plinth course, although granite would be better, said David. He thought that even if the Pyrmont purgatory stone were more expensive, it should be adhered to. The vestries could be omitted if the tenders were too high, and if necessary the choir aisle, 'but the appearance of the southem elevation will be spoilt if this be omitted'. 38

As a stop-gap building was required to replace old St John's, the Cathedral Chapter purchased a block of land on the comer of George and Charlotte streets. Two shops on the George street frontage were retained as a temporary investment, and a mission church was erected on the Charlotte street frontage. Plans were prepared by J. S. Murdoch, a tender of £2,805 was accepted, and the foundation stone of St Luke's

35 rai901,p.48. 36 ys 1902/03, p.134. 3^7 Kfi 1904, p.32. ^^ David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. 80 Mission Church was laid by the Govemor on 4 Febmary 1904.^^ It was in this church that Donaldson was enthroned at the end of that year.

The capital in the Cathedral Building Fund was £20,752. 7. 7 when Webber left for England in August 1901. Between Webber's arrival in England and the onset of his illness he received subscriptions at the rate of £100 per week, and raised £6,563.16.9.'*^ This sum, together with local contributions and promises of £2,746.15.4, produced a grand total of £30,842.16.7. Help had not been forthcoming from the S.P.G. During his last visit to London, Webber wrote to Montgomery and inter alia made a plea for funds for the cathedral. The old cathedral was unsuitable, and had to be replaced within two years. A new and more suitable site had been purchased, and a bigger building was planned. The fact that the bishop's cathedra would be there in no way limited the space for worshippers, for which accommodation for 1,200 was initially planned, although eventually the building would hold 3,000.^*1 Montgomery was not receptive to Webber's request. In reply Montgomery wrote: 'I am requested by the Standing Committee to say that they regret very much that they have no funds at their disposal wherewith to help you'. ^^ In an undated letter to Frodsham, Montgomery elaborated on his actions:

I fear 'Brisbane' will go back to you very wroth with S.P.G. We simply will not help him: our own people say - 'If a man comes home and gets £100 a week for his Cathedral, begging from everyone, we cannot as well give him funds. We are a little sad too, that he keeps on begging for bricks and mortar when his people are starving...' ^^

Certain additions deemed necessary by the architect, for example a retaining wall, increased the estimated cost of the cathedral from £37,000 to £43,000. The shortfall was £12,157. 3. 5.^*4 Owing to 'a disastrous and prolonged drought' which had 'impoverished the community in Queensland', the appeal for building funds had to be practically suspended for some years,^^ and between David's 1902 Synod address and the end of 1904, no further monies were raised. The commencement of work on the building was a good opportunity for a fresh start, but the difficulty about collecting, David thought, was that people 'outside the city and suburbs look upon the building as a Brisbane affair'.

39 ys 1904, p. 110. "^0 YB 1902/03, p.34. ^' Webber to Montgomery, 21 Oct 1902, S.P.G letters, RHL. '*2 Montgomery to Webber, 13 Nov 1902, S.P.G letters, RHL. '*3 Montgomery to Frodsham, ...Nov 1902, S.P.G letters, RHL. Montgomery did not explain his remarks regarding 'starving' but possibly referred to 'his people' being starved of'spiritual' food, because of the shortage of priests. ^'^ YB 1902/03, p.34. ^^ Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.50. 81 By the end of 1904 tenders for the erection of the cathedral had been advertised. The delay, David informed Donaldson, 'has been largely due to the Chapter saddling me with a casual man as architect. He is careless, and I have had to check all his work and make my own enquiries'. ^6 The estimate had risen to £43,000, but tenders higher than that were expected because builders were not used to such high class work, and would wish to secure themselves. Towards the estimated £43,000, the Chapter had £31,000. When £29,000 had been spent, S.P.C.K. would make a grant of £1,000. It was expected that by the end of the year another £1,000 would have been added to the £32,000 available. About £1,500 was being eamed in interest, but the amount of interest would reduce as the monies were disbursed. The Chapter was able to raise £4,000 by mortgage on houses in Maxwell Place, a property adjoining the cathedral site. But the mortgage, David thought, should be a last resort, 'for it is always difficult to raise money here for a debt'. ^'^

In 1905 the capital for the cathedral was some £32,000, This was an increase of about £2,200 on the previous year, but the increase included £1,000 bequeathed by Webber, and offertories and interest on the capital. Another £1,673. 0. 8. which included £1,000 from S.P.C.K., had been promised. '^^ So slow was the capital growth towards the cost of the building that the Cathedral Chapter had some misgivings about proceeding with it, but by the middle of November 1905, Chapter was ready to proceed. As the Synod Hall and diocesan offices, according to Pearson's first estimates, were expected to cost at least £12,000, Chapter decided to spend the greater part of the money on the school, run in cormexion with the cathedral, 'since the diocese can do without the Hall and offices'. '^^ A motion, moved by Chapman and seconded by Eddington, was carried to the effect that work should proceed on the erection of the cathedral, less vestries, at a cost of £41,121, and that an appeal be made for a further sum of £12,000 with bay of the nave at an estimated cost of £6,000. 50

Early in 1906, slightly a year after Donaldson's accession, and some five years after the foundation stone of the Cathedral was laid, a contract was signed with Mr. Peter Rodger of Ballarat for the erection of the choir, choir aisles, transepts and crossing, north chapel, and double south aisles at a cost of £41,120. 9.10. Roger's original tender was in the amount of £44.052. 6.10, the lowest tender received, and

'*" David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. '*' David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. '*^ ra 1905, p. 110. ^" David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. 50 Minutes of the Lesser Chapter of St John's Cathedral, [Chapter Mins.] 14 Nov 1905. 82 included the erection of vestries. On the advice of the architect, F. L. Pearson, the vestries were excluded from the work to be done, and the tender reduced accordingly. The contract was signed on 20 April 1906. Work commenced on the following day.^l At a later date, a separate contract was let for the erection of one bay of the nave. ^2

By 1907 only £2,337. 3. 7. had been added to the building fund, £1,100 being interest, and the balance from subscriptions, and the total liability was £54,788. ^3 The estimate for the fiimiture and fittings, clerk of works' salary, and architects' and quantity surveyor's fees added another £7,667 to the cost. This was further increased when it was decided that two bays of the nave should be built 'to secure a due proportion in the appearance of the fabric'. In 1910 the cost had risen to nearly £64,000.

In an effort to increase donations, Donaldson appointed the Rev. E. C. Ganley as Commissioner for the Cathedral Building Fund. Ganley started work in October 1907, but by the end of March 1908 he had raised less than £700. This amount included one of £250, and four single donations of £50. A bequest of £500 from a will had yet to be received. As Ganley's fund-raising campaign had not been a conspicuous success, Donaldson appealed to the wealthy members of the conmiunity to make generous contributions. ^4

When Donaldson visited England in 1908, apart from the Pan-Anglican Congress and the Lambeth Conference, interviews with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Church leaders, his time was taken up with family and friends. He also found time to address various organisations. One such address was given at the Monthly General Meeting of the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge (S.P.C.K.) where he spoke on Problems of Church Work in Queensland. The order in which he discussed the problems in no way indicated his own priorities. He was primarily on a fimd-raising mission, and although it was not the highest of his priorities, the cathedral, for instance, needed the most fimds. Some £14,000 was needed for its completion. In his plea for funds he pointed out that not only was the see of Brisbane a diocese in itself, it was also the metropolitical see and therefore had special claims to have a great central church. ^5 His appeal fell on barren soil. Apart from £1,000 already promised, the S.P.C.K. was not able to provide funds for the building of a cathedral.

5' KB 1906, p.l 18. 52 ChCh.. 1 May 1906, p. 157. 53 ra 1907, p. 116. 5'* YB 1908, p.45. 55 S.P.C.K. Notes CLXIV, 1908. 83 Donaldson's fund-raising efforts in other directions were more successful. While in England in 1908 he raised the sum of £2,000, ^^ and a campaign he launched in the diocese raised £10,000 in the space of five months. Subscriptions received during 'Cathedral Week' as well as throughout the year amounted to £1,302. 0. 8d. 5"^ The cost of building the two bays of the nave, however, exceeded the architect's estimates, so that with fumisliings, fees, organ, and so forth the total indebtedness amounted to £58,806. With :unds in hand and promised subscriptions, the shortfall was £5,028. An allowance for the cost of lighting the cathedral was not included in the above figures. At the 1909 Synod it was announced that fund-raising would be suspended until shortly before the opening of the building, when an all-out effort would be made to raise the money required. ^^ The 1910 Synod was informed that the sum required had risen to £5,137, to which had to be added the cost of temporary vestries and the bell tower, at least another £750. ^^

By mid-September 1910 the sanctuary, choir, transepts and crossing, and two bays of the nave were finished, and the sanctuary became the final resting place of Webber's remains. His remains had been interred at Cemetery but on 21 September 1910 they were disinterred and reburied in a vault below where the high altar was to be placed. There was no sermon or eulogy, the service following in most respects 'that used in the ordinary burial service except for the insertion of a special prayer'. ^^ This was the first service held in the Cathedral.

On 28 October 1910, the Feast of SS Simon and Jude, which was the anniversary of Donaldson's own consecration, the completed section of the cathedral was consecrated in a service of great dignity and splendour. A great public demonstration was held at the Exhibition Hall the next evening. ^^ Donaldson, in his address said that the people of Brisbane were able to watch the process of transplanting the Church from one soil to another. It was still called the Church of England, but if it was to live and grow as it should, then it must become national, and become tmly the Church of the Australian people. The process was going on before their eyes and the cathedral was a symbol of that process. ^^ Donaldson's eloquence, however, did little to increase donations to the building fund.

56 DCMins., 5 Nov 1908. 5^7 YB 1909, pp. 144-5. 58 Ibid 59 yfi 1910, p.146. 60 BC, 22 Sep 1910. 61 fiC, 31 Oct 1910. 62 BC, 31 Oct 1910. 84 A short time after the cathedral was opened a dispute arose between the Chapter and Robin Dods, the supervising architect. Dods had submitted an account for work he had done in supervising the constmction. The amount of his account is not known, but the Chapter sent him a cheque for £113.3.8 which was a lesser amount than that claimed. Dods' account included a percentage of the penalty imposed on the builder for being late, an amount to which Dods believed he was entitled. The difference was not large, as Dods explained, but what the Chapter had done was to reduce his account by the amount of the penalty he had claimed. Dods wrote to the Chapter:

The difference between the amount of my account and that offered by the Chapter is small, and in itself is not worthy of contention. But the implication that my charges are excessive and unjustifiable is unpalatable and I find it hard to believe that the Chapter would knowingly reduce my fees by the amount due on the penalty incurred by the contractor for delay. Work to the value of the fine was executed and supervised; and as the assessment of the fine was left to me, consequently the greater the amount recovered for the Chapter the less I would be paid. "-^

As Dods pointed out, he had done work free of charge, for which he was entitled to the schedule of charges of the Royal Institute of British Architects, he was therefore surprised at the Chapter's attitude, especially as what he was trying to do was to reduce the cost of the cathedral.

Dods had also submitted an account of £5 in cormexion with the altar rail in the 'morning' chapel, and this too was the cause of some dispute. In asking that the Chapter accept his assurance that he had done the whole of the work with his own hands, and that it occupied nearly two days of his own time, it should have been obvious, he said, that even at £5 the work was not very remunerative. ^^ While these matters were of no great importance in the overall scheme of things, they were symptomatic of the somewhat prickly relationship which existed between the Chapter and the architect, and the paucity of cathedral finances. ^^

Webber prided himself on his financial 'ability', according to Montgomery, but he had lost a good deal on investments. Webber had once told Montgomery that he personally had raised some £60,000 for the Brisbane diocese, almost entirely in England but, wrote Montgomery, he had 'strange ways' and the Bishop of New Guinea had once told him, (Montgomery) that Webber was 'a wicked old man'. 66

63 Dods to Chapter, 11 Jan 1911, AA. 64 Ibid 65 As Chairman of Chapter Donaldson would have been aware of the dispute but there is no record of any intervention by him. 66 Montgomery to Davidson. 6 Feb 1904, A.letters, LPL. 85 Montgomery did not explain what that meant, but Webber's grandiose plans for the cathedral proved to be a millstone around Donaldson's neck throughout his episcopate.

While building the cathedral was of great importance, the replacement of another church building was also necessary. Time and white ants had ravaged the wooden private chapel at Bishopsboume, built by Bishop Tufnell some fifty years previously, and by 1911 it had become stmcturally dangerous. The Diocesan Council at its meeting of 21 June 1911 approved the erection of a new chapel, the cost of which was not to exceed £1,900, and the finance for which was to come from the sale of part of the Bishopsboume estate. In 1912 the old chapel was dismantled, and replaced by a new stone building.

The diocese was bound by the Bishopsboume Estate Act of 1900, and when the legality of selling part of the estate and using the money so raised for the new chapel was questioned, Chancellor Chubb gave his opinion that under the Act authority was given for expending money raised from the sale of the estate 'in the payment or part payment of the cost of erecting and providing fixtures for a suitable residence for the Bishop'. As there was a chapel on the estate when the Act was passed, and as it had been condemned, there appeared to be authority for the chapel to be replaced, but it was questionable whether authority existed for the erection of a larger or more expensive building. ^^ In the light of this opinion the diocese considered itself able to contribute only 'the sum needed to replace the old chapel by a similar stmcture'. As all the money from the sale of part of the estate could not be applied against the cost of the new building, in order to provide the necessary finance for the additional £900 the Diocesan Council meeting of 3 August 1911 passed a resolution that the Archbishop's stipend be increased by £150 per annum and that:

the Archbishop thereupon consent to refund that amount to be applied to defi-aying the balance in excess of £1,000 set apart fi-om the proceeds of the sale of Bishopsboume Estate, say £858, together with the architect's commission and any other consequent charges until the whole liability so incurred have been liquidated. 68

The 1912 Year Book recorded that the additional cost of a more expensive building 'was defrayed by an anonymous benefaction'. 69 xhe anonymous benefactor was the Archbishop. In September 1912 the Archbishop sent his cheque for £714.18. 8 to the Treasurer in payment of the balance of the contract and architect's fees. He wrote:

6^ Diocesan Council papers, AA. 68 DC Mins., 3 Aug 1911,AA 69 yfi 1912, p.4. 86 I am very glad to make this present to the diocese and I hope that the Chapel will be a source of inspiration and comfort during many episcopates to come.

Although I have no objection to the payment being entered in my name I do not wish any public notice to be taken of my gift. The money will of course go to replenishing the General Purposes Fund. '^

Upon receipt of Donaldson's handsome gift to the diocese, the increase in his stipend was cancelled. Donaldson also contributed generously to the furnishings in the new chapel.

During 1914 the diocese looked set to make some money from a coal mining venture from a deposit thought to be under St Francis' College. A royalty of 6d. per ton had been accepted. Such a project would have been of great benefit to the diocese but unfortunately the scheme did not come to fmition. ^' Nevertheless, there had been some improvement in the overall financial position of the administration accounts, and by 1921 the Synod bank account was in credit to the amount of £8,360. 5. 0. The Registry and Executive Fund had a credit balance of £85. 0. 3. and the See Estate and Archbishopric Sustentation Fund was £30.19. 6. in credit,^^ but overall the Synod accounts were £18,238. 3. 2. in the red. As to capital accounts, the Cathedral Building Fund was still £5,374.17.6 in debt, ^^ and a lot of diocesan properties were mortgaged to financial institutions, and these commitments were added to. ^^

With the lightening of spirits which came with the cessation of hostilities in 1918 the Archbishop saw 'an opportunity of rendering a great spiritual service to posterity', an opportunity which added further to the overall financial deficit. The greatest of all assets in the national life, said Donaldson, was not 'a rich country; nor a virile physique; nor even a well thought-out system of education: but the presence of a living tradition...' ^^ This noble aspiration was to be embodied in 'an institution established to heal suffering, staffed by skilful and devoted Christian nurses'. ^^ In 1916 the Cathedral Chapter had acquired a private hospital of 25 beds, known as Pyrmont which was contiguous to the Cathedral on its southem boundary. ^^ The hospital retumed an armual income of £600, but this was consumed in interest charges on the debt incurred in purchasing the property. ^^ Soon after the armistice, after much debate it was decided to erect a new hospital on the site, as the diocesan War

'^ Donaldson to Treasurer, 4 Sep 1912, AA. '' DCMins., 3 Sep 1914. "^2 YB 1921, p.53, p.55, p.54 respectively. •^3 KB1921,p.96. '^ No attempt has been made to distinguish Cathedral Chapter finance from general Diocesan finances. "^5 KB 1919, p.l7. "^6 Ibid ^"^ ChCh., 1 Jan 1917, p.3. ^^ Donaldson to Finn, 8 Nov 1919, AA. 87 Memorial, which was expected to be opened on or before the third day of December 1922. ^^ War memorial or not, the need for a hospital run by the Church of England was a desirable adjunct to diocesan life. The Roman had established the Mater Misericordia Hospital at South Brisbane in 1909.

The hospital was estimated to cost £12,000 for the land, building £30,000, and fiimiture and fittings £8,000. Of the estimated £50,000 cost, £25,000 had been subscribed by November 1919. The new hospital was to have from fifty to sixty beds, and income was expected to pay for its mnning if it could opened free of debt, ^^ an unachievable goal. Undaunted by the size of its debt, the diocese continued to purchase property which had to be financed through mortgages. In 1920 properties in Wharf and Ann Streets were purchased, giving more space for the new hospital and adding £20,000 to the overall cost. ^^ An appeal was launched to which the Archbishop contributed £1,000. ^2 In 1921 the hospital debt was £32,000. 83

There was expansion in other areas as well, not all of which initially added to the financial burden. In 1920 land was purchased for £2,750 on the comer of Adelaide and Macrossan Streets, as a site for a permanent home for the Mission to Seamen. ^^ Twelve months later the property was debt free, and an appeal was launched for money for the building. ^^ The building of the Mission was left for Donaldson's successor to undertake.

One of the problems which contributed to financial difficulties was the composition of the Diocesan Council Donaldson inherited, some members of which had already been there for several years. Archdeacon Rivers and Canon Osbome at least since 1897, and possibly even before that. °" Rivers served on the Diocesan Council for at least twenty-four years tmtil he left the diocese in 1920. Osbome was still a member when Donaldson was translated to Salisbury in 1921. Many other clerical members served lengthy periods. Canon T. Jones served fourteen years, Jenkyn for fourteen years, and Le Fanu for the fiill fourteen years of Donaldson's episcopate. Others came and went after a comparatively short time, but generally the Council consisted of a number of clergymen who served lengthy periods on the Council. The same was tme of the laity. Walker's term was seventeen years, and

"^9 rai921,p.l44. ^0 yfi 1921, p.l6. ^' YB 1920, p. 158. ^2 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.51. *3 KB 1921, p. 16. ^'* yfi 1920, p. 198. ^5 YB 1921,p.l84. The Diocesan Council Canon stipulated that archdeacons, coadjutor bishops, and the Chairman of Committees were automatically ex officio members. Rivers came under this category, as later did Le Fanu. Because of the fragility of the Year Books prior to 1897 it was not possible to trace the composition of the Diocesan Council beyond that year. 88 Dawson's eighteen years. Blundell and Boume served fifteen and sixteen years respectively. These same men both clerical and lay were also members of the Finance Committee. While they accumulated much experience in running both the Council and the Finance Conmiittee, they might not have been the best persons for those exacting jobs. With the exception of Rivers and Le Fanu they were elected by Synod, 87 not necessarily because of outstanding qualifications, but because they allowed themselves to be put forward for nomination. The new blood which came on to the committees usually did not last for any time, an:^ thus these two very important councils were deprived of new experience and insight. In other words Donaldson had a Diocesan Council and a Finance Committee with a hard core of long-serving members whose approach had become less flexible and innovative with the effluxion of time. Such a situation was not conducive to effective ftind-raising or generally to the efficient management of finances.

Over the years Donaldson and others, for example Archdeacon Rivers, who had private means, contributed not insignificant sums of money for various projects, without which the diocesan exchequer would have been worse off. At the end of Donaldson's episcopate, however, although there had been some improvement, diocesan finances were still far from buoyant. Climatic variations were a contributing factor when considering country subscriptions, and there were more lean years than fat. There had also been four years of war when donations to war effort appeals outweighed any diocesan claims to his flock's munificence. The Archbishop had tried personal appeals in his charges to Synod over the years, by promoting schemes such as the central payment of clergy stipends, and through various direct public appeals, but his efforts were largely negated by the unwillingness of his people to give on a regular basis as opposed to their generosity when approached for specific projects.

^^ Where a vacancy occurred owing to resignation or illness, for example, the Archbishop had the right to appoint a replacement member until the next Synod. 89 CHAPTER VI

FOR THE WELL-BEING OF SOCIETY

On social issues it was not the far-reaching effects of financial poverty so much as the moral shortcomings of Brisbane people that exercised Donaldson's mind. These included intemperance, sexual immorality, and gambling. Apparently in this respect Brisbane people were no different froi-i those in the rest of Australia because among other things discussed at the 1905 General Synod was the moral tone of the country. Shortly after the Synod the bishops issued a Pastoral letter. It was not 'an exhaustive review' of the needs and problems of the day, but it endeavoured 'to throw into special prominence a few great topics of unquestionable importance for the united and prayerful consideration of all Christian people'. From the Pastoral it might properly have been inferred that the moral tone of the country was decidedly flat.

The Pastoral was well received in the press. The leader in the Brisbane Courier on 27 November 1905 was full of praise:

It is a timely and dignified deliverance upon matters of the utmost importance to the moral life of the community, and as such will have an influence beyond the borders of the particular religious denomination to which it is addressed.

The necessity for some ex-cathedra pronouncement upon problems of a moral character affecting the warp and woof of our national life was never more urgent.

Intemperance caused the bishops much anxiety. The 'magnitude of the evil' was seen to be largely due to the iniquitous habit of 'shouting', a social custom which was the subject of some concem in later years. The largely increased prevalence of drinking habits among women was also deplored. The bishops were not preaching abstinence, but they were making a strong plea for a more moderate approach to what they saw as a great social evil. In this they were echoing the sentiments of the temperance movement in Britain where there had been continuing debate on the subject for some time. The British govemment had proposed cancelling hotel licences when they fell due for renewal in areas where they considered there were too many hotels.

The evils of excessive 'drink' weighed heavily on the minds of some sections of the community, and the Church could not be accused of being inactive in responding to matters of temperance. In 1908 the Brisbane Diocesan Synod requested a report on the formation of the Church of England Temperance Society, ^

' yfi 1908, p.53. 90 and in 1909 Synod affirmed 'that, in the best interests of temperance, this Synod is of opinion that an Anfi-Shoufing League should be formed in the diocese'. - The 1910 Synod appointed a committee to consider the organisation of 'more definite and aggressive temperance work'. ^ It was not until the 1915 Synod that a Temperance Committee was appointed. Its first report was to the 1916 Synod.

For several years no great steps forward were taken but the war heightened the awareness of the temperance movement of the ever present problem. When there was increased dmnkenness in Brisbane owing to large troop encampments in the area, the Anti-Shouting League was revitalized to try to reduce its incidence. The sale of alcoholic beverages was baimed in the camps, but troops could drink in hotels until a late hour. Generous well-meaning civilians contributed to the problem by buying drinks (shouting) for their soldier mates. Donaldson was not the only one who had concem about civilians and their insistent treating of the forces. Some thought that members of the forces should be baimed from hotels after 9 p.m., a suggestion which found favour with The Citizens' Six o'Clock Closing League. A deputafion to the Premier was organised in mid-1915 and Donaldson's support was requested. ^ Donaldson sent Canon Hay as his deputy, who presented to the Premier a letter from the Archbishop outlining his attitude:

I have never been able to rank myself among the prohibitionists, and it is not as a prohibitionist that I support the proposal to limit the hours of sale of liquor. But I do feel that it is time something were done to relieve the intolerable strain that thoughtless civilians are daily putting upon our soldiers by their insistent treating. ^

The League proposed that all licensed premises close at 6 p.m., impetus being given to its cause by the success of an early closing referendum in South Australia. ^ A very strong campaign was mounted to have a referendum held on the question, and Theodore, the acting Premier, gave an undertaking to a delegation on 29 June 1916 that 'no time would be lost in the coming session in submitting the Initiative and Referenda Bill would enable them to promptly attain their ends'. ^ More delegations to and more promises by various members of parliament to hold a referendum came to nothing.

Donaldson coupled his backing of the Six o'Clock Closing League with the idea of introducing wet canteens to military camps where drinking could be

2 rB1909,p.65. 3 rB1910,pp.60-61. General Sec, Citizens' Six o'Clock Closing League to Donaldson, 3 Jul 1915, AA. 5 Donaldson to Premier, 5 Aug 1915, AA. ° Frank Crowley, ed., A New History of Australia ^Melbourne; William Heinemann, 1974), p.326. ^ BC, 30 Jun 1916. 91 controlled. A deputation was organised to the Premier on 7 August 1915, consisting of Senior Chaplains of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Congregational Churches. They sought a wet canteen at Enoggera camp, and a limit of 9 p.m. as the time beyond which drink could not be served outside the camps to men in uniform. ^ Donaldson then wrote to Riley, Chaplain General and Bishop of Perth, requesting him to write to G. F. Pearce, Minister for Defence. ^ Pearce's undated response argued that, apart from the difficulty in policing a policy of refusing to serve the forces after 9 o'Clock, it would be discriminatory if civilians were not similarly treated. Since the regulation of licensing hours was a State matter, the Commonwealth could not interfere. So far as wet canteens in camps was concemed, there was to be no change in the existing laws.

The Anti-Shouting League which does not appear to have made much progress, was still fimctioning in 1917, and regained the Archbishop's support, although at the time he himself was unable to do anything as an active worker. ^^ It fully supported The Six o'Clock Closing League, which organised a deputation, (of which Donaldson was a member), to the Premier. '^ By this time every State in Australia had early closing, and the Six o'Clock Closing League received a blow when the State govemment refused its request for a referendum on the subject of early closing. Instead the govemment offered to introduce another Initiative and Referendum Bill which the League felt would compromise its claims to political neutrality because the passing of the bill would enable to govemment to fiirther several other matters which were part of Labour policy and for which the party was anxious to get approval. ^^ xhe Initiative and Referendum Bill was a bill

to consider the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend the Constitution of Queensland by providing for legislation and repeal or rejection of laws or proposed laws by means of the popular mitiative and referendimi, and for purposes consequent thereon or incidental thereto.

The bill was lost when it was retumed from the Legislative Council with a number of amendments which were unacceptable to the govenmient.

The 1917 Synod reaffirmed its 1916 resolution to instmct the Diocesan Temperance Committee to co-operate with the League 'in its endeavour to secure the prevention of the sale of alcohol after 6 p.m'. ^^ The motion outlined a plan of action

^ fiC, 9 Aug 1915. ^ Donaldson to Riley, 19 Aug 1915, AA. ^^ Donaldson to Mrs Mason Beatty, 3 May 1917, AA. '•c/iC/i., 1 Aug 1917, p.150.

•3 KB 1917-18, p.l33. 92 for the Temperance Committee, the first clause of which was directly opposed to Donaldson's idea that the Temperance Committee work closely with the Anfi- Shouting League, and the Six o'Clock Closing League:

That in the matter of temperance work, whilst willing to co-operate with every wise movement for reform of the liquor traffic, we as the Church in this Diocese act independently and form our own Committees and work on our own lines.

The motion allowed too much freeway, which the Committee took. The other clauses of the mofion were unexceptional, but clause 3 recommended that the Archbishop appoint an organizing secretary at an early date. At the 1917 Synod, despite a Synod mling that the Diocesan Temperance Committee co-operate with the Six o'clock Closing League, G. Page-Hanify, '^ a layman and member of the Temperance Committee, proposed an amendment to the motion calling for co­ operation, which would have negated its intent. ^^ The amendment was lost but the Archbishop was shocked at the way things had gone. Donaldson wrote to Dr E. S. Jackson, ^^ withdrawing from the League as reconstituted, because of its politicization. ^^ Jackson too was shocked and replied:

The League was tumed over to its enemies when the matter was left in the hands of the Committee. That they should have belonged to a Church under whose care I was brought up was a horrid experience for me, and the greatest of shocks. Not one of my experiences in cormexion with the League compares with it. I have been accustomed to boast of that particular Church as standing above all others, in that it produced gentlemen. 1 have claimed for it that it did by reason of the fact that its clergy were gentlemen, reared to regard honour as next to or a necessary part of Christianity. That the duplicity of such men as Page-Hanify, and those who followed in his strain at our Synod last year should not be recognised as such even under its fake cloke [sic] of 'freedom from polities', whatever that may mean, is as amazing as it is shocking. '°

Page-Hanify was a member of and sometime chairman of the Six o'Clock Closing League and was a Labour member of the Legislative Council. By proposing the amendment to the motion, he ran counter to the Archbishop's wishes and became persona non grata. His action was seen to be in direct support of Labour Party aims with regard to the Initiative and Referendum Bill.

'^ D. B. Waterson, A Biographical Register of the Queensland Parliament 1860-1929 (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1972) p. 143. Hon. Gerald Page-Hanify was a member of the Legislative Council Oct 1917 to Feb 1922, and was a manufacturer and importer of Masonic and Friendly Societies' regalia and furnishings. He was a member of the Independent Order of Good Templars; president of the Brisbane Total Abstinence Society; sometime chairman of the Six o'clock Closing League and Queensland Temperance Alliance. •5 KB 1917-18, p.l33. ] f\ Ernest Sandford Jackson 1860-1938 was a very influential Brisbane medico. In 1886 he founded the first training school for nurses. He owned St Helen's private hospital, was a foundation member of the Brisbane Branch of the B.M.A., and was a founding father of the medical school at the University of Queensland. He was a councillor of the Church of England Grammar School. Jackson was not a synodsman nor was he on any of the Church councils, but was active on many outside bodies such as the Six o'Clock Closing League. '' Donaldson to Jackson (draft only found), 26 Jun 1918, AA. •8 Jackson to Donaldson, 1 Jul 1918, AA. 93 In 1918 the Diocesan Temperance Committee, and its chairman, the Rev. G. L. Hunt, fell foul of the Archbishop again when they proposed he lead a deputation to the Premier of which ever party came to power after the forthcoming elections, to lobby for a Six o'Clock Closing Act. '^ The Diocesan Temperance Conmiittee had ignored the Synod instruction to co-operate with the Six o'Clock Closing League, and according to the Archbishop, had ignored that organisation by not appointing members to the League's executive. The result was that in the absence of wider counsels the Six o'Clock Closing League 'has become hopelessly irrmiersed in party politics' 2*^ and because of Page-Hanify's influence was perceived to be an instrument of the Labour Party. A further consequence of the Diocesan Temperance Committee's behaviour was that:

The Temperance Committee has by no means yet won the confidence of the Church. I was very anxious that the whole weight of our Church should be behind you, and you will remember that when the resolution indicating our policy was in great danger of being lost, owing to the very general suspicion of Synod, it was only my strong advocacy that carried it through. I am the more disappointed that you should have ignored both Synod's instruction and my own guidance. That however does not matter. What I fear is that it will be more difficult in fiiture for the Temperance Committee to command the confidence of Synod. ^'

When the 1918 Synod came around, very little had been done with regard to the work of the Committee, and there had been a singular lack of co-operation with the other movements. A report which the 1916 Synod had requested on prohibition for the 1917 Synod, was still not ready two years later. The Temperance Committee did not present a report to the 1917 Synod, but the tenor of its report to the 1918 Synod was generally in defiance of the Archbishop's wishes. The Temperance Committee, however, in expressing their own inability to do the work they were supposed to do were not prepared to take all the blame. 'Nor has the Archbishop yet been able to see his way clear to appoint an organising secretary, but Synod will understand the great difficulties in the way of such an appointment' ^^ was their response to the Archbishop's criticism.

Donaldson was angry with his own Diocesan Temperance Conmiittee, and disillusioned with the Six o'Clock Closing League. The Diocesan Temperance Committee, lacking the Archbishop's support, dropped out of the fight and merged with the Diocesan Social Service Committee. Donaldson, however, found some hope in the Strength of Empire Movement. The Strength of Empire movement was

19 Donaldson to Hunt, 5 Mar 1918, AA. 20 Donaldson to Hunt, 12 Mar 1918, AA. 21/6W. 22yBI918,p.l69. 94 not in favour of amalgamation with the Six o'Clock Closing League which would bring upon it 'certain disabilities which my committee are most anxious to avoid'. Beside the liquor question a second problem that concemed Donaldson was the spread of venereal disease which showed 'widespread impurity'. The trouble was that there had been stagnation on the second quesfion and 'hopeless mutual distrust and quarrelling among temperance reformers on the first'.

The Strength of Empire Movement's objects were in order of priority: war­ time prohibition for Australia; State prohibition by a majority vote; protecting public health, national morality, and combating social evil. ^3 Donaldson was 'glad to give my name on the Advisory Council of the Strength of Empire Movement' as its objects were very much in line with his own. ^^The Strength of Empire Movement had three things in its favour. First, it was non-political and non-sectarian. Had it been otherwise, he would not have been interested in it because bitter experience had shown him that 'to attempt moral reform on political or sectarian lines is to court failure'. Secondly, it had a definite programme. Thirdly, although its programme was definite, it was on broad enough lines 'to embrace all who look for the cleansing of our society'. ^5 The Strength of Empire Movement aimed at unifying all moral forces with a view 'to getting something done throughout Australia, and especially in Queensland'. It was for this reason he had joined. ^6

When approached by the Strength of Empire Movement for names of likely officers for the Movement, Donaldson was quite forthright in saying who should not be approached:

I write in strict confidence to suggest that if such names as those of Dr Rowe and Dr Jackson are left out of the list of officers of the Strength of Empire Movement, on the one hand, it would be wise also to leave out the names of Mr G. Page-Hanify and the Rev. G. L. Hunt on the other. Mr Hunt is one of our clergy, and apart from the fact that his politics have made him a marked man, he is not the best man to represent the Church. I should suggest the Rev. W. H. W. Stevenson, ... if you are seeking the name of a Church of England clergyman. With regard to laymen, Mr G. F. Weatherlake..., and Alderman J. Allen... would be good men. I attach particular emphasis to my suggestion in the case of Mr Page-Hanify on the grounds indicated in our conversation on the telephone. ^^

Why Rowe and Jackson should not be approached to become officers of the Movement is not clear as both men were Donaldson's supporters, but certainly the sins of Hunt and Page-Hanify had not been forgiven.

J' A. Toombs, State Superintendent of Strength of Empire Movement to Donaldson, 16 Aug 1918, AA. 24 Donaldson to Toombs, 17 Aug 1918, AA. 25 Donaldson to Toombs, 19 Aug 1918, AA. 26rB1919, p.187. 2^ Donaldson to Greenwood, 20 Aug 1918, AA. 95 By the end of August Donaldson had 'definitely come off the fence with regard to war-time prohibition'. As to permanent prohibition he had not committed himself as he was anxious to watch the results in Canada and the United States. 'But I no longer feel the difficulty about coercing moderate drinkers in the interests of the community', he wrote, and continued:

I still think, ...that the ideal condition would be a moderate use of the wine which maketh glad the heart of man, but I can quite conceive that when humanity has learnt true self-control, alcohol may be in free use again: but since for the present we cannot trust ourselves not to misuse it, either individually or collectively, I see no difficulty in theory about total prohibition. ^°

When it was apparent that the war could not last much longer Donaldson's concem was for what might happen when demobilization took place. 'It is appalling to think what may happen if large forces have to be kept in camp during that period with all the present facilities for drink. The situation demands heroic remedies', he wrote.29 By the middle of 1918 prohibifion was in the air, and Mrs F. M. Rankin, Organiser of the Darling Downs Six o'Clock Closing League took the Archbishop to task for his reported biased attitude against it at the 1918 Synod. ^^ In his reply Donaldson said his aim was to set forth both sides of the question of war-time prohibition in order that members of Synod might consider both sides before voting. (The matter of ultimate prohibition was not before the Synod at that time.) He had not said on which side he himself would vote, but:

As you ask me, I may add that I am not yet converted to total prohibition, and it seems to me that the tnfroduction of war-time prohibition, presumably without more than a few weeks' notice and presumably without compensation, would be an act of injustice. I have no sympathy with the brewers, but at the same time we must not let our sympathy with the victims of drink to drive us to an act of needless injustice. If compensation were contemplated of course my objection would fall to the ground.

If prohibition were to come, the Archbishop favoured its introduction through evolution and education rather than as a suddenly introduced measure, as he was not confident of the success of prohibition in Canada and America as claimed by the prohibitionists. ^^ Part of Donaldson's thinking on the subject had filtered through from England where in 1904 the Licensing Act had been passed. That bill had not pleased the Dissenters although it tried to promote the temperance they advocated. The Act provided for the non-renewal of public house licences, when they fell due, in

28 Donaldson to Bp of Willochra, 29 Aug 1918, AA. 2^ Donaldson to Bp of Carpentaria, 19 Aug 1918, AA. ^^ Rankin to Donaldson, 14 Jun 1918, AA. 31 Donaldson to Rankin, 18 Jun 1918, AA. 32 Donaldson to Bp of Willochra, 25 Jun 1918, AA. 96 areas where there were thought to be too many. When the govemment proposed paying compensation to the owners who had not had their licences renewed, not from govemment taxes but from a special tax levied on the remaining licence holders, whose holdings had thus become more valuable, 'in Nonconformist eyes it only blackened the govemment by seeming to endow sin'. ^^

The Strength of Empire Movement presented evidence to a Senate Select Committee in 1919 on the effect of excess consumption of alcohol on soldiers. ^4 Toombs, the Secretary of the Movement, addressed the 1919 Synod, and subsequently a motion was passed by Synod appealing to all to become members. The Church Chronicle endorsed the Movement's policies and advocated that a lead be given 'from all pulpits throughout the land in advocating personal purity and absfinence from intoxicating liquor'. 35 xhis exhortafion stood oddly against the Archbishop's remarks concerning a wine saloon in the Longreach Building owned by the cathedral. Selling wine was not an unlawful avocation in itself, and there was nothing inconsistent or wrong in letting rooms to a wine merchant providing the establishment was properly run, he said. ^^

Prohibition, and not temperance, was the goal of the anti-liquor section of the community, and a referendum was planned for late 1920 when 'the abolition or proper conduct of the liquor traffic' would be decided. ^^ Le Fanu, acting as Donaldson's surrogate when he left on 30 April 1920 for the Lambeth Conference, was personally not in favour of prohibition but nevertheless urged Anglicans to vote for it. ^^ Donaldson, whose view was 'that the manufacture of fermented liquors is entirely justifiable and in accordance with the will of God, and is necessary to the complete life of man', ^^ nevertheless was 'anxious to see prohibition tried', and hoped the Church would throw its weight behind the Strength of Empire Movement in its prohibition campaign, ^^ which eventually came to nothing. The referendum was held on 30 October 1920. There were three questions:

Are you in favour of:-

A. State management of manufacture, importation and sale of fermented and spirituous liquors?

33 R.K. Webb, Modern England, p.451 [short citation]. 34 Ibid ^^ ChCh., 1 Jul 1919, p. 144. 36 Donaldson to Needham, 29 Aug 1919, AA, 3'7 rB1920, p.l9. 38 Ibid 39 Donaldson to Hope, 5 Mar 1920, AA. '*0 Donaldson to Toombs, 25 Feb 1920, AA. 97 B. Prohibition of manufacture, importation and retail of fermented and spirituous liquors, to take effect in July, 1925.

C. Continuance of the present system of manufacture, importation and retail of fermented and spirituous liquors?

There was a 78.10% turnout of voters and there was a 10.90% (38,092 votes) majority for 'C. 41

Just as the excessive consumption of alcohol weakened the moral fibre of the country, the vice of gambling contributed to moral decline. Betting and gambling in sports and pastimes and 'reckless financial speculation' in business concems were 'a great and crying evil'. The gambling spirit tended 'to encourage the hope of wealth without the price of steady and persistent effort'. It tended to weaken character not only of the people concemed but of the nation as a whole. It was hoped that the law as far as it was involved would be strenuously enforced, but beyond this the bishops in their 1905 Pastoral entreated the community to eschew gambling, the ill-effects of which were to be seen even in such things as raffles, lotteries, and games of chance often used to raise funds at church bazaars and sales of work.

The 1917 Synod was of opinion that 'the increase in raffles, art unions, lotteries and other unabashed gambling for the purpose of raising money for patriotic and other purposes', was a danger to the morals of the community - particularly to those of the young. The attorney general was requested not to grant permits for raffles, and loyal church members were asked to do all in their power to discourage 'those things'. ^2 An invitation from the Brisbane Church Foundation for the Church of England to co-operate in a united protest against gambling gave Donaldson another opportunity to voice his opinion:

I am personally convinced that the shameless practices which form most of our patriotic efforts in these days of which the ubiquitous raffle and the grow-rich-quick appeal are examples, have become a positive menace to the moral life of the community, and I should be glad to think that our clergy were raising their voices as one to protest against it. ^3

A diocesan deputation to the Red Cross Society asking it to curb its gambling fiind-raising activities got a mixed reception. The Red Cross Society wrote to all its branches, leaving the matter up to them. The Archbishop quickly organised a

'*' Information supplied by the Queensland Electoral Commission. '*2yB1917-18, p.29. ^'^ChCk, lNovl917, p.203. 98 committee to arrange deputations to all local branches of the Red Cross.44 The outcome of their visits is not known.

Great as these abominations were, however, there was a much greater cause for anxiety: the ominous decline in Australia's birthrate. It was only forty-six years earlier that Darwin had published his Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and thirty-four years since the publication of the Descent of Man In many respects the 1905 Pastoral was echoing the apprehensions to be found in tr,e debate, to which these works had contributed, in Britain and in parts of Europe on 'nafional degenerafion' and 'nafional efficiency'. According to some of the debate's proponents, the continuing falling birthrate among the middle classes and an increasing birthrate in the lower classes, would have a concomitant rise in crime, alcoholism, socialism, illness, to name but a few of the effects, and lead to a degeneration of the British race and nation.

People, implied the Pastoral, were being led astray 'by false and pernicious doctrine' into a belief that personal interests and ambitions, and 'a high standard of comfort and luxury' were essential aims of life. People were thus denying their social and moral responsibilities, and reducing the importance of marriage and family as the basis of society. 45 The implication was that the increased use of contraceptives was contributing to the moral decline as well as the falling birth rate.

The decline in marriage and family life caused Donaldson to scrutinize the writings of socialist and eugenicist, H. G. Wells. In his 1907 presidential address to Synod Donaldson voiced his concem at the effect Wellsian principles might have on society. Wells, the Archbishop said, had lately been appealing to Socialists

to come out into the open and declare the full programme which is implicit in their creed. Logic demands, he [Wells] says, that we should not cry halt at the nationalisation of the means of production, disfribution, and exchange, but that true progress involves also the nationalisation of the family, and the emancipation of married people from a life-long marriage tie.

It was with thankfulness, then, that Donaldson was able to announce the inauguration of the Mothers' Union in Brisbane, which would go some way to counter moral decline and the insidious effects of Wellsian ideas. 46 The Mothers' Union stood as a bastion against the of family life. Indeed, one of its great aims was the protection of marriage against the incursion of immorality, one aspect of which

^ Donaldson to Allen, 6 Nov 1917, AA. '^^ BC, 27 Nov 1905. •^^ KB 1907, p.40 99 against which the Mothers' Union and the Church were resolutely opposed was the 'demon drink'. But there were many more.

In 1910 the Central Council of the Union in London was considering a revision to its constitution with the desire to make it 'simple, lucid, consistent, practical, and comprehensive'. The Archbishop's opinion was sought on two points. Under the existing constitution it was not obligatory in the colonies (and despite federation in 1901, Australia was still regarded in some quarters as a colony) for all official workers to be churchwomen. The restriction did not apply to ordinary members. The questions posed were:

(1) Should the Mothers' Union work only on church lines so far as their workers were concemed;

(2) Was it advisable, if possible, to affiliate 'confederated branches' to hold out, as it were, the hand of fellowship with other bodies of earnest women who were working together with very much the same objects but on inter-denominational lines, or in places where there were not as yet any diocesan organizations. 4'

There had been incessant difficulties since the inception of the Mothers' Union in Queensland, because of the two conflicting views of uncompromising churchwomen, and those who sought to 'undenominationalise the Union', the Archbishop wrote in reply. The 'uncompromising' faction wished the Union to remain the sole property of committed Anglican churchwomen. Those prepared to 'undenominationalise' the union were prepared to open its doors to committed churchwomen of any denomination. A satisfactory solution had been reached, however, with a rule that all of the Union must be Anglican churchwomen, except under special circumstances, and with the consent of the Council.

What was special in Queensland was the wide-spread districts in the bush where in many cases 'the best worker and obvious leader among mothers is a Presbyterian or a Methodist'. The reason for this was that in many instances there was no church of her own denomination in the area, and the woman worshipped and identified herself with the Church of England. The Archbishop thought that under such circtmistances it was desirable 'to leave some loophole whereby ladies of this kind may be admitted to office'. These were exceptional conditions, but clergy and women alike understood that the Mothers' Union originated within the Church of England, and embodied its principles and methods. Anyone joining it joined on the Church's terms and not on her own. For his part, he said, he would decline to work the Mothers' Union on purely undenominational lines.

^^ Mothers' Union London circular, 20 Jun 1910, AA. 100 Since the cause espoused by the Mothers' Union, as distinct from its methods, was a national one and not limited to any Christian body, the Archbishop thought that 'we ought to do what we can to get the principle established elsewhere'. He was therefore prepared to encourage the formation of societies based on the three fundamental objects of the Mothers' Union within the Presbyterians, Methodists, and other denominations. When this was done, he considered that such bodies could federate, but he would hesitate before recommending the formation of a central governing body embracing all denominations. 48 While there was an element of ecumenism in his approach, Donaldson also regarded the Mothers' Union as a means by which the Church was able to fight latitudinarianism.

Lay organisations such as the Mothers' Union, were busy doing their bit to extend church life throughout the diocese, but it is interesting to note that although much of the social work within the diocese was carried out by women, the benevolence extended to the social welfare of women, as seen in the Church's interest in the Rescue Home, Women's Shelter, and the Mothers' Union, was not extended to women as active participants in parochial affairs. In 1907 a motion was submitted to Synod:

that it be an instruction to the Diocesan Council to prepare a canon to amend the Parishes Regulation Canon so as to provide for women, when so desired, to be elected as members of the Parish Councils.

The motion was lost - 26 for, 33 against. 49 If Donaldson had any particular views on the matter, they were not reported.

The Church and its sponsored societies alone could not win the fight against moral turpitude, and organisations outside the Church's aegis were established for the purpose, as for instance the Council for the Promotion of Public Morality. The Archbishop referred to it in his 1910 address to Synod. It might prove useful, he said, 'in dealing with one great evil in our social life'. The Council was a body comprised of all classes and creeds, its object being to deal with sexual vice. ^^

The Council was not a Church organisation, but its first annual meeting was held on 26 June 1911 in the Diocesan Registry. It was attended by the Govemor, Sir William MacGregor (patron of the Council), the Archbishop (President), and R. O. Boume (Treasurer). Others included a Member of the Legislative Coimcil, the Mayor

'*° Donaldson to Secretary, Mothers' Union, London, 14 Aug 1910, AA. "^^ YB 1907, p.59. 50 yB 1910, p.48. 101 of Brisbane, representatives of the nonconformist churches. Rabbi Levy, and 'a number of other ladies and gentlemen'. The honorary secretary. Canon Ashton, was unable to attend through illness, and Mr Justice Chubb was not present owing to an engagement in Court. Even though it was not a Church of England society per se, its membership included a fair sprinkling of churchpeople and thirteen medical practitioners, some of whom were of the Anglican faith.

Two of the Council's objectives were referred to by the Govemor in his address. One was 'that purity of life is not only a moral obligation upon all, but it is essential physically to all healthy development, whether of men or women'. Purity of life was a necessary condition for the development of the individual, the state, and the Empire. The other point he raised was 'the crying need for a more general, vigorous, and vigilant exercise of parental authority'.

The Council's first report included a letter of congratulation from the British Medical Association on its inception, and support for its objectives. The letter also suggested that the committee consider whether its way was clear to form country branches. The committee decided that 'country branches had better be formed as the result of the spontaneous action of the people living in the localities where they were deemed necessary'.

The Archbishop, in moving the adoption of the report, said that 'the obvious method of combating this evil [social immorality] was to bring religious influence on the individual'. Besides this there was the influence of public opinion. He thought that the 'evil' they were fighting in Brisbane was great, although the people generally were moral people, 'but they were supine'. What was wanted was to let 'the lads see that the best and most influential men were on their side' and therefore the names of public men were wanted on the committee. ^^

Started in peace time. The Council for the Promotion of Public Morality was purely a citizens' organisation, 'including all classes and all creeds', but found ample work to occupy it during the war years. In 1916 when membership flagged Donaldson sought new members. In an invitation to Judge Jamieson to join its numbers Donaldson explained that its work was of a quiet order, and the Council endeavoured to watch the observance of the law in Brisbane, 'to stimulate public opinion by carefiilly directed appeals, and, when occasion arises, to urge fresh legislation'. There were about one hundred members who were willing to lend their names but who could not always take an active part in the work. The work was done by a committee

51 BC, 27 Jun 1911. 102 which met on the second Tuesday of every month at 4.30, and usually sat for an hour. ^2 In an undated letter to another prospective member Donaldson said that the Council did not advertise itself, nor attempt such moral appeals on a wide scale as were best made through more definitely religions channels. Those moral appeals he regarded as being more important than anything his Council did, and 'to a large extent our operations may be classed under the head of vigilance work'. ^^ The Council's role was that of watchdog of public morality, and its aim was to draw to the public's attention areas of moral degeneration, in the hope that those able to influence the situation for the better would do so through moral suasion. Its armual meetings were recorded in the press for a very few years, but what its actual achievements were was never made plain. Despite its great ideals the Council for the Promotion of Public Morality did not appear to make any great impact on the individual citizens of Brisbane.

The nation-wide debate on social purity and sexual morality was intensified by the alarming rise in venereal disease during the war, both in the armed forces and in the civilian population, but the exact position could not be quantified as venereal diseases were not then legally notifiable. In March 1917 the archbishops and bishops of Australia and Tasmania issued a 'message' on The Relation of the Church to the Problem of Sexual Sin. The Church wished to awaken the national conscience to the 'alarming decay of the ideals of personal and social purity' throughout Australia, and to 'the rapid spread of sexual vice in all classes of society'. ^4 The message acknowledged the Church's failure to protest in the past about 'the sins within the married state' and the evils of contraception as outlined in the 1905 Pastoral, and by the 1908 Lambeth conference. 'Religion and religion alone' was the only means of eliminating the low standard of sexual morality, but:

When it comes to questions of sexual immorality, divorce etc., there was widespread unanimity of opinion among Churches, and they were able to win widespread acceptance for their principles though in practice these principles were by no means always fiilfilled. ^^

In January 1917 Dr R. Arthur and Mr R. W. H. Bligh of the White Cross League arrived in Brisbane and united with the Council for the Promotion of Public Morality, and other organisations in a 'social purity' campaign, which was aimed primarily at children. Bligh, with the permission of H. F. Hardacre, Minister for Public Instmction 1915 - 1919, gave 'a series of experimental lectures in different

52 Donaldson to Jamieson, 10 Aug 1916, AA. 53 Donaldson to Morrow, undated, AA. 5"* 77ie Southern Churchman. 15 Mar 1917, pp.3-4. K.D.Rayner, The Attitude and Influence of the Churches in Queensland on Matters of Social and Political Importance (1859-1914), B.A. hons thesis. University of Queensland, 1915, p.l46. 103 [State] schools and for different age groups'. ^^ When Bligh and the White Cross League proposed an extension of the lectures, Donaldson was perturbed. While he attached the greatest importance to sexual purity, Donaldson was totally opposed to the teaching of sex physiology, which he considered to be urmecessary, 'and calculated only to stimulate curiosity'. Addresses on the subject should take the form of 'kindly warnings, exhortations coupled with just as much physiological fact as is necessary to make the meaning perfectly clear'. ^^ The Archbishop's fear;- regarding the extension of sex-education classes, however, were unfounded. Hardacre, 'while personally sympathetic to the social purity movement mled against sex-education in schools'. ^^

In the arena of adult sexuality, however, Donaldson was the prime mover behind a series of conferences held early in 1917. The first, dealing with venereal disease, was held on 23 Febmary, and the second, on 15 March, which dealt with Home Influences, were not open to the public. The meeting of 24 April, at the Albert Hall, was open to the public, at which 'the deterioration of public taste in the theatres and picture shows, and the outspoken advertisements on the hoardings', was discussed, as well as 'preventative and educational agencies (i.e. the need of more earnestness in warning and safeguarding the young in the home, school, and church)'. Donaldson read to the meeting a paper titled Sex in Drama and Fiction. ^^ The paper was not, as one might infer from its title, an analysis of various literary works in which sex was the main theme. The Archbishop looked at the proposition that if the moral expressed in plays or books or films was good, then outspoken revelations in sexual matters could do no harm. This was wrong, and he 'maintained that the whole principle of outspokenness on the stage was not salutary but dangerous'. 'The stage', said the Archbishop, 'does not exist to be a purveyor of morals and education at all: it exists to amuse and to refresh and recreate, and to that end it must set before us scenes and thoughts calculated to send us back to our work braced and freshed'. ^^ Here George Bemard Shaw would have taken issue with the Archbishop:

If ever a revolution makes me Dictator, I shall establish a heavy charge for admission to our churches. But everyone who pays at the church door shall receive a ticket entitling him or her to free admission to one performance at any theatre he or she prefers. Thus shall the sensuous charms of the church service be made to /r 1 subsidize the sterner virtue of the drama. "*

5^ Greg Logan, Sex Education in Queensland. A History of the Debate since 1900 (Brisbane: Department of Education, 1991), p.20. 5'^ Donaldson to Hardacre, 23 Feb 1917, AA. CO •'° Greg Logan, Sex Education, p.20 [short citation]. 5^ Donaldson to Lawrie, 5 Apr 1917, AA. ^^BC, 25 Apr 1917. ^1 Shaw, G. B,, Preface to Heartbreak House (London: Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd., 1961 ed.), p. 36. 104 The meetings were held under the auspices of the Council for Public Morality, and were not the end of the matter. Donaldson proposed a conference of delegates from all the philanthropic and reforming associations in Brisbane. ^^

On 1 July, as the outcome of the conference of delegates, a public meeting was held at which the Govemor was Chairman, and Donaldson on the platform, to inaugurate a 'general citizens' campaign' to make a direct appeal to young men and women 'for purity of life' and to organise an appeal to parents 'for more careful safeguarding of their children'. ^^ Donaldson's concem for public morality was heightened by figures he found in a table on page 163 of the 1916 Commonwealth Year Book from which he deduced that in 1914, out of a total of 36,488 first births 12,245 or thirty-three percent were within nine months of marriage. From this he concluded that:

If we add the births before marriage to those who use preventatives before marriage, it would seem safe to conclude that we are well within the mark in calculating that considerably over 40 per cent of the marriages in 1914 were accompanied by previous unchastity.

He sought confirmation from the Commonwealth Statistician. ^4 There is no record of Knibbs's reply. Again, like the Council for the Promotion of Public Morality, the general citizen's campaign seemed to come to naught.

In the 1905 Pastoral the bishops were concemed that the emerging political aspects of socialism carried with them the possibility of expanding class prejudice and mistrust 'which divide the corrmiunity and confuse the real questions at issue'. The object was not the victory of one class over another, or one party over another, but the common good. The bishops were not promoting the ideals of one political system over another. Their concem was to awaken in the minds of people the possibilities of strengthening social divisions in such a political philosophy.

Strong bonds of empire were for Donaldson an essential ingredient for solid social conditions within the country, the stability of which was threatened by such things as industrial unrest, which was evident in Queensland in the later months of 1911 and the early months of 1912 and which culminated in the General Strike of that year. In his Lenten Pastoral in 1912 Donaldson looked not at the political implications of the strike, but at the underlying reasons for the industrial unrest which was evident in many parts of the world. It was 'an inevitable element in the evolution of modem

62 Donaldson to Fletcher, 2 Feb 1917, AA. 63 Donaldson to Arthur, 21 Jun 1917, AA. 6"* Donaldson to Knibbs, 20 Sep 1917, AA. 105 society'. Democracy had replaced monarchy and oligarchy, and with democracy came popular education, which in its tum had produced a longing for the better things in lif«:

It is inevitable that as education reveals to the people worlds of refinement and extended outlook which were unknown to them before, they should press forward instinctively until they can taste these things for themselves and make them their own.

Mixed up with the longing for improvement in social conditions, however, were motives which were 'neither natural nor excusable in a Christian community - avarice and self-seeking, hatred and prejudice, pride and self-will; it is these things which cause the real misery'. The newspapers, he said, were to blame for not pointing out where the real problem lay. The problem was spiritual, not economic. ^^

As well as expressing his sentiments in his 1912 Pastoral, Donaldson preached a sermon, before the Mayor and Corporation of Brisbane, on industrial unrest. It was the duty of the Christian citizen, he said, to obey the govemment and to see that others obeyed it as well to ensure a stable life. In some situations revolution was justified, and governments could under some circumstances be overthrown by force, but in such cases the revolutionaries had to justify themselves 'before the consciences of men'.

It was also the duty of Christians, he said, to recognise the inward spiritual significance of the Labour movement. Donaldson saw that the strike in Brisbane was no isolated affair, but was part of a vast movement, 'throbbing strongly throughout the civilised world'. Even where some aspects of the movement might be repellent to 'the dispassionate onlooker', beneath the external phenomena there were spiritual motives which should be welcomed. These were:

the passionate hunger for better human conditions, the glowing ideal of the Apocalypse, the vision of a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. It is not the whole Gospel, but it is part of the Gospel, and Labour people are to be found all over the world, who cling to it and work for it and suffer for it with an enthusiasm which may well put us to shame.

The second thing which prompted social unrest was education. In Donaldson's opinion there was 'no poverty' in Australia such as was experienced in other countries, and in Australia the Labour movement was not engaged in a stmggle to 'deliver the weak from oppression'. Education had opened men's eyes to things which in the past had been closed to them: art, music, and literature, 'and these things once tasted leave

65 Pastoral letter, 12 Feb 1912, AA 106 a thirst for men; once men have looked into the realms of glory, they will reach out and strive to enter as inevitably as the smoke curls up to heaven'. The Labour ideal was a 'new earth' which should also have been the ideal of all Christians. Donaldson did not query the ideal, but the method of attaining it. The Trade Unions had of late identified themselves with the theory of economic socialism called collectivism, the chief doctrine of which was the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, ai'd exchange. This, said Donaldson, did not commend itself to everybody, of whom he was one, because 'the thing appears impossible in a cut and dried programme, for it endeavours to accomplish by regulation what can only be accomplished by a change in human character'. Donaldson considered that the stmggle was not 'a mere sordid conflict between plunderers on the one hand and greedy owners on the other', nor was it a stmggle for mere power. Rather, it was a conflict of methods, but there were men on both sides whose ultimate ideals were identical. ^^

In both the Pastoral and the sermon Donaldson was careful not to condemn the strikers and union leaders, but to look at underlying causes of the unrest. He did not take sides. His sympathies were clearly attuned to the betterment of conditions of mankind through the process of education. On this he never changed his mind, although later he was to modify to some extent his ideas of the Labour movement. The approach Donaldson took, according to Rayner, was evidence of his statesmanship, ^^ but it also indicated in Donaldson an idealism which could never be realised. He had an unquenchable belief that human nature could be changed to exclude the baser elements of which it was compounded.

It is interesting that although Donaldson spoke out on the subject of social justice from the Anglican point of view, Robert Durme, the Roman Catholic Archbishop had nothing to say. He made no attempt to make clear where his Church stood on the question of unionism and class stmggle, an opportunity lost, 'and without an episcopal statement his people felt caught "between the devil of socialism and the blue sea of Freemasonry".' ^^

When war came in 1914 it brought with it social problems other than moral laxity and emphasised the spiritual poverty which existed. The country's spiritual needs had to be addressed, and in doing so it was thought that the moral tone of the country would be strengthened. Days of intercession and prayer became a focal point

66 ChCh.. 1 Mar 1912, pp. 56-7. 6^ Rayner, A History, p.412. 68 Neil J. Byrne, Robert Dunne, ip.lll [short citation]. 107 of Anglican church life during the war. One such day which lasted for 12 hours took place during the 1915 diocesan Synod. ^^

To give some spiritual leadership to the nation, on another occasion the Primate called for the first Sunday in 1916 to be a national day of prayer, and Donaldson when writing to the provincial bishops urged that penitence, prayer for the support of 'our rulers' and troops in the conflict, and 'the triumph of good over evil, and the extension of the Kingdom of Christ in spite of the confusion of Christendom' were the points to be emphasised. •^^ The date proposed by the Primate was not convenient for the Archbishop, who would be on holidays at the time, and in a telephone conversation with Duhig he proposed instead a special State-wide day of penitence and prayer. In a subsequent letter to Duhig Donaldson set out his ideas. He nominated 11 December 1915 as the day, and although his own progranmie had not yet been thought out, no doubt it would include 'a fasting for all day or part of the day', private prayer 'including acts of penitence and intercessions for our share in the national sins'. There would be services, including a celebration of Holy Communion, and he hoped that special services of prayer would be held weekly in parishes, 'as a great stimulus during Advent'.

Donaldson suggested that 'we should somehow proclaim publicly what we are doing' and thought that a letter signed by the heads of the various denominations would attract general public attention. He also suggested that if possible 'we try to secure as wide-spread a cessation of tasks as we can during the day'. To achieve this objective Donaldson suggested that Duhig approach the Roman Catholic traders in Queen Street, Donaldson the Church of England fraternity, while the Presbyterians and Methodists should do likewise with their own members, to see if they could obtain a voluntary cessation of business on that day. This, he thought, would be better than asking the govemment to proclaim a holiday. "^^ Donaldson's suggestion did not come to fhiition. There is no record of whether any approach was made to the other Church leaders, or by them to tradespeople of their own denominations, but on that day, however, Donaldson himself was 'occupied all day with the observance of the day of Penitence and Prayer at the Cathedral'. ^^

In June 1915, for the first time, a special service of farewell and blessing to soldiers was held in the Cathedral. "^^ This was followed a few days later by a solemn

69 BC, 12 Jun 1915. '^ Donaldson to Bp of North Queensland, 19 Nov 1915, AA. "^^ Donaldson to Duhig, 29 Oct 1915, AA. ^2BC., 11 Dec 1915. ''^BC, 7 Jun 1915. 108 celebration of the Eucharist in commemoration 'of those who had laid down their lives for their friends'. "^4 This service, although perhaps not officially recognised as such, was the precursor of the Anzac Day celebrafions in 1916. Some short time afterwards Mr T. A. Ryan made the suggestion for a commemoration of the Gallipoli landing, to the Hon. A J. Thynne, Chairman of the State Recmiting Committee. The Mayor of Brisbane, at the Committee's request, called a public meeting at the Brisbane Exhibition Hall on 12 January 1916. The Govemor, the Premier, Donaldson, Duhig, and the Rev. Canon Garland, who had retumed to Brisbane in 1914, were among those present. "^^ At that meeting a committee was appointed to oversee the arrangements for the commemoration. Its first meeting was in the Premier's office on 3 Febmary 1916. Garland was appointed Honorary Secretary. At the third meeting, held on 18 Febmary, 'Canon Garland submitted the proposed form of celebration which was adopted...'. ^^ The first Anzac Day started for the Archbishop with a celebration of Holy Communion at 7.30 a.m. at Bell's Paddock Camp, followed by an In Memoriam service in the Cathedral at 11 a.m. In the aftemoon there was a parade of troops from various camps at 3 p.m. in Queen Street, and at night there was a public meeting at the Exhibition Hall when Donaldson, among others, gave an address. '^^

Penitence and prayer were but two aspects of the discipline of duty required of laity and clergy alike, the practice of which had to be encouraged, and which Donaldson believed to be just as necessary and natural as eating or sleeping. But despite the Archbishop's call to repentance and prayer, there had been a considerable falling off in church attendance since the outbreak of war. This perhaps was because 'Sunday affords an excellent opportunity of entertaining, or being entertained by, soldier friends', an opportunity which should not have been missed so long as it did not 'come between a man (or a woman) and the duty of public worship'. ^^ War time was not a time to relax religious discipline but to firm it up, and perhaps the reduction in church attendances stiffened Donaldson's resolve in this regard. Spiritual laxity stemmed from a lack of religious discipline and became more apparent in the war years. A request from one of his priests to be allowed to hold Holy Communion services in the aftemoon, to overcome the difficulty some parishioners had in attending moming services because they were carrying water for their dairies, met with a polite refusal. Donaldson's own experience had led him to believe that people did not do their duty by 'giving in to them to suit their convenience'. Although one

"^^ BC. 11 Jun 1915. -' Anzac Day Services and Addresses. JO. "76 Ibid •^'^BC, 26 Apr 1916. "^8 Bush Notes, I Dec 1915, p.l74. 109 could recognise their difficulties, he felt that a barrier to Holy Communion was more often due to personal slackness than to difficult circumstances. 'I do not think we ought to give way on a very serious point of discipline like this'.^^ This reaction by the Archbishop showed a lack of understanding of dairy farming where cows have to be milked twice a day, seven days a week, surprising because he did have some knowledge of country work.

Besides the moral laxity evident in private cifizens the Archbishop deplored the apparent disunity in the public arena which became more obvious with the war's end. On 26 March 1919 Donaldson wrote to Littleton Groom expressing alarm at 'the jealousies that have arisen in cormexion with Federal and State matters'. ^^ He was concemed that because of wrangling between the States and the Commonwealth such things as repatriation and land settlement, Australia's role in world affairs was diminished. Groom's reply of 5 June agreed with Donaldson's sentiments, but he considered that at the time there was not much that could be done to improve the situation. Donaldson reply showed his continued concem. Although Australia had taken her place within the British Commonwealth, he wrote, she had yet to leam to take her place 'worthily in the counsels of the nations'. For this, he said, 'we shall have to breed statesmen who will be free to take a larger outlook unfettered by the miserable local worries which fill their time at present'. ^^ His sentiments were later expressed in his 1919 charge to Synod when he discussed tmth in politics and journalism:

I believe that the miserable bitterness of our party spirit is robbing us of our sense of truth and it is time that someone raised his voice in protest for our national character is at stake. °^

If Donaldson was aware of the squabble which had lately been in progress between the Minister of Repatriation, Senator Millen, and the Hon. Hugh Mahon, a squabble which might well have refired the sectarian debate, he remained silent. It was now the tum of the Roman Catholic Church to complain of unfair representation in the civil service. Duhig had approached W. M. L'Estrange, Chairman of the Repatriation Board, who informed him that no member of the Board was a Roman Catholic, but was unable to give information re the religious persuasions of the office staff. When no information was forthcoming, at Duhig's behest Mahon approached

^9 Donaldson to Smith, 22 Dec 1915, AA. ^^ Letter not sighted. Groom was a member of General Synod and Diocesan Synod. He was also a member of federal parliament, and held a number of ministerial posts including External Affairs, Attorney General, State and Home Affairs, Railways. During the war he was assistant Minister for Defence. He was also sometime vice-president of the Executive Council, and Speaker of the House. He took an interest in education and was active in the movement to establish the University of Queensland. ^' Donaldson to Groom, 10 Jun 1919, AA. ^2 KB 1919, p.22. 110 Millen to ascertain the tmth of Duhig's allegations that Roman Catholics were not wanted on the Brisbane staff of the Repatriation office. Duhig also alleged that Roman Catholics on the staff had been dismissed, and 'that a certain youthful official had by becoming a freemason got advancement to a post for which others on the staff were better qualified'. ^^ The matter was dropped when Millen refused to enter into further correspondence. ^4

Through the ages the Church has spoken out against the social and moral evils prevalent in society, but words are not enough, and some tangible evidence of action rather than words is necessary. In the Diocese of Brisbane there were several organisations involved in social work, although not all were founded by the Church. Some of them had been founded in Webber's episcopate, or earlier, and played an extremely important and on-going part in Brisbane church life.

The Brisbane Female Refuge was one example. It was founded in 1869 by a group of women with a strong social conscience, and after a somewhat chequered existence so far as premises was concemed, eventually found its home in . One of the founding members was Mrs Anne Drew, who for a number of years supervised its activities. Early in 1907 Mrs Drew, at the age of 82 years of age, feh unable to carry the burden any longer. Her appeal to Donaldson, who was patron of the institution, did not fall on deaf ears. The Archbishop organised a committee of women to oversee the management of the refuge, and on Mrs Drew's death later in 1907, the Turbot street property was left in tmst for the continuance of the work. ^^

Another example was the work of the Sisters of the Society of the Sacred Advent who had been active in social and educational work since their foundation in 1892. In 1893 the Home of the Good Shepherd, later to become The Tufnell Home, was opened at Nundah as an orphanage for non-State orphans. The Sisters also operated St Mary's Home at Taringa, a 'rescue home for fallen women - first falls only', ^^ and an Industrial Home at Clayfield (later to become St Michael's school) to cater for Church of England girls committed by magistrates to a reformatory run by the Salvation Army. ^^

The Church itself, of course, was active in social matters. At the 1905 Synod Donaldson spoke of the re-organisation of the Church Society. The Church Society,

^3 Duhig to Millen, 4 Feb 1919, Australian Archives 2487/1, Item 19/2128, ^'* Millen to Mahon 5 Feb 1919, and Mahon to Millen 7 Feb 1919, Ibid. °-' John Johnston, Just in Time - A Review of Social and Welfare Activities in the Diocese of Brisbane, p.3, [unpublished monograph] AA. °6 David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. 8"^ Ibid 111 which had commenced operations in June 1895 as 'a kindred association to the Church Army in London', ^^ was responsible for much of the diocesan mission work. A Rescue Home for Women founded by the Church Mission, as it was then known, was opened at Wilston on 28 July 1905 by Archdeacon Le Fanu. In 1906 The Church Mission's social work was taken over by the Home Mission, at which time the Home Mission Fund was created.

The amount of inoney expended by the Church on its various social welfare projects was not great. The Church Society Fund Account for 1905 shows that £100 was given to St Mary's Home and £20 to the Newspaper Boys' Club. These sums came from a legacy left specifically for the purpose. £5 was spent on the Tufnell Orphanage and £3. 1. 6 on the Women's Shelter. ^^ The Diocesan Council allocated a fiirther £7. 4. 0. to St Mary's Home, and a similar amotmt to the Church Mission. ^^ In 1906 £18.19. 6 was allocated to St Mary's Home from the Special Purposes fund, and £5. 0. 0. to the Tufiiell Home. The Church Mission received £27.11. 0. In addition to these amounts, the Diocesan Council allocated £8. 1. 1 to St Mary's Home and £10.14. 9 to the Church Mission. 91

By 1907 when the Church Society Fund was transferred to the Home Mission Fund there was a noticeable increase in spending, indicating a substantial increase in collections, which was due in part to the appointment of a paid Assistant Organising Secretary, and due in part to a retum to good seasons after a prolonged drought. ^^ in that year St Mary's received £8. 3.11 for special purposes while the Women's Shelter received £133. 7. 6, the Rescue Home £89. 9. 6, and the Newsboys' Club £27.15. 5. 93 With the increase in money allocated to social welfare went a corresponding increase in the expense of running the Home Mission Fund, the overall result being a decrease in 1907 of some £300 available for diocesan purposes. ^4 By 1921 things had improved to the extent that £388.10.9 was spent in maintaining the Women's Shelter, and £62.10.0 was spent on St Mary's Home. ^5

As part of its social work the diocese did not overlook the needs of retumed soldiers, and in this regard The Church of England Soldiers' Help Society, under the guidance of Garland, played an important part. At the end of 1919 the Society was maintaining the Anzac Club, the Anzac Home - a boarding house with ninety beds.

°° John Johnston, Just in Time, [short citation] p.9. ^9 YB 1905, p.90. 9^ Ibid ^' YB 1906, p.94. ^2 YB 1907, p.32. 93/6W. ^'^ YB 1908, p.43. 95 KB 1921, p.59. 112 the Rest House with sixty beds, and the Toowoomba Rest Rooms. ^6 its work was later extended to the welfare of soldier settlements, and Donaldson advocated its support in his charge to the 1919 synod.

This work was continued at St Martin's Hospital, which was established in 1921 as a War Memorial Hospital. Special terms of payment were to be offered to retumed soldiers, their wives, and dependents. ^7 Donaldson armounced that there would be a 'free section, where those who are unable to pay should be nursed without charge'. But although there were 'individual cases' of this kind the diocese did not feel justified 'owing to the huge financial liability, in inaugurating this development in any formal manner'. This was, however, an integral part of the scheme, and it awaited only the generosity of subscribers 'to make it an accomplished fact'. ^8 For a number of years some retumed soldiers were treated free of cost.

Later, in 1921, St Martin's was the subject of bitter dispute between the Archbishop and Garland. Garland wrote to the Archbishop setting out his recollection of the meeting with the Archbishop on 26 September 1921 during which the Archbishop accused him of not supporting the hospital. Garland replied that he had raised large sums of money for it, and parish members had assisted with street collections on St Martin's Day. He had personally contributed to it, but would not permit the parish to contribute any of its funds. ^9 xhe Archbishop then accused Garland of a breach of confidence conceming a 'Tmst' to which the Retumed Soldiers League had taken exception. Garland replied that 'the question of the Tmst was in some degree common talk among business men'. The argument grew more bitter when Donaldson said that Garland was 'disloyal to the Church'. Garland asked the Archbishop to repeat his statement, which he did 'very deliberately' at which point Garland departed. ^^^

At a loss as to the basis of the accusations, Garland called upon General Spencer Browne, the League's President, when for the first time he was told that at an interview with Miss Stella Bmce Nicol the question of the Tmst was raised. ^^^ The League, distressed by the charges made against Garland, wrote to Donaldson indicating 'emphatically' that Garland was innocent of the charges. ^^^

96 Garland to Wright, 18 Nov 1919, AA. 9'^ Donaldson to Finn, 8 Nov 1919, AA. 98 rB1921,P.16. 99 Garland to Donaldson, 15 Oct 1921, AA. 100/iW. Miss Bruce Nicol was Honorary Secretary of the General Committee and of St Martin's League and was a member of a number of diocesan charitable committees. '02 Garland to Donaldson 15 Oct 1921, AA. 113 Garland said he had spoken to the Archbishop more than twelve months previously about 'the badness' of the Tmst and pointed out its danger. Other people also knew of the Tmst's defects, and the matter had been raised in Synod. ^^^ The Archbishop's condemnation of Garland was not based upon knowledge, nor had he given Garland an opportunity of defending himself ^^4

From a draft of Donaldson's letter in reply to Garland it would seem that in this instance Garland was more sinned against than sinning, but there was no apology:

I accept your assurance that the letter of the Soldiers' League was written quite independently of you. I don't propose to argue the point further.

I would much rather change the subject, and think of the good work you have done, in which to some extent we have been comrades. I want our parting to be friendly, and I hope you do too. ^^^

Although Donaldson was chairman of various conmiittees and signed their reports to Synod, there is no evidence to suggest that he took any active part in their work. This is of no significance because his attention and duties lay in other directions but despite his work in the Church Eton Mission there is nothing to suggest that he had any real understanding of or sympathy with the difficulties of the disadvantaged in the community, possibly because he believed that there were no really poor people in Australia, as distinct from the slum dwellers in England, but in any case his own socio-economic background did not give him much of an understanding of the underprivileged sections of the community. His background was one of privilege and affluence and although he gave generously to various causes such as the Theological College and St John's College, he was unable to understand, for example, the wish of the less well-to-do to limit the size of their families because he himself had never known what it was to be poor.

Lack of money was one of the factors which govemed the advancement of social work, but moral issues rather than works of charity dominated the Church's efforts in social work during Donaldson's episcopate. His main concems were the lack of spiritual discipline and the consequent lapses into social evils such as gambling, intemperance, and sexual immorality. In these areas Donaldson attempted to give a lead but he was not always successful in getting his flock to follow. He lent

103 There is no mention of this in the 1921 Year Book, nor is there any mention in the official minutes of Synod. I have been unable to identify the 'Trust'. The R.S.L. was unable to throw any light on the matter as many of their records were destroyed in the 1974 Brisbane flood. When Garland says the matter was raised in Synod, he perhaps meant that it was discussed by members at the time of Synod but not as an item on the agenda. 104 Garland to Donaldson, 15 Oct 1921, AA. 105 Donaldson to Garland, dratt letter 19 Oct 1921, AA. 114 his name to organisations which he hoped would have some salutary effect, but abandoned them when their usefulness was in doubt. He was unable to control his own Temperance Committee, and his final argument with Garland was not very edifying, although it must be said that Garland was a law unto himself When it came to prohibition, the Archbishop's attitude must have sent some rather confusing signals to his people. Donaldson was deeply concemed with the spiritual welfare of man, but as diocesan he was unable to make any great impression on an obdurate society.

115 CHAPTER VII

WRANGLE FOR RELIGION

The lack of religious education in State schools, which had been a bone of contention for many years, was seen as a contributing factor to the poor level of religious knowledge in the diocese and was one of the problems which confronted Donaldson on his arrival. The campaign against the govemment to have religious education taught in State schools was hard fought, but when victory was achieved it became the springboard for the launching of an even longer and more bitter fight which ended in a deep sectarian rift. As President of the Bible in State Schools League Donaldson's main role lay in co-ordinating the League's efforts at executive level. He was able to maintain the interest of member Churches in the League, and without his influence the campaign would not have been successful, but this came at the price of the diocese's having to take financial responsibility for the League's activities.

The removal of state subsidies to Church schools of whatever denomination during the 1870s and 1880s removed religious pluralism 'by favouring none'. It forced the various denominations to realise 'their reduced status in the colonies, and also that none enjoyed a privileged, special relationship'. The Roman Catholics saw themselves as 'an aggrieved and persecuted minority surrounded by the dominant Protestant society'. The effect on the Anglicans was perhaps not so marked. In many ways they still considered themselves to be the Established Church or at least to have a special relation with the State. ^

In Queensland the dual system was brought to an end by the State Education Act of 1875. State aid was not immediately withdrawn from denominational schools, but the Act provided that from 1880 onward primary education should be free, secular, and compulsory. Nonconformists favoured this change, while the Anglican and Roman Churches 'were united in opposition'. ^

With state subsidies removed, between 1875 and 1890 six Anglican and three nonconformist schools closed in Brisbane, but the loss of State aid, serious as it was, was not the main cause for concem. The Act of 1875 allowed religious instmction to be given out of school hours, but it was a provision that could not easily be

1 Michael McKeman, Australian Churches at War - Attitudes & Activities of Major Churches 1914-1918 (Sydney & Canberra: Catholic Theological Faculty and Australian War Memorial, 1980), p.5. 2 A. E. David, Australia (London: A.R.Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1908), pp. 179-180. 116 implemented. The effect of this was that unless they attended Sunday school, those children attending State schools received no religious instmcfion at all. 3 In New South Wales where a similar Act applied, religious educafion was available in State schools during school hours.

Webber, who at one time had been a member of the School Board for London,'* 'was disturbed by the spread of Christian nominalism and the diminishing attendance at Sunday schools'. ^ Webber had seen the effects of the difficulty of teaching religious education in State schools in England, where denominafional religious teaching was forbidden in Board schools, though not in the 'voluntary' schools [i.e. schools supported by religious organisations or fee paying schools]. Webber did not want to see a repeat of this problem in Queensland. On his initiative the Bible in State Schools League was founded, the first meeting of which was on 31 October 1890. ^ The object of the League was to have the word 'secular' defined in the Education Act of 1875 as it had been in the New South Wales Act, to include 'general religious teaching as distinguished from dogmatical or polemical theology', and to allow the special teaching to take place in school hours, as then allowed in that State. ^ Initially the League's reception by the nonconformist Churches was not overwhelmingly enthusiastic. There was traditional suspicion of the Church of England by the nonconformist bodies, and some opposition to the League's aims. ^ Only the Methodists gave it strong support. The Presbyterians were divided, the Baptists were luke-warm, and the Congregationalists were generally opposed to it.^

Predictably, the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to the idea of religious education in State schools. The main objection put forward by Dunne, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, was that the Roman Catholic Church had no control over the appointment of teachers or their dismissal, and therefore could not approve of their reading or teaching the Bible to Roman Catholic children in State schools. ^^ Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church had its own schools established by Durme's influence, the aim of which was 'to bring children under the influence of Christian teachers whose lives as much as their words were a profession of faith'. ^'

3 J. Hunt, Church and State in Education in Queensland, B.A.Hons thesis. University of Queensland, 1968, p.28. 4 A. E. DdiWxA, Australia, p. 127 [Short Citation]. 5 Neil J. Byrne, Robert Dunne, [short citation] p.220. 6 Bible in State Schools League Minutes 1890-1918 [BMins.] 7 ChCh., 1 Oct 1901, p,34. 8 R. Lawson, Brisbane in the 1890s, (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1973), p.293. 9 Ibid 10 Neil J. Byrne, Robert Dunne, p.221. 11 Ibid 117 Since its inception the League's affairs had undergone several changes of fortune, and by the tum of the century the interest of some members was waning. In 1900, however, the enthusiasm of George Frodsham, Bishop of North Queensland, breathed new life into the League at a time when it was almost defunct. '^ Frodsham was a moving force behind the League from its inception in Brisbane. His appointment to North Queensland carried the League's banner into the northem diocese. By June 1901 a branch of the Lesaue had been formed at Charters Towers, ^^ and others followed.

The League's activities provided Donaldson with a reason for writing to Dunne, whom Donaldson had not met after two years in Brisbane. ^'^ At the League's inception Dunne had been invited to join, but declined despite the 'amicable history of Anglican-Catholic relations' in Queensland. ^^ Dunne was not prepared to enter publicly into the debate:

We lay low, as the Indian story books say, well knowing that any strong action of ours would bond the Protestants. The Anglicans and Wesleyans were strongly (not unanimously) for it. The Baptists and Congregationalists were... against it. It only wanted the Pope's flag unfurled to rally all the sects as one. *"

Durme had no wish to compromise his position, but Donaldson wanted to avoid a spread in sectarian feeling. The question of religious education in State schools was likely to have 'members of our respective flocks...fall into separate camps'. This, he thought, was unavoidable, but it might be helpfiil if such matters could be discussed from time to time at a private interview. If on reflection his Grace was of opinion that 'no good result would be gained by an interview, he would quite understand'. One other matter Donaldson wished to discuss was Durme's attitude to 'the question of a Theological Faculty in the proposed Queensland University.' ^"^ Dunne's response to Donaldson's proposed meeting is not recorded, but there is no evidence to suggest that such a meeting took place. As State aid was Dunne's primary objective, perhaps he felt there was nothing to be gained by meeting Donaldson whose interest was not in State aid but in obtaining the right to teach religious education in State schools. Times had changed since 1860 when E. W. Tufriell, the first Anglican bishop of Brisbane, and , the first Roman Catholic bishop of Brisbane went on an extended

12 Neil J. Byrne, Robert Dunne, p.294 '1^3 BMins, 19 June 19019011 . I'* There appears to be no specific reason for the two archbishops not meeting. Dunne and Webber had been on good terms. Dunne was a fairly old man and perhaps restricted his outside engagements, and also both archbishops were extremely busy with their own affairs. 15 Neil J Byrne, Robert Dunne, p.221. 1^ Dunne to Abp.Carr 26 Sept 1906, quoted in Neil J. Byrne, Robert Dunne, p.221. 1' Donaldson to Dunne, 6 Nov 1906, AA. 118 tour together in order to bring about changes to the Primary Education Act which included 'regulafions impossible for church schools to accept.' '^

There was a lamentable lack of Christian knowledge in the Anglican community at large, and especially among many children of school age who neither attended church or Sunday school. As the secularisation of Sunday accelerated and the problem became more acute, religious instmction in school held out some small hope of remedying the situation. The position was not peculiar to Queensland, or indeed Australia. In England, for example, at the begirming of the twentieth century, possibly as a result of the flowering of the Anglo-Catholic movement, although there was 'a period of great spiritual vigor', church attendance was actually declining. ^^

These conditions made it imperative that every opportunity be grasped to have access to the minds of non-church going children, but despite Donaldson's strong backing, and Frodsham's in North Queensland, in 1906 the impetus of the League's work had flagged, and it became obvious that if the League were to prosecute its campaign successfully it needed 'the zeal of individuals' to dispel the 'astonishingly deep and widespread' ignorance of its objectives. The zeal of one individual in particular spearheaded the battle yet to come. That man was the Rev. Mr David Garland, Rector of Charters Towers. Garland was ordained deacon in Grafton in 1889, and after serving his curacy in that diocese, he was ordained priest in Perth in 1892, where he fiilfilled various fimctions such as Registrar and Diocesan Secretary, and chaplain to the bishop. In 1902 he moved to North Queensland. He was Rector of Charters Towers from 1902-7, Canon 1902-7, Administrator of the Diocese 1903-4, Archdeacon of North Queensland 1903-7, and Registrar 1904-7.

As long ago as December 1899, the Church Chronicle eulogized Garland for his part in getting the govemment of Westem Australia to permit religious instmction in State schools. During that campaign Garland 'was separated for the work by the diocese'. ^0 These words were to have some significance in the years to come. His modus operandi was:

to interview members of the school committees throughout the colony, and to get the individual members in favour of introducing fair religious privileges into the Act, to write to their Minister of Education asking him to support the introduction of clauses 7 and 17 of the Public Instruction Act of New South Wales into the Westem Australian Act. ^i

18 Anne McLay R.S.M., James Quinn, First Catholic Bishop of Brisbane. (Toowoomba: A Church Archivists' Society Publication, revised ed. 1989), p.l31. 19 K. D. Rayner, A History, p.300. 20 ChCh.. 1 Dec 1899, p.67. 21 Ibid 119 After consultation between Donaldson, who was President of the League, Frodsham, and Garland, it was decided that Garland should take an active part in forwarding the League's aspirations. On 2 April 1906 he was appointed General Secretary of the League. ^2 Garland was not a man to let the grass grow under his feet. Even before his appointment had been confirmed, he had been to Brisbane as part of a League's delegation to the Premier. Upon his retum to Charters Towers a letter awaited him from the Premier, confirming the gist of the discussion which had taken place with the deputation on 12 March. Premier Kidston, a Presbyterian, was opposed to religious education in State schools: 'It seems to me that it is a matter on which even the most religious and conscientious men may differ without the sincerity of either side being called in question'. ^3

Garland wrote to Donaldson enclosing a copy of the Premier's letter. The letter, he said, would enable the Archbishop to judge for himself the Premier's real views. Garland's covering letter showed something of his mettle. The Premier's views presented a challenge to Garland which he found irresistible. 'I have had to convert harder cases and do not despair of him', he wrote. ^^

Garland was a man of fiery temperament with little or no respect for authority. When he undertook a project he was right, and he would brook no interference or guidance from others. As archdeacon of North Queensland it was inevitable, because of his personality, that there should be an element of unease in Garland's relations with Frodsham. Frodsham had been cast in the Webber mould, and like his mentor he did not appreciate rebellious behaviour by his staff. Garland, in modem parlance, was a 'fixer' or lobbyist, and when he became closely involved in the service of the League, Garland decided that he should be stationed in Brisbane. This would remove him from any perceived interference by his bishop, and place him at the centre of things, a situation he always desired. His case was not weakened by the Premier's letter:

I am afraid that you find yourself much handicapped in Charters Towers by the irreligious influences at work, and are so single mindedly concentrated upon counteracting those influences that you are inclined (like all Australians) to call upon the govemment to do work that is not the function of the govemment to perform. 25

Ten days after Garland's appointment, Frodsham wrote to Donaldson saying that some of the implications of Garland's involvement with the League were starting

22 BMins., 2 Apr 1906. In later minutes Garland was also referred to as Organising Secretary. 23 Kidston to Garland, 23 Mar 1906, AA. 2'* Garland to Donaldson, 9 Apr 1906, AA. 25 Kidston to Garland, 23 Mar 1906, AA. 120 to arise, and that Garland had made up his mind that he should be in Brisbane until after a referendum, possibly to be held later in the year, 26 jn which the electorate would cast its vote for or against religious education in State schools. Frodsham continued:

So far as 1 can gather he wants to worry the politicians and to lecture the respective diocesan Synods. I am by no means convinced that his continued presence in Brisbane is necessary or even advisable, and I am sure that he has absolutely no right to leave an extremely difficult parish for a lengthy period. I would sooner that he resigned. ^'

Frodsham had explained to Garland the plan that had been agreed upon by the League, but Garland had made up his mind that his was the only workable one. Frodsham felt that North Queensland Diocese could do without Garland, and suspected that Garland had 'other plans in his mind, quite separate from the League, which will make him loth to relinquish the post of Secretary.' 28

In October 1906 Donaldson advised the League's Committee that after consultation with the Bishop of North Queensland, Garland's services had been placed fiilly at the disposal of the League, and he would be stationed in Brisbane. Garland, who was Archdeacon of North Queensland as well as Rector of Charters Towers, was to retain his parish until a substitute could be found. In the meantime he was at liberty to visit his parish every two months. 29 Garland came to Brisbane where he replaced the Honorary Secretary of the League, and became its fijll-time stipendiary Secretary.

His rectorial and archidiaconal duties could not be carried on adequately from Brisbane, but Garland was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He envisaged the successful outcome of a referendum supposedly to be held in the not distant ftjture, after which he would retum to his duties in North Queensland. At the same time, he was not prepared to live only on the stipend, at the rate of £350 per year, provided by the League. Garland's overweening attitude provided one of the less edifying episodes in the history of the Diocese of Brisbane.

The churchwardens at Charters Towers decided that they could not afford to be without pastoral care for the six months that Garland considered necessary for him to be in Brisbane, nor could they afford the cost of employing a locum tenens, if indeed one could be found. Accordingly they requested his resignation. Garland

2" This referendum was not held. 2^ Frodsham to Donaldson, 12 Apr 1906, AA. 28 Ibid 29 BMins., 22 Oct 1906. 121 issued what he called a 'pastoral' letter to his parishioners on 8 June 1907 in which he sought to elevate his own desires to a level almost of martyrdom.

The Charters Towers Evening took up the cudgels on his behalf Frodsham, in a letter to Donaldson, referred to an article which appeared in the Charters Towers paper, and enclosed a copy of Garland's 'pastoral' letter. It was a rather 'clever production,' he thought, 'although there is more than a suspicion of the suppressio veri in it'. The churchwardens had told Frodsham that Garland was 'endeavouring to make things as unpleasant as he possibly can on the Towers'. Again referring to the newspaper article, Frodsham wrote:

I do not think that you need take the leading article very seriously as representing public opinion, but it is probable that political capital will be made out of the matter. Philp's party it appears is responsible for Tiring out the Archdeacon.' It is the duty of every loyal Kidstonian or labour man to stand by the oppressed. Garland will use it all for he means to leave with a great flourish of trumpets. ^^

Whatever Garland's political views were, he was usually on the side of the underdog, and quite often saw himself as being in that position. He was an astute politician who took every opportunity to push his own barrow, and with the Labour Party waiting in the wings to take govemment Garland tried to enlist its sympathy. It is quite likely that Garland had some input in the newspaper article. Frodsham's remarks were valid.

The following day, 14 June 1907, Frodsham again wrote to Donaldson. He had been told that one of the parochial nominators of Warwick had telegraphed to Garland, some little time ago, asking him that if he were nominated would he accept the charge, and that Garland had replied in the affirmative. This was done before Garland had resigned from Charters Towers. How long before, Frodsham could not say, but he thought the Archbishop should know, in view of the part of Garland's 'pastoral' in which he said he had no prospects before him. There then followed a strong exposition of Frodsham's feelings about Garland:

I must, however, clear my conscience with regard to Garland. I have made many mistakes during my episcopate but none greater than accepting Garland and tmsting him. I recognise to the full his ability, zeal, and courage, but I now know that his character and methods are such as will ultimately damage any cause with which he is identified.^ ^

Donaldson sought counsel from Bishop Dawes in Rockhampton. The Archbishop was concemed for Garland's welfare in view of his statement about

^^ Frodsham to Donaldson, 13 Jun 1907, AA, ^1 Frodsham to Donaldson, 14 Jun 1907, AA. 122 having no prospects before him. and after putting the circumstances to Dawes asked whether in his opinion Donaldson should offer Garland some form of future employment. Dawes replied, saying that Garland's case was 'a perplexing one', but after careful thought did not hesitate to say 'don't'. In his opinion, if a sacrifice were to be made, then it should be made by North Queensland as it was the Bishop of North Queensland who had invited Garland to come to Queensland. If he remembered correctly, he said, Frodsham had accepted Garland's temporary help, not at Donaldson's suggestion or wish but because he as Bishop of North Queensland had strongly urged it.

In outlining his opinion of Garland, Dawes wrote:

Garland has some excellent gifts and qualities but they are unhappily discounted by lack of balance, and undue regard for the personal equation. His methods too grate upon one's nerves. To admit such a disturbing not to say explosive element into your diocese would be to run a very grave risk, which the per-contra consideration you suggest could hardly justify. ^2

Dawes considered that the interests of Donaldson's own diocese should have 'first claim and consideration', and 'you are in no way bound to consider one who has proved himself a "misfit" in every diocese in which he has worked, except Sydney, where he was only long enough to show his good points without revealing his bad ones'. ^^ Dawes no doubt was referring to Garland's quick temper and insolent marmer to those he considered to be out of step with him, and thus did not fit in with the accepted norms of ecclesiastical behaviour, as shown by his dealings with his bishop in Perth and in Townsville. Garland was an irritant like a grain of sand in an oyster, but unfortunately without the same results.

The Archbishop wrote to Garland expressing his concem at his response to being asked to resign from Charters Towers. Garland replied that while he regretted the loss of Donaldson's good opinion, he stood or fell to his own conscience 'and to another above bishop'. 'Had I acted on my conscientious judgment, instead of humbly accepting yours', he wrote, 'no trouble would have occurred'. ^4 The letter continued in similar vein, accusing Frodsham of threatening him. The nature of the threats was unspecified. He continued, however, to excuse himself:

I make no appeal to you as to my fiiture. That I leave to God because I am doing right. But I point out that at the very moment when the C of E is deploring lack of men and lack of men of quality, the bishops make it untenable for one who has actually done...[Garland's dots] but whose chief fault is that neither now nor at any

32 Dawes to Donaldson, 16 Jun 1907, AA. 33 Ibid 3^* Garland to Donaldson, 17 Jun 1907, AA. 123 time will he submit to be treated as a schoolboy by those who ought to recognise the value of work for human souls as outweighing all else. ^^

The cause of Garland's complaint was that, in his own mind, he had been forced to resign his rectory, and that if and when the League succeeded in its aims, he would be left with 'no home, no prospects for the future'.

The Archbishop drafted a letter to Garland, which he showed to the Bishop of New Guinea, Montague Stone-Wigg, who was visiting Brisbane. Stone-Wigg concurred in Donaldson's reply adding:

Let me indulge in a retrospect. In January 1902 I spent a day in Perth W.A., on my way to England just when the crash had come between Q. and the Bji of Perth. G acknowledged to me that his perpetual ambition was to seek power, and he confessed freely that it was the one thing that meant anything to him. I have always kept in mind that conversation, and felt it gave me the keynote to his character...

But I fear 'power' again has destroyed him. His letter is fiill of self-will...

The 'exaggerated ego' appears in every line. ^"

Donaldson's letter opened with expressions of regret that the situation had developed, after which he expressed himself in forthright manner. He had, he said, told Garland that he was 'on trial' and the trial lay in the demand of circumstances that he should remain at Charters Towers, which meant in other words, that he should maintain the peace with his bishop. 'Now the catastrophe has occurred and whatever trouble may lie elsewhere', he continued, 'I cannot escape from the conclusion that the main cause, if you will let me be frank, is your love of preeminence'. ^^

To give some assurance to Garland for the inmiediate fiiture, Donaldson, in a misguided gesture, before commencing a northem tour, left at the Registry a temporary licence to officiate in the diocese, and in case there should be 'financial shortage with the Bible League' he guaranteed any deficiency there might be in Garland's 'bank' up to a rate of £150 per armum. The letter concluded:

As to the fiirther fiiture, I told you once that I should be very sorry to have you in my diocese. And I meant what I said simply because I can see only too plainly that sooner or later we should fall out. Hitherto we have been fi-iends. For my part I hope that with all my heart we may remain so. But that will not be, if we are in an official relation to one another. Work will readily present itself to you in some other diocese when you are free to accept it: and in such work I should be only too ready, if you wished it, to help so far as I could. ^°

35 Ibid 36 Stone-Wigg to Donaldson, 25 Jun 1907, AA. 3'^ Donaldson to Garland, 30 Jun 1907, AA. 38 Ibid 124 Giving Garland a temporary licence to officiate proved to be an act of mistaken generosity, and indicated a lack of judgment on Donaldson's part.

By way of explaining his actions Donaldson v^ote to Frodsham. There were two aspects of the matter which had to be resolved: Garland's fiiture in relation to the Church, and the fiiture of the Bible League. Garland's conduct might well merit his expulsion from the Church in Queensland, but if Donaldson refused him work after his behaviour towards Frodsham, the Archbishop thought that no other bishop would employ him. Although there was a strong reason to do this, he in tum would be saddled permanently with Garland. With regard to the fiiture of the League, Kidston, the Premier, was very ill, but Donaldson was quite clear in his own mind that the Ministry was ready to pass the Referendum Bill, and Garland's action had in no way embarrassed this. ^^

For a short period of time the matter lay dormant, but empted again in October 1907. This time Garland took his quarrel to the League itself. At a meeting of the League, Garland as Secretary said that 'there was a feeling of uneasiness about the relation of the Church of England through its official heads towards the Organising Secretary', and on the motion of the Rev'ds. G. E. Rowe and A. Gillison a committee consisting of the President, the mover, seconder, and the Organising Secretary, was appointed to consider the matter. "^^ Garland, as Secretary, wrote the minutes.

The committee wasted no time, and held its first meeting on 9 October. Donaldson, as President, was present with the other nominated members. Garland opened the debate saying that he had been compelled to resign his rectory at Charters Towers, as well as his archdeaconry of North Queensland to further the work of the League, as a result of which he had 'no standing in the Church of England except that of a temporary permission of the Archbishop of Brisbane to officiate for a period of six months'. That permission expired on 31 December 1907, and such permission did 'not give him the position of a recognised clergyman of the Church of England'. "^^

According to Garland, this situation 'aroused grave suspicion in the minds of a number of persons with regard to the Organising Secretary', and 'materially affected his influence as Organising Secretary and thereby materially affected the progress of the League'. ^2

39 Donaldson to Frodsham, 14 Jun 1907, AA. ^^ BMins., 7 Oct 1907. "^1 BMins., 9 Oct 1907. 42 Ibid 125 Donaldson refuted the assertion, and said that there was no reflection on Garland's character. Garland was not content with this explanation and stated in reply:

that in as much as when an archdeacon who has occupied such high positions of trust in his Church, is widely known and respected throughout the State, is no longer one of the recognised clergy of his Church, people find it difficult to believe that there is nothing against his character and that he has the support of the Church of England in the work of the League as he had previously.

In consequence of this fact, and the causes which led to it, the existence of the League was seriously endangered. ^^

The minute continued:

The President however did not suggest any solution to the grave difficulty which now confronts the League and which your committee brings under the notice of the executive with a strong recommendation for immediate action in the best interests of the League.

The meeting was adjoumed until 24 October, when Donaldson said that he intended reading a written statement with reference to Garland's relation to the Church of England, and moved that Garland retire from the meeting. Rowe moved an amendment, which was carried, that Garland remain to hear the statement and retire after replying thereto, presumably when discussion without Garland would take place.

Donaldson prefaced his statement by saying that the crisis in the League had arisen through domestic trouble in the Anglican Church, and that under ordinary circumstances he would have declined to discuss with any but churchmen an affair which concemed none but them. It had been urged, however, that the action taken by the Church authorities had an indirect effect on the League, and that he would state, what in reality he was imder no obligation to state, the grounds of the action he had taken.

Donaldson told the meeting that as long ago as June 1907 he had told Garland that he should not look for work in the Diocese of Brisbane. He was quite clear in his own mind that he and Garland could not work together. This did not reflect a moral stain on Garland's character. But:

It sometimes happens, even where there is no moral blemish, that a man wrecks through his faults the work his virtues have enabled him to accomplish. I need not say that I was very far from wishing to injure Mr Garland; my action indeed was not calculated to do so. ^^

43 Ibid 44 BMins, 24 Oct 1907. 126 Garland, as he had stated publicly on a number of occasions, had left Charters Towers to devote himself to the work of the Bible in State Schools League, and it was 'natural to suppose that, as the work took up so much time, he would not be undertaking parish work'. There was nothing in Garland's position, Donaldson said, to cause remark, 'and if it has since been made the subject of quesfion, he must blame himself not me'. 45

As to Garland's statements that he had been forced to resign his work in North Queensland, Donaldson was not prepared to let that pass without comment. It was tme that the churchwardens of Charters Towers had asked Garland to resign, but for the previous year Garland had been anxious to leave Charters Towers, and Donaldson had the Bishop of North Queensland's support for saying that Garland resigned his work in North Queensland 'upon his own initiative and against his bishop's advice'. It was also not tme to say that Garland had been shut out of the Church of England. There were twenty Anglican dioceses in Australia: Donaldson's action concemed only the Diocese of Brisbane. ^^

In his peroration Donaldson said that with the deepest regret his decision was final. It had been arrived at after many weeks of anxious thought. He could not alter his decision and he was prepared to take the consequences, but 'I am not prepared to throw over a decision which I believe in my conscience to be right'. He hoped that as a result there would not be renewed bittemess among the Churches. As individual churchmen, the members of the committee were at liberty to hold their own opinion of the situation in the Church of England. They might disapprove so far as they knew the facts, 'but it is one thing to disapprove and another thing altogether to interfere in the domestic affairs of another Church'. Donaldson concluded by assuring the League of the support of the Church of England and support for Garland in his work for the League. 47

Garland's reply at that meeting is not recorded in the Minutes of the League, but an undated memorandum followed ^8 in which he wrote that at that time he was under great strain, made all the greater by the President's proposition [which was not carried] that he should leave the room while the statement was being read. Although Garland was present to hear Donaldson read his statement it was difficult to absorb it all under the circumstances and it was not until some days later that he had received a

45 Ibid 46 Ibid 47 Ibid 48 Bible in State Schools League Records (MS) 1890-1915, John Oxiey Library [JO]. 127 copy of Donaldson's statement, which he proceeded to dissect. Because of Rowe's amendment to Donaldson's motion. Garland must have stayed to hear the Archbishop's statement, and then left the meeting. What he was doing in his statement about being under great strain by the President's proposition that he should leave the room while the statement was being read, was making the point that in the wider issue of his position in the Church, he was being unfairly treated by his Archbishop.

The present crisis had not arisen through a domestic trouble in the Church of England, but through his having been compelled to choose 'between retaining high rank in an important parish', on the one hand, and the League on the other. Had he not been a servant of the League, holding also a relation to the Church of England, by which he was bound under oath of canonical obedience to the bishop, no trouble would ever have arisen.

Garland had taken strong exception to the Archbishop's remark 'that a man wrecks through his faults the work his virtues have enabled him to accomplish'. This he understood was the reason the Archbishop could not work with him. He went on at some length to point out the various works his virtues had enabled him to accomplish, none of which had been wrecked through any fault of his.

Garland's reply dealt seriatim with Donaldson's statement. According to his own reckoning, he was entirely innocent of any impropriety, the cause of the present crisis being due entirely to others, mainly the Archbishop and the Bishop of North Queensland. There, for the time being, the matter rested. Garland was trying to advance his status within the Church, and Donaldson was trying to justify his error of judgment in allowing Garland, against all advice, into his diocese strictly to advance the work of the League. What Garland's immediate achievement was is hard to see, except the public washing of some soiled linen.

Donaldson appealed to Saumarez Smith, as Archbishop of Sydney, in an attempt to rid himself of this turbulent priest. He did this because Saumarez Smith knew Garland, and because the Primate was 'one of the very few priests for whom he has a real regard'. 49 The Archbishop was concemed lest Garland leave the Church, feeling it had tumed him out. He might even possibly enter politics. ^^ For Garland's own sake and for the sake of the Church it was important that he should remain in the Church. In explaining the situation to him, Donaldson wrote:

49 Donaldson to Saumarez Smith, 14 Nov 1907, AA. 50 Garland's political leanings were irrelevant. Garland was a first class political tactician, and this with his fiery eloquence would have made him an asset to whatever party he belonged, should he decide to enter politics. 128 He is very wilful and insubordinate, and in Queensland he is, in my opinion, far too deeply immersed in politics even to settle down as a quiet parish priest. What he needs, and what he professes to want, is a town parish if possible among the poor. And further he needs to be in a sphere where there are other men of calibre. In Queensland he is a triton among minnows. ^

Donaldson, well aware of Garland's faults, was not blind to his good qualities:

There is a lot of good in him: he is fearless, affectionate, sympathetic, and full of zeal, and withal a man of quite first-class ability. His ideal has undoubtedly been pastoral work, and he will tum his back on that ideal if he ceases to work as a parish priest. -'^

Although Donaldson might seem 'like a neighbour throwing his stinging nettles over his neighbour's fence', nevertheless he appealed to the Primate to offer Garland a job in the Sydney Diocese. ^^ If the Primate responded to Donaldson's petition, any offer made to Garland was not accepted.

At about the same time as the Archbishop was embroiled in Garland's attack, another problem became evident. The finances of the League were in a very serious position. Donaldson drew attention to the financial crisis in his presidential address to the 1907 diocesan Synod. He appealed to 'all supporters of the League to realise their duty'. Hitherto serious appeals for funds had not been made, but now the bishops of the province were appealing for definite support. 'The Methodists and Presbyterians favourable to the League are also taking active measures'. ^4 These 'active measures' were not successful, and at the League's executive meeting on 27 November 1907 it was resolved that immediate steps be taken to liquidate the liabilities of the League, 'otherwise the existence of the League would be imperilled'. The League was appreciative of the 'liberal contributions' of the Church of England, especially from the Diocese of Brisbane, and recommended that the Presbyterians and Methodists be approached for their contributions. ^^ Ironically it was the League's financial straits that secured for Garland the very thing that he considered he had been denied.

The Archbishop in the end saved the day, when, as President of the League, he aimounced to the Executive meeting on 6 December 1907 that he had made arrangements by which Garland would remain in Brisbane, and attend to the work of the League without any salary being paid by the League. ^^ Donaldson had appointed

51 Ibid 52 Ibid 53 Ibid 54 YB 1907, P.34, 55 BMins., 27 Nov 1907. 56 BMins., 6 Dec 1907. 129 Garland to the vicarage of , thus negating his earlier pronouncement that he would not have Garland in his diocese.

Not wishing the Archbishop to have all the kudos for retrieving the financial situation of the League, Garland announced that he had made arrangements to close the present office forthwith. The work would be done from the rectory at Woolloongabba, and he was having the office fiimiture and effects transferred there. The telephone, too, was being transferred to the rectory, and although the services of the typist had been dispensed with, a typist might be engaged from fime to time as necessary.^^

Garland did not let his differences with the Archbishop affect the performance of his work. From the time of his appointment he threw himself into the work of the League with stunning intensity. Branches were organised in many parts of the State, and 'women were formed into energetic bands of workers'. He organised lantern-slide lectures in an effort to involve people in the towns and small settlements. He arranged for sermons to be preached simultaneously on the subject at given dates. He organised large public meetings at which the speakers were school inspectors, and well-known ministers from New South Wales, who spoke with authority as to the success of the system in that State. ^^

Garland had achieved his personal goal of obtaining a firm foothold in Brisbane, but at the cost of lasting good relations with his Archbishop. His victory in having religious instmction introduced into State schools was yet to be achieved.

On April 21 1908 the Religious Instruction in State Schools Referendum Act 1908 received royal assent, which greatly encouraged members of the Bible in State Schools League, whose aims were strengthened when a resolution was passed by the Lambeth Conference in 1908:

In the judgment of the Conference it is our duty as Christians to make it clear to the world that purely secular systems of education are educationally as well as morally unsound, since they fail to co-ordinate the training of the whole nature of the child, and necessarily leave many children deficient in a most important factor of that formation of character which is the principle aim of education. ^^

The passing of the Act cleared the way for a referendum to be held at some fiiture date to test public opinion on the possible restoration of the teaching of Bible

57 BMins., 20 Dec 1907. 5^ W. Osbome Lilley, Reminiscences of Life in Brisbane, and Reflections and Sayings (Brisbane: W.R.Smith & Patterson, 1913), p.43. 5^ Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion - Resolutions and Reports. 1897. 1908. 1920 (London: Society for the Propogation of Christian Knowledge), Resolution 49, 1908. 130 lessons in school hours by regular teachers as well as providing for instmction to be gi\'en by approved denominational visitors during school hours. It was proposed that the poll resuhing from the Act should be taken on the same day as the day of the first Federal general elections which ensued after the passing of the Act. ^^

At the second session of the State Parliament in 1908 abortive moves were made to try to alter the time at which the referendum should be taken. The Prime Minister, Andrew Fisher, agreed to the plan in 1909, but when Alfred Deakin succeeded Fisher there was some doubt as to whether Deakin would agree. To ensure that there would be no alteration to the plan. Garland interviewed Deakin who wrote to Kidston confirming the proposal.^ ^ The referendum was held in conjunction with the Federal election. The result, Queensland wide, was 74,228 in favour, 56,681 against, with 7,651 informal votes. ^^ The battle was won but the war was not over as the enabling legislation had to pass through both houses of State Parliament.

Garland, undeterred, was relentless in the pressure he applied. He forwarded to Kidston a copy of the resolutions passed at an Executive meeting of the of the League on 11 August 1910. The first resolution unanimously endorsed 'the maimer in which the Organising Secretary carried out the policy of the Executive in accordance with the instmctions given to him'. Having secured his own credentials, so to speak, he enumerated the other resolutions passed by the Executive. These deprecated 'with regret and indignation' the views expressed in both chambers by certain members towards 'the will of the people as manifested on the referendum...', and expressed great satisfaction with the actions of those members who armounced 'their intentions of giving effect to the will of the people'. The last resolution expressed the opinion that any obstmction or delay in giving effect to the result of the referendum would not bring finality, 'but will cause the question to be fought with a greater intensity'. ^^ Concemed that there had been some misunderstandings in the parliamentary debate on the subject. Garland again wrote to Kidston:

My Executive having considered the misrepresentations which have been made in debate in connexion with the Education Amendment Bill, have prepared the enclosed statement in reoly thereto, and regrets that there should be a necessity of troubling vou herewith "4

I am directed to say that in the opinion of my Executive the interests of truth and honour are involved in the further discussion of this subject in the High Court of

C. A. Bemays, Queensland Politics during Sixty (1859-1919) Years (Brisbane: A. J. Cuming, Govemment Printer), pp.

^' Deakin to Kidston, 29 Oct 1909, State Archives. ^2 C. A. Bemays, Queensland Politics, p.437 [short citation]. °3 Garland to Kidston, 12 Aug 1910, State Archives. The underlining is in red ink by the Premier and notated 'There is no necessity. W.K. 25/8/10' 131 Parliament, and therefore my Executive hopes that you will be good enough to peruse carefully the enclosed statement, and also the Teachers' opinions, the latter of which are given by experts writing with experience whose honour and veracity are involved in their statements, and which moreover after having stood the test of publicity for some years have not been upset."^

Not content with this broadside. Garland continued to apply pressure to the Premier. His next move was to send the Premier a copy of a resolution passed by the Annual Conference of the Baptist Association, which expressed 'surprise and regret' at the actions of certain members of the Legislative Assembly who were opposing the passing of the Bill. Such actions, it stated, could tend only to destroy confidence in parliamentary institutions, and compelled a belief that political expediency rather than principle was the controlling factor. ^^ During the debate members on both sides of the Legislative Assembly, and apparently of different religious denominations, spoke against the bill on the grounds that the introduction of religious education in State schools would foster sectarian bittemess, that the referendum did not fairly refiect the views of the population as a whole because many people did not vote in it, and that to pass the bill would be giving way to pressure from minority groups, the Anglican Church in general and Garland in particular.

As the result of the referendum in 1909, the State Education Act Amendment Bill was eventually passed, and on 24 November 1910 the State Education Act Amendment Act received royal assent. It was the culmination of a campaign which had been fought since 1889. The euphoria among Church supporters of the League was expressed in a note in The Methodist:

Queensland is rejoicing over the success of the campaign to secure the reading of Bible lessons as part of the curriculum of the State schools. The Act authorising this has been passed after virulent opposition by both Houses of Parliament and has secured the Royal assent. "'

Garland was as gracious in victory as he was tenacious in war. He wrote to Kidston:

A brief word, on the passing of the Bill, to tell you how gratefiil I am for all you have been and done.

Perhaps the best thing I can say if I may to convey my feelings in regard to your action in the matter, is that I never had the faintest shadow of a doubt that you would do your duty and that your way of doing it was always the best possible.

^5 Garland to Kidston, 24 Aug 1910, State Archives. Copies of the statements referred to could not be located, but would seem to refer to affirmative opinions of a number of teachers who would find no difficulty in including religious education in the curriculum. ^^ Garland to Kidston, 16 Sep 1910, State Archives. ^^ The Methodist. 10 Dec 1910, JO. 132 The reliance I placed upon everything you said to me gave me a confidence without which I could not have led the movement.

One pleasure in the Bill being through is that 1 shall be able to see you with less restraint, and whenever you want me remember your request will be to me a command which I shall do my utmost to carry out. ^^

Following the success of the campaign. Garland was invited to New Zealand to work there for the introduction of the Bible in State Schools. When Garland's departure was imminent Donaldson signed a licence giving him an honorary canonry and a letter granting six months' leave of absence. In this letter the Archbishop stipulated three things. During his absence. Garland had to continue paying his premiums to the Clergy Superannuation and Clergy Widows and Orphans Fund; and that all claims would lapse should he accept work elsewhere. The third provision was that Garland send his formal resignation from Holy Trinity, Woolloongabba to be held by the Archbishop. To make sure that there were no hitches in the procedure, Donaldson requested the Registrar to prepare a letter of resignation, to be dated 6 Febmary 1913, to be sent at once for signature. When that had been signed and retumed, the letter granting leave of absence was to be forwarded.^^

Garland went with a flourish. On 31 July 1912 he was given a civic farewell, presided over by the Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman A. J. Raymond, and there were many other prominent citizens present. There were also some notable absences, apologies being received from the Premier and Mr Appel among others. The Mayor eulogized Garland for his work. Garland had devoted himself to every cause where help was needed, he said, and all would regret the loss to Queensland of such a man. The necessities of Queensland at the present time were such that the State could not afford to part with him, ^^ a sentiment with which the Archbishop would not agree. In describing the civic farewell, it was also recorded that the Archbishop 'arrived at the close of proceedings, having been unavoidably delayed'. On the same evening a conversazione was tendered to the Garland family by the parish. Archdeacon Le Fanu presided at that fimction, and offered the Archbishop's apologies for not being able to attend, ^l

Two or three days earlier the Bible in State Schools League gave Garland a public farewell at the Albert Hall. The fimction was well attended, and was presided over by the Archbishop. In his speech Donaldson said that 'in sending Garland to New

6^ Garland to Kidston, 10 Oct 1910, State Archives. 6^ Donaldson to Orme, 27 Jul 1912, AA. ''O BC, 1 Aug 1912. "7' Ibid 133 Zealand they were forwarding a cause which they had greatly at heart', "^2 a tum of phrase which might well have had a double meaning.

Despite the air of contention which frequently surrounded him, and his frequently controversial utterances. Garland was a man of great ability, and was popular with and respected by his parishioners. Garland, however, was not the man to let slip any opportunity for his own advancement. When he left for New Zealand he took with him a letter of introduction from P. J. McDermott, Under Secretary of the Chief Secretary's Department to Gresley Lukin of the Evening Post in Wellington, and one from the Premier, Denham to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. ^^

Garland's use of the title 'Canon' was the cause of some resentment among New Zealand clergy. It had been suggested by the Primate of New Zealand that Donaldson approach the Archbishop of Canterbury seeking a Lambeth Doctorate for Garland. Donaldson replied that he could not initiate the request, but would support such an appeal. This advice he repeated to the Bishop of Nelson who made the same request of Donaldson. ^4 Donaldson considered that Garland's work in Queensland 'has not gone unrecognised so far as worldly rewards go'. ^^ Donaldson, however, did send on to Canterbury the Bishop of Nelson's letter in support of any application which might have been made from New Zealand, and repeated his above comment. ^^ He was pleased to support the appeal from New Zealand, he wrote. Garland was, he said, an extremely clever organiser and showed 'quite extraordinary courage and self- devotion' in any work to which he gave his mind. He was instmmental in winning the battle for religious instmction in schools in Queensland. If a degree were to be considered in recognition of his good services in the colonies. Garland's case might be considered. But, 'it is necessary, however, frankly to admit that though extraordinarily well-informed he has no learning or scholarship, having begun his career, I fancy, in a Dublin elementary school'. ^^ Garland did not receive a Lambeth doctorate. He retumed to Brisbane towards the end of 1914.

After the battle which ended in 1912, it had been assumed that the Religious Education Amendment Act settled the question for all time. In the first half of 1915, however, with State elections in the offing, there were suggestions that in the event of Labour's succeeding to govemment, the Act would be repealed. Labour's intentions were first armounced at a State Labour-in-Politics convention held in Brisbane in

^2 BC.,26Jul 1912. ^^ 18 Jul 1912, State Archives. "^4 Donaldson to Bp of Nelson, N.Z., 9 Jun 1914, AA. •^5 Ibid '° Donaldson to Davidson, 9 Jun 1914, AA. 77 Ibid 134 Febmary 1913. The Archbishop's concem was sparked by 'a somewhat enigmatic passage out of the little red pamphlet' recently issued by the Labour Party, which came into Donaldson's hands:

The Queensland questions relating to matters of private conscience will assuredly be removed fi-om the arbitrament of the ballot box. It is highly probable, indeed, that the next Labour convention, in view of the experience we have had and are having, will araounce definitely against the dragging of religious controversies into the arena nf politics, and will attach this exemption to the Initiative and Referendum plank.

The Bible in State Schools League was ready to meet such an eventuality, and Donaldson lost no time in sending this information to the provincial bishops. "^^ It may well have been a Labour Party move to enlist the support of Roman Catholic voters, but when the Ryan Labour govemment came to power the matter was not pursued. The achievement of the Bible in State Schools League, however, was the catalyst which sparked off sectarian conflict, and an increased push by the Roman Catholic Church for State aid, the likelihood of which was foreseen by Donaldson when he wrote to Durme in 1906. ^^

Even before religious instmction in State schools by authorised ministers of religion could be properly organised, the Rt. Rev. James Duhig, Roman Catholic Bishop of Rockhampton, acting on behalf of Durme, but without Dunne's political finesse, fired the opening shot in a battle which was to be far more bitter than the Bible in State Schools League's campaign. He issued a pastoral letter which was read in St Joseph's Cathedral in Rockhampton on 27 March 1910. After stating that the proposals were unacceptable to the Roman Catholic minority in the State, he made a strong plea for State aid for Roman Catholic schools. ^^ The message of the unacceptability of the proposed introduction of religious instmction in State schools, reached the Roman Catholic members of the Legislature several of whom raised the spectre of State aid for Roman Catholic schools, pointing out that the time lost to the Education Department when lessons were taking place was in fact a subsidy paid for by all tax payers including the Roman Catholics, and that recompense should be made to Roman Catholic schools on that account. Such speakers included William Lennon, member for Herbert, Denis Thomas Keogh, member for Rosewood, and Vincent Bemard Joseph Lesina, member for Clermont, and E.B.C. Corser, member for Maryborough. In the Legislative Council, the Hon's. A. J. Thynne, Frank McDoimell, and Peter Murphy when speaking against the Bill also raised the issue. ^1

78 Donaldson to Bp of Rockhampton, 29 Mar 1915, AA. 79 Donaldson to Dunne, 6 Nov 1906, AA. 80 5C., 28 Mar 1910, Q 1 Official Record of the Debates of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. vol.CVI, CVII. and CVIII, 1910 135 In a letter Duhig wrote to Premier Denham, dated 8 July 1911, the bishop, after proclaiming his Church's conscientious objection to religious instmction being permitted in State schools, stated that the introduction of these lessons had 'largely increased the demand for more Catholic schools, all of which like those already existing, must be erected and maintained by Catholics themselves'. ^^ This implied that 'vast numbers' of Roman Catholic children who were attending State schools would be obliged to seek education in their own schools in order to avoid the contaminating influence of other religions. 'Vast numbers' was clearly an overstatement as the only children of the Roman faith likely to be attending State schools would be those living where there was no available Roman Catholic school or whose parents for some reason or another were disaffected with their Church.

In secular education, Duhig said, his schools were doing a very valuable and worthwhile job, as well as providing religious education at no expense to the State, and as such were entitled to some relief at the tax-payers' expense towards the cost of their maintenance. Was the govemment prepared to make some appropriate endowment?

Denham replied on 8 July assuring Duhig that there was no controversy in the matter. The introduction of Bible lessons in State schools followed the result of a referendum in which the majority of electors voted for it. The lessons were framed with 'the utmost scmpulous care to exclude any denominational, sectarian, or controversial matter', and Roman Catholic clergy had the right of free access to State schools to give religious instmction to children of their own persuasion. Under these circumstances the Premier was satisfled that there was 'no ground for complaint against the decision of the people being given effect to', nor did he see any connexion between 'the subject and the subject of endowment'.

The idea of any State aid being given was firmly knocked on the head when Denham concluded his letter:

Your Lordship's main purpose, however, is to ask whether the govemment have any intention of proposing endowment to your schools. In reply, I may say that the govemment have no such mtentions, as they are of opinion that a majority of the people of this State are opposed to grants of public money to any religious denomination for educational purposes. °^

Duhig fanned the flames of sectarianism in October 1911, when, in opening a Christian Brothers college in Rockhampton, he was reported as saying that 'the [State]

^2 BC, 9 Dec 1911. ^^ Denham to Duhig, 3 Aug 1911, Garland Papers, JO. 136 schools have now gone from bad to worse so far as Roman Catholics are concemed, because they could not accept the nondescript form of religion introduced into them'. The speech was drawn to the attention of the Bible in States Schools League, and was pounced upon by Garland, whose lengthy letter of rebuttal was published in the Brisbane Courier. Duhig's remarks were offensive to Christians whose beliefs were different from his own, said Garland, and hoped that they would be withdrawn.

In his speech, Duhig was also reported as saying that 'the schools have been captured for the Protestant religious bodies'. To this. Garland pointed out that the bishop knew as well as everybody else that the Act gave the same rights to Roman Catholic ministers of religion as to those of other denominations, and if they chose not to take advantage of the situation the fault was theirs. By not allowing his ministers to give religious instmction in State schools, Duhig was showing that he differed from his New South Wales counterparts because in that State an average of 1,000 visits per year were made to State schools by Roman Catholic ministers.

Garland questioned Duhig's accusation that the teaching of religion in State schools was driving Roman Catholic children out 'by the hundreds':

How can he blame the system of religious instmction for this when it is remembered that for a continued course of years, beginning a third of a century before religious instmction was in our schools, Roman Catholic schools were built and Roman Catholic children withdrawn fi-om the State schools by the thousands.

Until this time Duhig's approach to Denham for State aid had not been ventilated in the press. His speech at Rockhampton contained the first intimation that such an approach had been made, when he announced that the Premier had refused to countenance his proposals. Duhig's approach to the Premier ran counter to the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum, and Garland considered Duhig's declaration 'that the question can never be considered settled until his demands are satisfied' as 'equivalent to a declaration of war against any govemment which upholds the decision of the people...' In conclusion. Garland wrote:

The League stands for the defence of the national system of education, by which its control remains in the hands of the people, as against a denominational system for which Bishop Duhig stands, and over which not the people but a Church has control. 84

A few days later, Duhig addressed a Hibemian Communion at Charters Towers, and again took the opportunity to express himself on the subject of religious educafion in State schools and State aid for denominational schools. In this speech

^'^ BC. 18 Oct 1911. 137 Duhig went even further than in his earlier address. Catholics, he said 'must organise to defend themselves against injustice, especially when it was perpetuated by Act of Parliament'. Duhig suggested the possibility of Roman Catholic influence in the polling booth:

He wished to know from Catholic men if they would not use their power at the polls. The Labour Party now had a religious education plank, which was an insult to Catholics, and the Party would never gain his support or sympathy while they retained it. °^

Garland's letter did not go unnoticed by stalwart Roman Catholics. 'RC wrote reftiting Garland's arguments. Garland's letter was 'fallacious, illogical, and unfair'. According to 'RC, Garland had misrepresented the position of Roman Catholics as to the religious education they desired to impart to their children, 'who generally are the children of the hard workers of the community'. ^^ If Garland saw the letter he chose to ignore it. He did, however, continue a correspondence through the press whenever Duhig made some pronouncement about religious education and endowment of denominational schools. Duhig's outbursts and Garland's responses followed familiar lines, and nothing new was added to the debate.

The subject was aired once again in Parliament, when Duhig's letter of 8 July was tabled in Parliament on 8 December following 'a heated debate' in the House,^^ although nothing more came from that discussion. The quest for State aid came to an end for the time being but sectarian bittemess remained and flourished in different forms during the war and post-war years. Garland, however, had the last word, for the time being, when at the prize-giving ceremony at the Holy Trinity Day School at Woolloongabba on 14 December, he armounced the school's closure. The school had been fimctioning for some twenty years, and its closure was not due to lack of numbers but because in his opinion, and in the opinion of those he had consulted, there was no longer any need for the school. The time had now passed when the Church should be responsible for education as children were now receiving satisfactory religious education in State schools. The responsibility had now passed to the State in the same way as hospitals were now the responsibility of the State. This freedom allowed the Church to charmel its resources into other directions, for example, missions. ^^ By implication, the Roman Catholic Church would do well to close its schools. The closure of the day school at Woolloongabba confirmed

^^ The press did not escape Duhig's criticism. The Brisbane press had failed to report the Roman Catholic celebrations in Townsville during the previous week, he said. He was incorrect. The editor added a footnote to the aritcle which said that a report had been published in the Brisbane Courier on 16 October. BC, 24 Oct 1911. ^^ BC, 1 Nov 1911. ^7 5C., 9 Dec 1911. ^^ BC, 15 Dec 1911. 138 Donaldson's prediction in 1905 that the Church would play a diminishing part in primary education. Its interests lay in the promotion of secondary schools.

The League's achievement was due largely to Donaldson's unwavering belief in an ideal and in his ability to carry along the leaders of the non-conformist Churches with him, and the part they played should not be overlooked. Donaldson took every opportunity to make known to as wide an audience as possible at public meetings at which he was chairman, through his charges to Synod over the years, and through the Church's financial and moral support for the campaign the aims of the League and the difficulties under which it stmggled. Had he been less steadfast in pursuing his ideal the League would have foundered on the shoals of indifference. His article. The Religious Education Question in Queensland in the S.P.G. periodical The East and the West set out in masterly fashion the fiill story of the campaign. ^^ The indefatigable Garland's astute tactics and his unceasing application of pressure through the press, public meetings, and the pulpit were the weapons at hand but where Garland was a fire-brand, Donaldson brought calm and cool deliberation to a question and he left the parliamentary lobbying and street fighting to Garland. He was not prepared to stoop to the polemics characterised in the exchanges between Garland and Duhig. Like Dunne, Donaldson preferred to hold aloof from the cut and thrust of everyday arguments, and play his part behind the scenes, and thus preserve his prelatical dignity, a stance which no doubt added to his reputation as a Church statesman.

on The East and the West. vol. 17, 1909, RHL. Garland also wrote his version of the campaign in an undated typescript JO. 139 CHAPTER VIII

EDUCATION HAS FOR ITS OBJECT THE FORMATION OF CHARACTER!

Donaldson w.is an ardent supporter of education, and to a large extent followed in the foots'.eps of his predecessors, except that they were more concemed with primary education. Donaldson's main thmst was in the secondary field. ^ Archdeacon David, however, spoke at Donaldson's welcome following his enthronement, of the need for an Anglican secondary school system. This was necessary, he said, to provide young men of the necessary vocation if there was to be a native ministry. ^

From an early date in the diocese there were several primary schools attached to parish churches, although they never reached any high standard of education. All these day schools received good reports from the govemment inspectors, but within a few years of State aid being withdrawn in 1875 most of them had ceased to exist. ^ This was not the case of Roman Catholic schools, where one of the contributing factors to their survival was low-cost staffing which was available through the Church's teaching orders. Another factor was the much greater commitment on the part of Roman Catholic parents to their children being educated in Church schools. ^ A few of the Anglican parish schools, however, did survive for some years. Enrolments at St Paul's, Ipswich, went from eighty-nine pupils in 1907 ^ to ninety- nine in 1909. ^ The school at Holy Trinity Church, Woolloongabba, was just holding its own. At the beginning of the 1908 a day school connected with St Paul's, Maryborough had been started with an enrolment of twenty-three, ^ which increased to thirty in 1909. ^ There was no established diocesan educational stmcture and the parish schools generally lacked the resources to supply the necessary accommodation, equipment, and teaching expertise. To do so would have meant an increase in fees far beyond the capacity of many parents to pay.

One primary school which outlasted the eventual decease of parish primary schools was the original St John's school which had been housed in the bell tower at

I Herbert Spencer, Social Statistics, II. xvii. 4. 2 YB 1905, p,41 3 BC. 22 Dec 1904. ^ State Aid to Church Schools: A report of the[Diocesan] Schools Committee, 1961. 5 Ibid ^ YB 1907, p.72. 7 rai909, p.79. 8 rs 1908, pp.66-7. ^ YB 1909, p.79. 140 the old pro-Cathedral. When the old St John's site was sold and the building dismantled, part of it was incorporated in Webber House, which was erected as a school building to be used in conjunction with the cathedral. The school's main purpose was to provide a convenient pool of pupils for the cathedral choir. The top floor of the building housed the Church Institute - a men's club and gymnasium. A tender for the erection of the building and institute was let by the Chapter for £4,300. 10 St John's Day School and Church Institute were opened on 9 August 1905 by Donaldson. The school had accommodation for about three hundred and fifty pupils, and was 'ftimished with the latest school fittings imported from England'. The cost of the land and building was in the order of £7,000. ^ ^ St John's enrolment had decreased slightly from two hundred and seven in 1907 ^2 to two hundred in 1909. ^^

During 1914 primary education at parish level ceased to exist with the closure of the day school attached to St Paul's Church, Ipswich. It had been opened as a protest at the government's unwillingness to allow religious education in State schools. A Miss Field had been in charge of the school at a 'totally inadequate' salary of £60 per year, and when she accepted a position at the Technical College, a replacement at a similar salary could not be found. The school had been supported least of all by the Anglican community, the majority of the pupils belonging to nonconformist Churches. ^^

In his 1905 Synod address Donaldson stated what he believed to be the objects of education. 'Education means something far more than the training of the mind', he said. That was an important part of the work. It was a great thing 'to secure to every child some power of clear thinking, some width of view and some resources of mind which will stand him in good stead when the worries of life begin'. But a far greater and more difficult work in education was the formation of character. Not only should a child be taught to think clearly, but also to think rightly. Not only should a child be taught right from wrong, but he must be taught to love the right and hate the wrong. 15 For Donaldson a knowledge of the Christian faith was the basis of a rounded education. Education comprised not only the usual academic subjects taught in schools but also included religious education. At that time Sunday schools and the few parish primary schools which still existed were the only places where religious education was taught. The passing of The Education Amendment Act in 1910

'^ David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. '• BC, 21 Aug 1905. '2 YB 1907, p.72. YB 1909, p.78. St John's school continued until the early years of World War II when the building was requisitioned by the army. ''* Jenkyn to Le Fanu, 5 May 1914, AA. '5 ra 1905, p.39. 141 reintroduced religious instmction into State schools. Until that time, however, as most children were educated in State schools, and as only a very small proportion of Anglican children attended Sunday schools or parish schools, they received no religious education at all.

Religious education was one of the major duties of the Church, The amount and quality of religious knowledge acquired from Religious Instmction at State Schools is debatable, as most of the clergy were unqualified in teaching methods, and despite the clamour to have Bible lessons reinstated, were often too busy to devote time to such classes. Donaldson realised what great gaps there were, especially in the country, for teaching religious education in State schools and in 1915 he tried to initiate a scheme which would involve young women in the parishes who would be trained under an experienced head for work in such spheres as G.F.S., Sunday school teaching, district visiting, and religious instmction in State schools. The home for these workers was not to be a religious community as such, but was to be run along the lines of the Methodist Church Sisters of the People. '^ Donaldson's proposed scheme failed 'chiefly owing to the lack of volunteers'. ^^ To overcome the lack of local interest he then proposed appointing itinerant women teachers from England. He asked Lawley, his brother-in-law, to seek out suitable women. The original proposal was that they would be selected in England, travel to Queensland at their own expense, and upon arrival, submit once more to a selection panel. ^^ His idea was to have two or three women live at Toowoomba 'to work the schools from there'.

Six months later Donaldson's ideas had advanced to the point where he considered forming a women's diocesan association, the object of which was 'to seize upon the energy (trained or otherwise) which the war had developed in women and girls', to show them that the Church needed their services. The two main openings, apart from mission work, were hospital visiting and teaching. An appeal would be made for 'whole timers, half timers, and stop gaps, according to the degree of self- devotion' the girls were able to offer. The whole timers were to be given the ordinary catechist's licence, and in addition a licence to the particular parish priest in whose parish the catechist would work. Women from England should sign on for a minimum of three years as it would hardly be worth their while coming out for a shorter period. ^^ The seed of this scheme did not germinate. As he explained to Lawley, 'much of my scheme is necessarily hypothetical'. ^^

^^ChCk. 1 Jul 1915. ^"^ ChCh.. I Feb 1916. ' ^° Donaldson to LawleyLawle,, 16 Dec 1916, AA 1^ Donaldson to Lawley, 8 May 1917, AA. 20/6/rf. 142 Donaldson's judgement that 'purely secular systems of education are educationally as well as morally unsound', was confirmed in the report of a commission established at the 1907 Synod at which Archdeacon Le Fanu moved and Rev. J. W. Ashton seconded a motion which was carried:

that the present widespread ignorance of the Bible, and of Christian Faith and practice, calls for the earnest consideration of the Church, and that it be an instruction of the Committee of Religious Education of the Young to appoint a Commission to consider the whole question and report to Synod (a) upon the condition of religious knowledge in all classes of society in the Diocese of Brisbane; (b) upon the agencies now in existence for imparting religious knowledge. -^^

The interim report presented at the 1908 Synod showed that all was not well. It indicated that the religious knowledge of the Anglican population, who generally had received their schooling in the State system, and obviously who had been lax in attending Sunday school as children, or church as adults, was deficient. The final report was presented to the 1909 Synod.

Because of the size and complexity of the survey by the commission, the results amounted to a religious analysis of the diocese. Information gathering for the report was arranged on somewhat similar lines as for the Pan-Anglican Congress. Two series of questions were formulated and sent with circulars, one series to all the clergy in the diocese; the other set to many lay people, both men and women, and especially to church officers, teachers of both private and public schools, and to other persons whose experience was thought to be of value. ^2

When the answers were finally received and sorted, one cause for surprise was that several clergymen, urmamed in the report, but from whom it was expected to get much valuable information, neglected to reply. The information which came from all sources generally, however, was 'of the utmost value' and enabled the committee to prepare its report and make certain recommendations. 23

The first thing that emerged was that with approximately 131,000 Anglican in the diocese, or about thirty-seven per cent of the population, the seating accommodation provided for church services covered only 23,145 or about eighteen per cent of church members. This accommodation, however, was ample as only about 15,000 members, or eleven per cent of church members attended church. The second conclusion reached was that the number of children enrolled in Sunday school and the

21 rai907, p.56. 22 y5 1909,p.l01. 23 Ibid 143 number of Sunday school teachers were decreasing, although the average attendance at Sunday school had slightly increased.

TABLE I

Year Scholars Teachers 1907 11097 976:j 1908 10109 842 24

The replies gave cause for concem. The commission concluded that the Sunday schools, 'as the principal agency for imparting knowledge' were not doing a satisfactory job. There was a shortage of teachers, and the decreasing numbers of teachers was a matter 'of the gravest concem'. Attendances in the city and country towns was only fair, and interest taken was generally slight, but in the bush areas Sunday school classes were at a standstill. ^5

The clergy's replies regarding church attendances suggested that in the city and suburbs attendances were 'fair', moming services were generally better attended than those in the evening, and that the proportion of women to men attending services was seventy-five per cent to twenty-five per cent. This was also foimd to be the case in country towns. In the bush and outlying areas, however, attendances were found 'to be most erratic and fluctuating', although the proportion of men to women was much closer than in the city and country towns. ^6 in general, people in the bush and outlying areas were backsliders. In some areas, for example where dairying was the chief industry, the ordinary work of the week was carried on, even on Sundays. In other areas men used the usual church hours for 'games and shooting, and fishing expeditions, and many forms of gambling, or dodging the police round the back lanes of the town'. ^7

Sunday observance in the city and in country towns and bush areas was much the same: many people regarded Sunday as 'a day of rest and recreation, and to treat very lightly its call to prayer and worship'. There were attractions in the city to draw people away from church, and from the coimtry towns came the cry that the day was given for rest and recreation, games and gambling. In the bush and on farms much of the ordinary weekday work was carried on. Private and family prayer and Bible reading were found practically not to exist. Support for the Church itself was generally fair, even if attendances were irregular, but too much reliance was placed on

24 KB 1909, p. 102. 25 Ibid 26 rs 1909, p. 103. 2'7 Ibid 144 bazaars, concerts, and dances as sources of church finance rather than by direct giving.2^ The causes which interfered with the religious habits of the people existed throughout the diocese and throughout all classes of people, and these were indifference, ignorance, and immorality. From the report it might be inferred that the lack of religious education ran a poor second to immorality in the diocese:

It would be impossible and highly undesirable to publish in this report exact details of the replies that have been given under the third of these headings, [immorality] but your Commission has been made aware of the existence of such a state of things as will, if allowed to continue, bring disaster not only on the Church, but on the State generally. ^^

This confirmed the worst fears of Archdeacon Le Fanu, at whose suggestion the Commission was instituted. ^0 From this appraisal it would seem that the entire diocese might be developing into a latter day Sodom and Gomorrah.

The answers from the laity were fairly predictable. Most people regarded Sunday as a day of rest from work, 'but not from pleasure'. Sunday as a day of church going was becoming a thing of the past. Men were in the minority as far as congregations were concemed, and it was not the 'higher' classes or the working classes that made up the greater part of the congregations but the middle class. There were special reasons for non-attendance at church. Not only was the Church seen to be out of touch with the people, but the services were too long, and too dull. Attendances were also affected by personal like or dislike of the clergyman, and one respondent thought there was 'too much exhortation from the ignorant to the ignorant'. 31

The lack of appropriate literature was an impediment to the young forming acceptable religious habits. There appeared to be very little suitable literature which was helpfiil, and some literature was having a very harmfiil effect not only on the young but also on adults. This was of the 'frothy, exciting, sensuous, and unhealthy' sort. Literature of this kind certainly did not extend the religious knowledge of the people, which was 'of the very scantiest' and included all classes and was 'very pronoimced even amongst professing Christians'. ^^ Sunday observance was poor, and Sunday schools were not providing the necessary instmction for the young. ^^

28 ra 1909, p. 105. 29/6,W. Le Fanu's motion in the 1907 Synod requested the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the religious education of ^e young. The Commission in fact enquired into the religious knowledge of Anglicans of all ages within the diocese. ^' yB1909, p.106. 32 KB 1909, p. 107. 33 YB 1909, pp. 108-9. 145 The report summarised the answers to the questions dealing with 'Special Causes which Exist to Interfere with the Religious Habits of the People'. 'Indifference' and 'ignorance' were the other two headings referred to 'which at the present time are at the root of most of the evil'. ^"^ There was, however, one bright spot in the midst of the gloom. The report conceded that there was 'very little evidence of any general prevalence of unbelief. It was known to exist in isolated instances, but the evil which was paramount was not unbelief but indifference. ^^

Altogether it was not a very encouraging report as it confirmed the perceived low state of religious education and knowledge in the diocese. Because of the nature of the questions, the answers were already known in general terms, so the survey, apart from identifying some areas of particular concem, produced very little new information. The clergy and laity were not asked to suggest remedies to the problems, and the committee's recommendations in the report itself were uninspired: more clergy, more mission work, a conference for Sunday school teachers, more branches of the Mothers' Union. The report was adopted by Synod, but there appeared to be very little direct action taken as the result of its findings, except to make good by 1911 the inadequacies of recording diocesan statistical information, the shortcomings of which were highlighted by the report. The remedies suggested in the report were obvious, but Donaldson was unable to respond by introducing new strategies. The shortage of clergy and the lack of finance were two of the biggest stumbling blocks. Even if more clergy could be found, financial stringency was an almost insuperable difficulty.

Resolutions from the 1908 Lambeth committee which looked at the problems of secular education confirmed Donaldson's ideas. Resolution 11 confirmed that such systems failed 'in training the whole nature of the child', which led to a serious deficiency in the training of character, the principal aim of education. Resolution 13 was an extension of Resolution 11: It was the duty of Christians to 'use all and every opporttinity which the State affords us' for training children in their parents' faith, and to extend these opportunities to countries where they did not exist. Resolution 15 confirmed the importance of the Church's establishing secondary schools wherever they were needed 'for children of the English-speaking race in all parts of the Anglican Communion'. 36 These mainly were policies which Donaldson had already adopted.

34/iirf. 35 Ibid 3^ Conference of Bishops, p.49. 146 Donaldson made no overt criticism of the State school system but the lack of religious instmction before 1910 was a 'fatal gap in the State system of education'. 37 He acknowledged the situation as it was, but was not receptive to the suggestion 'by the advocates of religious education' that the diocese should open primary Church schools. 'In my view the day has gone by for this', he said, but the Church could do something 'by keeping a few really efficient schools as examples of what we believe to be the tme ideal'. ^8 'A limited number of really first-class Church schools' might have a 'potent effect' on the standard of primary educafion. 39 There were still in existence at the time several primary Church schools, but Donaldson doubted whether they reached the standards he had outlined. If the Church were to make any impact at all on education, it should be at the secondary level where 'there is a great need in the diocese for sound Church secondary schools'. 40 Important steps had already been taken to fiirther the Church's educational intentions, but whereas the emphasis had always been on primary education, Donaldson moved the emphasis to the secondary field.

Donaldson's approach to education was the very antithesis of his counterpart's in the Roman Catholic Church. Duhig was more concemed with primary education, and hardly a week seemed to go by without his opening a new church, usually accompanied by a convent and primary convent school. That is not to say that there were not several Roman Catholic secondary colleges kin existence, Nudgee and All Hallows' to name two, but his main concem at that time was for primary education. While Anglican families, numerically superior and supposedly financially, were unable to support the Anglican primary schools, Roman Catholics, because of strong religious discipline imposed from above and without the luxury of being able to go to church or not as they pleased, seemed able to find the wherewithal to patronise their own institutions. It would, of course, have been impossible for the diocese to pursue primary education in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church was able to do, because it did not have the one great resource available to that organisation, namely the availability of nuns and Christian brothers whose services were virtually free to their Church. Nor did the Anglican Church have the benefit of Duhig's fiery : Donaldson's speeches were dulcet in tone and objective. Where Duhig played on emotion, Donaldson appealed to reason.

37 YB 1905, p.39. 38 Ibid 39 KS1905,p.41.

147 While the Church had been involved in primary education, albeit at a declining rate, it did not have any direct involvement in secondary education. The Sisters of the Society of the Sacred Advent [SSA] had started the Eton High School at Nundah in 1895, (later St Margaret's), which was relocated at Toorak House after selling its former premises at Nundah to the diocese for the theological college, and the Rev. H. H. Dixon, Rector of Southport, had started a private school at Southport in 1901. Although they were Church schools in substance and appearance, they were not under diocesan control.

Archdeacon David made notes for Donaldson conceming these schools. David's opinion of the High School at Nundah was not so high. The Sisters ran a small school which paid its way, but it was not very efficient. It might be developed because parents in the bush were willing to entmst their daughters to the Sisters. At the time, however, 'so many Church of England parents send their girls to Roman Catholic convents. The convent is cheap and cuts the fees down to a minimum'. '^^

With regard to Dixon's school, David was of opinion that Dixon 'had done excellently and supplies a great want'. David suggested that help be given to Dixon in building on land which he had already purchased, and suggested that the school be placed on a diocesan basis. 'Already he has two boys who propose to take Holy Orders', he said, 'and the place might be made into a good nursery for the theological college'. Dixon was a bom school master and had won the confidence of the parents. 42

The diocese itself had a plan afoot to enter the field of secondary education, and that was the foundation in Toowoomba, of the Glennie Memorial Schools, so named as a memorial to the late Archdeacon Glennie who died in 1900. By 1882 Archdeacon Glennie had collected and augmented from his own finances £1,627 'to secure the foundation of a school or schools'. "^3 As a result, early in 1898 a site of 12'/2 acres was purchased in Herries Street west at a cost of £788 (including costs).^^ The 1900 Synod gave approval to the erection of schools to be named 'The Glennie Schools as a memorial of the life and labours of the late Canon Glennie...' '^^ The intention at that time was the erection of a boys' school. In addition to the monies in hand a fiirther £2,000 at least was required. 46 A girls' school would follow later.

'*^ David to Donaldson, Notes AA 42/6/rf. ^^3 Christine Henderson, The Glennie. A Work of Faith, (A History of the Glennie Memorial School 1901-1981) (Sydney: Rank Zerox Copicentre, 1983), p. 5. '*'* Undated brochure, AA. 45 YB 1900, p.54. "^^Ibid 148 An undated brochure, appealing for fiinds, issued most probably some time in 1900, gave cogent reasons for proceeding at once with the erection of the boys' school. The first reason was that in the whole colony there was no Church school for boys founded 'on the lines of the great Public Schools of England'. The second reason was the progress the Roman Catholic Church had made in establishing schools in all the important centres of population throughout the colony, by which it 'gains immeasurably, directly and indirectly'. As the Church of England was numerically preponderant, it raised the question, 'should not [the Church of England] be able to imitate if not excel their noble example?' The third reason given was that by delaying year by year such a foundation, there was the danger that under the secular system of education new generations were being alienated from the Church of the Christian faith. 47

Hardly had the original plan been formulated when a new and larger plan was envisaged. A resolution was passed at the 1901 Synod: 'That it is advisable to extend the scope of the Glennie Memorial Schools in the direction of founding a primary school on the St Luke's site, Toowoomba'. ^^ Another undated brochure issued at the end of 1901 or early in 1902 outlined the scheme. The original plan was for a boys' high school with upper and lower forms. At a later date there was also to be a girls' school. The proposed primary school was to be an enlargement of the original plan, an extension of the work, and not an altemative scheme. It was to be 'a feeder to the upper school and was to be a co-educational school 'so that it carries with it as a necessity that at a later period we must also build a girls' high school'. A kindergarten department was to be attached to the 'infants' school' with a teacher trained in this work. The primary school was to educate children up to the age of nine or ten, 'that is to class III or lower IV'.

At the time of Donaldson's arrival in Brisbane, despite the perceived urgency of the situation, work had not commenced on the Glermie project. As David explained, Webber wanted to erect 'expensive buildings, but the drought stopped [Canon] Pughe who was the moving spirit from collecting funds'. ^9 in addition to a bequest of £800 which had to be claimed by 31 December 1905, a sum of $421 was still needed to complete the £1,200 as a condition for receiving the bequest. Of the £421, £200 had been promised by S.P.C.K. 50

4' Undated brochure, AA. "•^Kfi 1901, p.59. ^^ David to Donaldson, Notes, AA. ^^ David to Donaldson, Notes, AA.. 149 In his notes David expressed his doubts as to the feasibility of a boys' school at Toowoomba. Such a school would be under severe competition from the already established Grammar School. 'To my mind, a girls' school would have a much better chance of success', he said. By the end of 1905 the question of what direction the Glermie Schools would take was still unresolved. With the High School owned by the Rev. H. H. Dixon at Southport, going from strength to strength, and possibly with David's advice in mind, Donaldson had no wish to dry up a source of potential students for that school by establishing a boys' school at Toowoomba. In an undated aide memoire he himself wrote:

The work before us - to accept or modify this scheme Take Synod results [?] as they stand Admit of 1 sec. sch. for girls 1 primary school We could modify scheme and get Synod's approval afterwards I propose building small girls' boarding school say for 15 girls at most We have £87.12. 6. in hand for building ftmd for primary school ^^

Donaldson's intentions were plain when he presided over a meeting in Toowoomba on 10 December 1907. He explained that it had been decided that a girls' school should be ready 'at midwinter'. ^2 He had hoped that the S.S.A. would run Glennie, but they were fully committed in their present work and were unable to undertake the added responsibility of a new school. Donaldson's visit to England in 1908 gave him the opportunity to sound out the possibility of the Lambeth Sisters becoming established in Australia, with a view to their running the new school at Toowoomba, but his powers of persuasion were not enough. ^3

As there was no Sisterhood available to run the school, it was necessary to look elsewhere. The Misses Grace and Margaret Lawrance, who at the time were running a small private school in Toowoomba, were appointed co-Principals. The Lawrance sisters had had teaching experience in England and on the Continent as well as in Austi-alia. ^4 Towards the end of July 1908 the Glennie school opened its doors in rented premises. A large house, St Alban's, was used as the boarding house of the school and daily classes were held in the Masonic Hall, in Neal Street. ^^ Such

5' Donaldson letters, AA. 52 Christine Henderson, The Glennie [short citation], p.25. 53 Ibid 54 YB 1908, p.44. 55 Christine Henderson, The Glennie, p.8. 150 was its success that additional premises had to be rented pending the erection of the school's own permanent buildings. ^^

Glennie was seen, at least by the Misses Lawrance, as a type of exclusive finishing school. Data were not available from the school about the standards of education reached in 1909, but the Diocesan Secretary, A. A. Orme, was told in reply to his letter of 18 August 1909 that no giris had been entered in that year's Junior Public Examination, not because there was none capable, but because of objection from parents. It was hoped that 'a few pupils' would be entered the following year. The highest class worked 'with the standard of the Senior Public Examination in view', but it was not a large class owing to the high standard required, 'and also because so many of our boarders are delicate girls who cannot work hard'. ^^

The purpose of Orme's letter to Grace Lawrance, who attended to the correspondence, and to all intents and purposes, was the Principal, was to seek information conceming the possibility of the school's being included with those schools whose pupils were eligible for State scholarship allowances. Lawrance's reply to Orme was somewhat vague, no doubt in the vain hope that 'this letter may be insufficient for your purpose, and the "State Scholarship" committee may not agree to consider our case at present'. ^^ Without awaiting Lawrance's reply, Orme applied to the Under Secretary of the Department of Education for Glennie's acceptance 'as an institution at which the holders of State Scholarships and Bursaries may attend'.^^ Orme was informed on 2 September 1909 that Glennie had been accepted as a school for scholarship holders. 60 xhe news was not received with delight by the Misses Lawrance: 'My sister and I do not consider ourselves favoured exactly by the school being open now to holders of scholarships, except as far as the part of obtaining clever girls in that way goes'. 61

The education at Glennie was, they considered, 'far broader and better in many ways than that obtainable in most Australian schools'. Girls who went in for Junior had a necessarily 'limited' education, owing to the constraints of the State Education Department's syllabus. State scholars would be welcomed as day girls, because they would be thankful to have clever girls, but the position was not so satisfactory for boarders. As they explained, the school was not endowed and fees were the source of profits for the school, (and for themselves under the terms of their engagement). The

56 Ibid 5^ Lawrance to Orme, 19 Aug 1909, Reg. Corres., AA 58 Ibid 59 Orme to Under Secretary, 16 Aug 1909, Reg. Corres., AA. "" Under Secretary to Orme, 2 Sep 1909. Reg. Corres., AA. °' Lawrance to Orme, 6 Sep 1909, Reg. Corres., AA. 151 boarders not only paid well but also took many extra subjects which 'a State scholar would not want'. Limited space precluded many boarders on 'half-fees'. 62

When Donaldson first arrived in Brisbane, Archdeacon David suggested to him that the diocese should try to bring Dixon's school under diocesan control, but his suggestion was not immediately pursued. In general, however, Donaldson's ideas with regard to secondary education were showing progress and development. In 1909 Dixon offered to sell The Southport School, as it later became, to the diocese. 63 The negotiations were long drawn-out, and were not settled for several years. At a June 1909 meeting of the Diocesan Council, a committee was appointed to report on a suitable plan for the school's purchase. 64 The committee's report showed that the school was indeed an asset worth acquiring. When considering the advantages of purchasing the school, there was also to be considered the reflected glory from the school's having as one of its pupils the son of Lord Chelmsford, Queensland's Govemor:

I submit that the parents of other children who knew the boy was at that school must have regarded it as a guarantee that Lord Chelmsford thought highly of the advantages to be got at the institution, and that they gained confidence in sending their boys and that the advent of say twenty boys whose parents were so influenced really means that so many more families advertise the school long after Fred Thesiger has retired. Nothing but gross mismanagement can ever take away what good was gained by the Governor's son going there. 65

The school had grown steadily since its inception, and during the year 1908/09 there were one hundred and ten boys enrolled. The property comprised twenty-three acres of land, buildings, boat, fiimiture, and stores. After allowing for depreciation over the previous five years, it was valued at £5,099. The committee formulated a scheme of purchase based on a profit-sharing agreement: 'the terms of which are not only unique, but from the standpoint of synod are framed on lines of unusual liberality'.66 No sooner was the purchase plan proposed than complications arose and the purchase was abandoned. During successive years several other plans were formulated and rejected, but in March 1913 interest was rekindled.

In the meantime, however, the Archbishop had received advice that: 'the school has a very bad name with university authorities. They consider that its educational standard is very decidedly below the average of the secondary schools of

62 Ibid 63 YB 1909, p.47. 6^ The committee members were the Archbishop, Le Fanu, the Archdeacon of Toowoomba, the Rev. T. L. H. Jenkyn, Dr E. S. Jackson, Messrs. P. A. Blundell, R. M. Collins, A. L. Dawson, and E. W. Walker. 65 Jackson to Donaldson, 27 Mar 1909, AA. 66 Undated report, AA. 152 Queensland'. 67 The opinion of the university authorities, 'though tacitly held', would likely have a prejudicial effect on the school in fiiture years, 'and thus the outlook from Dixon's point of view is not so rosy as he might allege'. 68 These facts, the Archbishop felt, put him in a false position in regard to the school. As school visitor he naturally incurred some of the criticism which the school received on educational grounds; but as visitor he had no power to alter things. Donaldson thought he should perhaps tell Dixon to improve educational standards or he would resign as visitor, 'and thus deal the school a blow before the worid'.

Although this assessment was not very good so far as the school was concemed, it might be of great benefit to the diocese in its bargaining position with Dixon, and Donaldson expressed these views to Blundell, a member of the Finance Committee. If the school were acquired, the standards of teaching would have to be raised with the inevitable increase of larger liabilities, 'and this has to be taken into consideration in discussing the price'. Under these circumstances, Donaldson feh that Dixon could be pressed 'a little harder' when it came to talking about terms. 69

In August 1913 the Diocesan Council finally approved the offer to Dixon, the main points of which were that the Corporation would purchase the school for £6,000. Dixon would be paid £1,250 in cash, and the balance would remain as a debt to him, repayable within 15 years and bearing interest at the rate of 5 per cent. Dixon would remain as headmaster for seven years at a stipend of £500 per annum. ^0 Dixon agreed to accept the proposal ^1 and so after four years of bargaining the Corporation of the Synod became the owners of the school, at a greater price than originally proposed, but on almost identical terms. Donaldson personally provided £500 as an interest free loan towards the purchase price. ^^

At the end of 1911, while negotiations were proceeding with Dixon, the Diocesan Council approved the purchase of Goyte-Lea, a girls' school run by a Miss Davenport, also at Southport. The purchase price of the school was £1,800, £900 being paid in cash to Miss Davenport, and the mortgage of £900 being taken over by the diocese. ^3 The school was renamed St Hilda's.

Owing to the generosity of the new headmistress. Miss C. E. Boume, the diocese received a bonus. Boume foresaw the likely expansion of the school, and

67 Donaldson to Blundell, 14 May 1913, AA. 68 Ibid 6^ Ibid 70 DCMins, 7 Aug 1913. 71 Sub-Committee Mins., 14 Aug 1913. 72 Batty to Gall, 4 Oct 1913, AA, "^3 DCMins., 2 Nov 1911. 153 early in 1914 at her own expense she purchased some twenty acres of land on which to build a new and enlarged school. She also had plans drawn up at her own expense for a building to accommodate fifty boarders. She offered the land to the diocese at the almost peppercom rental of £30 per year until her death, at which time the title would pass to the diocese. 74 Because of the delay in receiving an answer, she wrote withdrawing her offer and said that she proposed to build cottages on the land. 75 This produced a quick response from the Council of Edi.cation, and on 15 May 1914 Gall, the diocesan Registrar, wrote accepting Boume's ofiv="r on slightly different terms from those originally offered. Boume was to receive an armuity of £50 for life, and the title to the land was passed to Synod. 76

Before negotiations were concluded with Dixon, at the beginning of 1913 the diocese acquired St Magnus Hall, in the Brisbane suburb of Toowong. It was a private school, opened in Febmary 1912 by the Rev. W. P. F. Morris and advertised as a Day and Boarding School. It opened with only three pupils and at the year's close it had not prospered, with only thirteen boys enrolled. 77 Arrangements had been made in December 1912 for Morris to be appointed head of a boys' preparatory school, to be known at the Cathedral School. The school was open to boys up to the age of fourteen, and boys who were members of the cathedral choir were to obtain free schooling there while they remained members of the choir. 78 When the school opened in Febmary 1913 it occupied the gymnasium hall and the large club room in Webber House, which also housed St John's school. Cathedral School boarders were accommodated at St Magnus Hall under Morris's supervision, and meals were taken at the Y.M.C.A. where a dining table was reserved. 79

Morris was appointed at a stipend of £150 per armum, and was expected to undertake 'Sunday duties' which were to be kept 'within reasonable limits'. The management of the school was to be under the general supervision of the Cathedral Chapter. All fees received were the property of the headmaster who was responsible for all expenses connected with the school. The agreement was subject to revision at the end of twelve months. Morris's relation to the diocese was technically that of mission chaplain. ^^

'"* Bourne to Council of Education, 4 Mar 1914, Reg. Corres. '•^ Boume to Council of Education, 1 May 1914, Reg. Corres. 76K5 1915,P.147. 77 ' Ronald Wood,' "The Boss" Canon William Perry French Morris Founder of Churchie', Royal Historical Society of Queensland Clem Lack Oration, Vol. XTV, No.13, 1992. '^KB1913, p.120. 7^K5 1913, p.141. ^^ Donaldson to Morris, 26 Dec 1912, AA. 154 Towards the end of 1914 the Archbishop reported that he had appointed and called together a committee to consider proposals for the establishment of a secondary school in Brisbane for boys, to replace the present Cathedral School. ^1 Property would be purchased for the proposed school, and the Rev. Mr Morris would be headmaster. The Cathedral Chapter was to undertake to pay the fees of the choir boys at the school, estimated to be £150 per year.

It was obvious that the Church of England Boys Grammar School as it became, had to have premises larger than its present location in Webber House. Sir Samuel Griffith offered the diocese his property, Merthyr, at New Farm for £15,000. The Church was prepared to pay only £12,500. In any case the property was too small, and the scheme was abandoned. ^^ Donaldson saw the problems associated with purchasing a property and building on it during the war. Nevertheless he was able to secure promises amounting to £4,600 towards the purchase of land. ^^ By mid-1917 the property at East Brisbane had been purchased for £3,850, ^^ and an appeal for fimds launched. The appeal was made on patriotic grounds. 'We appeal to you on the grounds that the needs of the British Empire demand the education of boys on lines that make for loyalty and patriotism, and service to the Empire', read the appeal circular. ^^

In the meantime, until the school could be relocated in a permanent home, in 1915 the diocese purchased from Mr Knox Carson his Bowen House School, together with its boarding house at Chelmer for £500 cash plus the assumption of the liability of a scholarship. The purchase was financed by the Archbishop with an interest-free loan.86 Bowen House School was absorbed by the Cathedral School, ^7 and the boarding house provided temporary boarding accommodation.

In addition to the Cathedral School, The Southport School, St Hilda's, and Glennie which were prospering, there w£is St Margaret's School which had been established a number of years previously by the Sisters of the Society of the Sacred Advent. The Sisters had also taken over a school at Stanthorpe. 1913-14 was the period in which some of Donaldson's ideas of secondary schooling within the Church came to fruition.

^' Chapter Mins., 2 Dec 1914. ^2 Donaldson to Griffith, 3 Feb 1917, AA. ^3 Donaldson to Slade, 17 Mar 1917, AA. John R, Cole, The Making of Men. A History of Churchie 1912-1986 (Brisbane: Boolarong Publications, 1986), p.59. °5 Undated circular, AA. See also John R. Cole, The Making of Men, p.50 [short citation]. ^6DCMins., 6 0ct 1915. ^"^ Carson to Gall, 6 Oct 1915, Reg. Corres. 155 Advances in secondary education continued to be made. In March 1915 a Church of England Girls' Grammar School was opened in Bundaberg. The Rector of Bundaberg was chairman of a management committee, and the headmistress was a Miss Brownlie. The school opened with twelve day pupils. ^^ Unfortunately its life was short, and it closed in 1920. At the same time, the diocese was given the opportunity to purchase the Murgon High School, a private school owned by the Rev. J. Howard Steer, and mn by his father. The offer was not accepted. ^9

The parish of Warwick in 1917 had no problems when it came to finding a suitable property for the inauguration of a girls' high school. A property was purchased from Mr T. W. Macansh for £3,000, the purchase price being reduced to £2,500 owing to the vendor's gift of £500. The property was purchased on a deposit of £500, the balance attracting interest at the rate of six per cent. 90 Towards the cost of purchasing and equipping the school, the rector. Rev. W. P. Glover raised some £4,000. 91 When Donaldson approached the Sisters of the Society of the Sacred Advent they agreed to take on the entire management of the school. 92 The Warwick Girls' High School, opened in January 1918, was in financial difficulties by 1920, from which it was not to emerge for a number of years. In 1919 property was purchased in Warwick for a boys' school.

The Archbishop had also revised his thoughts regarding primary education. In 1920 a preparatory school for boys was purchased in Toowoomba from a Mr Gill for the sum of £7,000. 93 This it was hoped would be the preparatory school for the Southport School. In 1921 a small private school, started in 1912 as a preparatory school for Glermie, 94 was purchased from Miss Sutton.

While most of the Church schools in the diocese were functioning reasonably well, the Archbishop actively discouraged the opening of secondary schools in other dioceses. When the Bishop of Rockhampton was considering opening a school Donaldson wrote: '...one school for boys and girls in Rockhampton, and one in North Queensland for each is quite as much as we can carry in addition to our schools in the south'. 9^ He also wrote to the Bishop of North Queensland suggesting that there should be a policy regarding the number of schools 'we can float in Queensland'. 96

^'^ChCk, 1 Mar 1915, p.52. ^^ Steer to Donaldson and Donaldson to steer, 3 Feb 1915, 1 Mar 1915, 16 Mar 1915, 29 Mar 1915, AA. ^^ Church Warden, Warwick, to Registrar, 26 Jul 1917, Reg. Correspondence. 9' ChCh., 1 Aug 1917. ^2 Donaldson to Glover, 26 Apr 1917, AA. 93 KB 1920, p. 165. 94 DC Mins., 3 Feb 1921. "5 Donaldson to Bp of Rockhampton, 4 Mar 1921, AA. 96 Donaldson to Bp of North Queensland, 26 Mar 1921, AA. 156 While Donaldson's push into secondary education was under way, the commencement of the University of Queensland in 1910 provided the means for the diocese to be associated with tertiary education. St John's College was established in 1911 in rented premises at Kangaroo Point, with a student body of four undergraduates.97 jt was affiliated with the University in 1912. 98 The college, which owed its existence to 'a very small body of churchmen', was founded as an incorporated company, and selected persons were invited to subscribe for '25 or 50 shares'. The share issue was not an unqualified success. The shares, when issued, were of the value of £1 each, and the balance sheet of 31 March 1913 showed that out of an authorised 5,000 shares, only 725 fully paid up shares had been issued. Another £375 had been contributed by sundry shareholders for which shares had not then been issued. There was a loss of £492. 2. 5. for the year, mainly because of the small number of residents during the 1912 calendar year, but the prospects were good.

In order for St John's to pay its own way, the college needed at least twenty undergraduates, and until that time at least £400 a year was required to supplement the fees received. 99 At the beginning of 1913 enrolments had increased to twenty, and it was necessary to have the landlord of the rented premises enlarge the accommodation by adding ten rooms. Donaldson, himself, was a great financial supporter of the college and tumed his hand to fund raising. He wrote to a friend in England saying that it seemed to him 'only a fair thing that the mother country should help the daughter nations to equip themselves with these appurtenances of higher education'. Accordingly, he applied to several of the liveried companies in London for assistance. 1^^ His efforts bore finit to the value of £1,780. ^^^

Accommodation for St John's College was improved early in 1915 with the purchase of the building which the College rented at Kangaroo Point, together with an adjoining property occupied by Professor Priestly. In all the property comprised over one acre in five allotments. The total purchase price was £4,125 of which £1,700 had been paid. The balance was on mortgage for seven years at five per cent interest. '^^

Donaldson had generously supported the foundation of St John's College out of his ovm pocket, but there were limits to his generosity. When approached by the Bishop of Rockhampton for a subscription towards an undenominational college for

97 KS 1912, pp.22-23. 98chCh., INov 1912, p.l 1. 99 Ibid •00 Donaldson to W. F. Courthope, 20 Jun 1914, AA. '01 DCMins., 5 Nov. 1914. •O^DCMins., 3Mar 1915. 157 women at the University, he explained that the diocese's hands were 'too ftill to start a women's college on Church lines', and he had told the authorities seeking a donation for the undenominational college that 'I have not a penny to give away owing to the desperate strain of St John's College on my resources.' He did not refuse a subscription on principle, he said, 'for I think that the undenominational Women's College is a really necessary evil'. '^^

The Southport School and St Margaret's were in their infancy when Donaldson arrived. Although they were not under the control of the diocese, Donaldson was able to build upon this basis which eventually became the diocese's secondary education system. Donaldson was bound by English tradition and his own experience, and saw the Church secondary schools as being cast in the same mould as English public schools, from which he hoped would come a supply of well-educated and well-maimered young men, who after obtaining a university degree would form the nucleus of the native ministry he wanted. Instead, recmits for the ministry came mainly from the ranks of those educated at State schools.

The Anglican Church did not have behind it the resources which the Roman Catholic Church was able to muster. There was no extensive system of teaching orders of religious whose services were virtually free to that Church. Even where Anglican primary schools existed, the Church lacked the ability to galvanize its adherents to support them. The Church abdicated the field of primary education, but had no thought of providing secondary education for the children of indigent or less affluent parents, although in later years the State scholarship system helped remedy this lack to some degree. What the Church created was an elitist system, in which only those of sufficient means could afford to have their sons and daughters educated.

What Donaldson did not understand was the difference in the social stmcture between England and Australia. In the case of Southport, most of the boys were from country properties, sent to boarding school because there was no other facility available to them, not because they were the sons of landed gentry. Frequentiy they came from homes where academic pursuits were not highly regarded, and their interests lay in the country, to which they retumed at the end of their schooling. City boys were more interested in commercial careers rather than in religious ones, and Anglican families did not embrace the Roman Catholic ideal which was to have in each family where possible a son a priest and a daughter a nun. To Donaldson's great

"^3 Donaldson to Bp. of Rockhampton, 10 Nov. 1913, AA. 158 disappointment the system did not produce the numbers of candidates for Holy Orders he had envisaged.

To Donaldson must go the credit for founding the Anglican secondary school system which endures to-day, and also the establishment of St John's University College to which he gave so generously.

159 CHAPTER IX

THE DEBACLE AT YARRABAH

The administrative reorganization of the A.B.M. was an on-going exercise. In the meantime, and nearer at home, a problem had arisen with the management of the A.B.M.'s Yarrabah mission which had never recovered from a conflict over control between Saumarez Smith and the Bishop of North Queensland at the tum of the century, a situation which was not helped at the time because of the lack of provincial weight. ^ Part of the problem was financial, and Yarrabah was a direct contributor to the larger financial problems of the A.B.M. The mission's plight had become so desperate by 1910 that the Archbishop was forced to intervene. Despite the Church's commitment to missionary endeavours, there must have been some who would have been glad if Yarrabah had never been established.

Yarrabah, on the coast near Caims, was established in 1891 by the Rev. John Gribble after collecting 'establishment fimds' on a lecture tour. When the Bank of North Queensland collapsed in the depression of 1983, these funds were lost, and Yarrabah was £300 in debt. The A.B.M. corresponding committee of the Diocese of North Queensland, in which diocese Yarrabah lay, told Gribble that the mission had to close. Gribble appealed to the Primate, Saumarez Smith for help. The Primate as chairman of A.B.M. persuaded the executive of the A.B.M. to take over Yarrabah as 'an extra diocesan mission', to be controlled directly from Sydney rather than by the Diocese of North Queensland. The executive agreed to pay the mission's outstanding debts but set specific limits on monthly expenditure. ^ Although the local supervision of the mission fell to the lot of the Bishop of North Queensland, the Primate felt it incumbent upon himself to dictate policy, and it was the A.B.M. who held the purse strings. This vexatious situation was exacerbated later when the State govemment became involved.

The Rev. John Gribble, was himself the son of a missionary to aborigines. When ill health forced his retirement a comparatively short time after starting the mission, his place was taken by his son Emest, who remained in charge until Febmary 1910 when he too was forced to retire through ill health. ^ At the time of his father's retirement Emest Gribble had not been ordained. As the spiritual welfare of

' p. Smith, 'He Who Pays the Piper. The Crisis of Authority during Yarabah's Foundation Era', Lectures on North Queensland History, 3rd Series (Townsville: James Cook University, 1978), p.219. ^ C.M.Halse, The Rev. Emest Gribble and Race Relations in Northem Australia, Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland, 1993, p.84. 3 K5 1910, p.39 160 the mission was handicapped by the lack of clerical oversight, in December 1893 Gribble began to prepare for ordination at the hands of the Bishop of North Queensland. Finding himself unable to cope with the necessary study insisted on by the bishop, as well as with the burden of running the mission, Gribble by-passed the bishop's authority and applied to Saumarez Smith as Archbishop of Sydney for ordination. Gribble was deaconed in the Diocese of Sydney on 31 December 1984, and priested on 1 January 1899. "^ The events leading to Gribble's ordination were somewhat irregular, and the Primate took advantage of the bishop's absence overseas to push through Gribble's ordination. This created a very difficult situation. Here was a mission controlled from Sydney, in the see of another bishop who lacked any real say in its rurming, while the mission itself was supervised by a priest whose canonical obedience lay with the Archbishop of Sydney, and not with the local bishop.

Emest Gribble was a law unto himself. In 1899 the Home Secretary, Foxton, visited Yarrabah and liked what he saw. He and Gribble were en rapport and Halse considers that it was this closeness which allowed Gribble to influence Foxton to approach the A.B.M.'s diocesan committee in Brisbane to have the govemment take control of a mission on Eraser Island. Early in 1900 Gribble left Yarrabah, without permission, and went to oversee the development ^ of the Eraser Island Mission. The A.B.M. executive was 'aghast' at Gribble's behaviour, but its reprimand was like water off a duck's back.

Gribble was greatly concemed to increase the numbers of natives on the reserve, and one way of doing this was to have Yarrabah gazetted as a reformatory or industrial school, which idea was opposed by the A.B.M. It was concemed that 'criminal children' would be sent to Yarrabah, and 'that increased govemment involvement would inevitably destroy Yarrabah's distinctive character as a Church of England mission.' 6 Gribble ignored the A.B.M.'s concems, and did not withdraw his application for registration. On 7 April 1900 Gribble was gazetted as Superintendent of the Yarrabah Industrial School. The A.B.M. was furious, but it could do nothing. The govemment had got a foot in the door, and this was to lead to endless fiiistration.7

The A.B.M., which provided most of the funds for the mission, regarded the Gribbles as servants of the Church, while the Queensland govemment, under whose

C.M.Halse, The Rev. Emest Gribble, p.p.85-6 [short citation]. 5 C.M.Halse, The Rev. Emest Gribble, p.p.97-98. 6 C.M.Halse, The Rev. Emest Gribble, p.p.111-112. "^ Ibid 161 control the aborigines came by virtue of The Aboriginal Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act of 1897 with subsequent amendments, regarded the Gribbles as agents the State. ^ Both the Gribbles, on the other hand, regarded Yarrabah as their personal domain with a 'legitimate claim on the resources of Church and State'. 9 Emest Gribble was consumed by a desire to expand Yarrabah so as to take in all the aborigines in North Queensland, and although he worked tirelessly to make Yarrabah pay, the only effect many of his schemes such as growing coffee and cocoa trees had was to compound debt. By 1904 the financial crisis was so bad that the A.B.M. decided to relinquish economic control of Yarrabah, and proposed that the Church would be responsible for the spiritual welfare of the aborigines while the State would be responsible for their food and housing. ^^ In the long mn, however, this did not prove entirely to be the situation. In 1904 the A.B.M. cleared outstanding debts at Yarrabah, but in 1905 Gribble complained that he was getting ftarther into debt. In April 1906, however, the A.B.M. discovered that Gribble had accumulated unauthorised debts totalling £700, clearly in a total disregard of instmctions from the executive. ^^ Although the Queensland govemment now exercised control over the natives it sent there, and govemment representatives made tours of inspection from time to time, the govenmient gave very scant financial support.

Yarrabah's problems at the time, largely created by the A.B.M., Saumarez Smith, and Gribble, were largely ignored by those whose responsibility it was to see to the adequate funding and supervision of the mission. The 1907 the diocesan corresponding committee of the A.B.M. reported that the Archbishop of Brisbane had visited Yarrabah, and that the Brisbane diocesan subscription had increased from £23. 2. 4. to £49.12. 1. 12 In 1908 it was reported that 'the diocesan subscription to the mission amotmted to the small sum of £20.8.10.' ^^ Diocesan support for other missions such as New Guinea and Melanesia were of greater magnitude.

The report of the corresponding committee in the 1909 Year Book mentions an increase in the amount of the Brisbane diocesan contribution to £144. 0.11. ^^ These contributions were sent to the A.B.M. in Sydney but were specifically earmarked for Yarrabah, as were subscriptions given for other individual missions. Other dioceses also made donations to be expended specifically on Yarrabah, and a

^ The Act of 1897 and subsequent amendments defined the relationship between the govemment of the day and the Church as a missionary organisation. It defined the rights and privileges of the aborigines under the act as well as the rights and provileges and obligations of the missionaries. 9 P. Smith, Piper, p.220 [short citation]. ^^ C.M.Halse, The Rev. ERnest Gribble, p.p. 123-124. • • C.M.Halse, The Rev. Emest Gribble, p. 129. 12 KB 1907, p.75. '3 K5 1908, p.70. l'* Kfil909,p.81. 162 grant was made from general fiinds but overall financial support for the mission was not exactly munificent.

No mention was made in the 1909 corresponding committee's report of the mission's critical financial position, which should have been evident at the time, and even allowing for the fact that the diocese was not responsible for Yarrabah's financial welfare, no alarm bells were mng. ^^ Some two months later, however, when the insecurity of the Board's total finances came to light, the appeal made by the bishops on behalf of the A.B.M. revealed something of the tme state of affairs at the mission. £750 was owed to tradesmen at Caims, in addition to a bank overdraft of £1,100. Owing to an increase in development work at the mission, expenditure outstripped income by £35 per month, and this sum also had to be raised to bring financial stability to Yarrabah. '6 The bishops' A.B.M. appeal raised sufficient ftinds to stave off imminent disaster, but other very worrying events were shortly to occur which would once again put Yarrabah in the limelight.

The situation was partly resolved when Emest Gribble effectively relinquished control in 1909. Early in 1910, on doctors' orders, Gribble went on twelve months' sick leave away from the tropics. ^7 The last days of his tenure at the mission were not very happy: Gribble appeared 'to be in open rebellion through ill-health and strain, and there are rumours of worse things still'. ^^ The plans for the restmcturing of Yarrabah 'all depend whether we can persuade Gribble into Christian submission. It is all very sad and anxious'. ^9 in another letter Donaldson wrote, 'His regime at Yarrabah of late has been that of a maniac, i.e. tyranny punctuated by outbursts of passion: and there are suspect [sic] or fear of even worse things'. 20

In the vain hope that matters would improve with Emest Gribble's departure, the doubtful legacy he left behind was overlooked. In particular in the first half of 1910 allegations of immorality and general mismanagement at the mission were current. The govemment took these allegations so seriously that the Police Magistrate at Caims, Mr P. G. Grant, was requested to visit Yarrabah and make a report to the Home Secretary's Department. The real cause of the problem, of which the allegations of mismanagement and immorality were the symptoms, was insufficient funding by the govemment, but the allegations were meat and drink to the press, and the press was prepared to make a meal of them. Although Grant's report

'5 This situation possibly developed because between 1905 and 1910 the A.B.M. did not publish annual reports. '" General letter of Appeal for funds for A.B.M., sent out over the signatures of all the bishops, 28 Aug 1909. '7 P. Smith, Piper, p.220. 1^ Donaldson to Trotter, 4 Jun 1909, AA. 19 Ibid 2^ Donaldson to undesignated bishop, but most likely to Bp. of Carpentaria, 14 Jun 1909, AA. 163 had not been made public at the time, the Sun discussed what it considered to be the basis of the allegations of misdoings at the mission. There were about three hundred and fifty people living there at the time, most of them under eighteen years of age. Since a visit by Grant in 1905, there was 'no progress, positively none. Grant had not taken into account the severe damage to buildings caused by a cyclone in 1906, all of which had been repaired or rebuilt and new ones added. The only change one can see at Ya-Tabah was for the worse...' The houses were in decay and some half dozen boats were 'going to wreck and min'. 21

The state of the boats seemed to be of paramount importance. The condition of the inhabitants was of less moment: The next thing after the wrecks which attracts the visitor's curiosity is the large number of fine-looking well-formed girls. Not blacks, they are called half castes; but some of them have only one quarter or one sixteenth part of black blood. Such girls are white in skin, white in nature, and should be surroimded by white environment. ^-^

The Sun passed judgment: 'The mission is a disgrace to its Church, a shame to the State of Queensland, and a scandal against civilisation'. ^^

Donaldson received a copy of Grant's report, and at his request copies of the report were made available to the press. ^4 in a statement in the Brisbane Courier, prior to the report's release, Donaldson said the Church was pleased to act in co­ operation with the govemment to secure the fiillest investigation. The mission had nothing to conceal, and if any defects were found, they would only be of such a temporary nature as were inevitable when the head of a mission, such as at Yarrabah, had broken down in health, and there was a period of time before a successor could be appointed. ^^ Donaldson was aware that all was far from well, and was putting the best possible face on the situation. His attempt at allaying community fears was helped shortly afterwards by mention in the Daily Mail that Archdeacon Lefroy, General Secretary of the A.B.M., had visited Yarrabah, and 'found that the mission at Yarrabah, in every important way, exceeded his expectations'. ^6

A report in the Brisbane Courier of an interview with Grant after his visit to the mission, contradicted Lefroy's words. Grant was reported as saying that he could not help quoting the remark 'of an old and well known public servant some months ago after a visit to Yarrabah: "I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at what I saw there". For my ovm part I cannot help thinking that if the A.B.M. is contented

^' Newspaper cutting from Sun, 10 May 1910, Garland Papers, JO. 22 Ibid 23 Ibid 24 BC, 23 May 1910. 25 BC, 5 May 1910. 26 Daily Mail [DM], 21 May 1910. 164 with the existing state of affairs, they are easily satisfied'. 27 The Sydney Morning Herald offered some slight comfort: Grant's report, 'besides meeting wdth severe criticism at the hands of the A.B.M., has been adversely referred to in several quarters ofthe northem State'. ^8

The Rev. David Garland, ever anxious to be heard, was able to have standing orders at the 1910 diocesan Synod suspended so he could move a motion, which was carried, 'expressive of sympathy with the Rev. E. R. Gribble, who through ilmess had been forced to resign his position as head of Yarrabah mission'. ^9 The Daily Mail report of the Synod proceedings said of Garland: 'Yarrabah, in his opinion, was the brightest jewel in the crown of the Church in Australia. The mission was something of which to be proud'. ^^ Perhaps a fellow-feeling for Gribble had made Garland 'wondrous kind', but his statement regarding Yarrabah being 'the brightest jewel in the crown of the Church' was at best mistaken hyperbole, and at worst a great error of judgment.

Following a visit to Yarrabah in August 1910 by Richard B. Howard, newly appointed Chief Protector of Aborigines, and before the imminent release his report, Lefroy, in Sydney, enlisted Garland's help in obtaining copies of reports of the Queensland Aboriginal Department over the previous three or four years.^' Lefroy and Garland knew each other from Garland's time in Westem Australia. Garland was happy to oblige. Lefroy acknowledged receipt of the reports, and suggested that after he had considered the matter he was of opinion 'that we must make the whole aborigines' question a parliamentary one. The Church cannot really grapple with the problem until the State adopts a liberal and statesmanlike policy of protection and development - and this the state cannot do until it acts as one federally'. 32

In Lefroy's opinion Queensland was 'most niggard'. The 1908 report, copy of which Garland had sent to him, showed that in Queensland only £10,000 was spent on all aborigines in the State, 'and spending a lot of it very badly too, I fancy', whereas Westem Australia spent nearly £24,000. The purpose of this analysis was to engage Garland's assistance:

I am writing all this to enlist your powerful support. You could do the political work better than any one else whom I know of - and it would be a noble work to engage you. It would be our Australian emancipation of the slaves, or better still, the

27 BC.,23May 1910. 28 Sydney Moming Herald [SMH], 6 Jun 1910. 29 DM, 9 Jun 1910. 30 Ibid 31 Lefroy to Garland, 28 Jul 1910, Garland Papers, JO. 32 Lefroy to Garland, 15 Aug 1910, Garland Papers, JO. 165 liberation of our Australian Congoese. 1 am afraid the Church could not carry the matter through - but a public and parliamentary and press agitation could do it easily and we could get all the religious bodies to foment the movement. -^-^

This was just the sort of activity Garland relished, and no doubt he would be just the man to do it, but strangely he declined Lefroy's invitation to lead a federal cmsade. While agreeing with Lefroy's premise that the State should have a liberal and statesmanlike policy of protection for aborigines, he did not believe that it could be done federally. 'The right way to go to work is in each State to get a local sense of responsibility and thus create a spirit of emulation in well doing', he wrote. ^^ Garland himself 'could not dream of undertaking it for all Australia', even if he thought it practicable: 'You know well what my experiences have been in the past of undertaking big tasks, that the bishops will use you as long as it suits them and then do anything possible to throw you over afterwards', he wrote. ^^

The challenge for Garland, however, was too great to resist. He agreed to do what he could in the State, 'though here again I find there is only the willingness to use me when no one else can be got'. Had he been listened to, he wrote, none ofthe present troubles at Yarrabah would have happened, and 'the whole business has been very woefully mishandled on our side, and the Church has only her leaders to blame'. 36 Nothing could be done in Queensland until the difficulties at Yarrabah had been overcome and forgotten. Howard's report, he thought, would be damaging:

I am afraid that locally it was received with drawn swords, and then before his report was published and immediately after his visit, Frodsham made a public attack upon his impartiality. What can you do when a leader is guilty of such folly? -^7

Even if the charge of partiality were sustained, it would have been better to have waited until the document was published. Garland said. And the attack was made notwithstanding the fact that Howard had been ordered to make a second visit to Yarrabah to interview Ivens, the new superintendent, in order to embody Ivens's plans for the fiiture in the report. No matter how willing Cabinet might be to take a favourable view, Frodsham's behaviour would not be encouraging. It was likely. Garland thought, that a commission would be appointed, 'but I am perfectly hopeless about any good result so long as Frodsham is in any way concemed in the matter'. ^^

33 Ibid 34 Garland to Lefroy, 27 Aug 1910, Garland Papers, JO. 35 Ibid 36 Ibid 37 Ibid 38 Ibid 166 Lefroy was not willing to have his scheme side-tracked by Garland. He expressed his disappointment at Garland's attitude but proposed to take the matter to an Executive Council meeting of A.B.M. where he hoped the scheme would be adopted and that the Council would commend it to the bishops for approval by General Synod. He requested Garland to think the matter over carefully, because he valued Garland's judgments 'both ecclesiastically and politically very highly'. If Garland were consulted by the Archbishop, he was urged 'to secure for me its most carefiil consideration at his hands'. ^^

Garland, by means best known to himself, was able to get a copy of Howard's report before it was released, and sent a copy of it to Lefroy. In Garland's opinion there was no evidence of partiality in the report. He hoped that Howard's report, assuming the facts were accurate, would see the end of the matter. It was obvious that there had been mismanagement, but this was the result of Gribble's departure rather than the 'result of his works'. "^^ Garland thought the govemment was likely to give Yarrabah another chance, and outlined a suggested line of approach by the A.B.M."^'

After ftirther consideration, Garland was sure that the Federal govemment was not the right body to control the aborigines for the whole of Australia. He felt that the States were the best organizations to look after them. He was still open to conversion, however, and if the Archbishop were to consult him on the matter:

you may be sure I am not likely to weaken your hands personally. The line I am likely to take with him is that you are the leader on this matter, and that as a matter of course so long as you are leader your policy should be followed. ^2

At General Synod there was likely to be trouble with the bishops. Bishop Stone-Wigg intended 'to fight the Primate in favour of complete control of Yarrabah being given to Bishop Frodsham'. If this happened it would produce 'lamentable results'. 43

On 17 August 1910 Howard's report was released. After listing the buildings and their purpose, Howard's report commented on the lack of agricultural activity: 'Practically there is no cultivation at the Head Station, a few coconut palms are scattered about and I noticed a very small vegetable plot, which I was told is looked after by school children'. His report continued:

39 Lefroy to Garland, 3 Sep 1910, Garland Papers, JO. '*0 Garland to Lefroy, 8 Sep 1910, Garland Papers, JO. '^l Ibid 42 Ibid 43 Ibid 167 Yarrabah Mission Station has now been in existence 18 years and there can be no two opinions as to the woeful mismanagement, from an industrial point of view, during that period. There is, in my opinion, an air of indolence and sweet-do-nothing pervading the whole place. No real effort has been made to produce even a modicum of the food required to feed the inmates, a want of efficient supervision is apparent in every direction, and it cannot be denied that great carelessness has been shown in allowing so many boats to be lost.

The report commented on the shortcomings of the mission, emphasised the lack of food production, and commented on the shortage of funds channelled into Yarrabah. It then retumed to the subject of food, referring to the poor quality of food supplied to the natives: 'The food supplied to the inmates carmot be considered such as would sustain vigour, and although perhaps sufficient to prevent actual hunger, is not a diet on which one could be expected to do manual labour'. '^'^ 'The jewel in the crown' looked decidedly tarnished.

For a few months Yarrabah faded from the spotlight of public interest but this period of apparent quiet was short-lived. Early in May 1911 the Home Secretary (Hon. J. G. Appel) accompanied by Messrs Mackintosh, Hodge, Allen, and Marr, M.L.A., W. H. Ryder (Under Secretary), Dr Tyrie (Govemment Medical Officer), P. G. Grant, P.M., and Inspector Quilter visited Yarrabah, during a tour of all aboriginal mission stations in the north of Queensland. '^^ Included in the party was the Rev. Mr D. Garland.

Garland's inclusion was at once controversial. Frodsham wrote to Donaldson expressing alarm at the idea of Garland visiting Yarrabah. Donaldson explained the situation in his letter of 4 May 1911. ^^6 Frodsham replied that he felt sure the Archbishop had not in any sense of the word given Garland authority to visit Yarrabah. Frodsham had mentioned it 'to all and sundry including the Home Secretary and Mr Ryder', but he would 'not be playing the game' if he did not tell Donaldson that Ryder was saying openly that the Archbishop had misled him, and he had said this not only to Frodsham but also to newspaper reporters. He continued: 'The fact that you paid for a substitute for Garland was brought up in Cabinet, and was regarded there as proof of the statement that Garland went to Yarrabah with your official approval as Metropolitan'. ^7 Frodsham considered the situation to be so

44 Howard's report. Garland Papers, JO. 45 BC, 10 May 1911. 4^ This letter has not survived. 47 Garland's role in the visit was not clear. Donaldson may have thought that such a visit might prove salutary for Garland in view of his 'jewel in the crown' statement. 168 serious that he proposed making an urgent visit to Brisbane to discuss the matter with Donaldson. "^^

From the Otter, on which the govemment party was travelling. Garland wrote to the Archbishop, on the Home Secretary's letterhead, possibly to reinforce what he saw to be the importance of his position in the party. He had not visited Yarrabah after all, although the Minister 'left me perfectly free; he made me welcome to come but left me to please myself. He was not sure that he had done the right thing in not going, because as events tumed out he might have been able to counteract to some degree the bad impressions which the visiting party had formed. ^9

The superintendent saw it as a hostile visit and the ministerial party was made to feel less than welcome, so much so that the party left without interviewing any of the aborigines. According to Garland the Minister had left Brisbane 'with every determination to stand by the mission' but 'even Allan who went there keen to defend came back and described it as "danmable".' Garland seemed to be more concemed with his perceived inability to save the situation than with the state of the mission itself: 'I have been told that to some extent I saved the situation in Parliament last year, and now I fear that that possibility has been destroyed', he wrote. ^^

When interviewed by a reporter, Appel said that there were questions conceming Yarrabah which he would have to discuss with his colleagues. Until he had done that he was not prepared to discuss the opinions which he had formed of Yarrabah and the conditions prevailing there. Having said that he then proceeded to say that from remarks made by Dr Tyrie and Grant, there had been a considerable improvement made in clearing up the place generally in cormexion with those matters on which Mr Grant commented in his report. ^^ There were still problems to be resolved. Apparently there had been little advancement in the way of cultivation for the supply of food for the inmates. This had been explained by the superintendent as being due to floods, and bad seasons:

but I am under the impression that it is coming fi-om the Solomon Islands to North Queensland, where, although the climatic conditions might be to a certain extent similar, the agricultural condifions had been found to be absolutely different by the superintendent. That being so 1 am again under the impression that the failure so far is the result of want of knowledge of local conditions, which must be possessed to make the effort successful. ^2

Frodsham to Donaldson, 8 May 1911, AA. 49 Garland to Donaldson, 12 May 1911 AA 50 Ibid 51 BC, 10 May 1911. 52 Ibid 169 In a cutting dated 30 May 1911, from an unidentified newspaper, Appel is quoted as saying, 'I regretted to leam from the superintendent of the station that he considered the Australian aborigines worthless, treacherous liars and thieves, and a character of neither worth or understanding'. ^^

When the party reached Thursday Island, Garland was interviewed. Hi;, missionary knowledge had been much increased by the tour, he said, and he woul J have 'much to say' after retuming south. The time would inevitably come when relations between the missions and the state would be adjusted:

The missions, having succeeded in evangelising the heathen, it became necessary for the State to step in and control the civilisation acquired. It would be to the gain ofthe Church, which would there be left fi-eefo r further spiritual work, being released fi-om the responsibility of all secular matters. ^^

The report of Garland's interview with the press at Thursday Island brought another letter from Frodsham to Donaldson. Frodsham took Garland's suggestion for the secularisation of missions to mean the secularisation of Yarrabah in particular, and that Garland was really stating govemment policy, as yet unarmounced. Dual control would be impossible and would only end in disaster. He urged Donaldson to let the Brisbane Courier know that Garland's views did not represent those of the Church. ^^ Frodsham was also concemed that Ivens, the superintendent, would be made the scapegoat for Howard's shortcomings, and that the govemment would insist on Ivens's dismissal. This proved to be the case, but Ivens' position was untenable:

As the mission was within the Diocese of North Queensland, Ivens came under the spiritual direction of Bishop Frodsham; as local protector and govemment superintendent he owed his allegiance to the govemment of Queensland; and as missionary in charge of a mission, he was under the direction of the A.B.M. committee in Brisbane. Apart from that, the detailed management of the mission was his own responsibility. ^6

As foreshadowed by Frodsham, the Home Secretary made a savage attack on Yarrabah, and on Ivens in particular. Appel, as Chief Secretary had overall responsibility for govemment control of aboriginal missions and govemment ftmding of them. By legislation the govemment had the right to stipulate 'how the mission appropriated the fimds and how effectively it was administered'. ^'^ He had to support the findings of his two officers. Grant and Howard, but Church support for Ivens was

53 Garland Papers, JO. 54 fiC.,26May 1911. •'•' Frodsham to Donaldson, 29 May 1911, AA. 56 K. L. Comer, Yarrabah: A Mission for Aboriginal People in North Queenaland: The Effect of Govemment and Church policies, 1900-1912, Postgraduate Diploma of Arts (History) theses. University of Queensland, 1994, p.l 17. 57 K. L.Coraer, Yarrabah, p. 104 [short citation]. 170 necessary because his dismissal would leave the way open for dual control or total secularisation of the mission, ^^ which by then, largely because of govemment intervention, had become 'a reformatory, workplace, gaol, plantation, hospital, food distribufion centre, orphanage, school, dormitory', as well as a mission. ^^

The govemment had in fact tumed Yarrabah into a dumping ground for aborigines who were moved from their land and who were unable to be sent elsewhere. It was sufficiently isolated to act as a prison, and sufficiently close to settlement to be easily reached by the authorities. These requirements were not met by other northem mission stations which were much more isolated than Yarrabah. The govemment was anxious to have the aborigines of working age out into the community, the women providing domestic service in Caims and Townsville, and the men as station hands and in other suitable occupations. The Church, through the A.B.M., provided the major share of the finance, and although the subsidy the govemment paid to the mission was ludicrously small, it nevertheless expected the mission to become self-supporting, thus saving itself this inconsiderable expenditure. The govemment 'was pressing to alter its own policy and convert Yarrabah to a govemment settlement similar to Barambah [now Cherbourg].' 60 From the government's point of view it would have been a very satisfactory arrangement.

Frodsham was so concemed that he enclosed a letter which he urged Donaldson to send to the Premier before the next Cabinet meeting, in which he made two points. The first was that the Church was willing to listen to the complaints against Ivens, and the second that the Home Secretary's action in attacking Ivens in public before letting the Church know what the charges against him were, was resented. He also stressed that the Church was against dual control and secularisation. Public feeling in the north was 'setting strongly in favour of Yarrabah' and there was a feeling that the party went to Yarrabah with hostile intent. There was also some feeling that Garland was being 'used' for that end. In concluding his letter Frodsham expressed the hope that Donaldson would be carefiil not to let Garland know what he had written or what opinions he expressed as 'he is so dangerously insidious that a chance word will reveal all'. 61

Donaldson went to see Allen, Ryder, and Appel. At that time he had not received a copy of the written report of the ministerial visit to Yarrabah. For Frodsham's benefit he summarized the discussions which took place. Allen's main

58 Frodsham to Donaldson, 31 May 1911, AA. 59 K. L. Comer, Yarrabah, p. 104. ^^ K. L. Comer, Yarrabah, p.l 16. 6' Ibid 171 bone of contention was the very bad impression created by Ivens and his wife. So far as Ryder was concemed, he had been under the false impression that Donaldson himself controlled Yarrabah and blamed Garland for not having corrected this misapprehension. Ryder also held pretty severe ideas about Ivens's mismanagement, and thought that he was unfitted for the work. He did think however that the Church should be given a year in which to put its house in order. 62

The Archbishop found Appel to be 'far milder in interview than newspaper utterances would lead one to suppose'. Frodsham had raised his ire, however, because of the 'uncompromising character' of his demands about Garland, and because he 'had mshed into print' before Appel had had an opportunity of expressing himself He was also 'pretty hot against Ivens whom he regards as quite unfitted for the work'. What Frodsham's demands about Garland were was not made clear, but possibly Frodsham had told Appel that Garland had no official standing so far as the visit was concemed and his opinions should not be sought. 63

Donaldson took Frodsham to task: 'Without a doubt you have irritated Appel not only by your own utterances, but by your work upon the press: he is aggrieved at the article in the Suri. 64 On the whole, Donaldson came away from the interview with 'some slight relief. There was no evidence at all, he thought, that the govemment contemplated any reduction in the grant, or the establishment of a dual control.

As to the Church's policy on Yarrabah Donaldson felt less sanguine. His private opinion was that 'industrially we have not got a leg to stand on'. He felt that he could not for his part defend the management, and he hoped that Frodsham would take the same line. On the other hand, he thought that it would be quite fair to plead that the eight months since the earlier visit was insufficient time to implement improvements. He considered that Ivens 'had behaved with quite extraordinary folly and with reprehensible disloyalty' and Donaldson had grave doubts for the fiiture of the mission under his care. Donaldson was prepared to defend Ivens to Appel on the grounds that he had been surrounded by hostile critics, and that his behaviour on the day of the visit was not his normal attitude. He also had not at the time had a fair chance. But once the storm had blovm over Donaldson thought Ivens should be discharged. 65

^2 Donaldson to Frodsham, 9 Jun 1911, AA. 63 Ibid 64 Ibid 65 Ibid 172 The problem could be smoothed over, in Donaldson's opinion, if Frodsham were to adopt a spirit of co-operation with the govemment. But he was convinced that the case was hopeless if Frodsham were to fight the govemment. All this really amounted to a severe criticism of Frodsham, and indicated Donaldson's doubts as to the soundness of Frodsham's judgment. He continued:

I had seriously though)t, in view of the complicated relations of retiring from my position as agent with :he govemment, and leaving you to conduct the campaign as you like. But I have ccn.luded - and I dare say you will agree with me - that just at this moment such a course might lead to disastrous misunderstandings in the public mind. But it is essential that only one man should deal with the govemment. I will consider any documents you may send, and to communicate with you frilly in every step 1 take. But I really must use my own judgment in the detailed steps.

Accordingly he had not thought it well to take any steps about Garland's utterances, or to make any references about dual control, or to forward Frodsham's letter to the Premier which included extracts from recent issues of northem newspapers. 66

Frodsham replied that he was glad that Donaldson had decided not to pull out of the argument. It would be disastrous to the aborigines if there even appeared to be some divergence of opinion between the Archbishop and him, and of course he tmsted Donaldson's judgment in the detailed steps to be taken. 'You are on the spot and therefore able to know when to move'. But then came the clincher. Not only did he spell out his own position, but to make sure that it was understood it was underlined: 'But I am also tmsting that you will not forget that the lasting responsibility for Yarrabah and Ivens rests upon me as Bishop of North Queensland'. 67

When Synod met on 13 June 1911 Donaldson's address contained an apologetic. He urged 'fair-minded' people to give fiill weight to the difficulties at Yarrabah, in the face of recent severe criticism. He was not trying to whitewash its failures, but it was unfair to compare that mission with others more favourably situated in the area. To Yarrabah were sent 'girls with child, men suffering from the drink or opium habit, undesirables recommended thereby Magistrates or the Chief Protector...' It was 'a sort of limbo for difficult cases'. The problems were exacerbated by the mission's closeness to Townsville. 68

The editorial comment on Donaldson's Synod Address in the Brisbane Courier the following moming, while accepting some of the remarks made by him.

66 Ibid 67 Frodsham to Donaldson, 14 Jun 1911, AA. 68 y5 19ll,pp.l2-14 173 referred to Grant's report, and the later report by the Home Secretary, and said that many ofthe criticisms made had not been answered by the Archbishop in his address. m

Donaldson wrote to Lefroy outlining his concems. The government's hostility to Yarrabah was reinforced by public opinion, and when Parliament next met there was a danger that the mission's enemies would persuade the govemment to take over the control or reduce the grant. Donaldson was sure that things must be wrong at Yarrabah, and the only way out of the situation was to form a committee of management in Brisbane. He had opposed such a thing in the past, but he believed that some of the churchmen in Brisbane were on their mettle and could pull things through 'though the condition of things is critical in the extreme'. 70

If such a course were followed people in Queensland would know where responsibility lay. At the present time the Bishop of North Queensland and he were the protagonists, but when pressed they were obliged to say that the management lay in Sydney. He thought that the committee of management would have on it several 'rich squatters or merchants well known in Brisbane' and this would carry weight with the public, and make them feel that the Church was really doing its best. He was not without hope that the govemment would accept such a committee as a guarantee of the Church's good intentions.

He requested Lefroy to call an emergency meeting ofthe A.B.M. to give him leave to go ahead with his proposal that the A.B.M. delegate to the proposed committee for a period of two years all the powers of management which the Board possessed, and that the Board make a grant of money to the committee for those two years at least equivalent to the present amount being spent. 71 Lefroy telegraphed approval of Donaldson's proposal. 72

Striking while the iron was hot, Donaldson wrote to Frodsham to keep him in touch with thinking in Brisbane. It was the generally held opinion, and this not by the mission's opponents but by its supporters, that things were not as they should be, and that more should be done 'in the way of self-support' and the way to settle the matter was to convince the public and the govemment that the Church intended to attend to the matter. 73

69 BC, 14 Jun 1911. 70 Donaldson to Lefroy, 15 Jun 1911, AA. 71 Ibid 72 Lefroy to Donaldson, 19 Jun 1911, AA. 73 Donaldson to Frodsham, 19 Jun 1911, AA. 174 It was bad policy to waste time in defending the past. Everyone in Brisbane agreed that there should be no further newspaper controversy. A few positive announcements as to the course of fiiture action would be better than answering criticism 'of which the world has really begun to grow weary'. It was necessary to quieten the storm and so strengthen the government's hand in Parliament. 74 The letter had a final waming to Frodsham about using the press as a forum for airing his grievances: 'It is a poor thing to score a victory over Appel in the press (this indeed you have already done) if the govemment is thereby tumed against us, and gives us away in Parliament'. 75

Frodsham was not a man who gave up easily. Before he received the Archbishop's letter, he wrote yet again to Donaldson. He had seen that moming with no little surprise 'the long and violent attack of Mr Appel against Yarrabah'. He had telegraphed Donaldson asking if he should reply to Appel's attack but at the time of writing he had received no answer. He had, however, received a telegram asking his opinion as to the formation of the committee of management in Brisbane to which he had replied that he would have to seek Synod's advice 'as some serious questions are involved in which I do not like to act alone'. In any case he did not wish any action to be taken at that time 'as it would be a tacit acknowledgment that I was so involved in a complete failure (which I am not prepared to allow), that I had to be deposed'. 76

Donaldson's letter crossed with Frodsham's, but Donaldson had anticipated Frodsham's reaction. Donaldson hastened to pacify him regarding any implied failure on Frodsham's part. If there were failure anywhere then it was in Sydney, and this was made obvious by the transfer of management from the executive to the committee. The committee, if Frodsham approved, should be a Brisbane one, 'and not too big'. 77 Donaldson's proposal was for the Archbishop to be chairman, with the Bishop of North Queensland as vice-chairman and local director. The other members were proposed as Mr Jusfice Chubb, Messrs J. H. Stanley, E. W. Walker, J. H. McConnel, C. Williams, A. Mort, Col. H. V. King, and Capt. G. H. Pritchard. Once more, the Archbishop urged Frodsham to accept his suggestions:

I do hope you will not continue to see objections to this committee sitting in Brisbane. Appel said that such a committee ought to sit at the seat of govemment, and I think there is something in this. Moreover several of the names mentioned above carry great weight both with the govemment and with the public, and they would not consent to sit on a committee meeting at Townsville. And there are other

74 Ibid 75 Ibid ^6 Frodsham to Donaldson, 29 Jun 1911 AA 77 Ibid 175 reasons. At any rate keep an open mind until you have seen Stone-Wigg and discussed the matter with him. 78

The Archbishop thought that a speedy announcement should be made of the transfer of management from Sydney to Queensland.

Frodsham had earlier suggested a northem committee meeting in Caims, instead of one in Brisbane. He again broached the subject:

The general opinion among laymen here is that a northem committee would be more useful, and that really effective management would be just as impossible if directed from Brisbane as from Sydney.

Public opinion is strongly growing in favour of Yarrabah and Ivens and Mr Appel is regarded not as a judge but as an opponent. I enclose a short answer to Mr Appel which 1 propose giving to the press if you approve... 79

Donaldson's will prevailed. Most of the people named by the Archbishop, as well as Lefroy and Stone-Wigg, were received as a deputation by Appel on 23 June 1911, ^^ during which the Archbishop presented his proposals for the fiiture running of the mission. Shortly afterwards the Archbishop sent an account of the meeting to Frodsham. Appel had been much impressed with the calibre of the committee. Everything was as satisfactory as could be with one exception: Ivens had to go. 'He made Ivens's transfer a sine qua non of govemment support'. Appel's line was that Ivens was then a govemment officer in that he was superintendent of the reserve, and also superintendent of the reformatory. This reasoning together with the fact that all the committee members felt that some change was necessary seemed to the Archbishop 'to be quite decisive'. ^^ The committee received an undertaking that the stipulation about Ivens should not be made public, and it was left to Ivens to retire of his ovm account. Donaldson asked Frodsham to speak to Ivens and seek his resignation. The Church would do its utmost to help him find fiirther work if Ivens wished it. Donaldson had told Appel that he thought he had taken a very hard line over Ivens, 'but one cannot avoid the conclusion that Ivens has rather brought it on himself. ^2

The deputation had secured practically all the points that they had been fighting for: there was to be no change in 'the Christian character' of the mission, no dual control, and no reduction in the grant. In fact Appel promised an increase in the grant when the govemment was satisfied that the mission had made some progress.

78 Ibid 79 Frodsham to Donaldson, 29 Jun 1911. 80 5C., 24 Jun 1911. 81 Donaldson to Frodsham, 26 Jun 1911, AA, 82 Ibid 176 All this was very satisfactory, and for the time being it seemed that Yarrabah was saved. ^^ The Daily Mail's account of the meeting reported that the mission cost £2,300 per year to run, in an unsatisfactory marmer, to which the govemment contributed £620. This sum did not appear to be extravagant, 'although it is £620 too much if wasted'. ^^

Following the meeting an announcement was made in the press that Appel had since ratified the proposals which included the outline of industrial development at Yarrabah. The name of the officer to be appointed to this work had to be submitted to the Home Secretary for approval. ^^

In this conflict, as with the earlier one with Garland, Frodsham tended to 'shoot from the hip'. He seemed to be incapable of foreseeing the consequences of his actions. This was evident to the Archbishop, and in reply to a letter from Frodsham, ^6 apparently criticising the Archbishop for not acting on his advice on several points, Donaldson thought it necessary to clear the air. As to their relationship, he assured Frodsham that he would always respect his authority as bishop of the diocese and as local director of Yarrabah, but:

In the sentence to which you refer I was merely explaining that I had not acted on your advice in three particulars. In these matters I think you will agree that I am within my own sphere. What I referred to in my letter was the conduct of the campaign with the public and with the govemment. In that there must be only one leader and my fear is that cleavage may be seen to exist here if we are not careful. Your line is perhaps a little more a fighting line than mine, and my hope is that you will consent to work with me and be more pacific. For I feel strongly that whatever fighting is done now ought to be behind the scenes, and with the govemment and members of Parliament. Hitherto you have hit out practically on your own initiative and with your own judgment. I think now that that course might make things more difficult. Akeady I can see signs that people are anxious to make out that we are at loggerheads, but I think we can best them. °'

Frodsham did not heed the Archbishop's advice, or, if he did, he was powerless to control his own Synod which when it met early in July passed the following resolution:

That the Home Secretary has made certain charges against the Rev. Mr Ivens injurious to his clerical reputation, this Synod respectfully call upon the govemment to substantiate these charges or withdraw the stipulation as to his compulsory retirement. That this Synod expresses surprise at the published stipulation by the Home Secretary that the bishop's rights in the North Queensland Diocese are to be

83 Ibid ^'^ DM, 24 Jun 1911. 85 BC. 1 Jul 1911. °6 This letter has not survived. 87 Donaldson to Frodsham, 19 Jun 1911, AA. 177 superseded in the management of Yarrabah, and that the Hon. R. Philp be waited on and requested to present this resolution to the Premier. °°

It was left to Appel to have the last word. He had not made any remarks as to Ivens's clerical reputation as he had had no opportunity to judge his qualifications in this regard. His remarks had been directed against his administration of the mission in his capacity of superintendent. The decisio.i that Ivens be transferred from Yarrabah had been discussed and agreed to by the Ar.hbishop and members ofthe committee. They had suggested this, and it had simply been subsequently confirmed by him. In conclusion he said:

In regard to the Archbishop (Dr Donaldson) being the sole channel of communication between the committee and the department, that was the suggestion ofthe committee to which I agreed. The agreement which has been arrived at is one which I do not propose to depart from, and that is my last word on the matter. °"

For some little time peace seemed to reign at Yarrabah but in 1914, the coming war apart, the one real cloud in an otherwise generally clear sky was Yarrabah. The Archbishop received discomforting news of the mission while he was still in England. The officer in charge had allowed the natives to incur debts at the store by 'a reckless rise of credit'. Because the natives had no intention or means of paying the debts the store incurred very heavy expense. In addition, some of the natives had taken produce to sell in Caims and did not hand over the money to the mission. The matter was placed in the hands of the police. The mission station itself was in a shocking condition with regard to drainage, and so forth, and the natives were put to work clearing, draining and 'freely using kerosene'. ^^ 'Yarrabah is to us what Ireland is to the British govemment; it seems never to "blow off',' was the Archbishop's comment on that sad state of affairs. ^^

A severe drought followed by a severe cyclone in 1915 took its toll of mission resources, and the wreck ofthe mission launch in 1921 was a severe loss. Over time more and better staff were appointed to the mission and supervision improved, particularly as control had been moved from Sydney to the Archbishop's conmiittee in Brisbane. It remained as a great drain on A.B.M. resources, however, particularly as the State govemment was not prepared to increase its funding.

There was no doubt that since its inception Yarrabah had been in great trouble. Its basic problem was one of insufficient endowment. The problem was exacerbated by Saumarez Smith and Emest Gribble, and continued by Wright who would not

5C., 4 Jul 1911 89 5C., 5 Jul 1911. ^^ Stanley to Donaldson, 15 Jan 1914, AA. 91 Donaldson to Le Fanu, 1 Jul 1914. 178 release control of the mission from Sydney. The wrong choice of superintendents reinforced the difficulties. Frodsham had tried to defend the indefensible, and with his cavalier manner might possibly have brought about the very situation he wished to avert - either dual control of the mission or its total secularisation. The saving of Yarrabah at that time was largely due to the cool head and clear thinking of the Archbishop, who eventually succeeded in bringing some measure of stability to a most unsatisfactory situation.

179 CHAPTER X

LADS' IMMIGRATION SCHEME

Donaldson was a nationalist, believing that Australia must come of age as a country, but at the same time preserving its ties with the mother country and with the Empire. To achi've the first objective it was necessary to increase the population, the quickest way being through immigration. To achieve the second it was necessary that the immigrants be of good British stock, of which there seemed to be no shortage. People of other nationalities need not apply. Donaldson was in essence an apologist for the white Australia policy. Like many people of British stock, part of the intellectual baggage he brought with him to Australia were the ideas of racial purity and racial degeneration: inter-marriage between races would contribute to the latter. This is not to imply that Donaldson was a racist. He was merely reflecting the views also of many native bom Australians. Indeed he was committed as a Christian to the welfare of, for example, the 'child races' of the Pacific and the Australian aborigines. In 1910 Donaldson's attention was drawn to an immigration scheme which fulfilled his criteria. It was not an initiative on his part, but enabled the Church's strength to be put behind a scheme already in its infancy.

The idea of a white Australia had some of its roots in the colonial gold msh days when numbers of Chinese provided cheap labour on the gold fields, and later in Queensland where Kanaka labour was imported for work in the sugar plantations. Andrew Barton was committed to 'establishing a White Australia by legislating against any influx of Asiatic labour and the further importation of Kanakas'. At federation his policy was endorsed by the attomey-general, Alfred Deakin, 'who applauded the principle of preserving civilized Australia for the white man and as a white man's country'. ^ The first federal parliament established a White Australia policy which 'ensured the maintenance of the British character of the Australian population and its protection from contamination by 'inferior' races and sweated labour'. 2

Until 1920 the Commonwealth's commitment to immigration was mainly overseeing the White Australia policy, the main thmst of immigration being in the hands of the States, all of which were active in encouraging settlers to come and fill the empty land. State emigration schemes were run through their respective agents general in London. Assisted passages, and in some cases the offer of cheap land, were

' Frank Crowley, ed., A New History, p.267. ^ Frank Crowley, ed., A New History, p.274. 180 the inducements offered by the Queensland govemment. ^ Resident Queenslanders could nominate relatives or personal friends towards whose passage money they were required to subscribe. In 1912, for example, the nominators had to contribute £4 for males between the ages of 18 and 40 years, £8 for males between the ages of 40 and 55 years. Males of 55 and over had to pay full fare. The nominators' contributions for females in similar age groups were £2, £8, and full fare. Free passages were in some instances granted to the wives and to children under 18 years of age, of m-ie immigrants. The immigrants had to remain in Queensland for at least twelve months and must not have previously resided in and part of Queensland. Unnominated immigrants had to pay fiill fare.'* Most of the immigrants were unskilled labourers, agricultural workers, and domestic servants. 'Most were fairly badly educated although hterate. They were essentially working class'. ^

At the time, Queensland was seriously involved with immigration, and the following table records the number of immigrants, including children, who arrived in Brisbane in 1910, 1011, and 1912 from the United Kingdom and Ireland, most of whom received assisted passages. A very small percentage were unassisted immigrants.

TABLE I

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 1910 4035 3612 7647 1911 8214 5485 13699 1912 3436 3257 6693

The Church played its part in trying to settie immigrants and officers of the Church Mission, which included Kitchen and Miles, met all immigrant vessels arriving in Brisbane. The Church Mission report in the 1911 Year Book records that:

During the year 50 vessels have been met, and 194 Church of England families, 244 single men, and 150 single girls and 450 children, a total of 1,038 members, have been interviewed, and commended on by letters sent to the clergymen of the districts in which they have gone to reside, over 160 letters having been sent out. We also act as representatives in the Diocese for the Church Army, England, the Central Emigration Board, London, and the C.E.M.S., besides being the general representatives for immigration in the diocese.

^ Frank Crowley, ed., A New History, p.297. Queensland handbook with maps, issued by the Emigrants Information Office within HMSO, 1922. iaines]up^,']ir]n\\gr?ii\orL. Australian Retrospective Series, 1991, p.59. ° Staiistics ofthe State of Queensland (Brisbane Gov't Printer 1911,1912, 1913). ' ys 1911, p. 166. 181 In 1910 Donaldson's attention was drawn to a scheme which appears to have gone unnoticed by writers on the various immigration schemes to Australia. State archival records are scant, and the scheme attracted little attention in local newspapers.

From England The Church Army had been sending so-called lad-emigrants to Canada for farm work, but in 1908 the Canadian Govemment revised its immigration regulations which made the scheme unattractive. The Church Army subsequently withdrew from the Canadian scheme and diverted its attention to Australia as a likely recipient for its emigrant boys. ^

The demand, according to the Church Army Review, was far in excess of the supply, and the lad immigrant was 'a nugget of the virgin gold of the heart of the Empire'. 'Nugget of gold' he might have been, but it cost about £15 per head 'to shape him to the pattem the colonies want, and to land him on the shores of an immediate fiiture.' ^ After having his application reviewed and accepted at the Church Army's headquarters at Bryanston Street, London, the applicant was sent to 'the test house' at Stonebridge Park where 'the necessary medical certificate of physical fitness' was secured, and where the next five or six weeks were spent in 'comparatively elementary preparation'.

During the 'comparatively elementary preparation' at Stanley House the boys leamt 'gardening, rough carpentry, hamess and boot making'. The boy who was wanted in the colonies was one who would say 'no' to nothing, and would 'go straight at whatever he is told to do'. In addition to 'ordinary' farm work the boys were supposed to be able to 'put up a fence or a gate, repair broken hamess on the spot, and even put together a rough pair of boots'. 1^ And that was only the elementary preparation!

At Hempstead Hall, a farm the Church Army ovmed in Essex, 'the real, solid side of life on the land' was taught. Here the boys leamt:

milking and the care of cattle, how to hamess, ride, drive, feed, groom, and generally look after horses; pig keeping; ploughing, harvesting, etc.; post and wire fencing; digging hedging and ditching; the use of a blacksmith's tools, and so forth; and is to be introduced to the mysteries of agricultural machinery.

^ Church Army Review, Jun 1908, p.24. ^ Church Army Review, Oct 1911, p.l7. •^ Church Army Review, Oct 1911, p.l8. '• Ibid 182 Each lad received at least four months' training at Stonebridge Park and at the farm at Hempstead.

Early in January 1910 Miss Valentine Magniac, a friend of Lady Chelmsford, wife of the former Govemor of Queensland, called on the Queensland Agent General in London and placed before him a scheme which in essence was for the grant of a piece of land in Queensland 'for the purpose of establishing a depot there' to which the emigrant lads would be sent and where they would be 'broken into agricultural labour and taught farming work' until they were able to be drafted to 'agriculturalists and farmers'. '^ There was a side note in the margin for Cabinet: 'The Prime Minister [Deakin] sees no objection at all to the scheme, but desires that the Minister of Home Affairs be advised. Meantime Mr Fisher [who succeeded Deakin in 1910] says there is no reason to delay the first batch'. The establishment of a staging depot in Queensland, as suggested by Miss Magniac did not eventuate. The first contingent consisted of twelve lads. Lady Chelmsford wrote from London to Kidston, the Premier of Queensland, on 11 Febmary 1910 telling him ofthe impending arrival of the boys '^ but there was no official response. They sailed from England on 18 Febmary 1910 aboard R.M.S. Otway, under the care of Miss Valentine Magniac, '^ and arrived in Brisbane on 4 April. ^^ On the joumey there was an outbreak of smallpox. Fortunately none of the boys was affected, however Miss Magniac became ill, and retumed to England immediately. ^^

Apparently no arrangements had been made for the lads' reception, and it fell to the lot of the Church Army's 'associate' officer resident in Brisbane to arrange accommodation and jobs for these boys. All of the boys had been out of work for some considerable time, and 'they had absolutely no prospect of securing employment at home; they had never been put to any skilled trade, and were all in grave danger of becoming casual labourers, and eventually swelling the ranks ofthe unemployed.' ^^ There was no shortage of boys willing to take advantage of the 'chances offered', but the Church Army had not been able to arrange nominations for the boys, and had to bear the fiill cost ofthe passages, £12.10. 0 per head, as well as the cost of outfitting the boys. ' ^ It was expected that the lads would repay these costs over time once they were in employment.

'2 Queensland Agent General, London, to Chief Secretary, 7 Jan 1910, State Archives. '3 Lady Chelmsford to Kidston, 11 Feb 1910, State Archives. '"* Church Army Review, Mar 1910, p.3. •' Church Army Review, Apr 1910, p. 11. •^ Church Army Circular, 29 Apr 1910. Church Army Review, Mar 1910, p.3.

183 The next party was intended to comprise a number not exceeding one hundred, for which it was hoped to secure nominations from people living in Queensland. It was to leave about the end of April, and the idea was to send out about fifty boys, thirty single men, and ten families. The cost of each nominated person was £5, 'and then there are, of course, suitable outfits to be provided in every case; so that the total cost may be roughly estimated at a little under £10 a head'. '^ There is no record that this second batch departed as intended, but neither the first nor the proposed second group of immigrants was sponsored by the Church.

In Britain, the years 1908 and 1909 'were a period of moderate industrial depression' to be followed by labour unrest in 1910 and following years, ^0 ^ith consequent unemployment. A circular letter dated 29 April 1910, (about the same time as the second lot were scheduled to sail), presumably sent to the various dioceses in Australia, said that there were 'applications from about three hundred boys and they are daily coming in', and that the applications were to be screened 'and weeded out'. The circular made a plea for help:

We are therefore venturing to ask you if you can be good enough to give the work your personal help and support, and if possible, perhaps you will ask one of your clergy to talk matters over with Captain Kitchen.... We believe that if we make a really good start it will prosper, and will perhaps contribute largely to the solution of the unemployment problem. ^'

In a letter of the same date Carlile wrote to Captain Kitchen, Church Army representative in Brisbane, urging him to do all he could to obtain nominations for the next batch of lads. They were all to be between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, of good character and physique. ^^ The circular letter and possibly an approach to the Archbishop by Kitchen stmck a sympathetic chord.

Late in 1910 Donaldson approached the govemment. He wrote to Kidston seeking his opinion on the scheme under which suitable lads would be sent out from England, 'without distinction of creed'. They would come out monthly, and the Church would form an organisation in Brisbane for their reception, and would help them find employment. Could the govemment offer any special assistance? 23 Shortly afterwards Donaldson met with Kidston, and subsequently placed a detailed proposal

^9 Ibid 20 G.D.H.Cold and Raymond Postgate, The Common People, 1746-1946 (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1971), p.498. 21 Prebendary W. Carlile (founder ofthe Church Army), 29 Apr 1910. 22 Carlile to Kitchen, 29 Apr 1910, AA. 23 Donaldson to Kidston, 1 Dec 1910, State Archives. 184 before him.-^ The gist of it was that the Church would sponsor boys over the age of sixteen, of good character, and in good health, who had successfully passed through the Church Army's training course in England, and find positions for them on farms in Queensland. In retum the State govemment would pay the passage of the boys by steamer from England to Brisbane and then by rail to their destinations. If this plan were acceptable, Donaldson proposed:

(i) to procure applications for labour from farmers in Queensland;

(ii) to invite the Church Army to send out a batch of a dozen or so boys at once;

(iii) the Church Army would be urged to send out a sum of money for each boy, to be invested in the Savings Bank, to provide for the necessary changes of clothing at this end. ^^

It was not until 6 March 1911 that approval was received from the Under Secretary of the Chief Secretary's Department, which allowed for arrangements to be made for the first batch of lad immigrants sponsored by the Church to proceed. The conditions under which permission was given were much the same as Donaldson had proposed in his letter of 17 December. There were one or two additional requirements, one of which was that 'situations on farms, under humane employers, at fair wages, and with suitable accommodation, must be ready for them when they land'. Another was 'that the whole cost of the venture up to the moment of embarkation in London and from the moment of disembarkation in Queensland must be home by the Church Army'. The State's liability was limited to providing free steamer passages and second-class railway passes to the lads from Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville, or Caims to the railway station nearest to the locality where they were to go. The govemment stipulated that they would not be accommodated at the Immigration depot, or 'otherwise at govemment expense'. The government's arrangements for free travel applied only to the first batch. Further consideration would be given to other drafts once the first lot had arrived, and there had been an opportunity to review the matter in the light of experience. ^6 The free travel arrangements were continued for subsequent parties. The Church Army Annual Report of 1910-11 noted that during the past year one hundred and eleven boys had emigrated to Queensland.

2^ Donaldson to Kidston, 17 Dec 1910, State Archives 25 Ibid ° Under Secretary to Donaldson, 6 Mar 1911, State Archives. 185 When the scheme received official approval in March 1911, the Church Mission, which under the superintendence ofthe Rev. W. P. B. Miles was responsible for the newsboys' institute and mission work within the city, became the official agent ofthe Lads Immigration Bureau. The Archbishop was the President and Director; J. H. Stanley, Esq., a Director; and the Rev. Canon Garland, Hon. Secretary. 27 in this position Garland became the official representative of the Church and the Church Army on immigration matters within the diocese. The Lads Immigration Bureau was, for the time being, conducted from the rectory of Holy Trinity, Woolloongabba. ^8

In 1911 St Luke's Church was refurbished as the headquarters for the Church Mission, and it later became the operational base for the immigration scheme, and it became a haven for the spiritual welfare of the boys. On 10 October 1911 the Archbishop conducted the first service in the remodelled chapel 'which took the form of a thanksgiving for the safe arrival of twenty-five lads by S.S. Torilla'. ^^

The scheme was successfiil and the figures for 1912 which showed a slight increase over those of the previous year, were evidence of this. A note dated 19 January 1912 indicated that on 18 January twenty-four Church Army lad immigrants landed and were a good type. They were between seventeen and nineteen years of age. All had places by 11 a.m. the following day. There were thirty-six applications from farmers for the boys. Twelve places were unfilled. Despite earlier forecasts of numbers of lads wishing to emigrate, however, a note from the Agent General in London early in January 1912 shows that there had been a slowing down of applicants:

No restriction has at any time been placed on the emigration of boys trained by the Church Army...So far they have been unable to avail themselves of all the berths placed at their disposal. ^"

There were some difficulties, however, one of which was the unsuitability of some of the boys chosen, not so much because of character, but because of health. Although they underwent checks in England before being accepted, some arrived in Queensland in ill health and were not able to be sent straight on to the billets awaiting them. To overcome the problem as much as possible, new mles were introduced in June 1912 for more stringent medical examinations in England by the Queensland Govemment medical officer, and the intending immigrants had to sign an undertaking

27r5l91l,p.l54. 2* Donaldson to Denham, 31 Mar 1911, State Archives. 2^rai912, p.164. 3^ Agent General to Chief Secretary, 12 Jan 1912, State Archives. 186 before going to the Church Army farm in Kent, not to leave their employment in Queensland before consulting, in writing, the Church Army's representafives. ^1

Despite these precautions, in 1912 Garland wrote to Carlile complaining about the number of unsuitable boys being sent out:

1 reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is slackness on the part of some of your officers, who, while naturally desirous of giving the youths a fresh start in life, are unable to grasp the gravity of the situation by which they will jeopardize a scheme for starting hundreds in life merely to benefit a few. Unless you are on the spot you cannot realise how delicate a question immigration is.

There were political implications of which Carlile would not have been aware. The Socialist Party, as Garland described the Labour movement, was opposed to immigration, and merely tolerated it because it could not help it. Among those sent who were unsuitable were one paralysed, two deaf, one an invalid as well as deaf, and one convicted of embezzlement. The Socialist Party would seize upon such instances and would damage not only the Church Army's scheme but the entire Govemment immigration scheme. Garland was concemed not only for himself but because the supervision of the scheme took a good deal of time and trouble, and it seemed to him that more care should be taken at the English end. ^^

Another difficulty about which little could be done was the theft of personal belongings on the voyage out. When the Themistocles arrived in 1912 nearly all the lads had lost their clothes. Money was advanced for the purchase of new clothes, but the advance was debited to the respective recipients. Two boys who had locked chests lost nothing, but another one with a locked chest lost the chest altogether. ^^ There were mmours of instances on other vessels where the boys had sold their clothing, blankets, and other items possibly to buy tobacco or cigarettes. ^^

Some three weeks after his letter of complaint to Carlile, Garland again wrote to him stressing the importance of the Church Army officers in England attending explicitly to requests and instmctions from Australia. He was concemed that a federal Labour Govemment and State Labour members of Parliament were ready to pounce upon any mistakes made. In addition, there was 'a selfish feeling amongst certain sections of the wage-earning community against bringing any other wage- eamers' into the country. ^^

Garland to Donaldson, undated, AA. 32 Garland to Carlile, 14 Jun 1912, AA. 33 Garland to Carlile, 22 Jun 1912, AA. 34//„-rf. 35 Garland to Carlile, 3 Jul 1912, AA. 187 There was also concem that the reputations of such people as the Archbishop, Mr J. H. Stanley, 'and a public man like myself would suffer if anything were to go wrong with the scheme. When Garland announced his impending departure to New Zealand in mid-1912 the Archbishop's support ofthe movement was to be seen in his appointment of the Rev. Cecil Edwards to succeed him at the Holy Trinity, which 'was very largely influenced by and practically finally decided by his fitness to attend to immigration work'.

Edwards was not available to go to Holy Trinity for six months, and there seems to have been some doubt in Garland's mind as to the length of his stay in New Zealand 'in the event of the climate of New Zealand not agreeing with my health', although Garland's possible retum to Holy Trinity was a contingency not envisaged by the Archbishop who was holding Garland's letter of resignation. Meanwhile, approval was sought from the Under Secretary of the Chief Secretary's Department for Miles, head ofthe Church Mission to take temporary charge ofthe bureau pending Edwards's arrival. ^^ The proposal was not immediately approved. After careful consideration the Premier 'thought it would be inadvisable' for him to make arrangements as suggested in Garland's letter until such time as he had had an opportunity to interview Garland's proposed successor. As the Under Secretary said:

You no doubt understand that the Church Army's proposals with respect to immigration were originally approved by the Premier because he was satisfied that with you supervising matters the best interests of the State would not be subordinated to any other consideration whatever. He knows, however, that a state of things might arise under which the interests of the Church might be thought more important in reference to this matter than the interests of the State, and consequently he is not prepared at present to say whether the arrangement he concurred m, and which so far has had satisfactory results, is to be continued. ^'

The proposed arrangements were subsequently ratified by the Premier. ^^

Garland had no doubts as to the benefits of the scheme. He summed up his philosophy thus:

The continuation of the immigration scheme by the Church of England is undoubtedly right. It is an excellent method of putting into active operation the Christian principle of helping those who need it. It is an admirable way of helping and peopling Queensland with the right class of settlers. It makes our scheme a bulwark, though only a small one, in building up the Empire and thus preparing Australia for the inevitable oriental invasion. ^"

36 Garland to Under Secretary, 5 Jul 1912, State Archives. 37 Under Secretary to Garland, 10 Jul 1912, State Archives. 38 Garland to Under Secretary, 25 Jul 1912, State Archives. 39 Note for File, 6 Jul 1912, Garland letters, AA. 188 Garland apparently had no faith in the ability of the White Australia policy eventually to deter Asian immigration, and his philosophy of Lad immigration as outlined above was retrospectively seen by others in a different light:

The glorious year was 1912 the date was 24 April. Lads for the Empire was lustily sung at a meeting advertised as a 'Great Mass Meeting Junior Imperial Migration'.

...But in the rwentieth century, phiiinthropy took second place to unadulterated imperialism. Child migrants were thought of as 'Bricks for Empire building'. The main reason was the Boer War in L.(.jth Africa which ended in 1902. Only by repopulating the Empire with British stock could the damaging effects of this war be repaired. ^^

The Church Army announced an alteration to their emigration scheme in October 1912. In addition to the boys trained on their farm at Hempstead, they also had available for emigration boys who had had at least twelve months' previous experience on private farms in England. ^^ As well, a new organisation, the Friends of the Poor, entered the field. This was an organisation the Church Army started originally for its Youth Immigration Scheme, but the organisations separated, and the Friends of the Poor became an independent body. ^^ The honorary treasurer of The Friends ofthe Poor, Mr W. K. Hamilton, K.C., former treasurer ofthe Church Army, wrote to the Agent General in London saying that during a recent visit to Brisbane he had arranged with Garland for his successor, Edwards, 'to do immigration work' for The Friends of the Poor. The conditions of the scheme were the same as for the Church Army recmits. They would be met on arrival, work would be found for them, and they would be properly housed and provided for until they went to their employment. ^^ The real difference lay in the fact that the Friends of the Poor had no training farm of their own. They proposed sending their boys to farms in England for twelve months' training, 'the farmers contracting to maintain them and instmct them in various branches of farm work in retum for their labour'. ^4 There is no record of the Church's participation in the scheme proposed by Hamilton.

The Church Army's Lads' Immigration Scheme was a success, and the Church might well have been proud of its efforts. The scheme bore no resemblance to such later enterprises as the Fairbridge scheme or the forced emigration of young children that occurred when children were sent to Roman Catholic orphanages in Australia and elsewhere. The 'lads' who came to Queensland came voluntarily, and were in their

^^ Gillian Wagner, Lost Children ofthe Empire (London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, 1982), p.79. ^' Note on file. Chief Secretary letters, 11 Oct 1912, State Archives. ^2 Note on file, 6 Jul 1912, Garland letters, AA. ^3 Hamilton to Agent General, 27 Nov 1912, State Archives. "* Agent General to Chief Secretary, 10 Dec 1912, State Archives. 189 teens. They went to private employment where there were very few complaints as to their conditions. A good number went on to purchase their own farms, marry, and raise families. Many volunteered for service in World War I. The scheme provided useful work for boys from the 'Old Country' who otherwise would not have employment, and also helped to ease the labour shortage in mral Queensland, but it was also a means of strengthening the bonds of Empire.

While this was the only immigration scheme mn by the Church, the diocese nevertheless took an active part in the State immigration schemes until the advent of war when immigration ceased. Each immigrant ship coming to Brisbane was met by members ofthe Church Mission of which W.P.B.Miles was superintendent.

Restoring the depopulation caused by the Great War was an important work and when the Church Army approached the Archbishop in 1917 suggesting that a scheme similar to the pre-war Lads' Immigration Scheme might be put in place post­ war for discharged soldiers and their dependents, 45 Donaldson's reaction was favourable. ^^ After the war Garland and the Soldiers' Church of England Help Society were available to assist when immigration once more became possible, and it had the Church's approbation as 'we know immigration is the only way to keep Australia white'. ^^ Garland's appointment as Commissioner for Australia for the Church Army to watch over the interests of immigrants, was armounced at the Lambeth Conference, and in this role as newly appointed Director of Immigration for the Diocese, he interviewed Theodore, the Premier on 13 January 1920, and again on 26 Febmary. He was concemed with the trickle of immigrants, nominated by friends or relations in Queensland, and the small numbers of imperial soldiers with families who were arriving, many of whom were accommodated temporarily at Anzac House. Garland was also interested in resuming the successfiil pre-war Lads Immigration Scheme and was also ready to find employment for lads leaving school who wished to take up farm work.48 The Premier was not particularly receptive to the idea of the Church's becoming involved, ^9 and the approach at that time was inconclusive, although the Church of England was undertaking the care of immigrants as a social work for the whole community, and 'affords her services to immigrants irrespective of the denomination to which they happen to belong'. ^^

'^^ Paynter to Batty, 5 Feb 1917, AA. ^^ Batty to Paynter, 10 Apr 1917, AA. '^'^ ChCh., 1 Jun 1920, p. 115. ^^ChCk, 1 Jun 1921, p. 119. ' Garland papers, AA. ^^ChCh., 1 Jun 1921, p,106. 190 Donaldson took care to make Garland's duties as Immigration Officer quite specific, so far as the diocese was concemed. He was to co-operate with the Govemment in receiving and placing all immigrants arriving in Queensland. He was to communicate with Church authorities in all the seaports of Australia, 'with a view to the promotion of similar co-operation with the govemment in other States'. By this Donaldson understood that Garland would ask the Archbishops and bishops concemed to appoint, or allow Garland to appoint, agents to visit disembarking immigrants and do what they could for them. 'That and nothing more', wrote the Archbishop. ^^

Some five months later, the Church Army decided for unspecified reasons that they were not getting their money's worth from Garland and decided to withdraw their subsidy to the diocese. ^^ Donaldson disagreed with the assessment of Garland by Canon Pughe of the Church Army, and eventually succeeded in having Pughe reverse this impression and continue the subsidy. ^^

Donaldson was a moving force behind the Brisbane end of the Lads' Immigration Scheme, although he was not the initiator of it. Post-war he backed Garland against the Church Army, showing his fair-mindedness as regards Garland's capabilities. Although he played no particular hand in State immigration, except to give his wholehearted support to the efforts of Miles and Kitchen at the Church Mission, nevertheless he was siezed with the importance of immigration. The empty countryside could only be filled through immigration, preferably by people of British descent, not only for the good of national development, but also as a means of strengthening the bonds of empire.

5' Donaldson to Garland, 3 May 1921, AA. 52 Donaldson to Pughe, 31 Oct 1921, AA. 53 Sharp to Pughe, 21 Dec 1921, AA. 191 CHAPTER XI

FOR GOD AND EMPIRE

Donaldson never doubted that the British Empire was God's instmment to lead the world and that the Church of England was the means through which God worked. It was an idea that dominated a great deal of his thinking. Donaldson was bom into a social class and a family where service to the Empire in one form or another was taken for granted. This and his religious training were the strands which gave him his philosophy of Empire, although at a later date his ideas of the stmcture of the Empire were to change slightly. His first few years in Brisbane gave him some insight into the rising feeling of nationalism in Australia, a move of which he generally approved, so long as this did not lead to a breaking away from the Empire.

The Empire, however, was only as strong as its weakest member, and any perceived threat to its strength had to be eliminated. In 1905 the Australian bishops saw such a threat when they referred to the declining Australian birthrate in their pastoral letter, ^ a fact not only disturbing from the point of view of population, but also disturbing from its moral implications. On his first visit to England, three years later, he was made even more aware of a danger to the strength of the Empire when a similar situation was stressed at the Lambeth Conference.

The Lambeth Conference was held from 6 July to 5 August 1908. Some two hundred and fifty bishops from all parts of the world took part. There were representatives from 'all the colonies and the United States of America, many States of South America, Afiica, China, and Japan'. 2 Although not exclusively so, the Lambeth Conference was largely for and about the English-speaking world, which in essence was the British Empire. Attention was focussed on the declining birthrate in the Anglican communion in the Report on Restriction of Population:

There is the world-danger that the great English-speaking peoples, diminished in numbers and weakened in moral force should commit the crowning infamy of race- suicide, and so fail to fulfil that high destiny to which in the Providence of God they have been manifestly called. ^

The emphasis on 'race-suicide' of English-speaking people, therefore, was a shadow cast before the gathering clouds of war, obvious to some even at that time. The continuing existence of a strong Empire was central to the well-being of the world, a

' See Chapter v. 2 yfi 1909, p.38. 3 Conference ofthe Bishops ofthe Anglican Communion holden at Lambeth Palace 6 July - 5 August 1908 (London: S.P.C.K. Publication, 1908) p. 147. 192 fact implied by the Conference's fears. It was of paramount importance that the Empire should be strong not only numerically, but also spiritually, and the Church, according to Donaldson's thinking, was one of the greatest strengths binding the Empire together.

From the middle of the nineteenth century until the early years of the twentieth, evolutionary theories were debated in Europe, particularly in France and Italy, and in England. The debates were concemed for instance not only with decadence in literature, but in moral standards, general health of the populace, in living standards, to name but several subjects. Perhaps the most important concemed racial degeneration. In 1872 Charles Kingsley in his essay. The Science of Health asked: 'Whether the British race is improving or degenerating? What if it seem probably degenerating, are the causes of so great an evil? How can they be, if not destroyed at least arrested?' ^ While perhaps not directly involved in the debate on racial degeneration, the Church leaders would have been well aware of it, and this no doubt was at the back of their minds when the Report on Restriction of Population was written. The war, when it came, could be seen as a regenerating influence for the British people and the Empire. It was also seen as genetically disastrous, or dysgenic, as the best were killed.

Donaldson was concemed with the welfare of the common man, but overriding this was the welfare of the Empire. As the world moved closer to war, Donaldson's awareness of the Empire's importance to the world increased. A strong Empire required strong Dominions. Strong Dominions required their peoples to be strong, not only physically but also morally, and how to halt what he saw as moral degeneration exercised his mind repeatedly. Donaldson was one of the founding members ofthe Council for the Promotion of Public Morality in 1910, and for a time, its President. ^ The Council was concemed not only with sexual morality, but also with wider issues. The Council decided that from time to time it should hold public meetings 'addressed mainly to the leaders of society rather than to the younger ones, with a view to forming a healthy public opinion...' ^ [See Chapter VI] On this note Donaldson approached the Mayor of Brisbane, asking him to address such a meeting to be held on 1 October 1912. The meeting dealt with such subjects as Dangers of Modern Civilization, and Good and Bad Influences in the Commercial World, and the Mayor was asked to make a speech for about one quarter of an hour on some subject cormected with municipal life.

Quoted in Pick, Daniel, Faces of Degeneration - A European Disorder, c.1848 - c. 1918 ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 196. ^ See Chapter V. Donaldson to Mayor, 17 Aug 1912, AA. 193 Donaldson also wrote to Mr J. Allen, a prominent layman, suggesting a speech on Evil in the Commercial World. There were many things that needed saying, Donaldson wrote, 'and no one can say them better than you'. Some suggested topics were:

The temptations of lonely young clerks, and the help which heads of business houses could render in watching the tone of their offices, etc.; and the advantages or disadvantages ofthe 'living in' system for girls. '

The meetings of the Coimcil were usually well attended, according to the press, and sometimes were under the chairmanship of the Govemor. The press reports, however, were sometimes misleading in that they did not always report the speeches in fiill, and the abridged versions gave an unbalanced view. In such cases a healthy correspondence ensued through the letters columns of the papers. In one instance when Donaldson's speech was reported in condensed form, the impression was that the Archbishop thought that the panacea for all moral ills was through public , without recourse to prayer. This was not what the Archbishop said, but it was poimced on by members of the public, some of whom castigated him for his lack of direction. ^

But moral strength was not enough. This would protect the nation from within, but if the nation were to be protected from outside, attention must be given to military capability. It was a subject to which Donaldson drew attention in his 1911 address to Synod. It was shortly before the coronation of King George V when Donaldson addressed the 1911 Synod, and the shadow of coming events perhaps influenced him to focus on Australia's position within the British world family: 'The British sovereign stands for Empire, and we are coming more and more to see that for Australia the word Empire stands for safety'. The Archbishop commented on the remarkable change that had come over Australian opinion on the subject of the Empire. A short time previously there had been 'strenuous opposition' to Sir Samuel Griffith's proposal to pay £200,000 per year as a subsidy to the Royal Navy. But in 1911, Australia had committed itself to a capital outiay of nearly £4,000,000, with an additional armual expenditure of £500,000 for upkeep. This, he said, could be regarded 'as a mere instalment of something greater to come'.

The reason for the change in Australia's attitude, was due to 'the rapid development of militarism and the consequent alteration in the balance of power', which had drawn attention to the whole question of imperial defence:

^ Donaldson to Allen, 17 Aug 1912, AA. ^ BC, 2 Oct 1912, 10 Oct 1912, 23 Dec 1912, 30 Oct 1912. 194 Our individual safety depends upon the safety of the whole, and we are bound to consider the problem, not only as trustees of a great Empire, but also in the interests of our own peace and well-being.

In the desire for peace, he said, it was necessary to be sure as to the country's motives:

The desire for peace is not necessarily a pure or worthy one. The selfish, the cowardly, the self-indulgent want peace; the covetous often want it: but these are not the sort of peace-makers whom our Lord blessed, and their efforts tend not to peace, but to subjection and disgrace.

What was necessary was a spirit of sacrifice. Patriotism involved sacrifice, and no nation could hold its head high in the world if it had not leamed this lesson. The country should show that it was not afraid of sacrifice, and should submit cheerfiilly to whatever taxation was necessary to secure the nation's defence. It was only then that Australia could plead honourably for peace and disarmament. ^ The strength of Empire and the spirit of sacrifice were themes to which Donaldson was to retum again and again in the years ahead.

Donaldson's ideas on the importance of the Empire were expanded when James Bryce, the British Ambassador at Washington, visited Australia in July 1912. Donaldson looked forward to Bryce's visit with much interest. To a friend in England he wrote:

...I hope we may be able to pick his brains on the subject ofthe future ofthe Empire. For a year past I have been sitting at the feet of certain English enthusiasts who teach that the altemative before us is organic govemment of the Empire by a tmly imperial parliament whose powers shall be plenary with regard to defence and foreign relations - and dismptions. They further teach that organic govemment ofthe Empire can be accomplished in the same way that union has been achieved in South Africa. 10

Lionel Curtis, who had taken a leading part in the unification of South Africa, ^ ^ had visited Australia some time previously in cormexion with The Round Table organisation, and had had discussions on the federal movement in Australia. He was a great exponent of the idea of organic govemment of the Empire. The subject

9 Kfi 1911, p.9. '0 Donaldson to Lady Elizabeth Babbington Smith, 3 Jul 1912, TCL. 1' Lionel Curtis was a public servant in South Africa from 1899 to 1909. He was Town Clerk of J'burg 1901-1903, and Assistant Colonial Secretary of Transvaal 1903-1907. He was a prot6g6 of Sir Alfred (later Lord) Milner, who was British High Commissioner in South Africa at the time ofthe Boer War and afterwards, and who was largely responsible for the unification of South Africa after the Boer War. Milner 'was assisted by a group of young men -nicknamed "Milner's kindergarten" - apostles of empire whose influence in imperial matters remained considerable dow to and following the Second World War'. [ R.K.Webb, Modern England, p.442 [short citation). Curtis was regarded as the head ofthe 'kindergarten' and helped prepare the Selbourne Memorandum in 1907. He created 'Closer Union' societies between 1907-1909, and was a founder of The Round Table. 195 interested Donaldson 'in an amateur sort of way', and he believed that Bryce held such doctrines. ^^

Donaldson was a member of the Round Table, the Brisbane branch of that organisafion frequently meefing at Bishopsboume. When Bryce visited Brisbane Donaldson was one of fourteen members who entertained him to luncheon, after whicli informal discussions without speeches, took place. The line of debate took the folio v/ing form:

1. Was the menace of Germany and the yellow races a reality?

2. If so, was organic union ofthe Empire possible in view especially of the difficulties of effective govemment?

3. What steps could be taken to work towards this?

Bryce did not seem to be worried about Germany. He expressed 'no alarm for the immediate fiiture', and thought that 'Japan was not such a fool as to attack any part of the territory of so strong a white race as ours'. ^^ Bryce then asked of those present if they thought Australians would be willing to submit to further taxation for defence purposes. The group considered that Australians would agree to such an increase providing she was allowed to control her own contribution to defence.

With regard to the second topic, Bryce asked whether an organic govemment should consist of representatives elected by the people, or representatives appointed by the govemment for the duration of that govemment. To this they could give no answer. His friend, Lord Chelmsford, pointed out the difficulties in getting the Dominions to tmst their representatives. It might be possible, however, to use the office of High Commissioner in some way. It was felt, however, that 'we must kindle everywhere the idea of partnership in the Empire'. This meant that Australians should feel they were called upon 'to bear a responsible share in the govemment of India and the Crown colonies, and the defence ofthe Empire generally'.

On the third subject, those present felt that before there could be an organic government for the Empire, Australia would have to 'substitute an idea of nationalism for the present commonly held ideal of State rights'. Bryce pointed out that national sentiment in no way ran counter to imperial sentiment, and that with a larger outlook.

'2/6W. '•^ When war came Bryce was convinced that the defeat of Germany was essential, and he was opposed to efforts to promote mediation as suggested by the U.S.A. in the early stages ofthe war. Late in 1914 Bryce joined a small group formed to promote a League of Nations. In 1917 he wrote a memorandum to the British Govemment outlining a plan for a League of Nations which was largely followed. 196 it would be quite natural to pass through a stage of national sentiment into a stage 'where imperial sentiment becomes pronounced without detriment to national sentiment'. The meeting concluded that the time was not then ripe to place before the public Curtis's complete scheme for organic union ofthe Empire. '"^

Donaldson was overseas when war was declared. He retumed to Australia on the vessel Themistocles which carried nearly 1,000 immigrants among i,s passengers. Donaldson acted as chaplain and had 'a parish of nearly 1,200 souls for tlie voyage'. 1^ Every moming he held two services of intercession for the troops and the Empire, one in the saloon, and one in steerage. On Sundays he conducted four services, including 'a very happy children's service in the aftemoon'. ^^ The Themistocles docked in Sydney on 14 October 1914.

Despite the 'jingoistic enthusiasm' ofthe country before the outbreak of war,'^ Donaldson was somewhat disappointed to return and find Australia taking the war slightly less seriously than he had expected. In some ways Donaldson saw himself as staunchly Australian, championing the cause of independence, but from time to time he was inclined to be patronising to Australia and Australians, as for example when he wrote:

The incubus of the war is gradually reaching Australia. So far the average Australian has been strangely unmoved, not from any want of patriotism, but from wanting imagination. He is incapable of taking in so great a crisis. But in Sydney and Melboume they are awake: and the concem gradually spreads. '°

The war provided Donaldson with the opportunity to put forward his ideas on Empire. Donaldson had always felt very strongly about the importance ofthe British Empire, and Australia's relation to Britain, and for him there could be no question about Australia's allegiance to the 'Old Country':

Things were very tense and anxious in London before I came away, and I felt that out here, patriotic as they are, the whole thing is taken very much more lightly. There is of course intense love for Australia, and further, a widespread feeling of good-will and support for the Old Country; but how far do you think there is any consciousness of the ideal of Empire? Do you think that the Australians have any conception of the Empire as a spiritual tmst placed in the heinds of our race for the world's good? ...I think it may well be that, as a Church, we are called upon to preach this message just now. ^^

Donaldson to Ramsay, 16 Aug 1912, AA. This resume of a long report was sent by Donaldson to his friend Ramsay at "Harrow", Cambooya, where Donaldson often stayed. Ramsay also was a member ofthe Round Table, but at the time was too ill to attend the luncheon. ^^ Bush Notes, l'Ho\ 1914, p.161. ^^Ibid Y Michael McKeman, Churches at War, p,25 [short citation]. ° Donaldson to Lady Elizabeth Babbington Smith, 9 Mar 1915, TCL. '^ Donaldson to Bp. of Armidale, 30 Oct 1914, AA. 197 Donaldson was firmly of opinion that the British Empire was chosen by God to lead the world and therefore the war was a holy one:

As for the war, I cling to my conviction that the Empire is of God. For years past we have believed it to be a great and solemn tmst given to the British race. Our anxiety has been lest the race should prove unworthy. The coming of war has strengthened by faith and also stung me with the intense sense ofthe opportunity it brings. -^^

Donaldson was not alone in seeing the war as a holy one. His opinion was affirmed by Wright, the Primate, at General Synod in 1916: 'Our country fights in this war for the ideals symbolised by the Cross...it is a Holy War'. 21 This was a sentiment also expressed by the French Premier, when berating the German ambassador over Germany's declaration of war on France: 'The war which is beginning is a Holy War'. 22 For Donaldson it was more than a Holy War - it was the Empire.

Whereas some Australian bishops, of whom Donaldson was one, saw the war in religious terms where the fighting was to preserve a God-given Empire, the English bishops saw it in moral terms. To the German theologians who also regarded the war as a holy one, and who wrote the Appeal to Evangelical Christians Abroad, in which they declared the war to be not German's doing but the fault of Christians abroad, the English bishops' response was that although they deplored the war they had no hesitation in giving their assent to their government's action. No matter how desirous they were for peace, they were 'driven to declare that dear to us as peace is, the principles of tmth and honour are yet more dear'. 23 Upham considers Donaldson's feelings for the British Empire had some points of comparison with the German theology of war:

Donaldson's adulation of the British Empire, while it falls short of glorifying and absolutising it, does have some points of comparison with the theology of war which developed in Germany at that time, that had evolved largely out of Hegel's philosophy. The same philosophy was having a less direct impact on British theology in the late ninetheenth century, to which Donaldson would have been exposed. 24

Donaldson's personal feelings about the war and the place of the Empire in it were expressed in a pastoral letter which he issued, to be read on or before 2 November 1914:

For years and years past many of us have been possessed of a profound conviction of our Imperial vocation. We have been conscious of certain qualities which are

^^ Donaldson to Bp. of Carpentaria, 31 Oct 1914, AA. ^' Proceedings of General Synod, 1916. 22 5C., 21 Nov 1914, quoted from Le Matin. 23 G.K.A. Bell, Randall Davidson Archbishop of Canterbury (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 3rd. ed., 1952), pp.741-2. 2^* Bruce W. Upham, Church and State: A case study of Queensland tol918. Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland, 1993. 198 characteristic of our race. We have been conscious of a genius for freedom, for incorruptible justice, for sympathy with the native races. ...We have seen all this and our soul has been possessed with the unshakeable conviction that in its great career the British race has been respondmg to the vocation of God....

We believe that God has called us in the British Empire to save the world.

The thought of the Empire's 'divine vocation' gave confidence to the British people, but it also laid upon the people 'with peremptory emphasis a two-fold obligation'. Under certain circumstances it became a 'sacred duty to fight for the right to fiilfil one's destiny', and anyone who sought to take away God's commission was a 'coward and a rebel' if he did not rise up and fight. The other obligafion was nafional repentance 'which must be based on a view of our Imperial history in the light of the Imperial vocation of which we are conscious'. 25

To Donaldson's mind, the war meant fighting to save the Empire, from the effort of which would come not only the satisfaction of leading the world in Christian observance, but also the strengthening of character through sacrifice and repentance to enable it to do so. Donaldson's vision ofthe Empire's mission was not shared by all the clergy of other denominations. When the inevitable happened, Australian clergy of most persuasions, with the exception of Roman Catholics, saw the war not so much as a means of testing and developing Imperial strength but as a testing time for the country which would detach it from materialistic and hedonistic values, and thus would ultimately have a 'regenerating effect on society'. 26 Like Donaldson, however, they believed that God was on their side, and that God would not let evil triumph. War was one of God's ways to chastise His people, and retum them 'to the tme path of devotion and duty'. 27 it was irrelevant for Donaldson whether Australia was in danger. If the Empire was threatened God's 'tool' was threatened, and therefore to defend the Empire was to do God's bidding for religious reasons.

With few exceptions the Australian Roman Catholic bishops generally spoke in support of the war and encouraged enlistment, although they did not see the war through Donaldson's eyes. Being mainly of Irish extraction, if not of Irish birth, and being almost universally educated in Ireland or Rome, the bishops' loyalty was not to the Empire. Their loyalty lay with Australia, and they used their speeches on the war to try to bring home their feelings as 'a disadvantaged minority' particularly where education was concemed. The Roman Catholic bishops saw the war in political terms, while the Anglican bishops and the nonconformist clergy saw the stmggle in

25 BC, 20 Nov 1914. 2^ Michael McKeman, Churches at War, p. 1. 2^7 Ibid 199 theological terms.28 In the light of some speculation in the press as to the Roman Catholic Church's attitude to the war, and in particular the Pope's, Duhig felt it incumbent upon himself to clear the air which he did in a sermon he preached in Ipswich and at St Stephen's Cathedral. The Pope was neutral, he said, and his impartiality allowed him to work for the restoration of peace. 29

Preaching at a service in the cathedral on 14 October 1914 shortly after his retum, Donaldson said that the war had taught Christian people to fall back on their faith in God, and had awakened a spirit of sacrifice. The sacrifice which patriotism alone demanded was not enough, and had to be salted with penitence. There had also to be charity towards one's fellow men. ^^ The theme of penitence and sacrifice became almost a statement of faith about the source of national redemption, and in 1916 at the diocesan Synod he declared the war to be an opportunity for the 'nations of the world to find their souls through sacrifice'. Sacrifice without penitence was merely patriotism. The fimction of the Church, he said, was 'to keep bright before the nation the vision of its tme destiny'. By prayer and penitence the Church would get a clear sight of God's will. From this would come a new spirit in the nation. ^^ 'War', he wrote on another occasion, 'has strengthened my faith because the war, inevitable as it was, has come under conditions so favourable to us, though terrible indeed as a visitation, that I seem to see in it a loving purpose of chastising rather than a judgment'. ^2

During Lent 1915 Donaldson gave a series of four addresses at the Cathedral, the theme of which was Christian Patriotism. In these addresses he explained that the first duty of Christians was to follow the will of God. The next duty was to one's country: 'Our coimtry has a right to everything we have, our money, energies, well- being, health, and even our life itself. ^^ These sentiments were later to find expression in his views on conscription. Another address in the series concemed Christian Imperialism which Donaldson equated with British Imperialism:

...this instinct implanted in our race is a sacred trust committed to us by God, a gift entrusted to us for the good of mankind, a talent for which we must give account. ^^

With the onset of war, recmitment was stepped up, but since 1911 all males between the ages of 12 and 25 had been liable to some form of military training.

2^ John P. Maguire, Prologue - A History ofthe Catholic Church as Seen from Townsville 1863-1983 (Toowoomba: A Church Archivists' Society Publication, 1990), p.58. 29fiC., 26Jul 1915. ^^ Bush Notes, 21 Nov 1914, pp.15-7. 31 KB 1916, p.20. 32 Donaldson to Bp. of Carpentaria, 31 Nov 1914, AA. 33 fiC, 12 Mar 1915. 34 Donaldson's addresses on Christian Patriotism, JO. 200 Although the introduction of compulsory training did not receive wide-spread community approval, ^^ the Archbishop was firmly in favour of it and had urged his synod to support it:

The year has seen the development ofthe govemment scheme for universal military training...with all my heart I rejoice in this movement, and I believe that it can bring to our nation nothing but good. ...war then, is for the present an inevitable contingency, and national defence is the duty of every self-respecting State. -^^

He was a little upset, however, when the 1913 compulsory military camps were held at Easter, and he had urged upon govemment authorities that while church parades in camps might be uplifting, they could never take the place of the Easter Eucharist in church. ^^ By 1914 the system of training was intended to create a military force of 'citizen soldiers' for home defence, mostly comprised of compulsory trainees. The naval force, however, consisted entirely of volunteer seamen. ^^

Donaldson found the pace of voluntary recmitment much too slow for him, but apparently not for the govemment. Donaldson's expectations of a much greater response to recmitment came from his strong belief in the Empire, and he expected others would share his sentiments. Donaldson's views as to the slowness of recmitment were shared by the Rev. G. E. Rowe, head of the Central Methodist Mission in Brisbane. Rowe ventilated his fmstration to Donaldson:

If our own Parliament were more anxious to assist in getting men to the front instead of getting them votes for party purposes it would be more patriotic. I feel distressed at the attitude of our parliament in the service votes. "Nero fiddlmg' wasn't surely worse than this. ^"

Donaldson agreed, and put much of the blame on the amount of pay the Australian soldiers received which, at 6/- per day, was nearly four times as much as that of the British soldier. Donaldson felt that the Australian govemment had no wish to encourage recmiting because of the cost which would be incurred by having to pay a larger army at what Donaldson considered were rates far in excess of those paid to British soldiers. Unless the rates of pay could be lowered voluntarily, Donaldson wrote, 'we must bear the odium of standing by while the Mother country gives practically the whole of her manhood' in the Empire's defence. ^0

35 Frank Crowley, ed., A New History, p.295 [short citation]. ^°yB1913, p.23. 3 "7 Ibid ;f ° Frank Crowley, ed.. A New History, p. 296. 39 Rowe to Donaldson, 26 Nov 1914, AA. Donaldson to Rowe, undated, AA. 201 Donaldson took the matter up with the Govemor General, Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson, who seemed content to suggest that enlistment would take its natural course without any campaign to strengthen it. In any case 'we can't call for a levee en masse as in England, for we couldn't deal with it if it came', he told Donaldson."^ ^ The Archbishop also received, via the Lieutenant Govemor, a copy of a statement made by Colonel Legge which indicated that lack of equipment and instmctors were impeding the recmiting drive. In fact the Army could not cope with an influx of recmits. '*2 Donaldson replied to Munro Ferguson and Morgan in much the same terms. He did not regard Legge's statement as 'satisfactory', and suggested that if any young man wished to fight for his country he be given the chance to enlist for active service without any payment, until such times as he was required. Such a scheme would give young men an opportunity of showing their patriotism, and so avoid the 'growing resentment at the rebuffs' being received when applying to enlist. It would demonstrate Australia's patriotism throughout the Empire, as well as among her enemies. It would also be satisfactory to the young men, and would not embarrass the govemment. ^3 Another suggestion from the Archbishop urged Morgan to write to the Govemor General in an attempt to convince the Defence Department to become innovative. One proposal was that the Defence Department 'should offer the War Office in England to recruit in Australia for English regiments, sending the men home by drafts on ordinary mail boats and not necessarily on troopers'. ^4 Behind Donaldson's anxiety for a demonstration of maximum enlistment was his belief that 'the main indication of the national spirit is the eagemess of the nation's manhood to get to the firing line'. ^5

At a meeting called by the Mayor of Brisbane to consider recmiting, at which among others Donaldson, Duhig, Ramsay, Micklem, Garland, and Batty (who acted as secretary) were present, it was Donaldson who proposed that it was necessary to take determined steps to encourage recmiting in Queensland. The meeting resolved itself into a general committee to be known as The Queensland Recruiting Committee, and an executive committee was formed. Donaldson's proposal was seconded by Mr R. H. Roe 46

The Committee threw itself into the enterprise, and between 5 and 13 November 1915 held thirty-nine recmiting meetings in the city and suburbs of

'*' Munro Ferguson to Donaldson, 11 Dec 1914, AA. '*2 Morgan to Donaldson, 18 Dec 1914, AA. ^^3 Donaldson to Munro Ferguson, and to Morgan, 21 Dec 1914, AA. '*'* Donaldson to E. Jowett, 18 Feb 1915, AA. '^^ yB1915, p.l6. ^^ Minutes of Queensland Recruiting Committee, 28 May 1915, JO. 202 Brisbane. '^'' Donaldson took an active part in such meetings when time permitted, and was also listed as a reserve speaker. 48 When he was not available, his place was taken by Micklem. Duhig was out of Brisbane at the time, but he addressed rallies at Dalby, Toowoomba, Roma, Mitchell, and other places. 49 in his recmiting efforts Duhig had the support of his Archbishop, Dunne. ^0

In 1915, to ease his mind conceming unspecified 'criticisms' which he understood had been levelled at undergraduates for not enlisting, Donaldson wrote to Canon Hart in Melboume to ascertain current opinion in Melboume. His own opinion was that Australian undergraduates were younger than their English counterparts and less well off, and thus less able to defer their studies. At both St Francis' College and at St John's the policy was not to urge the men to enlist, but to let them take the initiative, 'placing no obstacle in their way'. ^^ The Archbishop let it be known, however, that he would not accept any candidates for Holy Orders during the war except those who for one reason or another were not eligible for enlistment. ^2 Donaldson had no qualms about prohibiting the clergy from enlisting. The war, he said, was not waged 'only by those who enter the firing line'. Ultimate victory came not from the bravery of the troops in action, 'but by the spirit of the nation behind them'. ^^ From the national viewpoint, he said:

...the maintenance of religion - the appeal to God in penitence, sacrament, and prayer - is the chief essential to the national well-being; and that means that the clergy are wanted more than ever at their posts among their flocks. ^4

Donaldson was opposed to the clergy's bearing arms, and at the same time he was trying to avoid a wholesale flocking to the colours by the younger men to serve as chaplains. He required a firm hand when dealing with the Bush Brotherhood, practically all of whom had sent him 'an ultimatum, and are descending upon me next week'. He understood how hard it was for them, 'but so long as troopship chaplains are wanted it is pure wilfulness and rebellion for men to insist on going in the ranks'. ^^ They were by their calling not required to take up arms, but at least one chaplain had no trouble with his conscience:

^^ Wilde Ball to Chas Campbell, 3 Nov 1915, Queensland Recmiting Committee papers, JO. Ball to MacGregor, 31 Nov 1915, Queensland Recruiting Committee papers, JO. ^^ Duhig to Ball, 4 Nov 1915, Queensland Recruiting Committee papers, JO. 50 Neil J. Byrne, Robert Dunne, 'p.l'il. 5' Donaldson to Hart, 5 May 1915, AA. 52 ChCh. I Jun 1915, p.46. 53 yB1915, p.l6, '^^ Ibid. p. 17. 55 Donaldson to Bp. ofNorth Queensland, 13 Nov 1916, AA. 203 ...left camp in motor and on way, drew a revolver and ammunition from ordnance stores. Against the Germans 1 would not carry arms, but against the Turks it is advisable, in case I get in a tight comer (that is, if 1 cannot run fast enough). ^^

Donaldson's initial fmstration with the government's slow recruiting campaign was overcome in September 1915 when it was armounced that Australia had decided to offer to the Brifish govemment a new army of 50,000 together with a supply of reinforcements for both the forces already formed, and for the 'new' army of which Queensland's proportion would be at the rate of 2,000 per month. ^'^ The govemment intended to compel every man of military age either to enlist or state his reason for not doing so. Replies were to be sent to the nearest local recmiting body. Committees were to be set up in towns and shires, and the various town or shire clerks were to act as local secretaries and supervisors for the committees being set up.

The Queensland Recmiting Committee, of which Donaldson was a member, thought the appeal and the arrangements unsatisfactory for Queensland owing to the great distances of many of the local authorities, the intervals between meetings, and also to the fact that the town and shire clerks were approaching their busiest time 'winding up their year's financial work, compiling their rate book and voters' rolls, and preparing for the armual elections early in the new year'. ^^ The Committee suggested to the govemment statistician that the replies in Queensland be sent to the Conmiittee to be dealt with in Brisbane. The Committee also requested a complete list of the names and addresses of Queenslanders from whom replies were required. Neither of these suggestions was accepted by the Govemment Statistician. The Recmiting Committee therefore contacted all the local authorities, offering their services as a clearing house for the expected replied. Before these plans could be implemented, the Commonwealth govemment set up a Federal War Council. A State War Council was also created. These bodies were then responsible for recmiting to which end the members of the Executive Council of the Queensland Recmiting Committee were appointed as a sub-committee to oversee recmiting within the State. 59

Despite the shortage of recmits, all those who might have been eligible were not accepted. One such person, by the name of Staehli, who had been rejected because of his German-sounding name, approached the Archbishop, because of his involvement with recmiting to further his application. Donaldson replied:

56 Michael McKeman, Padre-Australian Chaplains in Gallipoli and France (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1986), p.27. 5^ Queensland Recruiting Committee Executive Report, 9 Mar 1916, JO. 58 Ibid 59 Ibid 204 1 have been in communication with the Chief Secretary's office about your application for a recommendation from the Premier and the Home authorities, with a view to enlistment in the Army: but 1 fear circumstances will prove too much for

As you know, feeling is running very high about enemy subjects, and endless difficulties immediately arise in the way of anyone with a foreign name. 1 represented - whc.t I believe to be the case - that you are of Swiss and not of German parentage and that your loyalty is undoubted: but on hearing the government's side ofthe case, I w^s unable to press my application further on your behalf I think therefore that yoi: must accept the fact that your application is refused. ^^

By mid-1916 it was obvious that enlistments were not keeping pace with requirements, and conscription was being considered. Donaldson did not specifically mention the recmiting campaign in his address to the June 1916 diocesan Synod, but with only one 'no' vote. Synod passed a motion in favour of compulsory service, a fact subsequently used by the leader writer in the Brisbane Courier as evidence that the country was in favour of what the synod termed 'the nationalisation of the manhood of Australia: conscription by another name'. ^^ Donaldson thought that those who considered conscription urmecessary were 'selfish and contemptible' and that responsible opinion in Queensland would speedily come to see the necessity of 'loyalty to the Commonwealth govemment in the enforcement - unpleasant though it may be to us all - of a temporary measure of conscription'. ^^ Donaldson sent a copy of the synod resolution to W. M. Hughes, the Prime Minister, assuring him that it represented the 'solid opinion' of the vast majority of churchpeople in 'all classes of society'. Donaldson's letter continued:

I venture to add that, like thousands of others, I have followed your utterances in England with the greatest interest, and now look forward to your leadership of the Commonwealth with very great hope. I believe that in following a great constructive national policy you will rally round you a vast consensus of moderate opinion on both sides ofthe line which divides Australia politicly. ^3

The Church Chronicle reflected Donaldson's views: 'In tmth the referendum issue is a moral rather than a military one. The real stake is the soul of Australia... It carries with it the whole moral future of our country'. ^4 xhe views of General Synod, on conscripfion when it met in October 1916 coincided with Donaldson's. The motion calling for a 'yes' vote was passed without abstention, accompanied by the singing of the National Anthem. ^^

60 Donaldson to Staehli, 6 Mar 1916, AA 61 ChCh.. 1 Jul 1916. "2 Donaldson to Airey, undated, AA. 63 Donaldson to Wm Hughes, 12 Aug 1916, AA. ^ ChCh. 2 Oct \916. 65 Michael McKeman, Churches at War. p.l 16. 205 The issue of conscription 'split both the Labor party and the nation', and the first conscription campaign was seen to be 'a political watershed'. ^^ Outside the Synod, what was expected to be a straight forward debate on the pros and cons of conscription soon developed first into a racial sectarian dispute and then into a religious sectarian one. Donaldson's views were not echoed by the State Labour govemment, which included a number of Irish Catholic members. The anti- conscription campaign was opened at a meeting in Brisbane on 28 September 1916. The President ofthe A.W.U., W. J. Reardon, presided. Principal speakers were T. J. Ryan, Premier, and E. G. Theodore, State Treasurer. ^^ Shortly afterwards, J. Fihelly, a Cabinet Minister, with memories of the Dublin Easter uprising fresh in his mind, caused a storm of protest when he expressed his anti-conscription views at a function at the Irish Club, in which he suggested that 'every Irish-Australian recmit' meant another soldier 'to assist the British govemment to harass the people of Ireland' and which he concluded by saying, 'Why not build up a great nation in our open spaces here rather than stick to a wet little island...' ^^ Fihelly's remarks were emphatically disapproved of by the Brisbane Church Federation, ^^ who regarded them as 'offensive and disloyal'. ^^ So strong were the anti-conscription feelings of the govemment, that John Adamson, ^^ Minister for Railways, was forced out of Cabinet because his pro-conscription views were at odds with those of his colleagues.

Donaldson's enthusiasm for conscription was not embraced by Archbishop Mannix in Melboume who considered that 'Australia has done her fiill share, and more' and believed that 'an honourable peace' could be secured without conscription in Australia, 'for conscription is a hateful thing, and it is almost certain to bring evil in its train'. '^^ Archbishop Cerretti, the Apostolic Delegate, thought that the Church had no right to direct its people how to vote on the subject: 'The members of the Catholic Church are free citizens, and as such should record their votes in accordance with the dictates of conscience'. "^^ This opinion was repeated by the Rev. Fr M. Lane, a Roman Catholic Priest in Ipswich, who gave as the reason for his Church's neutrality on the subject, that it was the business ofthe Church 'to study the interests

66 Greenwood G., ed., Australia: A social and Political History (Sydney. Angus & Robertson (Publishers) Pty.Ltd., 1955), p.271. 67 BC, 29 Sep 1916. 68 BC. 19 Oct 1916, 20 Oct 1916. 69 It was not possible to identify individual members ofthe Brisbane Church Federation. '0 BC, 20 Oct 1916. 7' Adamson was a Primitive Methodist preacher and then became an ordained Presbyterian minister shortly before his election to Parliament. 72 p. O'Farrell, P., ed... Documents of Australian Catholic History, vol II1884-1968 (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969), p27l, and Advocate 23 Sep 1916. '^ Cerretti to Duhig 2 Oct 1916, quoted in Advocate, 14 Oct 1916. 206 of souls.' ^"^ He also pointed out that when non-Roman clergy made statements in favour of conscription, for instance, it was acceptable, but when a Roman Catholic priest, speaking as a private citizen did not side with the expressed views of the pro- conscriptionists, it became a sectarian issue. '^^ Duhig, at first a great supporter of recmiting campaigns, was originally a pro-conscriptionist, but later some of his ideas were qualified which led to his views being idenfified in the minds of some with those of Mannix. Eventually Duhig 'virtually withdrew from the debate leaving it to the extremists amongst the Irish nationalists'. ^^ As the State govemment was so strongly against conscription, and the Roman Catholic Church had officially declared a policy of neutrality, 'but every prelate of those who spoke publicly, spoke against it', '''' the Church of England and the nonconformist Churches became the main forces in moulding opinion in favour of conscription. ''^ Their efforts, however, were in vain. The coal strike, which closely followed on the referendum was seen as 'part and parcel' of the plans to prevent the referendum's being passed. Garland was 'very ashamed' at the result, and thought that half the population of Australia had voted 'from sheer selfishness'. ^^

The defeat of the referendum was a bitter pill for individual members of the Church to swallow, not the least of whom was Donaldson, who was stimned by what he regarded as 'a great calamity'. ^^ The result of the 'no' vote, according to Donaldson, who had taken no active role in the campaign, was 'sectarian bittemess against Rome'. ^^ Donaldson's 'great object' was to keep the Church out of the sectarian campaign. The Church should fight Rome hard on the strict doctrinal question, but it was the business of the citizens to fight her on the 'question of loyalty and good citizenship'. ^2 Donaldson considered the 'no' vote resulted because 'our democracy is not mature enough to appreciate the responsibilities of citizenship. The question of the referendum was putting the decision of a great political issue in the hands of children'. ^^ The lead that the country now wanted was from 'the spiritual side', according to Donaldson, who wrote to the Primate in an effort to push Wright into national action. Donaldson thought that a manifesto signed by all the religious heads 'might pull together, at the call of patriotism in the highest sense, all our

74 BC. 10 Oct 1916. 75 Ibid 76 George P. Shaw, Conscription and Queensland - 1916-1917, B.A. hons thesis. University of Queensland, 1966, p.l28. 77 Garland to Maitland Woods, 29 Nov 1916, Garland papers, JO. 78 Garland to Maitland Woods, 3 Oct 1916, Garland papers, JO 79 Ibid 80 Donaldson to Wright, 1 Dec 1916, AA. 8' Donaldson to Rev. H. E. Hone, 13 Nov 1916, AA. 82 Ibid 83 Donaldson to Bp. ofNorth Queensland, 30 Nov 1916, AA. 207 scattered and divided forces'. ^'^ He outlined to the Primate the points which should be stressed, including the fact that the religious world believed that not only was the war righteous, but was essential to human progress. 'A German victory would put the clock back by centuries'. The manifesto should also call on all citizens to support the government's new recmiting scheme. The document should be signed by the Primate, Monsignore Cerretti, and the heads of the other Churches, 'and then I think we ought to try in each State to issue your manifesto with a covering letter signed by the State heads of denominations'. ^^ Donaldson conceded the 'immense labour' involved but hoped the Primate would at least consider the suggesfion. Donaldson's disappointment with the country's response to the referendum was plain, and despite his intense efforts to bring the Church's infiuence to bear on public opinion, and to quell the bitter sectarian debate which empted, he was unable to achieve his purpose.

A few days later Donaldson retumed to the recmiting campaign. In another letter to the Primate he wrote:

It seems to me that the conflict over the referendum has left a certain paralysis in the Commonwealth, and the disjecta membra of our body politic lie scattered without cohesion, and so incapable of action. The politicians cannot help us. Individuals cannot help us. But I do think that possibly the religious world might do something now. 1 have set down in the accompanying memorandum the precise message which I want to give to the nation at this moment... °"

What he wanted to make clear, without giving offence, was that national unity was impossible 'where the Irish continue to scheme to jump the country for their own race'. Although Donaldson gave no expression of his general attitude to the Irish what ever it might have been, it developed into antipathy because of what he saw as their lack of patriotism to the country and to the Empire. The appeal was to be made on racial rather than on sectarian lines, and Donaldson foresaw 'a battle about this in Queensland'. The Protestants were 'all rampant', he said, and were looking to him for a lead in an anti-Roman Catholic cmsade. ^^ Donaldson's suggestion failed. The Primate's response was a circular letter of 4 December, conceming a pronoimcement to be made by 'the chief heads of the religious world' which was merely an appeal for the support of the govemment. Donaldson was not satisfied and thought that something might be done in Queensland along the lines he had suggested. ^^

At about this time Donaldson was invited to join the newly formed Protestant Defence League, an invitation he politely refused as his participation would inevitably

84 Ibid 85 Ibid 86 Donaldson to Wright, 6 Dec 1916, AA. 87 Ibid. The manifesto did not survive. 88 Donaldson to Wright, 8 Dec 1916, AA. The circular did not survive. 208 fuel the sectarian issue. Tme to the Archbishop's prediction the Protestant Defence League quickly became embroiled in a sectarian war of words. ^^ His anxiety in the present situation, however, led him to believe that the main task was to bind together 'the different racial elements in a genuine and stable unity'. This was demanded by Christian principles, and sound statesmanship, and even ordinary common sense.^^

Protestant feelings were still inflamed as reminders of the Roman Catholic opposition to conscription continued to circulate in pamphlets. None was more infuriating than Australians Awake in which Father O'Keefe, was reported as saying in Bowen on 15 October 1916:

I hope that the hands will wither of all those who vote for Conscription; that God will tum all those from voting for Conscription. If Conscription is granted there will be Civil War in Australia, and I will fight with the rebels to the last drop of my blood.

Protestant Australians perceived Irish Catholics here, as in Ireland, to be shirking their responsibilities in the war effort. Donaldson questioned the statistics of the number of Roman Catholics enlisting in the armed services, and had asked his friend Ramsay for his opinion. To Donaldson's discomfort, Ramsay did not agree with his assessment of the proportion of Roman Catholics serving in the Australian army. The figures Donaldson had received, according to Ramsay, were incomplete and were generalizations. Donaldson could not understand who was holding back the full figures - the army or the politicians - but if they were released and the Roman Catholics were in the clear, he for one would 'rejoice to vindicate the R.C's the moment the facts are clear'. ^^

Sectarian issues empted into full-scale discord, which was at the very least unhelpful to the recmiting campaign. In Queensland the anti-Irish, and therefore anti- Roman Catholic feeling spilled over into politics. The two issues became entwined, but the touchpaper that ignited the blaze were sermons preached at St Mary's, Kangaroo Point by the Rev. H. Gradwell on 31 December 1916, and at the cathedral by Le Fanu on 'political righteousness' on 7 January 1917, the special Day of Prayer for National Unity. The gist of Gradwell's sermon was that a forthcoming State election was to be fought on sectarian lines. If this were the case, a close inspection of 'the religious faith of all those who had entered the govemment service in the last five or seven years would be interesting, and show that the Labour govemment had given preferential treatment to Roman Catholics'. ^^

89 BC. 19 Oct 1916, 20 Oct 1916. 90 Donaldson to N. McKenzie, 14 Dec 1916, AA. 91 DonaldsontoRamsay, 2Mar 1917, AA. 92 BC. 1 Jan 1917. 209 Le Fanu drew attention to what he considered was the drift of State politics into the American method ofthe appointment of permanent officers according to their political views. He instanced the appointment of a cabinet minister to replace Adamson, where Coyne was the obvious choice, but where the appointment was prevented by 'a block vote of Roman Catholics in the party for a Roman Catholic candidate'. ^^ Gradwell's and Le Ftnu's remarks were at variance with the contents of an open letter to the people of Quf;ensland issued by the Queensland bishops at the start of the new year, which read in part: 'The obstacles in the way of unity are obvious in the case of a new country like ours, whose development depends upon the welding together of the differing racial, social, and religious elements which have here made their home', ^^ but Gradwell and Le Fanu were voicing the disquiet ofthe non-Roman Catholic population at what was thought to be preferential treatment of Roman Catholics by the Ryan Labour Govemment. When Mr T. W. McCawley, Under Secretary and Crown Solicitor, and close friend of Duhig, was appointed President of the Court of Industrial Arbitration, over the head of the older and more experienced Judge Macnaughton, the move was seen as stacking the public service with Roman Catholics. Despite these Protestant views, the fact was that Ryan had inherited a public service in which a number of senior positions were already held by Roman Catholics, appointed by earlier non-Labour ministries. ^^ Duhig's response was swift. He took Le Fanu's remarks as a personal attack, and staunchly denied that he had ever tried to influence the govemment in any way, a claim which he would find difficult to sustain. ^6 xhe sectarian feud had started with the conscription referendum, Duhig said, and he would take the same stance if another referendum were to eventuate, and that was that enlistment was not a church matter but a matter for personal decision. He deprecated the inference that the Irish-Catholics had not played their part in the war, and he was also against all forms of bigotry. ^'^ The following day he expanded his views. There were two obvious reasons for the opposition being shown to Catholics in Queensland, he said. First, there was a Labour govemment in power, 'and on the reiterated confession of some of the most celebrated prelates of , that Church has never had much sympathy either with Labour or vsdth the poor'. The second reason was that for the first time in nearly twenty years, the State had a Catholic Premier.98 Theodore, then Acting Premier, was also swift to deny that religion had played any part in recent public service and

93 DM, 8 Jan 1917. 9'* Bundaberg Mail. 1 Jan 1917. 95 Ross Fitzgerald, From 1915 to the Early 1980s. A History of Queensland {Brisbime: University of Queensland Press, 1984), p. 13. 96 T. P. Boland, James Duhig (St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1986), p. 145. 9^7 DM, 8 Jan 1917. 98 DM, 9 Jan 1917. 210 go\'emment appointments. It was almost unbelievable, he said, that 'a high Church dignitary should give credence to idle mmours in regard to alleged sectarianism influencing the government'. ^^

The anti-Roman Catholic correspondence in the papers ^^^ was sometimes coupled with Fihelly's anti-conscription utterances of 1916. The Church Chronicle also linked Fihelly's remarks to both situafions. '^^ The editorial in the Telegraph on 8 January 1917 drew attention to 'the serious danger' the forthcoming recmiting campaign was in because ofthe sectarian controversy. Le Fanu did nothing to reduce the heat when, a few days later, he replied to Duhig: 'Archbishop Duhig has chosen to take the matter as a personal attack upon himself From the bittemess of his tone, it seems that the cap fits'. ^^^ Through all this Donaldson remained silent. Duhig continued to refute the claims of inequity of enlistment of Australian Roman Catholics with the questionable argument that of all the countries represented amongst the Allies there were twice as many Roman Catholics as non-Roman Catholics. ^^^

After remaining aloof from the argument between Le Faun and Duhig, Donaldson added fresh fiiel to the fire in his address to Provincial Synod in 1917, which echoed the thoughts expressed earlier by Le Fanu and Gradwell about the Labour government's giving job preference to Roman Catholics, and accused Roman Catholics of being the chief offenders 'in the matter of sectionalism', and of being the only body which 'permanently moves in the political arena as a religious combination'. 104

Again, Duhig farmed the flames, and at the same time introduced fresh material to the controversy:

Archbishop Donaldson softens his allegations by admitting that Catholics are not the only, albeit the chief, offenders in these matters. One hopes that in saying so he had in his mind the subtle attempt made last year to pack the University Senate - an attempt that fortunately got a timely exposure in the daily press, and that probably led the Labour govemment to do all round justice in making its nominations to that August body. '"^

Donaldson did not pick up the gauntlet. 'After considerable agitation of mind' he had decided not to reply. Le Fanu had collected 'some excellent ammunition' but it was

99 Ibid '00 DM.. 5 Jan 1917. '0' ChCh. I Feb 1917, p.30. 102 DM, 10 Jan 1917. I^^ P OTarrell, ed.. Catholic History. No.44, cited in 77ie Age. Brisbane, 27 Jan 1917. 'O^^C/iC//., I Mar 1917, p.43. '05 5C, 5 Feb 1917. 211 not certain that it would be 'a knock-out blow' which was what was needed. Meanwhile, but in vain, the Chief Censor pleaded for peace in the interests of recmiting. ^^^

Mannix kept controversy alive. When opening a new Roman Catholic church in Brisbane on 11 Febmary 1917 Mannix reiterated his remarks about the war being 'a trade war', and that the Irish in Australia were a persecuted people 'and would continue to be so, so long as they had in Australia the State system of education...' '07 The editorial in the Brisbane Courier on 13 Febmary 1917 castigated Mannix for his statement and made the point:

Australia is fighting for no sordid gain [trade war]. She is fighting to protect the very liberty which Archbishop Mannix himself abused on Sunday aftemoon: she is fighting to prevent the Commonwealth coming under the Pmssian heel.

A short time later, when speaking at Clifton, Duhig again raised the subject of sectarianism, denying that he or his Church had ever played any part in it, and asked his 'accusers' to come forward with proof of the allegation. ^^^ This time Duhig's challenge was too much for Donaldson to ignore. Donaldson quoted instances of what he saw as sectarian influences of the Roman Catholic Church in politics, the 'Imperial and Patriotic sphere', the press, and business, and said that it was with 'the greatest reluctance and aversion' that he mentioned these matters. It was not his way, Donaldson said, to enquire into 'the faults and errors' of his fellow-citizens, and he repeated that the matter did not concem the religious beliefs of Roman Catholics whose loyalty to their Church and faith was an example to everyone, but of their practices as citizens. The matter was now 'before the tribunal of the public' and he had no doubt as to its verdict, and he had broken his silence for the last time. ^^^ Donaldson had prepared at an earlier date an undated typescript obviously to be used in his reply to Duhig. ^^^ As was to be expected, the leading article in The Catholic Advocate took up the cause, ^ ^ ^ and two days later Duhig made a statement in the press refiiting Donaldson's examples. * ^^

The issue until that time had been more or less confined to an argument between the Anglican and Roman Churches, but in his reply to Donaldson, Duhig referred to a statement made by Dr Merrington of the Presbyterian Church, which

'06 Donaldson to Bp ofNorth Queensland, 15 Feb 1917, AA. '07 BC, 12 Feb 1917. 108 BC. 25 Feb 1917. '09 BC, 27 Feb 1917. "0 For typescript see Appendix I. Donaldson had also verified his facts re success of RC students in public examinations. See Donaldson to T.M.Hall, 13 Feb 1917, AA.. Hansard, p.23, 1661897, his address to Provincial Synod 2 Feb 1917, and Darvall to Donaldson, 7 Feb 1917, AA. ^^^ Catholic Advocate, I Mar 1917. ' '2 DM., 3 Mar 1917, Brisbane Telegraph, 5 Mar 1917. 212 invoked an angry reply from Merrington. ^13 Merrington had preached a sermon on sectarianism on 14 January 1917, the day of Archbishop Dunne's ftmeral. The subject had been selected a week before Dunne's death and printed in the order of service. Upon hearing of Dunne's death Merrington prefaced his sermon with a tribute to 'the venerable and peace-loving Archbishop'. Replying to Duhig's remarks, Merrington went on to say 'If the peace-loving disposition of the late respected prelate had prevailed, the present sectarian issue would never have been thmst upon the community, least of all in the midst of this terrible war...'

Donaldson had tried in his own mind to separate from religion the two issues as he saw them: Australian-Irish Roman Catholic disloyalty to the country, and the perceived push by Roman Catholics for political power. Donaldson mentioned this in his address at Provincial Synod, and again in his reply to Duhig, but Donaldson did not understand that Australian-Irish Roman Catholics equated nationalism and their religion. While trying to remain aloof from civil issues Donaldson was prepared to make his feelings known in regard to army enlistments, but eventually he rose to Duhig's fly over the issue of Roman Catholics in govemment giving preference to their co-religionists in the civil service, and had to make public his own views on the matter. By doing so, even though he said that it would be the only time he would so defend himself, Donaldson lost any advantage he might have had. And so the war of words continued, a war which saw no peace for many years.

Meanwhile, the Archbishop's mind was retuming to conscription. The Queensland Recmiting Committee had 'battled with great loyalty and great tenacity for the voluntary system' but the voluntary system had 'become a farce' in Donaldson's opinion. ^^"^ By 1917 the 'jingoistic enthusiasm' evident before the start of the war had completely faded. The 1916 referendum had failed and recmiting continued to decline. The Mackinnon scheme for compulsory home service had not produced further recruits for overseas service. Ofthe 15,500 men in the twenty-one to thirty-five years age group, eligible for home duty in the 1916 call-up, half had obtained exemption, and the other half 'had emerged from the compulsory service more case-hardened than ever'. ^ ^^

Despite the result of the 1916 referendum, by mid-1917 Donaldson was feeling more optimistic:

' '3 Brisbane Telegraph, 5 Mar 1917. l'""4' DDonaldsoo n to Capt. Dash, 28 Jul 1917, AA. ""5L^ L. . L. Robson, 77ie First A.IF.: A Study of Its Recruitment, 1914-1918 (Melboume: Melboume University Press, 1970), p.135. 213 I believe that a definite change has taken place since the referendum of October last; and it is quite likely that a new referendum would reverse the verdict then given. ' '^

The situation should be reviewed, and while he understood that the govemment could not itself reverse its policy after the pledges it had given, it could dissolve Parliament and appeal to the people. This he thought was the only democratic way. 1.17

Donaldson's wish was granted. He saw the govemment as 'staking Australia's future on a single throw'. Depending on the result, Australia would be able to hold its head high and take its proper place in the Empire, or would hang its head in shame. He predicted 'terrible bittemess' in the campaign, as Mannix had 'frankly raised the standard of rebellion' and 'had called forth considerable violence on the other side'. Mannix was harping on the string 'Australia first and the Empire second' which, said Donaldson, he applied also to Ireland in favour of Sinn Feinism. He was sure that the Roman Catholics would vote pretty solidly against conscription, as would extreme labour, and also the farmers in the south, 'for selfish reasons'. ^'^ If the referendum were passed, Donaldson expected the Church to come in for some unpopularity on account ofthe exemption of clergy, but for his part he was in favour, at whatever cost to the Church, of granting leave to a proportion of the younger clergy for non- combatant war work. 11^

Donaldson badly misjudged the political mood of the country. To many Protestants and Anglicans the words Roman Catholic and Irish were synonymous. To be one was to be the other, and as we have seen, Donaldson believed that the Irish Roman Catholics were not pulling their weight in the defence of the Empire, particularly when it came to enlistment. To make matters worse, the Premier of Queensland throughout the conscription campaigns was of Irish descent and a Roman Catholic, and was the leader of a Labour govemment. T. J. Ryan, and other Australian-Irish Roman Catholic members of his govemment, were not anti-war, but they were anti-conscription. 'Ryan had thoroughly supported Australia's involvement in the war and accepted the Allied goal of a total defeat of Germany', but in the first conscription referendum Ryan did not play a major part, as he was kept busy 'keeping together his own party and govenmient in the face of the conscriptionist forces -

"^ Donaldson to Dash, 28 Jul 1917, AA. There was no evidence to support a change of heart, and seems to have been wishful thinking on Donaldson's part. "7/6/rf '° Donaldson to Montgomery, 8 Nov 1917, AA. "9/i,v/. 214 newspapers, sectarian propagandists, commercial and big business leaders, and conservative politicians...' ^^^

By the end of 1917, when the second conscription referendum was held, in other parts of the country the mood was much the same. Sectarianism was raging, with Roman Catholics and thus disloyalists and anti-conscripfionists on one side, and Protestant loyalists and thus pro-conscriptionists on the other. Ryan, with a firmer hold on govemment by this time, and as the only Premier to hold out against conscription in the first campaign, became the target of conscriptionists and sectarianists in the second campaign. 1^1 Because of his anfi-conscripfion senfiments Ryan came into conflict with the Prime Minister, Hughes. He leapt to national notoriety when an egg was thrown at Hughes at Warwick, as he was perceived to be the leader of the anti-conscriptionists. The anti-conscriptionists won the day and when the referendum was finally held the majority 'No' vote was overwhelming: 116,588 as against the 'No' majority of 72,000 in the previous referendum.

When the second referendum failed, Donaldson's dismay was evident:

I write in the very dark day of Australia's history. Our latest referendum on conscription has more than doubled the No vote. What it means and what it bodes 199 one cannot at present determine. ''^"^ Donaldson had no doubt that whereas the women's vote played a large part in the defeat of the 1916 referendum, the defeat of the 1917 referendum was due to the Irish and the Labour vote and that each was a more decisive factor than the women's vote. 123

Before the war and during its early months, Donaldson had great expectations for the labour movement. He read The War and Democracy ^24 which he found 'suggestive, inspiring, and fiill of information which needs disseminating'. But what he chiefly owed to it was 'a certain revival of my hope in the labour movement'. The book, he said, set forth convincingly the development which was sure to come in the national democracies, and he was sure that in the long mn the war would vastly widen the outlook and enrich the experience 'of our own labour movement'. He needed a revival of hope, he said, 'for the bitter selfishness and want of consideration for their fellow men which characterises some sections have been shewing up in their ugliest

'•^0 Murphy Denis J., Joyce Roger, and Cribb Margaret, eds.. The Premiers of Queensland (St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, revised ed. 1990), pp. 213/211. '2' Murphy, D. ed.. Premiers, [short citation] p. 279. '22 Donaldson to Fr Kelly, 24 Dec 1917, AA. '23 Donaldson to Lawley, 24 Apr 1918, AA. '24 Seton-Watson, R. W. et al. The War and Democracy (London: MacMillan 1914). 215 fashion of late in England'.^^5 His revival of hopes for the Labour movement was short lived. Four months later Donaldson wrote: 'The ignorance and the wilfiilness of the child mind of Labour seems to present a desperate problem at the moment'. 126 His illusions were shattered when Meredith Atkinson of the Workers' Educational Associafion addressed thirty 'of the real leaders of the Brisbane Trades Hall' and one speaker after another expressed the opinion that it did not really matter whether they were under Britain or Germany! 'Their war was not a war against nations but against classes'. ^^^ Donaldson had seemed to think that the Labour movement could somehow bring about constmctive reform within the British Imperial family, but when Labour challenged that framework it lost Donaldson.

Donaldson found 'the whole tone of our political world depressing', and 'however wholesome and promising the Labour movement may be as a whole, there is no doubt I think that the political expressions of it in Australia have a different character'. ^^^ The Queensland Labour govemment, he considered to be 'in the hands of adventurers, and inexperienced adventurers too'. He constantly heard of 'crooked deals in the administration of various departments', but this, he thought, was perhaps due more to ignorance ofthe laws of fair dealing than to deliberate dishonesty. '^9

The discontent among unions during the war years, aided and abetted by the socialists, '-^^ and the strikes for increased wages and shorter working hours, received no sympathy from the Archbishop. The attitude of Labour in Australia he thought was 'utterly and abominably selfish'. Many of them talked 'seditiously and disloyally about their relation to the Empire'. ^^^ His feelings were those ofthe Round Table group of which he was a member:

During 1916 Round Table disenchantment with the Labour Party became complete. Opposition to conscription (except for a minority of the party) and increasing industrial unrest and strikes were simply beyond the understanding of most Round Tables. The failure of the referendum shocked them. It was no comfort that the No vote won by a very small majority. ^^^

'25 Donaldson to Zimmen, 21 Apr 1915, AA. '^" Donaldson to Zimmen, 12 Aug 1915, AA. '2'7 Ibid. Meredith Atkinson was Director of Tutorial Classes and Lecturer in Economic History, Sydney University 1914- 1917, and Professor and Lecturer in Sociology at Melboume University, 1917-1922. According to The Worker, 5 Aug 1915 Atkinson was to visit Brisbane during the following week and address a meeting ofthe Workers Educational Association at the Univeristy of Queensland. Neither the Brisbane Coourier or the Daily Mail made any mention of his address, and no other mention of his visit was found. '28 Donaldson to Davidson, 1 Mar 1918, AA. '29/6W. '•'O Frank Crowley, ed., A New History, p.328. '3' Donaldson to Mansbridge, 20 Mar 1918, AA. '•^2 Leonie Forster, High Hopes: the Men and Motives ofthe Australian Round Table (Melboume: Melboume University Press, 1986), p. 81. 216 With the defeat of the second referendum the Round Table's shame knew no bounds at this 'most deplorable humiliafion of Australia'. '^^ Donaldson's revised views ofthe labour movement did not alter with time. Labour had 'resiled from the Church' and however much the Church might have been to blame, matters could not be rectified by 'trying to lick labour's boots as far too many of our clergy and even bishops advise us to do'. He did not believe in the policy, he said, 'of becoming a labour partisan'. 134

Donaldson was especially disappointed with Hughes, the Prime Minister:

He has now shown that his hot Welsh blood makes him lose his head in an emergency, so that he makes disastrous mistakes; but far worse than that is the self- seeking with which he has managed to keep in power after having declared that without conscription his national govemment could not and would not carry on. It is a bare-faced piece of self-seeking for which he can never receive political forgiveness - not fi-om me anyhow. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Holman, is even worse: a slippery dodger whom I would not trust out of my sight.

Class feeling, he wrote, was very bitter. Before the 'actual vote the whole country was aflame'. Labour had threatened a general strike, and talked a great deal about 'rank disloyalty', and the Liberals muttered about civil war. Although the talk had abated since the referendum, 'the hatred and bittemess is still there'. ^^^

Towards the end of 1917, but before the referendum had been armounced, Donaldson lent his name to the newly-formed National Service League and proposed several ofthe League's objectives. The principal objective, which he suggested, was 'to assist in maintaining the supremacy of the British Empire and fostering the Imperial spirit' by a number of initiatives, the first of which was to obtain a just and honourable system of compulsory military service. ^^^ Donaldson suggested several alterations to his original proposal. He did not like the word 'supremacy' and wished the word 'Empire' to be altered to 'Commonwealth'. The opening sentence was then to read, 'To assist in maintaining the integrity of the British Commonwealth as a factor of vital importance in the world's progress, and in fostering the wider patriotism by...' Donaldson thought compulsory 'national service' was better than compulsory 'military service' as he was not prepared 'to force every citizen through the ranks'. What he wanted was to establish the State's rights to the service of every citizen in a time of war, but this did not necessarily involve military service. ^^^

133 Ibid '34 Donaldson to Blood, 28 Mar 1919, AA. '35 76;^. '3° Secretary, National Service League to Donaldson, 3 Oct 1917, AA. '3' Donaldson to National Service League, undated, AA. 217 Other planks in the League's platform were the elimination of all sectarian strife, the encouragement of purchasing British goods, with preference for Brifish labour, the prevention of persons other than Brifish from occupying any govemment, civic, political, naval or military posifion. The League also stood for the suppression of all publicafions in the German language as well as all publications giving utterance to anti-national sentiments. Enemy subjects were to be prevented from having a controlling interest in Australian companies or organisations. Existing naturalisation laws were to be maintained, and after the war tariff restrictions were to be imposed on German imports. To all of these Donaldson agreed with the exception ofthe harming of German language publications, the need for which he did not see in a country where so many still spoke German. ^^^ Donaldson's interest in the National Service League was superseded by his interest in the League of Nations when that body was formed.

The League of Nafions was a major subject of discussion at the 1920 Lambeth Conference and it was also the subject of debate at the 1921 diocesan Synod where Donaldson successfiilly moved a motion calling on all churchmen to support the League in various ways. ^^^ He was most anxious to have a branch ofthe League of Nations Union established in Brisbane. There were already branches in Sydney and Melboume and 'your humble servant is going to play up ugly if something is not soon done in Brisbane'. '^0

Donaldson was delighted to leam from the Bishop of Gippsland that a branch had been started in that diocese. He wished Brisbane was as far ahead, but it was hard to get people in Brisbane 'to think about anything except local politics and the sectarian issue'. ^^^ When there was a likelihood of a branch of the League of Nations Union being formed in Brisbane, he came to the conclusion that the Round Table should be disbanded for the time being. 'It was better we die by honourable suicide', he wrote, 'than by inanition'. ^^^ He was one ofthe prime movers in having a branch of the Union formed. A preliminary meeting was held in the Mayor's Parlour, and out of thirty-three invitations sent, twenty people attended. ^^^ Those attending decided to constitute themselves a provisional council. A provisional conmiittee of nine, which included Archbishop Duhig, was appointed and steps were taken to hold

'38/i/j, '39yBi921,p.31. ''*0 Donaldson to Bp of Bendigo, 21 Mar 1921, AA. '''l Donaldson to Bp of Gippsland, 18 Apr 1921, AA. ''*2 Donaldson to Graham, 19 Apr 1921, AA. '^3 Donaldson to Nathan, 4 May 1921, AA. 218 a public meeting on 4 August 1921, ^'^'^ to inaugurate the branch. The meeting was held at the Exhibition Hall with the Govemor as chairman. Sir Robert Garran from Melboume, Donaldson, and Duhig were the speakers. Donaldson apparently did not think it strange that two out of the three speakers were denominational leaders, 'for experience seems to show me every day that the only motive force towards peace in the world to-day is the force of Christianity... I meet with much apathy and not a little hostility on the subject in Brisbane'. ^^^ The Govemor was appointed President, the two Archbishops as vice-Presidents, and Gordon Gall, the Diocesan Registrar, as Honorary Secretary. ^^^ With a League of Nations firmly in place Donaldson seemed to modify slightly his earlier aspirations for an organic Imperial govemment, but he was not prepared for individual nations within the Commonwealth to pursue their 'inherent right' to their own diplomatic relations. 'I believe it would make for the stability of the Commonwealth if for the present we maintained a united diplomatic front', he wrote, and 'I should like to see Mr Hughes take that line'. '^7 HQ ^^g^ however aware of:

the sublime indifference of all Australians to the League of Nations [which] throws a most instructive light upon Australia's attitude just now towards the world. We are proud of our reputation, but we have not yet begun to think of our responsibilities. 148

From his earliest time in Australia Donaldson imagined the country developing a strong independent national identity but remaining a loyal child to the mother country. His delight in a burgeoning labour movement, which in part would help mould a national ethos, changed when his vision of an educated, culturally inspired working class was shattered by the reality of the warfare of class politics. His attitude to the sectarian issue which had been simmering for a long time but which boiled over during the war, was the same as his attitude to the 1912 strike, when he preferred to remain aloof rather than descend into polemics, and thus he projected an image of statesmanship. Where the defence ofthe Empire was concemed Donaldson was a 'hawk', not a 'dove'. He was active both in the recmiting campaigns and the referendum campaigns, the results of which caused him to change his opinion ofthe Australian people, but his passionate belief in the supremacy ofthe Empire and God's plan for it remained unshaken.

'44/6W. '45 Donaldson to Duhig, 30 Jun 1921, AA. '46 Donaldson to unknown recipient, 26 Sep 1921, AA. '4^ Donaldson to Eccleston, undated, AA. '48 Donaldson to Bp of Bendigo, 21 Mar 1921, AA. 219 CHAPTER XII

ONWARD, CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS

Fmstration was an enemy Donaldson knew well. For years he had been fighting it on many fronts, but the war produced new pockets of hindrance, one being with regard to the military chaplaincy service. The number of Anglican chaplains appointed vis-a-vis the number from other denominations, the way they were appointed, the conditions they worked under, and the problem of joint non-Roman Catholic church parades were matters which came in for the Archbishop's attention.

As Australia was a Christian country, it was incumbent upon the govemment to provide spiritual welfare for its armed forces. In 1913, when the likelihood of war was increasing daily, the Defence Department set about re-organising the military chaplaincy. A meeting was held at Victoria Barracks, Melboume on 31 March 1913 with the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist Church leaders. A separate meeting was accorded the Roman Catholics. Lt. Col. H. G. Chauvel, Adjutant General, represented the Army. The outcome of the meeting was that each of the Churches represented was to have an equal number of chaplains, but there was no provision made for the smaller denominations. When the decision was challenged by the smaller denominations, such as the Baptists and the Salvation Army, provision was made for those organisations also to appoint chaplains. The meeting resolved that in addifion to a Chaplain-General for each of the major denominafions, a Senior Chaplain would be appointed in each State for each denomination, who would nominate chaplains. In Queensland Donaldson became Senior Chaplain for the Anglican denomination. The Primate appointed Archbishop Clarke of Melboume as Chaplain General for the Navy, and Bishop Riley of Perth for the Army. This latter appointment was made because Riley had previously had some experience as an Army chaplain. In peace time it might have worked successfiilly but it was an appointment which caused problems during the war, mainly because of the slovmess of communicafions between one side ofthe continent and the other, and also because of Riley's unwillingness to act quickly and decisively.

After the outbreak of war, the Defence Department altered the 'equal number of chaplains' plan. Instead, it used the 1911 census figures as the basis for allocating chaplaincies within the various denominations. This decision was based on the questionable assumption that enrolments in the Army would be in the same numerical

220 proportions as the denominations indicated in the census, and was the cause throughout the war of much unhappiness between the Churches. '

Figures Donaldson obtained through the good offices of Littleton Groom showed there were discrepancies between the census figures, number of enlistments, and the number of chaplains appointed for each denomination. When Groom queried these stafistics the Adjutant General explained that at the next intake of chaplains the numbers would probably even out. In some cases it might be that the Church of England would be above its proper proportion and some of the other denominations might be below. ^ Donaldson wrote to Riley. He complained that in the case of chaplains appointed for continuous service, and based on the census population figures, the Church of England was four per cent below its entitlement while the Roman Catholics were four per cent above their quota and the combined nonconformist Churches were twelve per cent above theirs. The figures for chaplains 'for voyage only' showed that the Methodists and Presbyterians combined were thirteen per cent above their quota. The fact that the Church of England chaplains were two per cent over their quota did not worry Donaldson at all. The Adjutant General's explanation did not satisfy the Archbishop who considered it showed a guilty conscience: 'To me this reads fishy, and I should like to know whether his forecast has been fulfilled'.

In substantiation of his argument Donaldson quoted a complaint he received from 'the front' where the proportion of Anglican men in the 7th Infantry Brigade was at least sixty per cent, but there was only one Church of England chaplain to two Free Church chaplains. This was not so much of a problem while the Brigade was all together, but if it were to be separated, which sometimes happened for weeks at a time, some men would be deprived altogether of opportunities for Communion. Donaldson held it to be a 'grievous injustice that the proportion should be reckoned on the basis of the civilian census, and should have been reckoned on the percentage in the Army, but 'at least we have a right to demand that they be faithful to their own principle'. ^

In his letter to Riley, the Archbishop suggested that the Defence Department needed 'a little firm handling on the part ofthe Church of England'. The Chaplains General of the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Roman Catholics were all 'on the spot'

' Michael McKeman, Churches at War. p.40 — —, ...,..„.„,„.„ „. ,,„,, j^.-,„. ^ Adjutant General to Groom, 29 Oct 1915, AA. 3 Donaldson to Riley, 19 Oct 1915, AA. 221 and Donaldson had 'a suspicion, (though I cannot verify it)' that the Department 'was taking the line of least resistance' and was not giving the Anglicans 'a fair deal'. "^

So far as military chaplaincy was concemed, Donaldson went to the greatest lengths to see that the troops were not neglected in any way. There were inevitable bmshes between Church and Defence Department which were sometimes exacerbated by the distance which separated Chaplain General Riley in Perth from the Defence Department in Melboume and some of the problems happened because the Church had no unified policy. For this reason Donaldson wanted the matter discussed at the 1916 Bishops' Meeting which preceded the General Synod. Donaldson was sfill concemed with the distance and consequent delay in communications, between Perth and the Defence Department in Melboume. He suggested Riley appoint a commissary in Melboume as the only way of dealing with the Minister was to keep hammering him. With Riley safely away across the Australian Bight in Perth the Minister would continue to write curt refusals, but if a persistent agent in Melboume wanted to know the reason why, the Minister, Donaldson thought, would give in as he did to the Roman Catholics, and to all others who continually badgered him. ^ Riley was obdurate in his refusal to grant Donaldson's request, and there was nothing Donaldson could do.

Another bone of contention was the way chaplains were appointed. A problem was highlighted in a letter from the Bishop of Bathurst to Donaldson. Two of his clergy who had applied to go as chaplains were called up only to find that they had to buy their own uniforms, and they were discouraged to find themselves appointed to horse ships with fewer than one hundred men to minister to. This perhaps was the least of the problem. Bathurst wrote that everything was being done in Sydney to discourage the clergy:

Our Senior Chaplain [Wright] ridicules the whole proceeding. Tells them that it is no concem of his, that the bishops had no business to interfere with matters outside their proper concem, that they should leave such matters to 'soldiers' that they are blacklegging on other chaplains and are lowering the dignity of the Church etc. etc. 6

Despite the fime the war had been in progress there had been no improvement. Once their Senior Chaplain, in this case Donaldson, had given the Army the names of priests willing to serve as chaplains, they then had to wait for notification from the Army as to when they had to report for duty. Inadequate notice was being given for

4 Donaldson to Riley, 29 Oct 1915. AA. ^ Donaldson to Riley, 22 Mar 1916, AA. ^ Bp. of Bathurst to Donaldson, 13 Jul 1916, AA. 222 embarkation: priests were sometimes given less than 36 hours' notice to leave their parish and report for duty. Donaldson considered that Riley should insist that the military do better than that. 'I find my patience sometimes rather strained in my relations in view of the difficulties, delays, and confusion of the military world', Donaldson wrote. ^ His protracted correspondence with Riley came to nothing: Riley still refused to appoint a commissary in Melboume, and the Y.M.C.A. still appeared to have favoured status. ^ Riley's refusal to meet Donaldson's requests for information provoked a strong demand from the Archbishop. 'When may I expect an answer to my suggestion of January 24th 1918 to the effect that you should give us monthly or two monthly information with regard to the movements of chaplains? I have repeatedly referred to this (see my letters of December 4th 1917, January 24th 1918, and Febmary 28th)', he wrote, and:

I am somewhat puzzled at your silence. In my letter of 24 January I quoted some instances which I confess seemed to me to indicate muddle. I confess 1 wish you would write frankly and tell me why these things happen and what the difficulties are. I have consistently supported you as Chaplain General, though you have tumed down my urgent request that you should nominate a deputy in Melboume. I am certain that many of these muddles would not occur if you were represented there. You make it harder for us to support you against the Melboume and Sydney criticisms by your inaction and your silence."

There was no dearth of young clergy, and for that matter not-so-young clergy, willing to volunteer as chaplains, and there were more applicants than vacancies from the non-Roman Catholic Churches. ^^ That produced its own problems for the diocese because over time it meant that some parishes were deprived of their ministers, and there was little likelihood of more ministers being available for parochial duties during the war. But Donaldson saw the major problem was that a great many troops were deprived of spiritual ministrations, not only when they arrived at their destination, but also during the voyage.

Donaldson applied unremitting pressure to Riley to have the Defence Department increase the number of chaplains on each voyage, ^ ^ and on a visit to Melboume early in 1916, Riley was able to arrange that on all hospital ships there would be three chaplains, one Church of England, one Roman Catholic, and one for the other denominations. ^^ At the same time he requested further consideration be given to having three chaplains on each troopship. It would be considered, the

"^ Donaldson to Riley, 28 Feb 1918, AA ^ Donaldson to Riley, 24 Jan 1918 and 28 Feb 1918, AA. " Donaldson to Riley, 15 Mar 1918, AA. There was no indication of criticisms referred to, by Sydney and Melboume. '^ Michael McKeman, Padre, p.2 [short citation]. 1' Donaldson to Riley, 1 Dec 1915; Riley to Donaldson, 21 Jan 1916; Donaldson to Riley, 10 Mar 1916, AA. '2 Riley to Donaldson, 21 Jan 1916, AA. 223 Defence Department said, but the Army found it difficult to understand why when chaplains took it in tums with other denominations to have services in camps, the Church was not satisfied if there was for example a Methodist chaplain on board to minister to non-Roman Catholic troops. ^^ 'The matter must not be allowed to rest there', Donaldson wrote to Riley. 1"* Ensuing correspondence between the Archbishop and the military authorities, and between Riley and the military authorities went on, and just when it seemed that an impasse had been reached Donaldson received a telegram from Riley to the effect that the Minister had agreed to send three chaplains on ships carrying over 1,000 men, and unsalaried chaplains, when possible, on horse troopers having no salaried chaplains appointed to them. ^^

Riley's half-hearted efforts had brought little safisfaction from the Defence Department, but when the Y.M.C.A. was granted the concession of giving its secretaries the rank of captain and their rations, and they were allowed to travel on every troopship, besides being commissioned as chaplains at the Front, Donaldson considered this to be outrageous, and saw the object of the military authorities being to discourage denominationalism, and to divide religion into 'what they call "Catholics" and "Protestants" the latter of which are to be undenominational'. The Roman Catholic predominance was due, Donaldson felt, to the fact 'that we Anglicans have taken a friendly line with the Govemment, while the Romans take a cantankerous and obstinate line'. Donaldson was sure that the govemment would not listen to the Church of England unless it made itself disagreeable. The govemment did not care to be treated reasonably, and 'the only argument which weighs with them is polifical force. It is time we began to use this argument'. He held high hopes for the Bishops' Meeting to be held in May 1916 that the Church would speak with a united voice, 'such as will make any recurrence of the Minister's insolent answer to you of Febmary 3rd impossible for the fiiture'. ^^ Donaldson understood how difficult things were for Riley, he said, and attached no blame to him, although the implication of 'blame' was not far below the surface.

Garland entered the debate on 23 March 1916, when in a speech at the opening of the Church of England hut at the rifle range at Enoggera he claimed that the Church's request for parity with the Y.M.C.A., namely, to supply chaplains for every troopship and for the Front without stipend, had been denied. ^^ This drew an angry response from Dodds, the Adjutant General, who denied that any such approach

13/iW. '4 Donaldson to Riley, 10 Mar 1916, AA. 1^ Riley to Donaldson, 7 Jul 1916, AA. '^ Donaldson to Riley, 22 Mar 1916, AA. ''^Z)M, 24 Mar 1916. 224 had been made. '^ The Archbishop telegraphed Riley asking exactly what offer had been submitted. Riley's reply was not helpful. His request had dated from 25 August 1914, and had merely asked for a chaplain on each ship, 'adding I think I could find clergy willing to go with troops home for passage and expenses'. '^

The matter, however, did not end there. Major H. W. Pendlebury, DAAC, wrote to Donaldson as Senior Chaplain, Northem Division:

Chaplain Garland is to be informed that in entering into a public discussion on this matter he has distinctly contravened Commonwealth Military Regulation 232, and Standing Orders 115 and 116, and that such action could, under no circumstances, be tolerated with regard to a military officer, and it cannot be permitted in regard to a military chaplain. He is to be further informed that if he has any complain or grievance, he should represent the same to the District Commandant through the Senior Chaplain. -^^

Donaldson was concemed when, in July 1917, the Minister for Defence launched an urgent appeal for £10,000 to enable the Y.M.C.A. to establish rest camps in Egypt for recreational purposes for troops on leave. Garland believed that the Y.M.C.A. was establishing a monopoly of rest camps and were leaving the other denominations out in the cold. For the purpose of his argument he classed the Y.M.C.A. as a denomination. He thought the Church of England should be responsible for the moral and social welfare of its own flock, and suggested that the Church launch its own appeal. Garland wrote to Groom, who at the time was attached to the Defence Department, but his approach fell on deaf ears. ^1 Garland enlisted the help of the Soldiers' Church of England Help Society, and The Laymen's' Committee of the Church of England for Work among Soldiers, both of which societies passed resolutions deprecating the Defence Department's attitude. The purpose of these resolutions was to apply pressure to the episcopate in its tum, to apply pressure to the Defence Department. 22 Garland had already raised £6,000 through the Soldiers Help Society, 'a fair proportion' of which would be available for the huts. 23

Garland had misinterpreted the intentions of the Defence Department. Trumble, Secretary of the Defence Department in a letter to Riley made it clear that the Churches were free to supply huts of a denominational character within the rest camps for the spiritual welfare of the troops, 'which is definitely the fimction of the

^^ DM.. 25 Mar 1916. •9 Riley to Donaldson, 11 Apr 1916. 20 Pendelbury to Donaldson, 6 May 1916, AA. 21 Garland to Donaldson, 13 Jul 1917, Groom to Garland, 9 Jul 1917, AA. 22 Soldiers Church of England Help Society/Garland to Donaldson, 26 Jul 1917, AA. 23 Donaldson to Riley, 25 Jul 1917, AA. 225 military chaplains and not of the Y.M.C.A.'. 24 Garland met Tmmble and proposed that the Church be allowed to send a representative to Egypt to oversee the provision of Church huts or tents, the cost of which was to be home by the Defence Department. A clergyman could go as a chaplain for the voyage only. He confirmed to Tmmble the proposals raised at the meeting, his letter being countersigned by the Primate as concurring with the proposals. Garland was keen to go to Egypt to oversee the Church of England's facilities there but was anxious about his status. Donaldson, after some thought, suggested to Riley that Garland should go as Riley's deputy on a tour of inspection in Egypt and England. 25 The upshot was that Garland's proposals were accepted, and he went to Egypt as the representative of the Australian Church to supervise the installation of Church huts. 26

In 1916 Donaldson thought that the Church needed a bishop in Egypt, to oversee the activities of Anglican chaplains and the moral welfare ofthe soldiers. He suggested that the Bishop ofNorth Queensland, who wanted to go, would be the best man, although perhaps 'he is too marked a churchman'. Riley had himself offered to go to Egypt 27 but Donaldson thought Riley should not go, not because he would not be able to fix the troubles there, but because he was wanted too much at home. 28 A short time afterwards there was a disturbance when Donaldson leamed indirectly that Riley had gone for some months to act as Chaplain General in England. Donaldson wrote to the Primate seeking confirmation, and asking if a locum tenens had been appointed. 29 Wright apparently responded by saying that the military had appointed the Archbishop of Melboume as locum tenens for Riley. Donaldson questioned the right ofthe military to make such a decision. 'Was it not for you to approve his locum tenens?, he asked. A fiirther implied criticism of the Primate was made: 'It seems quite wrong that we should leam of these things [Riley's departure] through the Church Messenger and other Church papers... '.^^

Although outside his terms of reference. Garland reported the plight of chaplains to Donaldson, and urged him to approach Riley to apply pressure on the military authorities for more chaplains. ^1 Donaldson also received other disquieting letters from Egypt. One chaplain wrote:

24 Tmmble to Riley, 30 Jul 1917, AA. 25 Garland to Tmmble, 15 Aug 1917. 26 Tmmble to Commandant, Head Quarters, Cairo, 5 Oct 1917, AA. 2^ Dodds to Riley, 29 Feb 1916, AA. Dodds suggested to Riley that there should be a Chaplain General stationed in Egypt. Riley sent a copy of Dodds's letter to Donaldson. 28 Donaldson to Riley, 22 Mar 1916, AA. 29 Donaldson to Wright, 12 Aug 1916, AA. 30 Donaldson to Wright, 29 Aug 1916, AA. 31 Garland to Donaldson, 30 Dec 1917, AA. 226 Rightly or wrongly, many ofthe chaplains here, who have been out for any length of time, seem to have the regrettable impression that the Church in Australia has ceased to take any interest in their welfare. Of course this impression may be the result of that feeling of loneliness which comes to every soldier at the front. 1 have spent 3 Christmases on this front, but I don't remember any diocese having sent a corporate greeting to any chaplam. ^^

Garland suggested that a senior chaplain 'with full authority' be appointed to Egypt. Donaldson concurred with both these suggestions and as Garland was in Egypt, proposed to Riley that Garland be appointed. ^3 Riley was obdurate and it was not until 19 October 1918 that he replied to the Archbishop's request, saying that Garland was too old for such an appointment.

The appointment of chaplains to troop ships was one problem. Another, which became a very sore point, was joint denominational services overseas as well as in camps in Australia. In 1915 General Birdwood refused to allow Australian Church of England chaplains in Egypt to conduct separate Easter services, but compelled troops to attend combined services conducted by whichever non-Roman Catholic clergyman was available. The Rev. T. Tubman cabled the Archbishop that he had resigned his chaplaincy in protest. ^4 Donaldson urged Tubman to withdraw his resignation. He sent a copy of Tubman's cable to Riley, pointing out that Birdwood was acting contrary to the meaning of the spirit of the Australian Military Regulation 118, and urged Riley to take up the matter with the Minister of Defence. 3^ Riley eventually responded by saying that Australian troops in Egypt were under Imperial and not Australian regulations. ^^

Donaldson did not accept this and he insisted that Riley write to the Adjutant General pointing out that under Australian regulations combined services could not be held without the approval of the senior chaplains, and indeed under the King's Regulations soldiers were not obliged to attend services of any other denomination, so that whatever regulations Australian troops in Egypt were serving under, Birdwood was wrong. ^^ Dodds' response was merely that he had drawn the attention of the authorities in Egypt to the relevant regulations. ^^ The protest appeared to have the some effect, however, and the General Synod in 1916 confirmed Donaldson's stand when it passed a motion requesting the Chaplain General to make arrangements with

32 Maitland Woods to Donaldson, 11 Mar 1918, AA. 33 Donaldson to Riley, 19 Mar 1918, AA. 3*^ Tubman to Donaldson, 12 Apr 1915, AA. 35 Donaldson to Riley, 16 Apr 1914, AA. 36 Riley to Donaldson, 27 Apr 1915, AA. 37 Riley to Lt. Col. T. H. Dodds, 4 Jun 1915, AA. 38 Dodds to Riley, 29 Jun 1915, AA. 227 the military authorities 'whereby separate services shall be provided for Defence Forces.' ^^

All arrangements for Divine Service were to be made by the Senior Chaplains of each denomination in the State in which the service was to be held. This would not prevent two or more chaplains agreeing to hold combined services at any time with the concurrence of their Senior Chaplains. Riley commented on this latter proviso:

1 found that there was an idea that there were only two religions - R.C. and Protestant. You will see that no joint services can be held without the consent of the Senior Chaplain concemed. The Commandant cannot order them. '^^

The idea that there were only two faiths, Protestant (made up of the Church of England, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist denominations), and Roman Catholic, was no doubt given weight through the incidence of combined church parades which dated back to 1905. "^^ Again, in 1907 there had been a newspaper report of such a parade, this time conducted by Maitland Woods an Anglican priest and later a military chaplain, a Presbyterian, and a Methodist minister. 42 in peace time such parades appeared to be acceptable, but in time of war they were not. Nevertheless these earlier parades had set a precedent which was hard to erase.

In 1917 Donaldson was still waging a campaign both with the Army and with Riley over combined services at home. He was grieved that so little progress had been made towards the establishment of the principle of separate services, 'even among our own chaplains'. Could not Riley as Chaplain General request all Senior Chaplains to give him a retum of the methods adopted in the various camps? Riley should try to secure united action, and as he had the authorised Hints to Chaplains to refer to, Riley should insist upon all chaplains 'conforming to the letter and spirit of the advice given with regard to separate services'. ^3 When General Irving proposed a combined service for 22 April 1917, Donaldson wrote to him setting out his objections, and said that separate services had long been the mle in the First Military District. He concluded his letter by saying that his attitude was supported by the unanimous vote of the General Synod, and 'I believe the Govemor General is aware of these facts: anyhow I am sure that he would wish to respect the scmples of those who are responsible for the services'. 44 Donaldson was making the point that the

3" Proceedings of General Synod, 1916, p.52. 40 Riley to Donaldson, 28 Apr 1913, AA. ^^ BC, 14 Aug 1905. 42 BC, 14 Oct 1907. 43 Donaldson to Riley, undated, AA. 44 Donaldson to Irving, 12 Apr 1917, AA. 228 English Anglican establishment's insistence on separate Anglican services should be recognised as a distinct tradition.

Having achieved some sort of victory with regard to having separate services for Anglican troops overseas, Donaldson tumed his attention to aspects of immorality among the troops in Egypt. The tales ofthe troops' behaviour, which he had been told by 'unnamed individuals', were 'lurid enough' but the fact that there were some thirty thousand prostitutes in Cairo, mostly from Europe arii obviously drawn there by the troops, told its own tale. 45 So concemed was Donaldson with the question of prostitution and the moral welfare of the troops in Egypt, that he wrote to the Govemor General seeking information on the matter. 46 He knew, he said, of a report by General Maxwell, on prostitution in Egypt, but thought this would probably not be made available to the public. If this were so, could the Govemor General tell him what, for instance, was the number of prostitutes in Cairo, and what were the number of recorded cases 'which have passed through the hospital for V.D'? His anxieties were not substantiated by one chaplain: 'I know these men's' lives, and I am proud of the vast majority who are walking through the flames of temptation without the smell of fire on their clothing'. 47 Another chaplain thought the press reports were 'a bit over the fence and altogether give a false impression ofthe actual circumstances'. 48 Like so many other situations he tried to improve, Donaldson's efforts in this direction came to nothing, but through no fault of his own.

The war years were years of considerable finstration for the Archbishop. So far as chaplaincy problems were concemed, despite his efforts at the Bishops' Meeting in 1916 and at General Synod he was unable to achieve his aim of having a common policy within the Church with regard to chaplaincy. He was unhappy with the slowness of communications between the east and west coasts, and at Riley's apparent inactivity, to the point where he thought it necessary to intervene. He was not always successful; but to the extent that some of the problems were overcome, the success was due in no small part to Donaldson's unremitting efforts. As the war was coming to an end, Donaldson tumed his mind to the problems of post-war reconstmction, and to the re-establishment ofthe diocese on a peace time footing.

45 Donaldson to Riley, 10 Mar 1916, AA. 4° Donaldson to Munro Ferguson, 23 Mar 1916, AA. 4' Michael McKeman, Padre, p.34. ^^ Ibid. p.20. 229 CHAPTER XIII

NEXUS

When Donaldson came to Australia in 1904 it was under the mistaken impression that the Church in Australia was 'free and self-goveming'. ^ The impression had been heightened by a definite statement made by Dr Wirmington Ingram, Bishop of London, in a sermon preached at Donaldson's dismissal service when he said that amongst the differences Donaldson would find in Australia included 'the fact that the Church in Australia was absolutely free to order its own life and manage its ovm affairs'. 2 This was a mistaken opinion held also by Rev. B. Wilson:

The Australian Church is a perfectly autonomous body, bound by no legislative ties to the State, ...The Australian Church could revise the Prayer Book, devise minor orders, and appoint its own archbishop...^

The wrong impression Donaldson had been given may have strengthened his enthusiasm at that time, and for many years to come, to achieve autonomy for the Church in Australia. 4 His dream of autonomy stemmed from his belief in a strong Empire comprised of strong independent nations bound together by love of the Mother country. Such nations could be strong only if each had its own national Church:

In our own England, the invisible bonds of the Christian Church had bound the nation together before political organization had begun at all. And here, too, in Australia the Church has a great part to play. The young nation is growing up and is beginning to feel its strength. Like a young man it lies open to the temptations of its environment - its present moral life is in danger, its moral fiiture is in jeopardy. It is the power of religion which will be its safeguard... The Australian race will life if the Ausfralian Church bears witness to its true life. ^

Donaldson saw clearly the complex legal problems which lay in the way of autonomy, in the resolufion of which he wholeheartedly participated. He led the way in a great deal ofthe ground work which ultimately was be basis on which autonomy was achieved.

Until 1872 when the first General Synod was held in Sydney, there had been little cohesion in the Church in Australia because ofthe independent way the dioceses

1 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.79. 2 IbidIbid 3 St John's Parish Chronicle. June 1889, pp.3/4. 4 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.79. 5 YB. 1905, p.34. 230 had developed. The constitution of the Australian Church which resulted from that General Synod, and which lasted until 1961, was a stating point for an autonomous national Church, but the constitution lacked teeth in that it could not impose its mlings on the separate dioceses which jealously guarded their own powers and prerogatives, especially those pertaining to doctrine, and the majority of Sydney Anglicans, 'wary lest constitutional change impinge upon the diocese's independence, were glad that progress towards autonomy would be slow'. ^ Diocesan independence and diversity in doctrinal approach were two of the main factors which delayed the achievement of autonomy for the Church.

At the 1900 General Synod Saumarez Smith, Primate and Archbishop of Sydney, would not approve a proposal to change the name ofthe Church in Australia. The Very Rev. F. Goldsmith, Dean of Perth, apparently had written to some of the bishops suggesting that a more appropriate name could be found. 'Believing the proposal to be, in any case premature, and having some distinct objections to its being adopted', Saumarez Smith proceeded to pour cold water on it. After giving a number of reasons for his opposition to such an idea, he concluded that:

The Anglican Church in Australia caimot be accurately termed 'National'. There can be no established 'National' Church in Australia. The connotation of the term in England is retrospectively pertinent, historically allowable; but the position of the Anglican Church here is, by force of circumstances different...I think that the title 'Church of England in Australia and Tasmania is as dignified and significant and satisfactory a title as we could wish to have. '

The 1900 Synod made no attempt to change the nomenclature of the Church of England in Australia and Tasmania. Despite the wind of change that was evident at the 1900 General Synod, Saumarez Smith still retained the opinions he had expressed at the 1896 Synod, and closed his mind to any possibility of autonomy for the Church in Australia and Tasmania. He pointed out that:

the dioceses have been the broad factual basis upon which the crown of our united organisation rests, and that synodical authority, built upon a basis of consenting dioceses, seems preferable to and more likely to be permanent than a theory of ideal symmetry. °

'This bale of wool', as Webber described Saumarez Smith, 'was both weak and dictatorial'. ^ Donaldson saw something of this when the subject of autonomy arose.

° Stephen Judd & Kenneth Cable, Sydney Anglicans - A History ofthe Diocese (Sydney; Anglican Information Office 1987), p.208. ' Proceedings of General Synod, 1900, p.l 1. ^ Proceedings of General Synod, 1900, p. 10. ^ Geoffery Stephens, The Anglican Church in Tasmania. A Diocesan History to mark the Sesquicentenary 1992. (Hobart: Tmstees ofthe Diocese, 1991), p.l 17. 231 The Church in Canada achieved self-government in 1856, and in 1870 South Africa had severed its legal links with the Church in England, but not its spiritual links, 10 so there were precedents for Australia to follow. In Australia where autonomy was first mentioned at the 1890 General Synod, ' 'the relationship between the Australian and the English Church was complicated and its ramifications far- reaching. As the majority of Australian clergy had originally come from Britain, and a great many of the laity had either come from Britain or had connexions with that country, any consideration of a break with the mother Church, no matter how small, usually evoked emofional responses from clergy and laity alike. The difference of opinion was between 'those who clung to the idea of a Church with at least some connexion with the State and those who, tmsting in the Church's inherent rights and powers, wished to make it altogether free from State influence or control'. ^2 ^s Davis points out:

A distinction may be made ...between two emerging issues: autonomy for the Australian dioceses from the English Church, and the matter of unity and centralisation for the Australian dioceses as opposed to continuing regionalism. In the course of debate there was often confusion about the distinction between them 13

Davis quotes Rayner:

The movement for autonomy while in some respects distinctively Australian, was closely related to developments in England: and it is noticeable that it was from English leaders ofthe Australian Church that the impetus towards Australian Church autonomy came. ^4

and cites Donaldson and Clarke as examples 'of such English leadership'. 1^ i^ this Davis is correct, but with the exception of Bishop Stretch of Newcastle, all the bishops at that time were from England. It follows conversely that it was also English-bom bishops who opposed the movement.

At the 1905 General Synod the Bishop of Grafton and Armidale proposed a motion to the effect that the three archbishops and the Bishop of Perth form a conmiittee to obtain from counsel in England and in Australia an opinion as to the legal nexus between the two Churches and to consult with the Archbishop of Canterbury. ^^ According to Dimot and Batty it was Donaldson's influence which

'^ Giles, R.A., The Constitutional History ofthe Australian Church (London: Skeffmgton & Son, Ltd., 1929), p. 159. •' Ibid Henry Lowther Clarke, Constitutional Church Government in the Dominions Beyond the Seas and In other parts ofthe Anglican Communion (London: S.P.C.K., 1924), xi. 3 John Davis, Australian Anglicans and their Constitution (Canberra: Acorn Press, 1963), p.31. '4 K. D. Rayner, A History ofthe Church of England in Queensland, Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland 1962, p.378. '^ John Davis, Australian Anglicans, p. 30 [Short citation]. '" Proceedings of General Synod, 1905, p.76. 232 resulted in the motion being passed. '^ The Committee was to report in due course to the respective bishops of Australia and Tasmania.

Davis has it that the debate in the 1905 General Synod and the subsequent resolution to seek legal opinion was 'spurred on by over a decade of debate in Queensland at the diocesan and the provincial level'. ^^ There had been inter-diocesan debate certainly and much of the spade-work had been done but the Province of Queensland was not formed until 1905. In 1909 the Provincial Synod decided to approach each ofthe Queensland dioceses for approval of autonomy in principle.

Shortly after the 1905 General Synod, and before the nexus committee could formulate its requirements, Donaldson wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The relationship between the Australian Church and the mother Church had been discussed inconclusively at the bishops' meetings as well as at Synod. In Donaldson's view, 'it seems that the tme objective is an independent "Church of Australia and Tasmania".' This development would follow the lines of the secular govemment which gave a large freedom and independence to the Commonwealth, 'tmsting to the ties of blood loyalty, to keep a nexus close'. He believed, too, that such independence would aid 'our healthy development in accordance with the environment'. Donaldson then explained that there was strong opposition to it:

The Sydney party clings tenaciously to the Privy Council, fearing the growth of emerging tendencies; and Bendigo and Gippsland spoke strongly on that side at the bishops' meeting, and moreover the question of property was raised, and certainly one lawyer holds that any alteration at present would put us in the position of the Free Kirk in Scotland. ^^

Donaldson did not want to see a repeat of the Scottish problem owing to changes in name of the parties concemed but thought the difficulties could be overcome eventually, but at that time they were certainly strong, especially in Victoria and New South Wales where the Church was legally bound by State legislation - The Victorian Church Act of 1854 and the Church Property Act of 4 October 1866 respectively.

After indicating that it would be better to move slowly, Donaldson expressed his ovm view that 'a Church of Australia and not the Church of England in Australia is our tme objective'. ^0 Canterbury's response to Donaldson's viewpoint was caufious. He fiilly appreciated the 'bigness and possibly the urgency ofthe quesfion of

•^ Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.80. '^ John Davis, Australian Anglicans, p.33 •^ Donaldson to Davidson, 11 Feb 1905, A. letters, LPL. Donaldson was referring to the 1903-1904 case in Scotland when a minority of dissenters opposed a great majority of presbyters in the proposed union of two Presbyterian Churches in Scotland in 1900. The dissenters won the case and thus were able to claim all the assets ofthe Free Church. An appropriate settlement was eventually reached which divided the property fairly. 20 Ibid 233 nomenclature', especially as it applied to 'antipodean' relations with the mother Church. He thought, however, that in some matters 'aggressive assertion of independence of the home Church and its name' might tend to weaken the sense of responsibility of the mother Church for helping with men if not with money, 'a Church which some will say is eagerly claiming to set aside the old nomenclature and so weaken the old nexus'.

Davidson's concem that the nexus should not be broken without due consideration was exemplified by the Primate of New Zealand's 'moving towards an even acfive and vociferous repudiafion of any nexus with the home Church except the most shadowy'. 'He now acts', Davidson said,

in a way directly contrary to all home advice and conventional rule and relies upon his primatial position... to defy his own bishops and to denounce Lambeth and London and S.P.G. We have no check or hold whatever upon him.

The Archbishop voiced fiirther concems:

...We are going to become a great federation with no real head. And I therefore should be a little apprehensive of very rapid or thoroughgoing depreciation of the English name and the Lambeth headship.

The retention of the Privy Council as an of appeal, an idea held by the Diocese of Sydney, he said, was 'a simple mistake of fact'. Davidson concluded this long epistle by writing: 'My view is that you and those who like you are wise about home affairs, can be tmsted to preserve the nexus even if you sever the name'. Festina lente was Davidson's advice, and he expressed his confidence in Donaldson's ability: 'I can't say how thankful I feel that you are where you are'. 2' Davidson's attitude in 1905 was perhaps best summed up by Bell:

...Archbishop Davidson, though desirous of strengthening the fellowship of the different Churches in the Anglican Communion, as self-goveming Churches in communion with one another, was utterly opposed to anything in the nature of a patriarch with powers of govemment over Provinces outside his own. ^•^

Opinion within the Church in Australia was divided. There were those who would not even consider the possibility of severing the link with the mother Church, and those of wider vision, of whom Donaldson was in the forefront. When it came to considering what form such independence should take, Donaldson was of the same mind as Davidson. He did not envisage a patriarchy, extending from Australia, but he was firmly committed to the principle of self-government for the Church in Australia.

21 Davidson to Donaldson, 28 Nov 1905, A. letters, LPL. •^2 G.K.A. Bell, Randall Davidson Archbishop of Canterbury (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 3rd. ed., 1952), p.161. 234 Saumarez Smith wrote to Donaldson on 17 November 1905 suggesfing the lines on which the approach to Canterbury should be made by the committee appointed by the 1905 General Synod. Donaldson assumed that the Primate wanted Donaldson's comments on the points raised in his letter. Donaldson replied that his ideal would be that of completely independent Churches, the Church of Canada, of South Africa, of Australia. The question was, 'when does a daughter Church arrive at "years of discrefion".' If autonomy came too soon there was the danger of 'hasty and unwise alteration of formularies, and a lowering ofthe standards ofthe ministry'.23

That was Donaldson's ideal, but there were legal difficulties. He explained the advice he had had from Cumbrae-Stewart, a lawyer and member of his Diocesan Council.-^"* The position of each diocese in Australia was that of a voluntary association based upon the agreement or contract of its members to co-operate for Church of England purposes, and that the law ofthe Church of England was a term of that contract. It was thus not possible to diverge from the law of the Church of England without breaking the contract. Cumbrae-Stewart's fiirther advice was that every diocese held property for purposes in cormexion with the Church of England, and in his opinion this property could not be divested and used for purposes in cormexion with the Church of Australia without putting the Church in Australia in the same position as the Free Church of Scotland. Donaldson suggested that Cumbrae- Stewart's view should be looked at by the English lawyers. Donaldson considered that these two difficulties, the law of contracts, and the law of tmsts, could be got over by an act of Parliament, but Australia was too divided at that time 'to secure the passage of such an act'. Donaldson wanted a Church of Australia, but he cautioned against haste.25

Having dealt with the legal side ofthe nexus, Donaldson propounded his ideas with regard to the inherent liturgical difficulties. There was a demand in Australia for modifications in Divine Service because of circumstances. In places where services were not regular, for example, monthly, quarterly or even annually, the psalms and lessons were not always appropriate. Donaldson had authorised clergy in outlying districts to select their ovm psalms and lessons at their discretion. Another modification that required to be made was the length of services, especially in the case of Mattins and Holy Communion at 11 o'clock where the heat made this almost essential. While he did not approve of any abbreviation of the Communion Office he

23 Donaldson to Saumarez Smith, 4 Dec 1905, AA. 24 F.W.S. Cumbrae Stewart was a solicitor. He was a member of Diocesan Council and Cathedral Chapter, and helped draft die provincial constitution. He was foundation Registrar and Librarian ofthe University of Queensland, 1910. 25 Donaldson to Saumarez Smith, 4 Dec 1905, AA. 235 had authorised his clergy to abbreviate the administration by taking two or three at a time 'saying the full words of administration to each group', and the words 'Take and eat this' and 'Drink this' to each individual. This was the extent to which he had availed himself of the jus liturgicum, but he felt himself unable to enumerate any principles, and would like guidance as to the conditions under which a bishop might definitely set aside the mbric. 26

Because he had taken a leading part in the debate on the nexus in General Synod, and was a member of the committee which was to seek counsels' opinions, he undertook to have Cumbrae-Stewart prepare the case with the questions to which answers were sought. The case was eventually submitted in England to Lord Robert Cecil, Mr A. B. Kempe, K.C., and Mr Arthur Cohen, K.C., and in Australia to Mr Harvey, K.C., and Mr Adrian Knox, K.C., 27 both of Sydney.

Whilst on the one hand the various non-Roman Catholic Churches in Australia were talking about some form of federation, the Church of England in Australia was actively pursuing the means of breaking its legal ties with the mother Church. Donaldson spoke feelingly about the subject in his 1906 Synod charge, not only about ties wdth the mother Church, but also about the Australian Church's relations with Anglican communions in other countries, for instance, Canada, New Zealand, South Afiica, and the Episcopal Church in the United States. ^8

The formation ofthe different dioceses in Australia had been accomplished by varying legal processes, so that the legal restrictions applying to one diocese did not necessarily apply to another. The Diocese of Melboume was a case in point. Clarke, the Archbishop of Melboume, sought advice from the Archbishop of Canterbury with particular regard to the Church in Victoria. It had bound itself by 'Constitution Acts' not to alter any of the authorised standards of faith and doctrine of the Church of England until such alterations had been made by competent authority in England. He requested a mling as to whether or not all English decisions 'must necessarily be followed by the Archbishop of this diocese'. ^9

In the meantime, the Primate, before visiting England, wrote to Davidson setting out a number of 'notes and queries' regarding the nexus, which he intended to raise with the Archbishop during a forthcoming visit:

26 Ibid 27 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.81. 28 YB 1906, p.36. 29 Clarke to Davidson, 12 Mar 1906, A. letters, LPL. 236 1. Can we be ftimished with an opinion from your legal advisers on the subject?

2. How far is the 'autonomy ofthe Church in the colonies an ideal to be sought for? What amount of centralization in England is desirable? aliter, what should be the range and nature of our independent legislation in our Synod?

3. Exercise of jus liturgicum by bishops? Modification of mles for Divine Service necessary, as regards abbreviation and elasticity in some colonial conditions.

4. Confirmation of adults not brought up in the Church of England? Any regard to be paid to 'Roman' confirmation? ^^

Canterbury's reply to Clarke's letter coincided with Saumarez Smith's visit to England. In both cases Davidson refused to give advice on the questions asked. To Clarke, Davidson wrote that it was impossible for him 'to act or even speak officially' with regard to the exact nature of the nexus between the Church in England and the colonial Churches. The subject was 'complex and difficult in the extreme', and there was no precise precedent either in church law or in church history. He could not speak officially upon the legal points involved unless he did so in 'quite a different kind of document' drawn up after fiill consultation with legal people. This, he understood, was not what the Primate wanted. ^ ^

In his notes of the conversation with Davidson, Saumarez Smith recorded that in Davidson's opinion, legal experts would only commit themselves to any formal opinion if a request for such an opinion emanated from the committee appointed by the General Synod. ^2 Saumarez Smith forwarded a copy of his notes to Donaldson. The Archbishop, he said, 'was kind but very cautious' when dealing with the legal nexus:

His view evidently was that it MI be unwise for us to press for too minute investigation on a strictly technical basis. He recognised that we had more freedom of action here than the bishops had in the Church at home; and he intimated that, if we exercised that freedomwithi n reasonable limits of what was locally expedient, there would be little risk of severance from the mother Church. ^^

Donaldson took several months to reply to the Primate's letter. He had, however, given the matter a good deal of thought. In his reply he demonstrated again

^° Saumarez Smith to Davidson, 28 Apr 1906, A. letters, LPL ^1 Davidson to Clarke, 2 Jun 1906, A. letters, LPL. ^2 Memo by Saumarez Smith 2 June 1906, A. letters , LPLLPL. 33 Ibid 237 his clear thinking and firm grasp of the situation. The trend in all the country's development, political as well as ecclesiastical, was towards ultimate independence of England. 'My own belief is that the integrity of the Empire depends upon a clear recognition of this, and upon a wise and cautions policy framed accordingly'. The Church should recognise this as its ultimate goal, and to move, if it moved at all, in that direction. There was no need for immediate action, he said. 'I onl/ want churchmen ... to note the unalterable direction ofthe road'. ^"^

The reference given by General Synod 'to obtain legal opinion' was too wide for Donaldson. He proposed that the committee proceed by provinces, and 'collect the facts about the legal status of each diocese', and 'get legal opinion on the possibility of bringing the constitutions of the various dioceses in a province into line'. A report could then marshal the information, and 'would help materially towards clearing up a complicated situation'. ^^

In 1908 Donaldson retumed to England for the first time since coming to Australia. His time in England was 'made memorable by two great experiences',^^ the Pan-Anglican Congress, and the Lambeth Conference, which provided an opportunity for the hierarchy in England to reinforce their good opinion of his abilities. Donaldson's contribution to the Lambeth Conference lay in the counsel he brought to the committees of which he was a member. Of the subjects discussed at the Conference, the supply and training of clergy and reunion were perhaps the most important from his own point of view. No less valuable were the private talks he had with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others on the nexus.

One Lambeth committee of which Donaldson was a member reported on Organisation within the Anglican Communion (a) as a central consultative body; (b) as a tribunal of reference; (c) on the relations of Primates and Metropolitans in the Colonies and elsewhere to the See of Canterbury; (d) on the limitations of the authority of a diocesan bishop. Although this did not deal expressly with autonomy for the Australian Church, it was of great interest. Australia was well represented on that particular committee, the Bishops of North Queensland, Grafton and Armidale, and the Archbishops of Melboume, and Sydney also being members. Its report asserted the general principle of autonomy for national Churches within the Anglican Community. It believed that such national Churches would make their best contribution to the life of the 'Church Universal if allowed to grow up early in their

34 Donaldson to Saumarez Smith, 12 Jan 1907, AA. 35 Ibid 36 ys 1909, p.38. 238 own soil, and to develop under local conditions'. ^7 x^js^ ^QQ^ ^^^ Donaldson's opinion, as expressed in his letter of 17 October 1905 to Davidson.

The report ofthe committee appointed by the 1905 General Synod was sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury 38and the Primate's covering letter was quite brief and contained a disclaimer: 'I myself know nothing at present about the matter. The case was in preparation upon my arrival'. Enclosed with Wright's letter was one from Donaldson. After a suitable preamble requesfing Canterbury to obtain 'counsel's opinion in whatever direction you think best', Donaldson set out his own views:

My own conviction is that we ought to work for entire freedom in the colonial Churches relying more upon free intercourse than upon any legal enactment to copy the various national Churches sound in Catholic faith and practice. ^"

Such a resolution of the problem appeared to be far off, according to the lawyers. So tightly was the Australian Church bound to the Church in England that even in dioceses where there was consensual compact, as in Queensland, rather than local legislative Acts, it was not possible to make any alterations whatever in the Prayer Book without risking the loss of Church property. ^'^ If the lawyers found that English ecclesiastical law bound the Australian Church to the English Church, Donaldson would urge the provinces and dioceses to take whatever legislative action was necessary in their respective States to overcome the problem. In conclusion he asked Davidson for his own comments and advice, in addition to legal opinion. 41

Because of Davidson's absence overseas, it was not until 30 September 1910 that he replied to Wright's letter of 23 June, which was received too late for the 1910 General Synod. Davidson said he was 'impressed by the cleamess and the completeness ofthe statements which have been prepared', but he was not clear as to what he was expected to do with them. If, as he supposed, he was to take the necessary steps on behalf of the Australian Church, to obtain the best legal advice in England 'on the great question involved', it would mean submitting the documents to selected counsel through some English solicitor's office. This would involve the Australian Church in some expense, and he was not prepared to do so unless he was specifically authorised. Although he was anxious 'to be helpfiil in every way, I only shrink from taking immediate steps lest I should find afterwards that this is not exactly what you had intended...' and suggested a fiirther letter or telegram from

3' Conference of Bishops, p. 168. 38 Wright to Davidson, 23 Jun 1910, A. letters, LPL. 39 Donaldson to Davidson, 20 Jun 1910, A. letters, LPL. 40 Ibid 41 Ibid 239 Wright. 42 Wright wrote to Davidson on 20 December 1910 43 authorising him to proceed to get counsel's opinion, which was in accordance with General Synod's intentions. Donaldson, apart from writing the covering letter of 20 June which accompanied Wright's letter of 26 June, did not participate in any further correspondence at that time.

The legal opinion which was sought from England did not arrive in time for the 1910 General Synod, and could not be discussed by the whole Church until the next General Synod, which was not held until 1916, but the report, when it arrived had wide circulation. What was a major stumbling block in the way to autonomy was the different ways in which the various dioceses had been incorporated, and the Province of Queensland prepared to show how this impediment could be overcome. The 1909 Provincial Synod decided to approach each ofthe Queensland dioceses for approval of autonomy in principle, with a view 'to securing subsequently legislative sanction from the Queensland Parliament for the necessary amendments to their constitutions'. Provincial Synod also directed its standing committee to produce a draft bill to amend the Church of England Act of 1895 for submission to the diocesan Synods within the Province. 44

The draft bill was submitted to the Brisbane Diocesan Synod in 1911, and while that Synod assented to the general principle it decided to defer further consideration for a year. In the meantime the draft was submitted to the Diocesan Council for consideration and report. 45 So that the legal position might be clear, Donaldson asked the Chancellor for his opinion as to whether the Provincial Synod was independent ofthe General Synod, and in Chubb's opinion it was not. It had been founded by the authority of General Synod under Determination I of 1881. His conclusion was that:

the proposed legislation exceeds the limit of legislating for order and good govemment intended by General Synod in the Determination and I suggest that before parliament is invited to pass the bill General Synod should be approached in regard thereto. 4"

The Archbishop was not totally in agreement with Chubb's opinion. 'I do not think that the lav^ers have really bent their minds sufficiently to the legal aspects of the case', he wrote to the Bishop of Carpentaria. 47 in view of this he thought that

42 Davidson to Wright, 30 Sep 1910, A. letters, LPL. 43 Wright to Davidson, 20 Dec 1910, A. letters, LPL. 44 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson. p.81. 45 KS1912, p.l6. 46 Opinion, 28 May 1912, AA. 47 Donaldson to Carpentaria, 24 May 1912, AA. 240 Provincial Synod should not be asked to decide finally on the bill but rather it should be sent to a select committee for discussion of the technical points. He was also uneasy in case action by Provincial Synod might cut the province off from General Synod. Besides this, if the province were to proceed straight to Parliament without consulting other provinces or dioceses, 'it is likely to cause indigestion in other provinces and to retard ^he object we have ultimately in view, viz., the autonomy of the whole Church in i^.dstralia'. 48 For this reason, Donaldson was coming to the conclusion that after passing the bill through diocesan and provincial synods, it ought to be placed before General Synod for approval before going to Parliament. 49 Donaldson's intention was not for Queensland to act unilaterally in trying to break the nexus, but to show the other provinces how this could be achieved through each province securing appropriate legislation. Donaldson made clear his own views on how the Church should operate:

I will be no party to any step which would tend to foster Provincial Independence at the expense of the union of the Australian Church under the supremacy of General Synod. The only reason why we are taking independent action in Queensland is that we happen, by our constitution, to be more favourably placed than others for the purpose of trying a cautious experiment. ^^

Before the matter was discussed at the Brisbane Synod, Frodsham unwittingly stirred up a homet's nest. Preaching at the anniversary service for the S.P.G. in St Paul's Cathedral in London on 25 April 1912, he enunciated the growing consciousness within the Australian Church for the severing of legal ties with the Church in England and made a plea 'with England Churchmen not to place obstacles in the way of Australia realising self-government'. ^^ Shortly after Frodsham's address in London, the subject ofthe nexus was debated in the Tasmanian Synod, and there was strong condemnation of his speech. The Govemor of Tasmania, Sir Harry Barron, could not 'speak too strongly in favour of every effort being made to preserve the ties ofthe Church of Australia and Tasmania with the mother Church in England', and his remarks were echoed throughout the Synod. ^^ In the same debate it was reported that the Provincial Synod of Victoria had carried a motion affirming that no steps should be taken that would destroy the nexus between the Church in England and the Church in Australia. ^^

48 Ibid 49 Ibid 50 YB\9\ I,p.l7. 51 BC.26 Apr 1912. 52 BC. 20 May 1912. 53 Ibid 241 The Brisbane Courier of 1 June 1912 published an article written by the Australian correspondent of the Guardian, the leading Anglican paper in England at the time, in which the writer was for the retention of the nexus. After discussing the likely result if Queensland proceeded with having the proposed bill passed by Parliament, and discussing the legal opinion received from England, he concluded:

And should the counsel of the three eminent English barristers have the effect of conserving such national unity as the Ausfralian Church now possesses they will indeed have rendered signal service to the fiiture of the Anglican Communion in the Commonwealth. ^4

Such press reports would have left some mark on the minds of Synod representatives, and at the very least would not have been helpful to the cause Donaldson was promoting.

When the Diocesan Council's report was presented and a subsequent motion was put to the 1912 Synod, the matter was fully debated, but when it came to a vote the motion was lost 88 to 63. The clergy generally were for it, but the laity were against it. Despite Donaldson's eloquent arguments in his presidential address for the bill's acceptance ^^ the arguments against it won the day. ^^ They reflected a feeling that such an act would be disloyal to the mother Church in England, and a breaking with a cherished heritage. The result, a victory for lay conservatism, must have been galling for Donaldson who had tried so hard to move the Church forward.

The Synod debate was fiilly reported in the Brisbane Courier of 7 June, and was the subject of editorial comment. The writer perceived an analogy between strengthening imperial political ties, and strengthening imperial ecclesiastical ties, and considered the idea of breaking the nexus as being inimical to Empire solidarity:

The Empire must now therefore in the political sense seek practical forms of union to give embodiment and expression to sentiment, and it would have been a violation of the impulse now animating the Empire if the Anglican Church in Queensland, which enjoys both unity and common sentiment as shared with the Church in the Mother Country, had insisted upon differences leading to divergence, schism, separation and sectarianism. The triumph in favour of unity and peace is one in which all parties, clergy and laity alike, will rejoice in the course of events. ^7

The Hon. Littleton Groom, a firm supporter ofthe Archbishop, did not see the situation through the eyes of the editor of the Brisbane Courier. He conceded that those who voted against the resolution had genuine concems. Nevertheless the subject

54 BC. 1 Jun 1912. 55 ysi912, pp.16-22. 56 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.87. 57 BC, 7 Jun 1912. 242 could not be allowed to be dropped. The excellent exposition which the Archbishop had given would gain 'wider support than merely diocesan'. The Archbishop had given a lead that had to be given, and had done it 'in a way that must force the Australian Church to form an Australian opinion'. ^^

Apart from those who genuinely believed that the breaking of the nexus was an act of disloyalty, there were several other schools of thought as to why the nexus should remain. By this time. Batty, who in later years became one of the most vociferous advocates ofthe cause, was taking an active part in the general debate. He outlined some ofthe objections he had heard raised against ecclesiastical autonomy in Australia. The first objection was that no good and adequate reason had been given for the proposed change. The second was mainly raised from the Protestant point of view and that was that people were not prepared to give the Church a 'blank cheque' to changes which they did not understand. Yet another was that: 'We in Australia possess neither sufficient learning nor sufficient devotion to justify us relying upon our own resources for our guidance'. ^^ Another objection, which had been voiced at some time by Garland, ^^ was that the Empire should be taken as the unit of nationality, and that the Church of England should become the Church ofthe Empire.

The imperial political sentiment had grown in strength 'through the courageous policy of granting complete self-government to the daughter dominions' and the Anglican Church, in Batty's opinion, could only become the Church of the Empire, if its daughter Churches too had the freedom to make their own decisions. ^^ The move was seen by some, particularly in the minds of the evangelicals, as being 'an Anglo-Catholic plot to de-protestantise the Australian Church'. ^^ The Anglo- Catholics, on the other hand, thought that 'the right to revise and interpret its own doctrine and liturgical standards' might have a limiting effect to the disadvantage of the Anglo-Catholic school of thought. ^^ Yet another problem was encountered from those who while agreeing in principle with autonomy were nevertheless unsure of 'exactly what use it was proposed to make of it'. ^4 SQ far as Donaldson was concemed the main reason for breaking the nexus was so that the Church in Australia could become the national Church. 'The right to revise and interpret its ovm doctrine and liturgical standards' was a sine qua non, but there was a political bias to be taken into account against a national Church policy in Australia, 'since the national policy is

58 Groom to Donaldson, 6 Jun 1912, AA. 59 Batty to Micklem, 3 Sep 1912, AA. The Rev. David Garland was a prominent clergyman in the Brisbane Diocese. 6' BattytoMicklem, 3 Sep 1912, AA. 62 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.88. 63 Ibid 64 Ibid in general largely identified out here with the Labour Party'. 65 As might be expected, there was a rash of correspondence in the press, generally from those least qualified to write on the subject, but who nevertheless felt compelled to express their views. It was obvious that their perceptions could only be allayed by education, and that it would be a very slow process indeed.

When Donaldson reported fully on the debate to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he outiined his policy, and enclosed a copy of his 1911 presidential address to Synod. His sentiments were well known to Davidson, but Davidson was not aufait with the latest situation. The greatest difficulty, as Donaldson saw it, was General Synod, which in his opinion was nothing more than a debating society which could not take any effective lead in the movement for autonomy. What he wanted to see was General Synod as a real goveming body with 'a due subordination of Provincial Synod to General Synod and Diocesan Synod to Provincial Synod'. ^^

Defeat did not come easily to the Archbishop. He called a preliminary meeting ofthe nexus caucus' for 31 August 1912, at which Micklem, Hay, and probably Le Fanu and Batty were present, to discuss 'a general plan of campaign and the composition ofthe caucus'. Personally, he was keen that the 'caucus' work strictly on Round Table lines, that was, to agree upon a memorandum and then submit it to carefiilly selected groups in other parts of the country, 'so that we may generally create in every diocese a nucleus of sound public opinion upon the question'. ^7

At the Provincial Synod in September 1912 the Archbishop spoke of the difficulty in fiirthering the cause of autonomy, one reason being the difficulty in the Dioceses of Sydney and Melboume of having Acts of Parliament changed to enable those dioceses to accept some of the changes autonomy encompassed. Changing tack slightly, he then pointed out the anomalies in the number of representatives which each diocese could send to General Synod. It was hardly fair, he said, that the larger dioceses like Sydney and Melboume were not entitled to greater representation than the Dioceses of Perth and Bathurst. A 'remodelling' of the representation process might not 'altogether smooth the way towards reform' but the Province of Queensland ought to be prepared to make some contribution towards a thomy problem. ^^ The size of diocesan representation at General Synod had long been a grievance of Sydney, and the Archbishop hoped that by meeting that diocese halfway perhaps it in tum might be a little less unbending in its attitude to nexus.

65 Donaldson to Davidson, 10 Jun 1912, AA. 66 Ibid 67 Unaddressed memorandum, 28 Aug 1912. 68 Donaldson's charge to Provincial Synod, ChCh., 1 Oct 1912 2424 4 A letter from Lowther Clarke, the Archbishop of Melboume, gave Donaldson an opportunity to suggest a further line of action. Clarke wrote that in the Act under which the Diocese of Melboume operated there was provision that with the assent of the Metropolitan and the Archbishop of Canterbury it was possible for that diocese to adjust its relations with the Privy Council, presumably meaning that if and when an appellate tribunal was established in Australia, the Diocese of Melboume would still regard the Privy Council as the legal authority in any ecclesiastical disputes in which it was involved. It was Donaldson's understanding that Melboume hoped to act under that provision. This he found somewhat alarming. In his reply he pointed out to Clarke that the Province of Queensland had considered taking independent action but had refrained out of a sense of loyalty to the ideal of a united Australian Church. Clarke had intimated that some of his laity were alarmed that Queensland would consider taking provincial action and Donaldson found this strange because 'at the same time you indicate a line of action in Melboume which goes completely beyond what we are contemplating'. ^^ He offered his solution to the problem. At the next General Synod pressure should be brought to obtain legal opinion from the same sources as before, which would set forth the lines upon which an autonomous Church could be set up in Australia. This he thought would have advantages as it was the next logical step. Opinion had already been sought as to what the legal nexus was. It was thus logical to go again and ask how the nexus could be 'wisely and safely loosed'. Such a legal opinion would settle many disputed points, and by waiting until 1915 and then discussing the legal question in 1920 the Church would be acting 'with the unity and deliberation such so great a question demands'. ^^

Donaldson deprecated the idea of provincial action as in his view it would ultimately split the Church. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury early in 1913 to express his feelings of unease:

The rise of Provinces into strength and self-consciousness has forced upon us the alternatives of strengthening the central govemment, or of splitting the Church into independent Provinces, the latter altemative, I should regard as a disaster but there are many indications of local impatience. 71

With the imminent arrival of the Archbishops of Sydney and Melboume in England early in 1913, Donaldson wrote to the Archbishop of York, which suggested his fhistration with General Synod. These Archbishops, he wrote, were off to England 'to pick people's brains'. It was his conviction that General Synod must be reformed if

69 Donaldson to Clarke, 18 Dec 1912, AA. 70 Ibid ^1 Donaldson to Davidson, 6 Jan 1913, A. Letters, L.P.L. 245 the Australian Church was to be prevented from falling into independent provinces, and that legal opinion must be sought as to the proper legal steps to take for the establishment of an autonomous Australian Church. In what amounted almost to an aside he remarked of the Archbishop of Sydney that hitherto he and Sydney had generally found themselves in opposing camps: 'The trouble is that he [Wright] honestly believes himself to be a non-party man whereas in reality he seems not only to act but also to think and dream on party lines'. 72

Donaldson wrote also to the Archbishop of Canterbury, setting out what took place at provincial Synod, and telling his Grace of three resolutions "^^ which were adopted there resulting in the decision to prepare a draft bill for the Queensland Parliament, not for use but for presentation to General Synod. This he regarded 'in the light of an experimental study, though a costly one, and I shall not break my heart if it takes a form which will never become law'. 74

The other thing to come out of Provincial Synod was the decision to ask General Synod to seek legal opinion on the lines mentioned above. This, Donaldson thought, was the way to go because it provided for deliberate advancement along safe lines. As the opinion could not come before General Synod before 1920 there was time for consideration. Corporate action of this kind seemed to him to be the only way of drawing the provinces into common action. 75 The situation at this time was critical because of the rise in strength and self-consciousness of the provinces. If the reform of General Synod failed in 1915 the situation would become even more critical.

When General Synod finally met in October 1916, the vexed subject ofthe nexus was on the agenda. The long-awaited report of the Committee appointed in 1905 to ascertain the legal relationship ofthe Church in Australia with the Church of England in England was finally presented. The legal opinions obtained both in England and in Australia made it clear that so long as the Australian Church adhered to the authorised standards of doctrine and discipline of the Church in England, it was an integral part of the Church in England. It then followed that all property held by the Church of England in Australia was 'subject to the tmst created by its being given for "Church of England" purposes'. ^^

^2 Donaldson to Abp. of York, 7 Jan 1913, AA. 73 Official Report ofthe Procedings of Provincial Synod in Queensland, 1912, p.23. 74 Donaldson to Davidson, 6 Jan 1913, AA. 75 Ibid 76 Report to General Synod, undated, 1916. 246 The Primate, in his charge, left no room for doubt that he was not in favour of breaking the nexus which was linked with the position of synodical govemment, he said, and the further co-ordination of the place of General Synod with that of provincial and diocesan Synods:

He would be a bold man who always stood for perpetuating existing conditions unchanged but he, to my mind, would be a bolder man who proposed impulsively to resist the present usefiil system by some sudden legislation. ''

The vehement opposition to any change which might help bring about autonomy, Donaldson thought, came from the Anglophiles 'who wave the Union Jack whenever the subject is mentioned and represent our proposals as an act of disloyalty to our dear Mother'. It also came from low churchmen in Sydney and elsewhere 'including I am afraid the Primate' who suspected those who proposed autonomy as hatching a high church plot to escape Privy Council decisions about vestments, and so forth. The atmosphere was 'thus highly charged with suspicions of a particularly inflammable and unappeasable kind'. '^^

The Primate told Donaldson in a conversation that he would approve any move for the reappointment of the 1905 Committee to enquire further as to what steps could be taken in the event of General Synod's deciding at any future time to set up an autonomous Church in Australia, but he would be against anyone who tried to test General Synod's opinion 'at once on the principle of autonomy'. ^^ Consequently Donaldson moved, and the Bishop of Bathurst seconded, a proposal which was passed, that having received the report of the 1905 Committee, General Synod appoint another conmiittee to report to the 1921 session to consider whether the legal status of the Church in Australia as expressed in the opinions contained in the report, was satisfactory as a permanent basis. ^^ If in the opinion of the committee the legal status was not a satisfactory permanent basis for the Church in Australia, the report was to state the conditions which would produce the desired effect, and to give in detail all the necessary steps which should be taken. The report was to reach the Primate not less than nine months before the next session of General Synod. ^'

The fijneral pace at which the process of obtaining autonomy moved was galling to Donaldson, and to the other Queensland bishops. After waiting for eleven years, the matter was hardly any further advanced.

^^ Proceedings of General Synod, 1916, p.l 1. 7^ Donaldson to Principal of Canterbury College, 17 Feb 1913, AA. Donaldson to Bp of Bathurst, undated. ^^ Proceedings of General Synod, 1916, p.36 ^1 Ibid 247 The committee reappointed at the 1916 General Synod presented its report to the 1921 General Synod, together with a draft Determinafion. ^2 Donaldson took a most acfive part in the preparatory work of compiling the report. He sought, for instance, the advice of Sir Samuel Griffith on several occasions, ^^ and had correspondence with other members ofthe committee on a number of points. After a meeting ofthe Constitutional Committee in Sydney in 1919 he wrote to the Bishop of Rockhampton:

I came away from Sydney very thankful on the whole. In the Constitution Committee we took the cmcial vote, i.e. whether or no the present legal basis ofthe Church in Australia was satisfactory, and the committee voted 'no' by 15 to 12. This is so far satisfactory. My great desire now is to get a really full and cogent majority report drawn up, which will remain a witness for our principles even though the strength ofthe minority delays action. ^4

The report and draft Determination were received by the Primate with a quite discemible lack of enthusiasm. The underlying proposition of the report was the breaking of the nexus which existed between the Church in England and the Church in Australia. The adoption of the report would be the first step towards welding the Church in Australia into an autonomous whole.

'This Determination', the Primate said, 'ought to receive our most careful consideration... It carries consequences that may vitally effect our church life ofthe future'. 85 After expressing the hope that in general principle it would be favourable received, when it came to points of detail 'both in procedure and organisation...I reserve to myself the right of dissent, and I express no opinion upon the constitutional facts that must determine the method by which reform is approached'. ^^

The cmcial change as Wright saw it was the removal of any restrictions to the alteration ofthe liturgy and formularies which were made in England and followed in Australia. 'We propose to leave ourselves in unfettered liberty to effect what alterations seem good to us', he said. ^^ He himself had never been opposed to change, but he had opposed the method ofthe proposed changes that had been offered earlier, because 'the various arguments offered in support of them...seemed ill-

"•^ The draft Determination which was passed at the 1921 General Synod then required the assent of each diocese, and to receive final assent at the 1926 General Synod. The main thrust ofthe draft called for a request to be made to each State Parliament to pass the necessary legislation to enable any property trusts and so forth which were inhibiting the severing ofthe nexus, to be varied as necessary. There were also provisions to be enacted for variations in liturgy. ^3 Donaldson to Griffith, 30 Nov 1917, 1 Apr 1918, AA. ^'^ Donaldson to Bp of Rockhampton, 30 Jun 1919, AA °5 Proceedings of General Synod, 1921, p.44. 86 Ibid 87 Ibid, p.45. 248 founded and untenable'. He also felt that 'in the signs ofthe times' as he read them, the time was not ripe for change. ^^

The proposed changes concemed possible alterations to standards and formularies of faith and order, and a final court of appeal from diocesan and provincial tribunals. The independence of the 'several dioceses' was safeguarded, but in Wright's opinion these safeguards did not go far enough. 'In this regard', he said, 'I associate myself with the general tenor ofthe minority report...' ^^

The Primate's advice of festina lente was in fact the preamble to the real problem as he saw it, and the problem was one which strongly affected the Diocese of Sydney. His concem was plain:

One may be forgiven for pointing out that the present system of representation in the General Synod does not give the voice ofthe majority, nor does a majority even of dioceses necessarily represent the majority of churchpeople of Australia. It was the opinion of a large minority in the committee that more provision should be introduced by which we could ascertain 'that a majority of all members of Synods voting upon the determination has been recorded in favour ofthe said determination' as a condition prior to its becoming law. "^

The Primate was attempting to preserve Sydney's somewhat singular status. Despite many years of hard work, Donaldson's long-held dream of autonomy of the Australian Church was not realised. Nevertheless, in the debate at the 1921 General Synod Donaldson won the day:

...he carried all three houses with him and got the principle of autonomy affirmed by 20 to 0 in the House of Bishops, 55 to 19 in the House of Clergy, and 48 to 13 in the House of Laymen. It was one of the most powerfiil speeches that I have ever heard. He had always swayed General Synod, and you could feel that night that his appeal to the Church to have faith in herself would prove irresistible. "'

Although the nexus question had been tentatively discussed at General Synods prior to Donaldson's arrival, it was largely his doing that poured new life into the debate. He encountered a fair degree of apathy or in some cases closed minds but at the outset he was able through a reasoned approach if not to gain enthusiastic support for the project at least to muster some support for it. Of course he was not alone in fighting the battle. He had able backing, for instance, of his own bishops, Frodsham, Gilbert White, and Feetham for example but it was Donaldson who pointed the way to finding out wherein the nexus lay, by making Cumbrae-Stewart's advice available

»» Ibid 89 Ibid, p.46. 90 Ibid 9' Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.l2. 249 to General Synod, which advice happened largely to coincide with counsels' opinions when they were received.

Having seen what the nexus consisted in Donaldson then was largely the moving force to see how the nexus could be broken. Throughout a campaign which lasted the length of his Brisbane episcopate he had to convince two reluctant Primates and a number of bishops ofthe rightness ofthe cause. The process towards autonomy was not helped by the constitutional problems caused by the way in which the various dioceses had been formed: by voluntary consensual compact as in Queensland, and by secular legislation as in the case of Melboume. Queensland showed the way by which dioceses could change their constitutions so as to make the joumey to autonomy easier.

Part of the difficulty lay in the division between the Evangelical party dominated by two successive Primates, and largely in Sydney, and the more Catholic body of churchmen which Queensland typified. Overcoming the attachment to the Mother Church in England by clergy and laity whose sympathies lay 'at Home' and who were either English by birth or by close direct descent was another hurdle to jump. A feeling of insecurity in a new and strange land, and a feeling of disloyalty were emotions not easily overcome. Yet this Donaldson and his supporters largely did. Donalson's attitude was for concilation rather than for confrontation. He was able to persuade rather than intimidate. But above all he was a man of tremendous vision. The decision reached at the 1921 General Synod through Donaldson's efforts, to pursue the path of autonomy, was the turning point which led eventually to breaking the nexus. If for no other reason this confirmed his place in Australian Church history as one ofthe great ecclesiastical statesmen.

250 CHAPTER XIV

REFORMATION OF GENERAL SYNOD AND A.B.M.

The visit to the General Synod in 1905 was fmitfiil for Donaldson. He preached the opening sermon, the subject of which was Sacrifice. ' He was able to observe his brother bishops at close hand, meeting most of them for the first time, and he had a taste of Anglicanism in Australia, seeing at first hand some ofthe differences of opinion in various dioceses to the questions discussed. The Bishop of Perth (C. O. L. Riley), he thought, 'figured as a man of considerable force'. He also concluded that 'Gippsland (A. W. Pain) is a master of procedure, and a very clever man; Grafton and Armidale (H. E. Cooper) is an excellent Chairman of Committees', and although much of the debating was good, considerably better than it had been in past years, according to 'old hands', and 'the "Sydney phalanx" were less aggressive.'^ he thought that much time had been lost and the debates were spoilt by the inefficiency of Saumarez Smith as Chairman of Synod, ^ senfiments apparenfiy held by Donaldson's predecessor, Webber.

The controversial appointment of Saumarez Smith to the Bishopric of Sydney in 1889 had 'caused serious feelings of misgiving between Sydney church leaders and the Australian bishops'. Of the three names submitted by the Sydney Synod to the bench of Australian bishops, as possible successors to Bishop Barry, one was unacceptable. Of the two remaining, before acceptance had been received from Handley Moule of Ridley Hall the preferred candidate, Bp. Thomas of Goulbum, chairman of the bench of bishops, mistakenly got the other bishops to agree to transfer their votes to Smith the third candidate, in the event of Moule's not accepting the post. When Moule did not accept, the matter should have been referred to the Sydney Synod for fiirther names, but through Thomas's mistake Smith was elected. The outcry which followed subsequently caused Saumarez Smith to withdraw his acceptance, but the Australian bishops, 'knowing that no "gentleman" would now accept the position at Smith's expense unhappily concurred in his re-election'. ^

Donaldson's visit to General Synod strengthened his opinion, which had also been Webber's, that some constitutional aspects of General Synod and the Australian Board of Missions needed to be improved. The most pressing changes were the granting of plenary powers to General Synod and the appointment of an appellate

' Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, p.75. 2 Donaldson to Davidson, 17 Oct 1905, A. letters, LPL. 3 Donaldson to Davidson, 17 Oct 1905, A, letters, L.P.L. ^ Judd & Cable, Sydney Anglicans, p.208 [short citation]. 251 tribunal, matters raised but unresolved at the 1900 General Synod. Donaldson and Gilbert White, Bishop of Carpentaria (and later of Willochra), were voices crying in the wilderness, but over the years they were joined by other bishops with similar views. As with his first diocesan Synod, however, Donaldson came away from his first General Synod, 'on the whole favourably impressed' but Donaldson's later experiences with General Synod were not always as happy.

At the Ge.eral Synod of 1900 Webber proposed an amendment to Determination I of tne 1881 General Synod which laid down the rules for the appointment of the Primate. The Bishop of Sydney was to be Primate of 'the dioceses constituting the General Synod', and was ex officio President of the General Synod. Determination I also set out the powers and prerogatives of the Primate over the metropolitans and provinces, and 'over the bishops of dioceses not included in any such provinces'. Determination I also set forth the way in which the Bishop of Sydney was to be elected, and this effectively ensured that the Primate was a person acceptable to the Synod of Sydney Diocese, and also that the bishops outside the Province of New South Wales had no say in the Primacy.

Webber's proposed amendment effectively detached the Primacy from automatically going to Sydney. When the office of Primate became vacant, the house of bishops, or a majority of them, would elect one of the metropolitan bishops in Australia and Tasmania, or 'until three provinces have been formed the occupant of one of the Sees of Sydney, Melboume, or Brisbane to be the Primate of the dioceses constituting the General Synod ...' ^ The proposed amendment was less than enthusiastically received by Saumarez Smith who went to some length, in his primatial address to argue why General Synod should not be given powers which might reduce the authority of the Bishop of Sydney as Primate. Saumarez Smith broached the question of the Primacy itself. A select committee appointed at the 1896 General Synod, in its report presented to the 1900 Synod, 'had shown a desire to limit the few prerogatives attached to the primatial office'. This, he thought, was perhaps 'in somewhat curious contrast with the high idea entertained for the position, as it affects the bishops'. ^

The cmx of the matter, as Webber rightly deduced, was that the bishops wanted more say in the election of the Primate, while the Diocese of Sydney wished to retain its prerogatives in the election of its bishop. Despite Saumarez Smith's opposition, Webber's original amendment was finally carried at the 1900 General

5 Proceedings of General Synod, 1900, p. 120. ^ Proceedings of General Synod, 1900, p.l 1. 252 Synod. As a result Sydney retained the right to elect its own bishop, but the election of the Primate was the sole responsibility of the Australian bishops. ^ Under the new Determination of General Synod, the Primacy was not permanently attached to Sydney as in the past, but was to be filled by one ofthe three Archbishops: Sydney, Melboume, or Brisbane.

Eariy in 1909 there was an important change within the Church in Australia when Saumarez Smith died. The election of the new Archbishop of Sydney was by exhaustive vote of Sydney diocesan Synod. There were eight nominations before the Synod, included in which was Donaldson's, possibly without his knowledge. In any event, he did not gain a sufficient number of votes to carry his name forward. ^ The new Archbishop of Sydney was Dr C. Wright from , who carried forward the evangelical tradifion ofthe Diocese of Sydney. There was then the question ofthe election ofthe Primate.

As senior bishop and Acting Primate, Bishop Camidge of Bathurst conducted a postal ballot for the new Primate. In the first ballot the votes cast for the Archbishop of Sydney and for Donaldson were equal, the remainder being for Melboume. Donaldson asked leave to withdraw from the ballot to facilitate the quick appointment of a new Primate, and also perhaps because he felt disinclined to accept the office if elected, and that in any case the primatial seat's being located in Sydney would best serve the Australian Church. His withdrawal was not accepted and in the next ballot the votes received by Melboume were allocated by those who had cast them to one or other of the remaining contenders. In that ballot the results were eleven for Sydney and ten for Brisbane. ^

When the next General Synod was held in 1910 there were some broad tensions within the Church. Donaldson played a major part in trying to resolve these problems but it was clear from the debates on constitutional reform and on the nexus, that the old order would change and yet remain the same. Sydney still found inimical the issue of the proposed appellate tribunal. The diocese clung tenaciously to the Privy Council as the court of appeal in matters ecclesiastical. Saumarez Smith at the 1900 Synod had also expounded the undesirability of General Synod's being given plenary powers, which had also been proposed:

' Judd & Cable, Sydney Anglicans, p.l41. ^5C., 28 May 1909. 9 Dimot & Batty, Donaldson, pp.88-9. Although I have not been able to peruse the Batty correspondence 1 understand that in the Primatial ballot Donaldson voted for Wright. This no doubt was because he believed the Primacy should be based in Sydney. 253 How far is it desirable to seek after a coercive central jurisdiction? We must not surely by overrating central authority underrate either diocesan responsibility or diocesan liberty. To seek for 'plenary legislative powers in matters which concem the Church as a whole as distinguished from matters of merely diocesan concern' may be an idea welcome to minds which look for a symmetrically graded system of ecclesiastical govemment, but the difficulty comes in when we attempt to define and distinguish matters which concem the Church as a whole from merely diocesan matters. ^^

Although some might urge that General Synod should be given greater plenary powers, (of whom Donaldson was one) Wright, the new Archbishop of Sydney and Primate, recommended caufion. ^ ^ There was debate also conceming proportional representation to General Synod. The Primate was less than happy with each diocese having the same number of representatives. Representation, he thought, should be reckoned by the number of clergy in each diocese: the more clergy a diocese had, the greater number of representatives it should be entitled to. ^^

These were matters of some moment for all dioceses. Until General Synod had coercive powers the danger was that although a Determination might be passed at General Synod and subsequently accepted by the various dioceses and provinces throughout Australia, individual dioceses could at some later date repeal the Determination as being not binding on them. The Primate was opposed to an amendment of the Constitution which would give General Synod such plenary powers. 1^ The reason he gave was that the community was 'largely in a state of flux and no one knows how population will be distributed'. The real objection raised by the Primate, and therefore by the Diocese of Sydney, was the fear that that diocese might one day find its influence overwhelmed by a coalition of smaller dioceses able to bring about constitutional changes it considered to be unpalatable. ^^

As a further objection to constitutional change, Wright questioned the extent of the authority that an appellate tribunal should have. One precondition for the introduction of such a body would be that each diocese should 'be still left free to choose its own policy on many questions'. ^^ Again, Wright was propounding Sydney's objections under the cover of primatial concem. He concluded his criticism of possible constitutional changes with a thinly veiled threat that the Diocese of Sydney might withdraw from the General Synod:

"^ Proceedings of General Synod, 1900, p. 10. '1 GS., 1910, p. 9, '^ Proceedings of General Synod, p.9. 13 Ibid 14 Ibid ^^ Ibid 254 It would be lamentable if any hasty legislation compelled some dioceses to withdraw from General Synod, and so mar that impressive and suggestive spectacle of a Church for the continent, a national organization corresponding to the national idea 16

Riley, the Bishop of Perth, was one bishop who backed Donaldson's efforts. At the 1913 Church Congress in Brisbane delivered a detailed address on the subject, in which he pointed out some ofthe ironies ofthe situation. These included the fate of 'Determinafions' passed by General Synod, although there was nothing settled or conclusive about them. After being passed by General Synod the Determinafions were sent on to the various dioceses, and might or might not be received by them. Those dioceses which did receive them were bound by them, and those dioceses which did not receive them were not so bound. Then if any diocese had agreed to a Determination it might afterwards rescind its acceptance, and chaos would once more reign. ^'^ Donaldson wrote to Perth suggesting that he should introduce into General Synod an appropriate motion which if passed would give that body at least some measure of coercive power. In reply Perth suggested that Donaldson draft something for his consideration, whereupon Donaldson wrote to Walter Freer, late Superior of the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield, and an authority on church history and organisation. ^^ Freer's response wamed against over-centralization, and suggested certain guiding principles upon which all action should be based.

According to Freer the diocese was the tme unit of the Church, and on grounds of convenience it was necessary that dioceses be united into provinces, under a metropolitan, in order, among other things, to give bishops an opportunity of meeting in conference. There was nothing wrong in principle with further groupings, e.g., into patriarchates, but great caution was needed. ^^ This suggested that for purposes of normal govemment and administration the provincial organisation was sufficient and if this were so, was there any need for General Synod, and should its powers be increased? ^^ Freer's ideas in this regard are supported by Border ^^ and disputed by Cable 22 ^ho claims it to be 'both a departure from English tradition and a fimdamental weakness in the stmcture of the Australian Church'. ^3 Freer's advice and Border's judgment were largely the opposite of Donaldson's own inclinations which were centralist in outlook, and with which Cable seems to agree. On this point

^^ibid 1' Proceedings of Church Congress, p. 143. 1^ Donaldson to Freer, 11 Mar 1915, AA. '^ Donaldson to Riley, 2 Aug 1915, AA. ^^Ibid 2' Ross Border, Church and State in Australia 1788 -1872 (London: S.P.C.K., 1962), p.281. 22 Kenneth Cable, Review in Journal of Religious History, 2, 1963. 23 John Davis, Australian Anglicans and their Constitution, (Canberra: Acorn Press, 1993), p. 10. 255 Davis comes to no stated conclusion, but at that early time of debate one of the biggest stumbling blocks in reaching a united approach was precisely because the diocese was the 'ultimate legislative authority', which was confirmed in the 1956 Constitution adopted by the Church in 1962. Although Donaldson was not successfiil in having his ideas in this regard accepted, it should be noted that the Consfitution of the Province of Queensland provides that all canons are to be promulgated by the President of Provincial Synod, and when promulgated are to be binding on all the dioceses within the province, provided that nothing within the canons runs counter to or is inconsistent with the 'ancient' canons used by the dioceses to control their intemal affairs.

Donaldson strongly deprecated even the possibility ofthe abolition of General Synod, If for no other reason than that the opportunity it gave for personal contact of churchmen was of the utmost value to the life of the Church, and compensated 'for any expenditure of fime, money, and fissue'. Donaldson's mind was sfill not made up, but he modified his views to advocate coercive power only in one or two directions, and in no other. These related to the acceptance or rejection of English revisions of the Prayer Book, acts in the direction of reunion with other religious bodies, and the administration of marriage law. In these areas it was advisable to maintain uniformity, and Donaldson's reason for arguing in favour of coercive power in these subjects was that in spite of Freer's arguments, the provinces at that time were too weak 'to bear the whole burden of independence'. ^4

To his long-time friend and ally Gilbert White, now at Willochra, Donaldson sent copies of his correspondence with Riley and Freer. White did not feel inclined to accept a reversal of all at which they had aimed merely on Freer's ipse dixit. He agreed with what Donaldson had written, but he was nonplussed at Donaldson's apparent indecision. 'Why should you be doubtful about it or think a caveat necessary?' he asked. ^^ Donaldson had moderated his long held opinions. Half a loaf might have seemed better than none at all, and may have been an indication of a feeling of impotence when it came to achieving a reform of General Synod, something he had been trying to do for the past fifteen years.

There was general fmstration and disappointment when the 1915 General Synod was postponed. It had been summoned to meet on 12 October 1915, but after all arrangements had been made, several ofthe more important dioceses informed the Primate that they would not be able to attend because of war-time difficulties. Seven

24 Ibid 25 White to Donaldson, 10 Aug 1915, AA. 256 bishops indicated their willingness to attend, but under these circumstances the Synod would not be complete and any business done would lack proper authority. The Primate advised the Standing Committee of General Synod that he had had word that fourteen of the diocesan bishops thought that an October General Synod would be inappropriate, and the Standing Committee advised him that the Synod should be deferred unfil the following year.

The Bishop of Bathurst at his 1915 diocesan Synod delivered a scathing condemnation of the deferment. He considered it a special duty of the Church, in such trying times, to give a lead to the nation by issuing an inspiring pastoral letter which would have 'all the weight of our greatest Synod behind it'. ^^ He could not, he said, 'acquiesce in such a lamentable abdication of a great responsibility'. ^7 Sessions of General Synod had to be held at intervals of not more than five years, and under the constitution could not be postponed. As a session was required to be held in 1915, he argued that the deferment was unconstitutional, and that such an action could quite easily become a precedent for the future, whereby a few leading dioceses might threaten to wreck the meetings of General Synod by sending a preliminary intimation that they did not intend to be represented at it. ^^ The information he had received showed that eleven diocesans were prepared to attend the General Synod originally scheduled for 12 October, including Brisbane, eleven were against, including Sydney and Melboume, and opinions for two were unknown. ^9

A way out ofthe difficulty was suggested by the Primate's securing a number of representatives sufficient to form a quorum at a 12 October meeting, at which nothing but formal business would be done. The Synod would then be dismissed. The great danger was that if a quorum were not reached, the session could not formally be held, which would amount to a violation of the constitution: 'General Synod would have come to a violent end and all the Primate's horses and all the Primate's men would not be able to put General Synod together again', was the view ofthe editor ofthe Church Chronicle. ^0 A session of General Synod was held on 12 October attended by the Primate and the bishops of Newcastle, New Guinea, Grafton, Bathurst, and Goulbum. The Hon. L. E. Groom represented the Diocese of Brisbane.

Donaldson had witnessed something of the party spirit during his visit to England in 1914, he said in his charge to the 1915 Diocesan Synod, and the same

26 Undated pamphlet by Bp of Bathurst, AA. 2'7 Ibid 28 Ibid 2^ Ibid ^^ChCk, 1 Oct 1915, pp. 193-4. 257 'e\ir was rife in the Australian Church, although less apparent in the Diocese of Brisbane. 31 Because of this he took the initiative to try to ease the strain which he perceived among certain bishops. If there was not to be a General Synod until some time towards the end of 1916, there was a great need for the bishops to meet to discuss some very pressing problems, not the least of which was 'the soreness and ill- feeling' among some of them. ^^ During a visit to Sydney Donaldson convinced the Primate of the need of such a conference, which Wright was not unwilling to convene, provided there was the possibility of a reasonably large attendance. He gave Donaldson the task of obtaining 'some data' before taking action.^^

Donaldson prepared an agenda which included such subjects as the unrest of the younger clergy about enlistment, various problems connected with the work of chaplains on troopships, and at the Front, the reform of General Synod, and the nexus. A fiill meeting ofthe A.B.M. was a suggestion not acceptable to Wright, although he would allow the matter to be discussed at the bishops' meeting. This was the only controversial subject, but Donaldson was hopeful of a solution satisfactory to all parties, 'and in any case we bishops are bound to face it'. 17 May 1916 was the date suggested for the meeting. ^^

The three-day meeting, which was by no means a preliminary General Synod, took place at Bishopscourt, Sydney during the second last week of May 1916, and was preceded by a quiet moming at St Mark's, Darling Point. It was successful not so much for what it accomplished but because it succeeded 'in bridging over some sundry gulfs which were widening between us'. ^^ Many bishops, Donaldson thought, after their consecration, 'met with a certain disillusionment when they discover how far from brotherly relations between bishops often are'. This was a particular failing in Australia partly owing to the extreme rarity of the chances of meeting. ^^ Donaldson came away from that meeting very thankful because he felt that at least something had really been accomplished in that direction.

Donaldson's efforts at reforming General Synod were not entirely successfiil, but this was not for the want of trying. He had before him Queensland's example in the authority of Provincial Synod, an example he wished a national church to adopt, but he reckoned without the strong feelings of independence held by the various dioceses which jealously guarded their prerogatives. He was unable to convince his

31 ra 1915, p.22. ^•^ Donaldson to Montgomery, 2 Jun 1916, AA. 33 Donaldson to archbishops and bishops, 24 Jan 1916, AA. 34 Ibid 35 Donaldson to Davidson, 2 Jun 1916, AA. 36 Ibid 258 fellow bishops of the need for General Synod to have coercive powers with regard to universal acceptance of its determinations. But he was successfiil in cutting through problems which affected the well-being of the Church generally, as for example solving the constitutional problem when the 1915 General Synod was postponed, his wise counsel healing some ofthe wounds the perceived among the bishops.

AUSTRALIAN BOARD OF MISSIONS.

As well as the reformafion of General Synod, and the nexus, another subject of debate at the 1905 General Synod was the financial state ofthe Australian Board of Missions [A.B.M.] and its activities, which were of concem to Donaldson, and he was determined to bring about some changes in that organisation. He was well aware of the work done by missionary societies in England which while supporting their ovm missions lacked cohesion because of their autonomy, and were not under the direct control of the Church itself. They disbursed their fiinds where they saw fit without regard to the overall needs of the Church's missionary programme. Apart from the obvious financial problems of the Board, and the way in which organisational power was centred in Sydney, Donaldson was convinced that if the Church were to be a national Church then it should be its own missionary society, with the A.B.M. its operational arm. Donaldson showed how extemal missionary societies could work under A.B.M.'s umbrella, but the mnning from Sydney ofthe Board's mission stations was to prove to be a thom in his side, as for example at Yarrabah, which had repercussions which did not enhance the Church's reputation in the mission field.

For some years Archdeacon Dixon, a parish priest in Sydney, was secretary of the Board, but the A.B.M. was not his sole concem. In 1909 when crisis point was reached in the financial affairs of the Board, Donaldson provided the remedy. That year both Dixon and the Primate, Saumarez Smith, who was also President of the A.B.M., died. During the previous five years fimds had been coming in at a slower rate than expected, and expenses exceeded income, causing a steadily increasing overdraft. To meet these conditions the secretary had been 'quietly pledging all the tmst fimds under his care while not a word of real waming was ever issued to the Church at large as to the state of affairs'. 37 An audit ofthe books of account showed that there was no malversation, 'though the methods ofthe treasurer referred to from a

37 Donaldson to Allen, S.P.C.K., 10 Feb 1910, AA. 259 business point of view were such as to make the sun hide its face'. 38 Putting the Board on a sound financial basis was a problem which had to be resolved.

When the bishops met in Perth for the Church Congress in October 1909. Donaldson presented a plan to rescue the Board from its debacle. On his initiative the bishops issued an appeal for £5,000, to cover immediate needs and allow the Board to recover all the tmst fiinds. The appeal was successful. Wright, the new Primate, told the 1910 General Synod:

...in July 1909, the A.B.M. was £5,000 in debt and although this debt has been liquidated by the emergency fiind, raised upon the splendid initiative of the Archbishop of Brisbane, still at the present rate of income and expenditure, there is some fear lest the A.B.M. may be about £3,000 in debt again at the close of another 12 months. The position is one that calls for the most cautious consideration, and choice of policy for the next five years. 39

The A.B.M. Executive Council report for the period April 1909 to August 1910 outlined a scheme of apportionment among the various dioceses, for their share ofthe amount required to pay off the debts ofthe associated missions and the A.B.M. organisation, and to establish them all upon a sound financial basis. The total amount required was £7,000. By early September 1910, most ofthe debts and overdrafts had been 'practically cleared off. ^^

But the situation was by no means finally resolved. Ordinary expenditure was nearly £3,000 a year more than income. Expenditure had always exceeded income by about £2,000 a year which was the underlying problem when the Board got so seriously into debt, but outlay had recently been increased without an increase in income. ^^ Previously only £700 was given to the work from the whole of Australia. A sub-committee was formed to oversee work for aborigines, and an optimistic Primate thought that enthusiasm generated by the sub-committee would produce an increase in income, but he was unable to suggest where guarantors for an overdraft might be found. 'People', he said, 'are chary when they see an almost limitless possibility of debts'. ^2 Some curtailment ofthe Board's activities would probably be necessary, the Primate suggested, and the bishops had to decide how this was to be done.

As regards the finances ofthe Board, Donaldson was optimistic. It was only a few months previously that the Board was striving to raise an extra £5,000 for the

38 Ibid 39 Proceedings of General Synod, 1910, p.l2. '*0 Wright to Donaldson, 14 Oct 1910, AA. ^^ Wright to Donaldson, 10 Sep 1910, AA. 42 Ibid 260 emergency fiind. Guarantors must be found for £3,000 for the current year. The following year, he hoped it would be necessary to find guarantors for only half that amount, and in the third year he hoped such action would be unnecessary. In the meantime, 'we must go to the people who really love the Church and put the matter before them as a call to them as nice people to help. We cannot make a [general] appeal to the public'. ^3

The enfire trouble had come about, in Donaldson's opinion, because of the inadequate organisation of the A.B.M. The situation had arisen through the short­ sighted policy of assuming that the work could be conducted by honorary officers 'already bearing heavy responsibilities in other directions'. Experience had proved the fallacy of this assumption, and it was necessary to place the work on a sound business-like footing. "^^ Dixon's death provided the opportunity for the reorganisation of the whole office as a resuft of which the Ven. C. E. C. Lefroy, Archdeacon of Perth, was appointed Organising Secretary, to be assisted by a Travelling Secretary. 45 A salaried accountant, and an honorary treasurer to advise the General Secretary were also appointed, monthly reports were to be issued, and there was to be an armual audit of accounts.

Donaldson did not agree with Determination iXof the 1905 General Synod which affirmed the place of missionary societies other than the A.B.M. in its missionary stmcture. He proposed to the 1910 General Synod amendments to the constitution of the Board, for which two policies might be considered. One was that each province should administer its own missionary activities. Donaldson advised the Synod to eschew this proposition. The other policy, which he urged, was for a strong central organisation, 'paramount in authority, and controlling fimds large enough to command the situation'. ^^ It was almost an article of faith with him that the Church should be its own missionary society, and control all missions within the country. In some ways his attitude to the A.B.M. was analogous to his stand on General Synod.

The stmcture ofthe A.B.M. had always been a source of worry to Donaldson. Over the years his efforts had been successfiil in improving the intemal workings of the Board, but he had been unsuccessfiil in establishing the Church, through the A.B.M., as its own missionary organisation. The Church Missionary Society, knovm in the Sydney Diocese as the C.M.S., and in Victoria as the CM.A., the two

^•3 Donaldson to Wright, 14 Oct 1910, AA. 44 Proceedings of Provincial Synod, 1909, p.l 1. 45 ChCh., 1 Jan 1910. 46 Proceedings of General Synod, 1910, p. 11. 261 abbreviations at times being synonymous, functioned as a separate organisation, a situation which Donaldson found unacceptable. Donaldson suggested that C.M.S./C.M.A. could funcfion within Australian dioceses with the approval of their bishops, providing it affiliated with the A.B.M. at local and headquarters levels. Once permission had been given for the C.M.A. to operate within a diocese, it would have complete autonomy to hold meetings, and maintain its identity. It would be free to dispose of its money as it liked, providing it sent a copy of its accounts periodically to the A.B.M. The only difference would be that the arrangements for any deputations, campaigns, summer schools, and so forth would be the responsibility of the A.B.M. which would obviate undue competition and overlapping.

Donaldson had aired his views at Provincial Synod in 1909. 'Half the mission work of the Australian Church is just now in real danger of disaster', he said. The sorry plight of the missions which the Church had made her own, Melanesia, New Guinea, and 'the work among the northem aborigines' came about through the 'sore confiision' in the financial policy 'and consequent stagnation of our missionary activity'. ^^ Donaldson's idea was that the A.B.M. should run its then existing missions, and in theory 'regard itself as bound to work for the whole world'. Sub­ committees would administer the existing missions and fiirther sub-committees would be added as work developed. Donaldson had an ally in Frodsham. Even before Donaldson came to Australia, Frodsham had written to Montgomery:

I am trying to get the A.B.M. to move forward. It seems to have come to the dividing of the ways and must either cease to be or else take the place of the various missionary agencies which tend to spring up in Australia. ^^

Donaldson's point of view was not shared by the Dioceses of Sydney and Melboume, and his ideas were not accepted by Wright. So far as the Diocese of Sydney was concemed, most of its missionary effort was directed through the Church Missionary Society [C.M.S.]. The Diocese of Sydney, which was strongly evangelical in churchmanship, maintained its ties with its origins in England where mission fiinds were raised by the efforts of voluntary missionary societies such as the S.P.G.K., and the S.P.G. These societies, which had been established for many years, although affiliated with the Church of England were not controlled by it. Donaldson contended that the Church should pay for and direct missionary operations, with organisations such as the C.M.S. being integrated with the A.B.M. The members of the C.M.S. were of a different frame of mind: 'They preferred a voluntary society which was free from the constraints of an official agency.

4^ Proceedings ofd Provincial Synod 1909, p.l 1 48 Frodsham to Montgomery, 22 Jan 1903, S.P.G. letters, RHL. 262 Wright told the General Synod in his Presidential Address that in 1886 when General Synod by resolution undertook to send a mission to New Guinea the effect was to make the Church her own missionary society. This method could not be said to be a conspicuous success. There were other ways for the Church to operate its missionary acfivities. The Church might inspire its members to group themselves for the purpose and work through these groups; it might also do some work directly through committees appointed by itself, and other work by committees 'self- constmcted and self-goveming but recognised'. ^^

Wright was opposed to the Church's being its own missionary society. Such a plan might be seen as ostracising the missionary work done by churchmen through their associations. He considered it unwise to lay the administration of details 'upon a body representing the corporate Church'. ^^ in support of his argument he quoted the Archbishop of York to the effect that if the Board of Missions in England were not only a deliberative but also an executive body, it would be paralysed by the problems which it had to solve. ^1 There was a danger of'choking individual liberality'. It was a fact of human nature that could not be ignored that men gave more when they were in control of the disposal of their gifts. This could be done through sociefies with responsible 'views' rather than through an impersonal committee of the Church. 'Societies are the Missionary Orders of the Church, with all the "elan" characteristic ofthe Orders in the days of their prime', he said. ^^

Donaldson conceded that it was acceptable for missionary societies other than the A.B.M. to operate in Ausfralia and distribute their fimds at their discretion, but that overall missionary policy should be the responsibility of the A.B.M. What Wright proposed was for the A.B.M. and the other missionary societies to act independently, each society spending its funds in its own way. The Primate's speech failed to have the required effect in some quarters as a motion was carried that it was desirable to concentrate as far as possible all the missionary effort under the A.B.M. with a view to bringing about 'greatest possible amoimt of co-ordination between the various missionary organisations'. ^3 xhis was very gratifying to Donaldson and it strengthened his hand in later dealings with the Board.

49 Proceedings of General Synod, 1910, p. 12. 50 Ibid, p. 13. 51 Ibid 52 Ibid 53 Ibid, p.57. 263 Wright wrote to Donaldson suggesting further consideration might need to be given to the administration ofthe Board 'in the light of working'. ^"^ Donaldson agreed with Wright that it did indeed need more consideration. What Wright was proposing, however, was a reversion to the English system. Such a system was not acceptable to Donaldson:

...it shatters the dream which 1, and many others have long dreamt of making the Church its own Missionary Society. This dream is beyond the realisation...where the party system has built up two societies strong enough to snap their fingers in the face of the Church. The Central Board of Missions is accordingly a men only organisation with no power, no lift, no inspiring force. The whole English system is bom of apathy ofthe official leaders in past days: and ofthe unhappy divisions. It is wrong in principle, and we ought not to perpetuate it in Australia if we can help it. Such are my sentiments. ^^

Donaldson's views apparently were in accord with those of a number of other members, and he received due recognition from the Australian Board of Missions for the work he had done:

The Board places on record its special debt to the Archbishop of Brisbane for the energetic and helpful enthusiasm which he brought to the rescue of the New Guinea and Aboriginal Missions at a most critical time; for his statesmanlike contribution to the reorganisation of the Board; and for the large amount of time and labour which, in conjunction with the Bishop of North Queensland, he has more particularly expended upon the management of Yarrabah. ^"

Donaldson had succeeded in improving the administration of the A.B.M. There were many questions still were unanswered and the slowness of change in the A.B.M. was galling. Yarrabah, a mission station established by the Rev. John Gribble in 1891 on a govemment reserve outside Caims, ^^ for example, was a festering sore, and was to become a cause of dispute with the State govemment as well as an embarrassment for the Church. Even when faced with frustration and depression, however, Donaldson's faith was absolute, and comfort assured:

The visitations of God often come amid most untoward, unimpressive circumstances: (a specially dull service: a task one dislikes and shrinks from: a voyage undertaken in depression and discomfort: a party of repellent people.) Afterwards, or even at the time, we are conscious of a Blessing. In untoward circumstances you are apt to despair and pity yourself. But vou ought then to expect. The Presence and its Blessing may be shown at any time. ^°

54 Wright to Donaldson, 10 Sep 1910, AA. 55 Donaldson to Wright, 14 Oct 1910, AA. 56 A.B.M. Report to General Synod, Appendix XIX p. 136, Proceedings of General Synod, 1910. 5' A. E. David, Australia, p. 133. CO ^ -'° St Clair Donaldson, A Meditation, p.21. 264 In September 1913 it was Brisbane's tum to play host to the Church Congress, the previous one being held in Perth in 1909. The aftemoon session ofthe Congress on 12 September concemed the vexed question of missionary organisation. From the press report ofthe meeting at which Rev. J. Jones, who succeeded Lefroy as General Secretary of the A.B.M., spoke in favour of amalgamation of the A.B.M. and the CM. A., the honours went to the CM. A., the speakers on its behalf naturally speaking against such a measure. ^^ The evening session, which was attended by a large public audience, was concemed with autonomy and the reform ofthe A.B.M.. The Bishop of Perth gave a long dissertation on the need to reform General Synod, the necessity for which went hand in hand with the need to reform the A.B.M.^^ His speech, which added nothing to his earlier position, seemed largely to fall on deaf ears. The Bishop of Carpentaria spoke cogently on the need for reform not only in the organisation of the A.B.M., but also on the way in which missionary organisations such as the C.M.A. could fit into the scheme of things and become part ofthe overall missionary society mn by the Church. His proposals in the main followed those put forward by Donaldson on previous occasions. ^^ Speaking against Carpentaria's proposals with regard to the inclusion ofthe C.M.A in A.B.M. management proposals, the Rev. A. J. H. Priest, C.M.A. Missionary Missioner, traced the history of that society, and concluded that it was the efforts of the C.M.A. itself that had spurred on the missionary activity ofthe A.B.M., the inference to be drawn being that with some sort of amalgamation ofthe two initiative would be slowed down if not completely lost.

If it had been hoped to convert the Primate to the views held by Carpentaria and Donaldson, then hopes were dashed. The Primate was ofthe same opinion still, as reported by Donaldson:

Have you seen the Primate's address to Synod? In dealing with the subject of missionary organisation he simply repeats the old gag about private initiative, and quotes over again the Arnold scheme for reproducing in Australia the exact situation in England with its helpless Board of Missions and all-powerful societies. It is an ominous example of the obstinacy of the man. He makes no allusion to your proposals and does not even argue for his own side, but simple restates his position."^

In June 1915 Donaldson allowed the C.M.A. to participate in the Brisbane Diocese's Missionary Month to which they had sent three members 'evidently their

59 BC, 13 Sep 1913. ^^ Official Report of Church Congress. 61 Ibid 62 Donaldson to Bp. of Carpentaria, 1 Nov 1913, AA. The arguments conceming A.B.M. and C.M.S. went on over a long period of time. They can be followed in The Australian Church Quarterly Review No.4 Vol II 1911, March 1912 Vol II, June 1912 Vol II and in The East and The West Vol IX April 1912, and in various correspondence. 265 ver>' best'. Because of this Jones, the General Secretary of the A.B.M. and his assistant Miss King, came too. The visitors were greeted cordially, but Donaldson gained the impression that this action 'had secretly chagrined the A.B.M. people in Sydney'. In fact, 'Miss King found it difficult to speak cordially ofthe C.M.A. men at air. ^3 Because of the attitudes he had perceived during the Missionary Month, Donaldson thought that nothing less than a fiill meeting of the A.B.M. would ever solve the problems which existed. The stumbling block was that the C.M.A., largely evangelical in outlook, 'did not want high churchmen directing their missionary activities'. ^'^ Such fears found no place in Donaldson's thinking:

Now all this does not disturb me. A.B.M. stands not for a set of Church views, but for a principle of the organisation, and as long as that principle of organisation is observed I do not mind, as an A.B.M. man, whether the missionary activities of this diocese are predominantly 'evangelical' or predominantly 'catholic'. "^

This was one reason, when the General Synod was postponed, that Donaldson suggested to the Primate that a meeting ofthe bishops should be held.

Matters were rapidly coming to a head early in 1916. The Primate and the A.B.M. in Sydney were hardly speaking to each other, and in Adelaide the bishop and the C.M.A. were in 'open confiict'. ^^ Donaldson's anxiety was shared by White, who had prepared a draft Determination to reform the A.B.M. and at the same time meet the CM.A.'s requirements, but Donaldson thought the evangelicals would not accept it.67

Donaldson urged the Primate to call an urgent meeting of the bishops to discuss the matter. ^^ 'It would seem to be an obvious duty', he wrote, 'for the bishops to take charge of a situation like this'. Party spirit was stirred up, but the bishops, in Donaldson's view, should take 'a more statesmanlike view, and so moderate the acerbities of the rank and file'. ^^ The Primate, however, was not prepared to call a meeting of the A.B.M. but suggested an informal meeting which did not satisfy Donaldson. Under such circumstances there was no certainty of all views being frankly put forward. 'The discussion would be academic and might be mere waste of time'. 70

63 Donaldson to Bp of Willochra, 24 Dec 1915, AA. Stephan Judd, and Kenneth Cable, Sydney Anglicans - A History ofthe Diocese (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1987), pp. 218-9. 65 Donaldsonto Jones, 25 Oct 1915, AA. 66 Donaldson to Montgomery, 3 Mar 1916, AA. 67 Ibid 68 Donaldson to Wright, 17 Mar 1916, AA. 69 Ibid 70 Ibid 266 As the Primate refiised to have a meeting ofthe A.B.M. at the same time as the bishops' meeting, Donaldson was forced to accept the next best thing, which was to have the matter discussed at the bishops' meeting. To this end he proposed that five resolutions be submitted to the bishops. ^1 If the resolutions were passed 'by anything like a representative meeting of bishops', Donaldson thought they should be published in Church papers with a view to forming public opinion. Their passing would also show that the time might be ripe to present White's draft Determination to General Synod, or whether it should be modified. ^2 Donaldson had formulated the plan of having the bishops pass the resolutions before going to General Synod with White's Determination. 'The real trouble is that the C.M.A. is crazy with suspicion' and he had heard that some of them 'intend to die in the last ditch rather than let the Determination go through'. ^3 Xo the Bishop of Gippsland who was one ofthe chief opponents ofthe envisaged reforms, Donaldson sent a copy of his resolutions, 'so that we may quiet the suspicion which undoubtedly exists between the evangelists and the stronger churchmen'. ^4 When it eventually was held, the bishops' meeting went better than Donaldson had hoped. He felt that there really was a ray of hope that a working solution could be found by a committee which was to meet in Melboume in June. 'But', he wrote, 'negotiations are at a most critical stage, and Gippsland is very obdurate'. ^5

Perhaps the most encouraging thing from Donaldson's point of view was the changed attitude of the Primate. The Bishops of Bendigo and Wangaratta supported Gippsland who maintained the CM.A.'s right to autonomy, and they appeared 'to be quite unyielding'. The Primate, 'who in the past has obstinately refused to consider our proposal, changed his tone considerably'. ^6 The change in Wright's outlook was shown in his address to the Synod, when he explained that he was prepared to modify his ovm views which he held upon 'missionary method' and 'whole-heartedly and unreservedly' supported the new Determination as presented by White. ^7 Sensing that opinion was running in Donaldson's favour Wright was not prepared to suffer primatial defeat at General Synod, and in any case the Diocese of Sydney was not bound to accept the mling of General Synod.

71 Donaldson to Bp of Willochra, 18 Apr 1916, AA.The first two resolutions were designed to safeguard the general complementary principles of private initiative and church order, and the last three indicated the lines upon which a proper permanent authority might be established. '2 Ibid 73 Donaldson to Bp of Willochra, 20 Apr 1916, AA. 7^* Donaldson to Bp of Gippsland, 20 Apr 1916, AA. 75 Donaldson to Montgomery, 2 Jun 1916, AA. 76 Donaldson to Davidson, 2 Jun 1916, AA. 77 Proceedings of General Synod, 1916, pp.11-12. 267 When General Synod eventually met in October 1916, it was 'a grizzly labour and mostly dull beyond endurance', but Donaldson was able to say that on the whole he felt content with what had been done. The A.B.M. Determination was passed 'with a marked lack of enthusiasm, but the Synod was 'pracfically unanimous' in its intention 'to try and work in toto cordd. Reconstmction of the A.B.M. had been agreed to, 'and a new epoch begins in the history of the Church in Australia'. Bishops, clergy, and laity were to be elected as representafives of the whole Church, and would meet with plenary power to transact and forward missionary work. 78 The principle had been established that the Church as a whole had the right to control all operations 'at the home base' because the Determination gave the final authority to the A.B.M. 79

The Archbishop had come away from the first meeting of the reconstmcted A.B.M. in October 1917 in a happy mood. The meeting could not have been more encouraging, he wrote, and 'the C.M.S. were in due subordination, and yet took their fiill part without any sulks'. ^^ These great expectations soon evaporated as old antagonisms began to resurface. The flurry of post-war reconstmction could not erase the seemingly permanent problems associated with the A. B. M. and with General Synod, and twelve months later, the November 1918 meeting ofthe A.B.M. 'was overshadowed by the bitter outburst of party spirit in Melboume'. ^^ At the recent Melboume diocesan Synod 'the evangelicals organised a "ticket" for all diocesan elections'. Although not connected directly with the A.B.M. it nevertheless had an effect on the tone ofthe meeting. ^^ This foreshadowed further frustrations of reforms designed to produce a national Church.

Despite the passing of the General Synod Determination, which effectively reorganised the Board, some dioceses, and in particular Sydney and Melboume after some three years still did not recognise the A.B.M. as the sole missionary authority, because General Synod was powerless to enforce its determinations. At the November 1918 meeting ofthe Board Donaldson gave notice that it was time for the Australian Church to bear the cost of its own domestic missionary work in outlying parts ofthe country, and that the A.B.M. was the proper authority to undertake this

78 ChCh.. INov 1916, p.214. 70 '' Donaldson to unidentified recipient, but possibly Bp of New Guinea, 6 Nov 1916, AA. °'^ Donaldson to Montgomery, 8 Nov 1917, AA. 81 Donaldson to Davidson, 11 Nov 1918, AA. 82 Ibid 268 responsibility. ^3 Such a policy had been suggested by Montgomery when he foresaw the terminafion of grants from the S.P.G. in England. ^^

Tensions increased when the C.M.S. opened a 'thank-giving' appeal at the same time as one by the A.B.M. Donaldson wrote to Bazeley of the C.M.S. suggesting that it might have been better to join the A.B.M. in its appeal, and that he was unable to commend the C.M.S. appeal as Bazeley had requested. 85 Bazeley complained to the Primate who wrote to Donaldson. The Archbishop replied to the Primate, acknowledging the C.M.S's right to act independently, but thought a great opportunity had been lost to work together in harmony, and did not accept Wright's censure. 'You accuse me of unfaimess', he wrote 'I honestly believe that the unfaimess lies rather at your door. The C.M.S. is often less than fair, I think, in its dealings with therest of us'. ^^

The Primate did nothing to pour oil on troubled waters when, as President of the A.B.M, he refiised to sign the A.B.M. appeal letter. Wright, in his capacity of Archbishop of Sydney, let his entrenched evangelical sentiments conceming missionary ftmding outweigh his responsibilities as Primate and President of the A.B.M. Wright's attitude was one of 'flagrant disloyalty' to the A.B.M., Donaldson wrote, and he was not fulfilling his duties as President of the Board. Indeed Wright did not understand the constitutional position ofthe A.B.M. which by determination of General Synod had decreed that the A.B.M. be the sole administrating body for missionary activities, or he could not say 'I am not prepared to discriminate in favour of one part ofthe Church against another'. When Donaldson saw the Primate he taxed him with hostility towards the A.B.M. 'He took it very well', Donaldson wrote, 'but professed to be unable to plead guilty to the accusation'. 87

In the Diocese of Melboume the Association of Missionary Services (A.M.S.) was operating in much the same way as the C.M.S. and sought recognition as an agency of the Church. Such recognition would have revived 'the principle of two societies on the lines ofthe C.M.S. and the S.P.G. grouped under a powerless Board'. ^^ The movement in Melboume for independence of action in missionary organisation illustrated in Donaldson's opinion the tendency which existed all over Australia towards provincial separation in Church matters generally. This, he said, was one of the main dangers of the Australian Church. It was one of the things he

83 Donaldson to Rupp, 19 Mar 1919, AA. 84 Montgomery to Jones, 29 May 1918, S.P.G. papers, RHL. 85 Donaldson to Bazely, 25 Aug 1919, AA. 86 Donaldson to Wright, 9 Jun 1919, AA. 87 Donaldson to Jones, 7 Aug 1919, AA. 88 Donaldson to Jones, 22 Dec 1919, AA. 269 was fighting against in his plea for autonomy, because the altemative to autonomy would probably be the development of provincial action and the degradation of General Synod. ^^

Donaldson's approach to the A.B.M. was like his approach to General Synod, statesmanlike in its vision. He solved the financial crisis ofthe A.B.M. in 1909, and he was responsible for reorganising the administration of the A.B.M. by appointing salaried staff, and making it accountable through monthly reports and audited annual accounts which made it a much stronger body, but his efforts did not always get the support that were their due. The differences in approach to missionary activity between the Evangelists and the perceived high church parties, and a tendency towards diocesanism thwarted his wish to make the Church its own missionary society.

89 Ibid 270 CHAPTER XV

CONCLUSION

St Clair George Alfred Donaldson came from a family with a background of church service. His home environment, his education, and family cormexions fitted him for high office in the Church. Of moderate churchmanship, that was neither evangelical nor Anglo-catholic, he was able to remain apart from party strife, and his objectivity made him an appropriate sounding board for other bishops who sought his views.

The reluctance he displayed in accepting the appointment to Brisbane showed a diffidence which was unusual but later revelations of his character confirm the insecurity he often felt about his ability to fulfil the demands of his office. The See to which he came had been without episcopal oversight for nearly eighteen months, so straight away he had to try to repair the omissions which this hiatus caused. One of his very early duties was to preside over the formation of the Province of Queensland. A great deal of spade work had been done but nevertheless his contribution to the discussions played no small part in bringing the matter to an early and satisfactory conclusion.

Donaldson came to the diocese with the idea firmly in his mind that there should be a national Church for Australia. To help achieve this objective it was necessary to train a ministry largely consisting of native-bom Australians. To this end he enlarged the theological college and was successfiil in having it established as the theological college for the province. His early attempts to provide an educated clergy were thwarted by having no university in Brisbane, and later by what he considered the poor educational standards ofthe men who came forward to be trained. Donaldson's attempts to improve clergy working conditions such as pay and housing were not always successful, not through the want of trying but because of the poor economic conditions which persisted throughout much of his stay in Brisbane. One great success, however, was his enlargement of the Bush Brotherhood from its mdimentary beginnings at Gayndah, until its Christian service became a by-word in the westem areas ofthe diocese.

On his own word, he found administrafion to be a burden, and this is reflected to some degree in his handling of some of his clergy: Hale who was left in the limbo of another diocese until he took matters into his own hand is an example. On the

271 other hand he could act decisively when matters of orthodoxy were concemed, as in the case of Price at All Saints' Church in Brisbane.

The diocese was not a rich one. It had never received govemment grants of land as in New South Wales, and from its inception the lack of money was a stumbling block in the way of its advancement. The situation had been exacerbated by the unpopularity of Webber at the end of his episcopate. Donaldson was saddled with Webber's legacy, the enormous expense of financing the building of the new cathedral. That he was able to have the first section built within the first five years of his time in Brisbane was a great achievement. This and the building of St Martin's Hospital are Donaldson's two lasting monuments of stone and mortar. The lack of finance throughout his time is also reflected at the parochial level in the poor pay condifions ofthe clergy.

The Archbishop was concemed at the moral tone of the country. He deprecated the decline in sexual virtue, and deplored the falling birthrate caused by the selfishness of married couples. He was not entirely condemnatory of human frailty, however, seeing in it some aspects of his own shortcomings. He did his best to improve the situation. While he saw the evils associated with the excess consumption of alcohol, he did not condemn its use in moderation, and tried to have wet canteens set up in army camps. He did not condemn strike leaders but deplored the conditions which led men to withdraw their services. With the war came new problems of morality, the basis of which lay in a lack of spirituality in the community, something he tried to overcome with special days of prayer and intercession. These he arranged at the cathedral and through instmctions to his parish priests. The success of his endeavours was not particularly evident, but the moral leadership he displayed was without question.

Although he was perhaps not seen to be taking the leading part in the battle to have the Bible read in State schools, and indeed he was not the instigator of the scheme, that honour going to his predecessor, nevertheless it was his leadership which led to ultimate victory. When the League all but foundered on the shore of indebtedness, and lack of enthusiasm, it was Donaldson who came to the rescue. It was a pity that the gloss of wirming was somewhat tarnished by the unfortunate public brawling that empted with Garland.

To the Archbishop must go the credit for laying the foundation ofthe Church's secondary school system. Where others were less perceptive he saw that it was beyond the capacity of the Church to provide a primary education system. Despite the shortcomings inherent in the State system through lack of spiritual training.

272 primary educafion lay in the State's arena. When Bible reading was restored to the classroom the disadvantages were overcome to some degree.

When trouble empted at Yarrabah it was a polifically skilfiil Archbishop who solved (at least temporarily) the problems. He placated the govemment by his scheme of management in Brisbane, and assuaged Frodsham's anger by having a sub­ committee meet in North Queensland. At the same time he proved to the A.B.M. in Sydney that it was not feasible to mn the mission from such a distance.

Donaldson was not usually an initiator of projects. Nevertheless when a plan in which he saw merit was placed before him he adopted it enthusiastically. A case in point is the Lads' Immigration Scheme. Its benefits were threefold. The scheme helped reduce the unemployment of young men in Britain. It fiilfilled a gap in the farm labour shortage in the diocese, and it helped strengthen the bonds of empire, and he gave the scheme his fiillest support.

The Empire, God's instmment given to Britain to lead the world, as he believed, was of the greatest importance to the Archbishop. While he was convinced of the need for Australia to be an independent country within the Commonwealth, he believed that Australia had an unbreakable obligation to give her services to the mother country in time of peace, but especially in time of war. He saw World War I as a Holy war, and gave much effort to the recmiting campaigns. His disappointment was terrible when both conscription referenda failed to produce 'yes' answers. He became disenchanted with the labour movement, which initially he saw as of great cultural benefit to the working class, and with Prime Minister Hughes for what he considered to be a lack of patriotism. His anger with the Roman Catholic community, which he considered was not pulling its weight in the war, eventually boiled over and he became involved in the sectarian war from which he had stood aside for so long, and which had its origins in the question of State aid, a corollary of the success ofthe Bible in State Schools issue.

The war placed additional stresses on the Archbishop. On the one hand he actively encouraged men to enlist, but on the other he had to dampen the ardour of his priests who saw their duty to be at the war front. He could not condone his men in Holy Orders taking part in armed combat, but he lent all his weight to having the Church recognised as a separate entity, and not merely part of the Protestant conglomerate. He also worked hard to have chaplains appointed in due proportion to their denominafion to all troop ships, not only those over a certain size. In 1915 a special service of farewell and blessing for departing soldiers, held in the cathedral on his initiative, became the precursor of the Anzac Day celebration the following year.

273 His plan to encourage men to take Holy Orders after the war came to nothing owing to the indifference ofthe Primate.

Donaldson was an idealist and a visionary. He arrived in Australia determined to rid the Church of colonial ideas so firmly entrenched in the minds of some of his brother bishops. He had a vision of an Australian Church, independent of the Church in England, but in communion with it. This to his mind was in keeping with the autonomy of the country recently conferred through federation. Donaldson presided over the formation of the Province of Queensland which, as a model of ecclesiastical solidarity, gave a lead to the rest of the Church in Australia in how the nexus with the Church in England might be severed. He believed that through autonomy would come a national Church, which would strengthen the nation's place in an organic Imperial federation and would enable to take its proper place in the affairs ofthe Empire, along side the body politic ofthe country. Because Donaldson came fresh to Australia with an open mind, he was able to see, unlike many of his fellow bishops, that beside gaining autonomy for the Church there were two other very important tasks which needed doing: the reformation of General Synod and the Australian Board of Missions. On these issues he fought valiantly, but faced opposition on many fronts. He had to contend with determined diocesanism on the part of many bishops and laity alike who lacked his foresight, and who were more concemed with preserving the status quo. To some extent he was successful. His attempts to change the stmcture of General Synod were more successful and more lasting than his work with the Australian Board of Missions.

Donaldson was centralist in outlook, but he was not concemed with grabbing power. He was concemed with the establishment of appropriate authority for the orderly conduct of the Church, and this was exemplified in several ways. He believed, for instance, that the decisions of Provincial Synod should be binding on the dioceses within the province, and that decisions of General Synod should be binding on the province. Evidence of his centralist outlook can be also seen in his approach to education, and in the mission field. Although Donaldson saw issues clearly and supported them fiilly, he frequently stood aside from the hurly-burly of every day concems. He seemed to be prepared to let others become involved, as was frequently the case with Garland, but when matters came to a head he would be the mediator who would bring a sensible solution to the problem. And he was often the person to whom his fellow bishops referred some of their own problems.

Donaldson walked with kings but he never acquired the common touch. He never knew what it was to be poor and his socio-economic upbringing isolated him

274 from some of the realities of working class life. His non-acceptance of the need for contraception, for example, while certainly in keeping with the teachings of the day, showed a lack of understanding of the difficulties an extra mouth in the family could cause, no matter how much it might be loved. Nevertheless he was held in high regard by clergy and laity alike.

He was essentially a lonely man isolated from some of ihe more mundane pleasures by birth and position. Despite his outwardly happy appearance he sometimes was given inwardly to moods of depression and uncertainty. He was unmarried and thus deprived of the comfort and companionship which a married man might have. His family in England was important to him, and this was largely responsible for his reluctance to accept the bishopric when it was first offered to him. In Brisbane he was far from home and missed the warmth of family ties. He brought with him the Le Fanus and Francis Batty and initially they all resided at Bishopsboume. When the Le Fanu family moved out Batty stayed on as the Archbishop's chaplain until he became sub-dean of the cathedral. Although there must have been a close working relationship between the two men there is no correspondence to indicate this. So far as Le Fanu is concemed, about the only mention in any correspondence was after Donaldson's appointment to Salisbury was armotmced but before Sharp's election, when he mentioned Le Fanu in the letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted above. Of the laity, the McConnel family at Cressbrook, and Ramsay at Harrow seem to have been his main social contacts, but Lord Chelmsford, Govemor of Queensland and later of New South Wales, and then Viceroy of India, appears to have been the only intimate fiiend from England the Archbishop had in Brisbane.

To-day, in the Diocese of Brisbane, as well as in the wider field of the Anglican Church of Australia, his achievements are largely overlooked. It was Donaldson who clearly saw the two basic things necessary to achieve autonomy: to define the nexus, and then how to break it. His influence in the debate came from his powerful personality, his close contact with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his unswerving belief in the rightness of the cause. Time and 'the tyranny of distance' hampered his efforts. The length of time between General Synods, and the time it took to get counsels' opinion impeded progress. Autonomy did not come in his lifetime, but it was Donaldson who got the principle of autonomy accepted by the three houses of General Synod in 1921, a most significant step on the long road to independence of the Church. There is no doubt that he was an admirable diocesan and metropolitan, but his great contribution towards the achievement of a national Church confirmed his place as a Church statesman of great stattire.

275 APPENDIX I

UNDATED AND UNADDRESSED TYPESCRIPT

The Archbishop of Brisbane (Dr Donaldson) has sent us the following communication :-

Archbishop Duhig has compelled me to speak. I had decided not to respond to his challenge of Febmary 5, and the goveming factor in my decision was the expressed wish of an official [ 'the censor' originally but crossed out] whose request demands the respectful consideration of every loyal citizen. That official, I know, communicated also with Archbishop Duhig, and I understood from him that the Archbishop intended to make no fiirther comment except in the interests of peace. But in his speech at Clifton, as reported in to-day's Courier he challenges me once again, and as he misunderstands my silence I must speak.

He has asked for proof of my statement that the Roman Catholics among others, push their own interests and their own people in a way detrimental to national unity, and likely to keep the nation a collection of rival racial and religious factions. I take four spheres of common life and I give one instance in each sphere.

(1) Politics - I am quite aware that here the Roman Church as such, is not openly a political organization with a parliamentary party as it is in some European countries: but ever since I have been in Queensland I have heard ofthe 'Irish Catholic vote', and no politician would dare to face the people without having carefiilly considered how that vote would be cast. Archbishop Duhig denies this: but I am interested to note that Archbishop Mannix agrees with me, for he said in his speech to the Hibemian Society, as reported in the Daily Mail of Febmary 17m that if they hung together they should have the strength they ought to have. The Catholic vote they knew, was a strong vote of which people were afraid, of which they had good reason to be afraid, and of which he hoped they would be much more afraid as time went on. But it appears that on this subject at least the voice of Rome is a divided voice. Moreover we must not forget that at a meeting of the Hibemian Society at St Brigid's, Red Hill (I quote from the Catholic Advocate of November 23, 1912) the Hon. F. Macdonell said that Roman Catholics 'now have the nucleus of a really good Catholic party in the Legislative Assembly'. What is tme ofthe larger sphere of State polifics applies equally in more local matters.

276 (2) Imperial and Patriotic Sphere - At the beginning of last September Mr Fihell), a Minister of the Crown, made a speech which has now become notorious. That speech was made at a Roman Catholic gathering, and Mr Lennon, also a Cabinet Minister and a Roman Catholic, said on the same occasion that he 'admired Mr Fihelly for his outspoken utterance'. Mr Fihelly in the course of his speech said 'The opinion is held by many young Australians that every Irish Australian recmit means another soldier to assist the British Govemment to harass the people of Ireland'. No responsible Roman Catholic has ever publicly repudiated this speech and the Catholic Advocate, the chief organ of the Roman Catholic Church in Brisbane, in its issue of September 7, ' 16, so far from repudiating it says it was like inhaling a breath of fresh air to hear Mr Fihelly's speech at the Irish Association rooms last Saturday night. After this speech, when a vacancy occurred in the Cabinet the Roman Catholic members ofthe caucus voted in a block for Mr Fihelly to fill it.

(3) The Press - A leading paper in Brisbane when it commented on Mr Fihelly's speech, received a direct expression of strong resentment and was wamed of boycott unless its policy in regard to the Roman Church ceased.

(4) Business - As in politics I have heard of the Roman Catholic vote ever since I have been in Queensland so also I have constantly heard of undue Roman Catholic pressure in business. Definite statements have been made to me, and by way of an example I give one of which I have the fullest evidence. A prominent trader in Queen Street was recently canvassed for advertisement in a very influential Roman Catholic newspaper, and when he declined to increase the amount of his expense upon advertising was definitely threatened with the loss of the business of a Catholic institution trading with him.

It is with the greatest reluctance and aversion that I mention these matters. It is not my way to be enquiring into the faults and errors of my fellow citizens; and I desire to repeat that the question before us does not concem the religious beliefs of the Roman Catholics (whose loyalty to the Church and Faith is an example to us all) but of their practices as citizens. That matter is now before the tribimal of the public and I have no doubt as to its verdict; but as Archbishop Duhig has repeated his challenge I break silence (for the last time) to state these instances of well-known facts.

277 ABBREVIATIONS

AA Anglican Diocesan (Brisbane) Archives A. letters Archiepiscopal letters BC Brisbane Courier BMins Bib'e in State Schools League Minutes ChCh Church Chronicle DCMins Diocesan Council Minutes DM Daily Mail FCM Finance Committee Minutes GS General Synod JO John Oxley Library, Brisbane LPL Lambeth Palace Library, London Reg. Corres. Registry Correspondence

RHL Rhodes House Library, Oxford SMH Sydney Morning Herald SPCK Society for the Propogation of Christian knowledge SPG Society for the Propogation ofthe Gospel SSA Society ofthe Sacred Advent TLC Trinity College Library, Cambridge YB Year Book ofthe Diocese of Brisbane

278 THE BRISBANE EPISCOPATE OF St. CLAIR DONALDSON

1904 -1921

BIBLIOGRAPHY

L OFFICIAL SOURCES AND MANUSCRIPTS

A. Anglican Diocesan (Brisbane) Archives

( i) Church Chronicle 1901-1921.

( ii) Diocesan Year Book 1889-1921.

(iii) Official Minutes ofthe Proceedings of Synod 1901 - 1921.

(iv) Proceedings of Provincial Synod of Queensland.

( v) Summary of Proceedings ofthe General Synod of Australia and Tasmania.

(vi) Official Report ofthe Australian Church Congress, Brisbane 1913.

(vii) Report ofthe Executive Council ofthe Australian Board of Missions, April 1909 to August 1910.

(viii) St John's Parish Chronicle, Vol. 1., Oct 1886-Dec 1887.

(ix) Cathedral Notes, Vols. 1 - 6, January 1916 - December 1922.

(x) Echoes ofthe Home Mission ofthe Church of England, 1910-1921.

(xi) Bush Notes.

(xii) Lesser Chapter of St John's Cathedral Ledgers 1911-1935.

(xiii) Cash Books of Synod.

(xiv) Report of the Select Committee on State Aid to Church Schools, 1961. (xv) Conference ofthe Bishops ofthe Anglican Communion holden at Lambeth Palace 6 July - 5 August 1908. London: S.P.C.K., 1908.

(xvi) Minute Books:

Lesser Chapter of St John's Cathedral. 279 Diocesan Council 1901-1921.

Finance Committee 1900-1921.

Various Committees 1903-1922.

Collegiate School for Giris 1897-1902.

Provincial Organisation Committee.

Legal and References from Synod Committee.

St Francis' College Chapter 1914-1927.

Laymen's Committee St Francis' College 1908-1912.

St Francis' Students Library and Debating Club 1909-1914.

Minutes of Committee to consider a Constitution for the Province of Queensland.

Minutes ofthe Bush Brotherhood Quarterly Meetings, January 1918 to October 1921.

(xvii) Correspondence:

Sundry Registry Correspondence 1904-1921.

Registry Correspondence outward - Yarrabah 1914-1919.

Archiepiscopal correspondence 1901-1921.

Personal letters of Bishop G. Halford.

Personal letters of Bishop H. Le Fanu 1904-1939.

(xviii) Notes on the Diocese of Brisbane [MS], A. E. David.

B. -lohn Oxley library, Brisbane

The Papers ofthe Rev. D. J. Garland: OM74.100, OM74.101, OM64-14, OM75-31,OM71.051.

The Church of England Papers of Littleton Groom, OM74.48.

280 Cumbrae-Stewart Historical Papers relating to the early Church of England in Queensland. OM75.32

Legal Nexus, Case and Opinion, P262.03.

Bible in State Schools League Records (manuscript) 1890-1915.

Bible in State Schools League Minutes 1890-1918, OM 166.005.

Diocese of Carpentaria Minute Books.

The Carpentarian 1901-1942 OM.AV/150/1 - OM.AV/150/2.

Annual Report ofthe Chief Protector of Aboriginals [sic], 1909: S3 05.8 005.

Annual Report ofthe Yarrabah Mission to the Aborigines, 1909: RBS266 019.

Missions to Aborigines in Queensland, Westem Australia, and the Northem Territory - a memorandum prepared by direction of the Minister for Extemal Affairs, 1915: P266.00994 mis.

Aboriginal News (Yarrabah, Q'ld.) FICHE/S 266.3 abo.

The Australian Church Quarterly Review, S 283 090.

Strike BuUefins of the 1912 Tramways Strike, Film/S 0064.

First Report on the Progress and Assimilation of Migrant Children in Australia - by a special committee ofthe Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, 1960: PAM 325.94 1960.

Child Migration to Australia - issued by The Home Office (U.K.), PAM 362.7 1953.

Australia and Immigration: 1788-1988, compiled by Department of Immigration, Local Govemment and Ethnic Affairs, J325.94 Aus.

Migration and Settlement Schemes in Queensland (Manuscript), Kleinschmidt, M.A., OM 78.081.

The Queensland Prohibitionist - Official organ ofthe Queensland Prohibition League, S 178 007.

Papers (manuscript): 1914-1918 0M71.041.

281 Reminiscences ofChermside Conscript Camp (Manuscript): 1916, OM.70.020.

Speech by Mr W. F. Finlayson, M.P., on Conscription, 1916, P 355.223 spe.

Daws, Ellis David, The Primacy and the Dispute of 1891, typescript of a paper read to the Church of England Historical Society (Diocese of Sydney) 4 Febmary 1971.

Queensland Recmiting Committee Papers (manuscript) 1914-1918, OM71-041.

Report with minutes of evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Best Means to be adopted for the Purpose of Establishingn and Maintaining a University in Queensland: together with the proceedings ofthe Commission and appendices, 1891: RBQ 379.943 que.

Official Record ofthe Debates ofthe Legislative Council and ofthe Legislative Assembly, Vol. LXXX II, 1899, Vol. CIV, 1909, Vol. CVI, CVII, CVIII, 1910.

C State Archives of Queensland

Sundry Correspondence re Bible in State Schools League, PRE/A 4276 of 1907, PRE/A 6949 of 1907, PRE/A 37 of 1908, PRE/A 5534 of 1911,PRE/B1907,PRE/B 1908,PRE/B 1910,PRE/B 1911,H0M/B 1911, LAN/AK 115.

Sundry Correspondence re Lads Immigration Scheme, and other Immigration, IMM 176, PRE/B 1910, PRE/B 1911, GE/G 117, PRE/A 1911, PRE/B 1912, PRE/B 1913, PRE/B 1914, PRE/B 1915, PRE/B1916, PRE/111, PRE/B 1917, PRE/B 1918, PRE/B 1919, PRE/B 1920, PRE/B 1921, PRE/B 1922, PRE/B 1924, PRE/A 6526 of 1924.

D. University of Queensland Archives

Calendar ofthe University of Queensland 1913.

Report ofthe Inaugural Ceremony 1 June 1911, UQA S250.

Register of Admissions to Graduate, Vol.1, 1911, UQA SI 53.

The University of Queensland 1910-1922, (published by authority ofthe Senate 1923) UQA S246.

282 Correspondence, Reports, etc. 1916, and Senate Meetings 1917, UQA S2.

Minutes of Education Committee 1911-1928, Vol.1, UQA S21.

Minutes of Library Committee 1911-1924, UQA S29.

E. University of Queensland, Fryer Library

Cumbrae-Stewart Papers: Notes of Diocesan Boundaries, MSS2/716

Garland Correspondence MSS2/257.

F. Australian Archives

Correspondence relating to Roman Catholic Employment in Repatriation Department, Series A2487/1, Item 19/2128.

Papers relating to Canon Garland, Series Al606/1, Item 22/2 Canon Garland.

F. Lambeth Palace Library, London

Papers of Archbishop Davisdon: No. 10 1-137 Ecclesiastical Appointments; 236 Australia 1905-25; 196 ff. 1- 8; 90 ff. 269-70, 274-302; 190 ff. 197-200; vol 246 passim, 200 ff. 67-74; 11 ffi 39-63; 196 ffil- 8; vols. 425, 426, 427.

Pan Anglican Congress H5133 1061.17; H5133 H1067; 24H5021.P2.

G. Rhodes House Library, Oxford

Correspondence ofthe Society for the Propagation ofthe Gospel in Foreign Parts, CLR 210, CLS 140, CLS 144.

The East and West 1914-1921, (S.P.G. Periodical).

H. Society for the Propagation of Chrisfian Knowledge, London

S.P.C.K. Notes, No. CLXIV 1908.

SP.CK. Grant Book 1840-1923.

J. Trinity College, Cambridge, Library

Henry Babington Smith Correspondence: NRA 3244 2 Smith (HBS70).

283 Extract from Historical Register ofthe University of Cambridge.

I. Church Army Headquarters, Blackheath. England

The Report ofthe Work ofthe Church Army I January 1910 to 30 September 1911.

Church Army Review, 1908-9, 1910-11.

K. Universitv of London. Institute of Australian Studies

Letters and Documents ofthe late Richard Jubb, M.P. (Lionel Curtis on the Federal Movement in Australia.) 580.5876.

2, NEWSPAPERS.

Brisbane Courier

Daily Mail

The Worker h BOOKS and OTHER PTIRLICATTONS

Alexander, Fred., ed. Four Bishops and Their See, Perth, 1857-1957. Nedlands, W.A.: University of Westem Ausstralia Press, 1957.

Anzac Day Commemoration Committee (Q'ld), Anzac Day Commemoration in Queensland. Brisbane: 1990.

Appleyard, R.T. British Emigration to Australia. Canberra: Australian National University, 1964.

Bardon, Richard. TTze Centenary History ofthe Presbyterian Church of Queensland, 1849-1949. Brisbane: General Assembly ofthe Presbyterian Church of Queensland, undated.

Batley, Alfred William. The Boomerang Returns: the Story ofthe Church Army in Australia. Newcastle: Church Army in Australia, 1955.

Batty, F. de Witt. The Diocese of Brisbane: being some Gleanings fr-om Its History, Past and Present. Brisbane: Brisbane Diocesan Synod, 1909.

Bean, Philip and Melville, Joy. Lost Children ofthe Empire. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.

284 Bell, G. K. A. Randall Davidson Archbishop of Canterbury. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 3rd.ed. 1952.

Bemays, C A. Queensland Politics during Sixty (1859-1919) Years. Brisbane: A. J. Cuming, Govemment Printer.

Berwick, The Very Rev. G. T. The Birth ofthe Bush Brotherhood. London: The Rockhampton Auxiliary ofthe Australian Bush Brotherhood Commissaries Council. Reprinted in Theology, for S.P.C.K., May 1947.

Blackburn, Maurice. The Conscription Referendum of 1916. Melboume: Anti- Conscripfion Celebration League, 1936.

Boland, T. P. James Duhig. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1986.

Border, Ross. Church and State in Australia 1788-1872. London: S.P.C.K., 1962.

Breward, Ian. Australia "The Most Godless Place under Heaven"? Melboume: Beacon Hill Books, 1988.

Bum, M., ed. The Pearl Divers. Pictures from the Life and Work of Prebendary Carlile ofthe Church Army. London: Marshall Bros., 1920.

Byme Neil J. Robert Dunne 1830 -1917, Archbishop of Brisbane. University of Queensland Press, 1991.

Chadwick, Owen. The Victorian Church: An Ecclesiastical History of England. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966.

Clark, M., ed. Sources of Australian History. London: Oxford University Press, 1970 ed.

Clarke, Henry Lowther. Constitutional Church Government in the Dominions Beyond the Seas and in other parts ofthe Anglican Communion. London: S.P.C.K., 1924.

Cole, John R. The Making of Men. A History of Churchie 1912-1986. Brisbane: Boolarong Publications, 1986.

Coleman, Roger, ed. Resolutions ofthe Twelve Lambeth Conferences 1867- 1988. Toronto, Canada: The Anglican Book Centre, 1992.

Coles, H.H. The History ofthe Movement for Autonomy. A report ofthe Clerical Conference, Diocese of Adelaide, 1956.

CoUum, J. A., ed. New Settlers Handbook for Queensland. Brisbane: New Settlers League of Australia (Queensland Division), 1925.

285 Conference of Bishops ofthe Anglican Communion - Resolutions and Reports, 1897, 1908, 1920 London: Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge.

Crowley, Frank, ed. A New History of Australia. Melboume: William Heinemann, 1974.

Crowley, F.K. 'The British Contribution to the Australian Population 1860- 1919'. University Studies in History and Economics, 1954.

Davey, Gwenda. A strange Place to Go: Child Migrants to Australia: a Resource Book. Melboume: Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, 1986.

David, A. E. Australia. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1908.

Davis, John. Australian Anglicans and their Constitution. Canberra: Acom Press, 1993.

Davidson, Randall T., Dean of Westminster, ed.. The Lambeth Conferences of 1867,1878 & 1888 with the Official Reports and Resolutions, together with the Sermons preached at the Conferences. London: S.P.C.K., 1889.

Diddams, H. J. compiler. Anzac commemoration, 1921: a brief History ofthe Movement: Sermons and Addresses delivered throughout Queensland. Brisbane: Anzac Day Commemorafion Committee of Queensland, 1921.

Dimot, C.T. and Batty, F. de Witt. St Clair Donaldson, K.CM.G, D.D., D.C.I, Archbishop of Brisbane 1904-1921, Bishop of Salisbury 1921- 1935. London: Faber & Faber, 1939.

The Diocese of Brisbane - Church of England College Annual (Diocese of Brisbane, its Schools and Colleges). Brisbane: H. J. Diddams & Co., 1931.

Donaldson, St Clair. The State and Christian Missions. London: S.P.C.K. for the Central Board of Missions, 1917.

Donaldson, St Clair. Christian Patriotism. Brisbane: Church Book Depot, 1915.

Donaldson, St Clair. A Meditation on the Acts ofthe Apostles: studied with a view to Church Extension. London: Faber & Faber Limited, 1937.

Elkin, A. P., The Diocese of Newcastle - A History ofthe Diocese of Newcastle, N.S. W.., Australia. Glebe, N.S.W.: Australasian Medical Publishing Company Limited, 1955.

286 Elliott-Binns, L. E. Religion in the Victorian Era. London: Lutterworth Press, 1936.

Feetham, Rt. Rev. J. O., ed. North Queensland Jubilee Book 1878-1928. Townsville: McGilvray & Co. Ltd. Printers, 1929.

Fitzgerald, Ross. From 1915 to the Early 1980s. A History of Queensland. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1984.

Flindall, R. P. (ed.). The Church of England 1815-1948, A Documentary History London: SPCK, 1972.

Foster, Leonie. High Hopes: the Men and Motives ofthe Australian Round Table. Melboume: Melboume University Press, 1986.

Eraser, Ross, ed. A Historical Sketch ofthe Diocese ofNorth Queensland. (Published to commemorate the eightieth anniversary ofthe founding of the See.)

Frederick Hulton-Sams, The Fighting Parson (Impressions of his five years' ministry in the Queensland Bush recorded by some who knew and loved him.) Longreach Q'ld: Theo F. Barker, Printer, 1915.

Giles, R. A., The Constitutional History ofthe Australian Church: London: Skeffington & Son, Ltd., 1929.

Goodman, Rupert D. Secondary Education in Queensland 1860-1960. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1968.

Gribble, E.R.B. Forty Years with the Aborigines. Sydney: Angus & Robertson 1930, 2nd ed.

Gribble, E.R.B. A Despised Race: the Vanishing Abloriginals [sic] of Australia. Sydney: The Australian Board of Missions, 1933.

Henderson, Christine. The Glennie, a Work of Faith. (A history ofthe Glennie Memorial School, Toowoomba 1901-1981). Sydney: Rank Xerox Copicentre, 1983.

Hilliard, David. Godliness and Good Order. A History ofthe Anglican Church in South Australia. South Australia: Wakefield Press, 1986.

Inglis, K. S. 'Anzac and Chrisfian - Two Traditions in One'. St Mark's Review No. 42 (1965).

Jauncey, Leslie C, The Story of Conscription in Australia. MacMillan of Australia, 1968.

287 Jubilee Book 1901 -1951. Brotherhood of St Paul.

Judd, Stephen, Power and Party in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney 1909- 1938. Sydney: University of Sydney, 1984.

Judd, Stephan and Cable, Kenneth, Sydney Anglicans - A History ofthe Diocese. Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1987.

Jupp, J. Immigration, Australian Retrospectives Series, Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1991.

Kaye, Bmce. A Church without Walls - Being Anglican in Australia. North Blackbum: Dove, 1995.

Kertesz, George, Christians War & Peace, A Historical Survey from the First Century to 1985. St Lucia: Broughton Press, 1989.

Kissick, D. L. All Saints' Church, Brisbane 1862-1937. Brisbane: Shipping Newspapers, 1937.

Lack, John and Templeton, Jacqueline, eds. Sources of Australian Immigration History. Parkville, Vic: History Department, University of Melboume, 1988.

Lawson, Ronald. Brisbane in the 1890s. University of Queensland Press, 1973.

Lawton, William James. The Better Time to Be: Utopian Attitudes to Society among Sydney Anglicans 1885-1914. Kensington, N.S.W.: New South Wales University Press, 1990.

Lilley, W. Osbome. Reminiscences of Life in Brisbane, and Reflections and Sayings. Brisbane: W. R.Smith & Patterson, 1913.

Loane, Marcus L. Hewn from the Rock. Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1976.

Logan, Greg., Sex Education in Queensland, A History ofthe Debate since 1900. Brisbane: Department of Education, 1991.

Maguire, John P. Prologue - A History ofthe Catholic Church as Seen from Townsville 1863-1983. Toowoomba: A Church Archivists' Society Publication, 1990.

Martin, Denis W. The Foundation ofthe Catholic Church in Queensland. Brisbane: Church Archivists' Society, 1988.

288 McLay, Anne R.S.M. James Quinn First Catholic Bishop of Brisbane. Toowoomba: Church Activists' Society Publication, 1989.

McKelvie, D. Bishop Halford. Rockhampton: Rockhampton Historical Society, 1981.

McKeman, Michael. Australian Churches at War - Attitudes & Activities of Major Churches 1914-1918. Sydney & Canberra: Catholic Theological Faculty and Australian War Memorial, 1980.

McKeman, Michael. Padre -Australian Chaplains in Gallipoli and France. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1986.

Micklem, Philip A. Principles of Church Organisation with Special Reference to the Church of England in Australia. London: S.P.C.K., 1921.

Montgomery, the Rt.Rev. H. The Future ofthe Anglican Communion. (A pamphlet), London: undated but prior to Pan Anglican Congress 1908.

Morris, W. P. F. Sons of Magnus. First Steps of a Queensland School. Brisbane: William Brooks & Co. (Q) Pty. Ltd., 1948.

Morrison, A. A. 'The Brisbane General Strike of 1912'. Historical Studies, vol. 4, No. 14, May 1950.

Moses, John A.,ed. Anglican Social Strategies from Burgmann to the Present. St Lucia: Broughton Press, 1989.

Moses, John A. and Munro, Gregory. Australia and the 'Kaiser's War' 1914- 1918, on Understanding the ANZAC Tradition, Argument & Theses. St Lucia: Broughton Press, 1993.

Murphy, D. J., ed. The Big Strike, Queensland 1889-1965. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, c.1983.

Murphy, Denis, Joyce Roger, end Cribb, Margaret, eds. The Premiers of Queensland. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, revised edition, 1990.

O'Farrell, P., ed. Documents of Australian Catholic History, vol. II1884- 1968. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969.

Parker, Critchley, ed. Australian Statesman and Mining Standard. Melboume: 1917.

Pearce, CG. 'The Right Rev. Horace Henry Dixon, C.B.E., M.A. (Cantab.) Th.D. (1869-1964) and The Genesis of a Public School'. The Journal of the Royal Historical Society of Queensland, vol. X, No.l, 1956-1976.

289 Pick, D. Faces of Degeneration: A European Disorder, c.1848 - c.1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Pollard, A.F., ed. The British Empire: Its Past, Its present, and Its Future. London: League of Empire, 1909.

Porter, Brian, ed. Colonial Tractarians. The Oxford Movement in Australia. Melboume: The Joint Board of Christian Education, 1989.

Rowland, E. C, ^ Century of The English Church in New South Wales. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1948.

Rayner, Keith. From Brick Hut to Cathedral, (the text of a lecture by Rayner during celebrations to mark the 75th anniversary ofthe laying ofthe foundation stone of St John's Cathedral, Brisbane.) Brisbane: Publications Committee of St John's Cathedral, 1976.

Resolutions of Conference of Committees appointed by the General Synod ofthe Church of England in Australia and Tasmania and by the General Assembly ofthe Presbyterian Church of Australia meeting at St Paul's Cathedral Buildings, Melbourne on 27 and 29 November 1906, and 15 to 17 October 1907. Melboume: The Conference, 1907.

Robin, A, de Q. 'The Anglican Church in Australia'. Investigation 9, pp. 135- 142. December 1974.

Robson, L. L. Australia and the Great War 1914-1918. Melboume: The MacMillan Company of Australia Pty. Ltd., 1969.

Robson, L. L. The First A.IF. : a Study of Its Recruitment, 1914-1918. Melboume: Melboume University Press, 1970.

Sherington, Geoffery. Australia's Immigrants, 1788-1988. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990, 2nd ed.

Smith, F. B., The Conscription Plebicites in Australia 1916-17. Melboume: Victorian Historical Association, 1966.

Smith, L.P.G. 'The Australian Anglican Episcopate 1836-1973'. Church of England Historical Society Journal, pp. 14-19. Sydney: March 1973.

Smith, P. 'He Who Pays the Piper. The Crisis of Authority during Yarrabah's Foimdation Era'. Lectures on North Queensland History, 3rd Series. Townsville: James Cook University, 1978.

Stephens, Geoffrey. The Anglican Church in Tasmania. A Diocesan History to mark the Sesquicentenary 1992. Hobart: Tmstees ofthe Diocese, 1991.

290 Thompson, Kenneth A. Bureaucracy and Church Reform, The Organisational Response to Social Change 1800-1965. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Thomson, Malcolm. The Lambeth Conference. London: Faber & Faber, 1930.

Tomlin, J.W.S. The Story ofthe Bush Brotherhoods. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1949.

Tomlin, W.J.S. Halford's Challenge: dedicated to the Young Men and Women of the Anglican Communion. England: 1952.

Wagner, Gillian. Lost Children ofthe Empire. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, c 1982.

Wand, J.W.C Anglican in History and Today. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1961.

Ward, Roland S. The Bush Still Burns, The Presbyterian and Reformed Faith in Australia 1788-1988. 1989.

Waterson, D. B. ^ Biographical Register ofthe Queensland Parliament 1860- 1929. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1972.

Webb, R.A.F. Brothers in the Sun. Adelaide: Rigby Ltd., 1978.

Webb, R.K. Modern England. From the 18th Century to the Present. London: Unwin University Books, 1969.

Wetherell, D. Reluctant Mission. Brisbane: Queensland University Press, 1977.

White, Rt. Rev. Gilbert. 30 Years in Tropical Australia. London: S.P.C.K., 1918.

White, Rev. John E. A Fellowship of Service. A History ofthe Baptist Union of Queensland 1877-1977. Brisbane: Baptist Union of Queensland, undated.

Withycombe, R. 'The Anglican Episcopate in England and Australia in the early Twentieth Century'. Journal of Religious History, Vol.16 No.2, pp. 154-172, December 1990.

Wood, Ronald.' "The Boss" Canon William Perry French Morris Founder of Churchie.' Royal Historical Society of Queensland, Clem Lack Oration. Vol. XIV, No. 13, 1992.

291 Woolcock, Helen R. Rights of Passage: Emigration to Australia in the Nineteenth Century. Londonb: Tavistock Publications Ltd., 1986.

Wyeth, E.R. A History of Education in Queensland and the Moreton Bay District of New South Wales. Melboume: Australian Council for Education Research, 195-.

4. THESES and UNPUBLISHED WORK

Aimes, H. The Aims, Ideals, and Achievements of ;he Society ofthe Sacred Advent in Queensland, 1892-1968. B.A.Hons thesis. University of Queensland, 1962.

Comer, K. L. Yarrabah: A Mission for Aboriginal People in North Queensland: The effect of Govemment and Church Policies, 1900 - 1912 . Postgraduate Dipolma of Arts (History), University of Queensland, 1944.

Freshwater, Stephen. The Attitude ofthe Anglican Diocese of Brisbane to Education 1890-1914. 1972 (Anglican Archives, Brisbane).

Gilbert, A.D. The Churches and the Conscription Referenda 1916-17. M.A. thesis, Australian National University, 1968.

Hale, Rev. H. P. Extracts from 'Reminescences' compiled prior to his death in 1930 (Anglican Archives, Brisbane).

Halse, C M. The Rev. Emest Gribble and Race Relations in Northem Australia. Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland, 1993.

Hunt, J. Church and State in Education in Queensland. B.A.Hons. thesis. University of Queensland, 1959.

Johnston, John. Just in Time - A review of Social and Welfare Activities in the Diocese of Brisbane.

MacGinley, M.E.R. Catholicism in Queensland 1910-1935, A Social History. Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland, 1982.

Philp, R.H.H.. George Douglass Halford, an English Bishop in the Queensland Bush. B.Lit. thesis, University of New England, 1982.

Rayner, K.D. The Attitude and Influence ofthe Churches in Queensland on matters of Social and Political Importance (1859-1914). B.A. hons. thesis. University of Queensland,

Rayner, K.D. A History ofthe Church of England in Queensland. Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland, 1962.

292 Shaw. G.P. Conscripfion and Queenland - 1916-1917. B.A. Hons. thesis. University of Queensland, 1966.

Stonier, A. J. A. The Development of Church of England Policy and Practice conceming Queensland Education in the Diocese of Brisbane 1875-1921. M.Ed.Studies thesis. University of Queensland,

Thompson, J. A. The History ofthe contribution ofthe Church of England to Education in Queensland. B.Ed, thesis, University of Queensland, 1951.

Upham, Bmce W. Church and State: A case Study of Queensland to 1918. Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland, 1993.

Notes by Diocesan Registrar conceming the historical development ofthe Church school system in the Diocese of Brisbane (Anglican Archives, Brisbane).

293