Contrasting Irish-Australian Responses to Empire Hugh Mahon M.H.R. and Senator Paddy Lynch

Danny Cusack

On 11 November 1920 Hugh Mahon, then Federal Labor M.P. for Kalgoorlie, was expelled from the House of Representatives on a motion by Prime Minister W. M. ('Billy') Hughes. He was the first and only person to be so expelled from the Federal Parliament. The pretence for Hughes' action was a speech Mahon had made a few days earlier at Richmond Reserve in Melbourne. At a public meeting to protest against the death in London's Brixton Prison ofhunger-strikerTerence McSwiney on 25 October, Mahon had proclaimed: We have met here today to express sympathy with the widow and the family of the late Lord Mayor of Cork-a man irreproachable in domestic and private life, trusted and beloved by his fellow citizens, and the chief magistrate ofan ancient and important city. What sort of a government is it that has only a felon's cell for a man of his attainments and intellectual gifts, his self-sacrifice and his patriotism? Why there never was in Russian history during the time of the most bloody and cruel Czars a government of more infamous character-to subject to a lingering and a painful death a man of the type of Terence McSweeney [sic). When we read in the papers that his poor widow sobbed over his coffin, I said: 'If there is a just God in heaven, these sobs will reach Him, and will one day swell into a volume that will shake the foundations of this bloody and infamous despotisrn.' At a Loyalty League rally in some eighteen months later, Nationalist (by then ex-Labor) senator Paddy Lynch uttered these words to a very different kind of audience to the one which Mahon had addressed at Richmond: As a pure-bred Irishman, whose pedigree [goes] back to the misty realms of unrecorded things, in the days of[my] boyhood [I] had no special admiration either for the British empire or its flag.[I] went abroad in the world. [I] sampled this form of government and that, and lived under one flag and then another. When I came to this country I realised that the Union Jack, which in my boyhood I considered the symbol of servitude for me and mine, was the title of security for me and mine in this glorious Commonwealth, which forms part ofthe British Ernpire.i 19 The Australian Journal ofIrish Studies

The contrast between the sentiments expressed by the two man could not be more striking, yet in many significant respects Mahon and Lynch shared similar backgrounds. Both had been born in the rural Irish midlands in the late nineteenth century-Mahon in 1857 and Lynch in 1867. Both were members of large established farming families­ Mahon the second youngest of fourteen children and Lynch the youngest ofeight. Both were, broadly speaking, of Catholic nationalist background. Both had arrived in the Western Australian Goldfields in the mid-1890s via the eastern states. Both had begun their political careers in the Goldfields in the very early years of the 1900s and both had represented Labor in the Federal Parliament. How then do we explain their radically different attitudes to Empire? Here the two men provide interesting Hugh Mahon (1857-1931). case studies. Although both were Irish Undated photograph, Swiss Studios, nationalists who supported the Empire Melbourne. and 's contribution to the war By courtesy, National Library of Australia, effort, they followed different paths PIC PIC/7574 LOC Box PIC/7574. during the conscription controversy and Labor Split of1916-17. Whereas Lynch was an avowed pro-conscriptionist, Mahon eventually declared against conscription (although his original stance was, to say the least, ambiguous).While Lynch belonged to the minority which followed Prime Minister out of the Federal Labor Caucus in , Mahon was one ofthe majority who stayed. And, during the years immediately following this great cataclysm, Lynch associated with the breakaway National Labor Party but Mahon remained loyal tothe Official Labor Party. It is useful to examine each oftheir backgrounds in a little more detail.

Hugh Mahon

Hugh Mahon was born on 6January 1857 at Killurin, Offaly(then Queen's County), the thirteenth child ofJames Mahon McEvoy). James Mahon was an established and extensive farmer. educated by the

Christian Brothers, Hugh spent six years in North [LUiCil\..a learnll1g printing trade. Upon his return to Ireland in 1879, he became New Ross Standard in Co. VVexford and soon took over the 1881 he was arrested and imprisoned-together with Dublin's

20 Contrastmg Insn-Austrauan Kesponses to Lmptre

Kilmainham Gaol for his activities with the Land League.3 Released two months later for health reasons, he fled via London to Australia. Arriving in in 1882, he resumed his career as a journalist and worked for various newspapers in that colony over the following decade. In 1883 he published a short history of the Land League4 and helped organise a fund­ raising tour by the Redmond brothers, John and William, leading figures in the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster. In 1888 he married Mary L'Estrange of Melbourne and together the couple had three sons and two daughters. In 1895 Mahon moved to the Western Australian Goldfields where he edited several newspapers and became politically active in both the labour movement and the Separation for Federation movement.' In 1901 he was elected to the first Federal Parliament as the Labor M.H.R. for Coolgardie. For the next nineteen years he served almost continuously as an M.P.-first for Coolgardie, then for Kalgoorlie. He was a member of several Labor ministries-first as Postmaster-General, then as Minister for Home Affairs and finally, in 1914-16, as Minister for External Affairs. Following the Caucus split ofNovember 1916 he served out the rest ofhis parliamentary career on the opposition benches with his Official Labor colleagues. After his expulsion from the House ofRepresentatives in November 1920 and defeat in the subsequent by-election the following month, Mahon retired permanently from active politics. He then ran an orchard and continued as Managing Director of the Catholic Church Property Insurance Company, a position he had held since 1912. He died at his home at Ringwood, Melbourne, in August 1931, aged 74 years.

Paddy Lynch6

Patrick Joseph Lynch was born on 24 May 1867 (Queen Victoria's birthday) at Skearke, Moynalty, Co. Meath to Michael Lynch and wife Bridget (nee Cahill). The family had farmed in this locality for several generations. Paddy grew up in this close-knit rural community about five miles north-west of Kells. He attended a couple ofthe local National Schools but was then privileged to spend two years at the Bailieboro Model School, which gave him a formal education superior to that ofmost ofhis contemporaries. At the age ofeighteen he followed three of his elder brothers who had already emigrated to the United States. He spent only a briefperiod in that ir country, however, before venturing on to Australia, arriving in Queensland some time in 1886. From then until his election to the Western Australian State Parliament some eighteen years later, Lynch enjoyed a well-travelled, varied and eventful career which took him to most states in Australia as well as many places in the Pacific. He served n stints as a railway construction worker, shearer and miner in outback Queensland and ). New South Wales; seven years at sea as a stoker and marine engineer on coastal and Ie island ships"; a spell as an engineer on a Fijian sugar plantation; and seven years as a mine engine-driver and trade union official on the Western Australian Goldfields. As

ISS a young seaman, he was involved in the great maritime strikes of 1890 and 1893 and first became a committed member ofthe labour movement at his time. By 1897 he had taken up residence on the \"lestern Australian Goldfields at Boulder,

21 The Australian Journal ofIrish Studies some 375 miles east of Perth. He was a founding member of the Amalgamated Certificated Engine-Drivers Association (ACEDA), which he served as Goldfields general secretary for five years. With the foundation of the Western Australian Arbitration Court in 1901, he became a forceful advocate ofworkers' interests in that arena. He also served for two and a halfyears as a member ofthe Boulder Municipal Council. In 1901 Lynch married Ann Cleary, a native of Co. Clare, at Boulder and they had two daughters and a son. In 1904 Lynch was returned unopposed as the Labor member for the newly-created seat of Mount Leonora in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and served briefly (June-August 1905) as Minister for \l'i/orks in the Daglish administration, the first Labor government in . Lynch's election as a Labor senator for Western Australia in 1906 brought to an end his short career in state politics. He was a senator for thirty-two years, the first ten as a Labor man. Having been expelled from the party in 1916, he served out the remaining 22 years of his parliamentary career in the Nationalist ranks. Meanwhile Lynch had severed his immediate links with the Goldfields: in 1909 he purchased 3,500 acres of land at Three Springs outside Geraldton with his brother Philip, recently arrived from Ireland. The senator eventually became a prosperous wheat-farmer. Immediately following the Labor Caucus split of November 1916, Lynch served briefly-for three months-as Minister for Works and Railways in the first Hughes­ led National Government. His political career after 1917 was something of an anti­ climax. In 1932 he was elected-on the third attempt-as President of the Senate. He was, however, in his late 60s by this stage and his six-year term as President represented the twilight ofhis career. Following his electoral defeat and subsequent retirement in 1938, he returned to the West and to his farming interests. He died in Perth at Mount Lawley in 1944, aged 76 years, and was buried in Karrakatta cemetery. A distinctive personality, Paddy Lynch was at various times described by commentators as an excitable.though sincere Irishman, given to colourful oratory and exotic turns to reinforcing his arguments with his fists.

Friendship

Although Mahon and Lynch may have met in Sv(:!m~v (while Mahon was a newspaperman and Lynch a seaman) the two men first became acquainted on the LU"LHUW.U \..:i-ol,dhelc[s around 1899- 1900. By then Mahon was resident in neighlbOllrirlg Boulder. Both were active in the Separation so) and both were supportive of the Alluvial ofalluvial miners. Although neither appears the Irish societies on the GClldhe.lds have come into contact through events within the Irish comlnuni1~.o would also have brought Contrasting Irish-Australian Responses to Empire

the Kalgoorlie-based professional journalist and newspaper editor and Lynch the Boulder-based engine-driver and trade union official. It was not until Lynch entered the Federal Parliament in 1907, however, that a closer working relationship and personal friendship developed between himself and Mahon (who had entered Parliament six years earlier). They remained party political colleagues until the split in the Federal Labor Caucus in November 1916. H.]. (Jim) Gibbney has observed that Mahon (something ofa loner) had never been particularly close to other Western Australian Labor M.P.s and as a consequence ofthe Split 'lost his friend Patrick Lynch'. 9 Two surviving letters from Lynch to Mahon during their early years as political colleagues reveal an obvious friendship and familiarity between the two men. Underlining this familiarity, both letters are signed 'Yours, P.].'. On one occasion, in April 1909, Lynch wrote to Mahon (then Minister for Home Affairs) recommending a Mr Glance (Goldfields Labor activist and sometime Mayor of Boulder) for a government position. Having dealt with the business at hand, Lynch concluded on a personal note, sharing some important family news-the arrival from Ireland of his brother and family: The brother has arrived and what a contingent he has brought-six sons and a daughter. He has aged more than he should have done and when I look upon him sadly note that the youthful sprightliness has prematurely departed. I feel he [can'tr] become a bomb thrower evermore. We are looking for land and busy.l" The cordial relationship between Lynch and Mahon is demonstrated indirectly in other ways: for example, in June 1911 Lynch combined with John Kirwan, editor of the Kalgoorlie Miner, to have framed and presented to Mahon a photograph of Mahon which had appeared in Kirwan's paper. 11

Politicalschism

Despite this early friendship, significant differences eventually emerged between Mahon and Lynch on key political issues such as conscription, the divisions within the Labor Party and the situation in Ireland. Lynch's stance on all of these issues is abundantly clear from his Senate speeches'? and other public statements. By contrast, Mahon's parliamentary speeches are distinguished by a conspicuous absence of any reference to these burning issues of the day. We must rely heavily upon Mahon's keynote address to the March 1917 Western Australian Labor Conference and his fateful Richmond speech ofNovember 1920 for a public explication ofhis views.P Lynch's stance on conscription was clear and resolute. From the very outset he was a committed and unapologetic proponent of compulsory overseas service. He was, moreover, one of the first Federal Parliamentary Labor politicians to publicly advocate conscription. Mahon was quite different: although eventually marked down as an anti-conscriptionist, his early position was characterised by ambiguity and ambivalence. Indeed, within the labour movement he acquired the reputation of something ofa 'trimmer' or 'fence-sitter', Only his resignation from Hughes' Cabinet some two weeks after the October 1916 conscription referendum defeat served ultimately to clarify his position.

23 The Australian Journal ofIrish Studies

Mahon later made it clear that he was not opposed to conscription on principle, rather that he regarded it as both unnecessary and imprudent in the circumstances. He argued in the first instance that it was not Labor policy to apply the principle of compulsion to overseas service and that in any event it was impractical to introduce such a measure unless it had almost unanimous support within the community. One might admit that conscription was logical and equitable whilst declining to advocate it. Itwas better to be inconsistent than to run the risk ofcivil war, which is what could happen ifthe force ofcompulsion was met with the force ofactive resistance.!" Lynch adopted a very different approach, following his own relentless logic. If compulsion were required for the salvation of the nation, then it was for the greater good and all other considerations were secondary. To that extent Mahon applied a doctrine ofmeans, Lynch a doctrine ofultimate ends. Lynch's arguments for conscription, distilled from his numerous public pronouncements, may be summarised as follows:

(i) Germany was the aggressor and constituted a direct military threat not only to Britain but to Australia. (ii) Australia's defence was linked to the defence ofthe Empire and hence Britain's war was automatically Australia's war. (iii) There was a shortfall in the recruitment of Australians to fight in Europe and therefore it was necessary to take appropriate measures to make up the numbers, by compulsion ifneed be. (iv) The principle of compulsion had already been accepted for military service within Australia; by logical extension that same principle should also apply to service overseas. (v) Voluntarism was neither the fairest nor the most efficacious system of recruitment. (vi) Conscription had been introduced by other leading democracies and, furthermore, was supported by leading British and European socialists.

In October 1916 Lynch declared: I advocated conscription because I am alive to Australia's danger, and support the policy of the government because it seeks to make all able-bodied men stand to their guns in defence of this dear country ... I am a conscriptionist because I am a staunch believer in Labour principles and in the Labour Party. I am a conscriptionist because I am a practical Socialist,believing that ifour country goes down, neither party,platform, policy nor anything else will count ... I am in favour of because I am an Irishman. Under the other system [of voluntarism], operation in Ireland, the best blood of that country has been spilled proportion in the interests of the Empire, which was slow to give it I do not want that to be the case in Australia. Ifthe men Ireland wish to see the best blood of the country spilled, as in their brand of patriotism, it is not mine, and it never will be.15 In this way he acknowledged-and many a basic contradiction: someone who was both a Irishman advocating conscription.

24 Contrasting Irish-Australlan Kesponses to .t'.,mplre

Hugh Mahon, as we have already seen, was not opposed to conscription on principle. One particular recorded incident serves to underline his ambiguity on the issue: in early October 1916 Mahon, at Hughes'behest, visited Daniel Mannix on what proved to be a futile mission to persuade his friend the Archbishop to refrain from actively opposing the government's conscription referendum. This event only came to light three years later after Hughes tried to deny that any attempt had ever been made to exert pressure on Mannix. Mahon then revealed publicly the full facts of the matter; the Archbishop himself also confirmed the visit. The very fact that Mahon had even agreed to undertake such a mission-s-just weeks before his resignation from Hughes' Cabinet-suggests, firstly, that he remained willing to do whatever was necessary to serve the interests of the government and, secondly, that he was far from being a totally committed anti-conscriptionist." There were at least two reasons for Mahon eventually throwing in his lot with the anti-conscriptionist camp: firstly, he had been subject to a degree of political pressure from the extra-parliamentary ranks (especially in Melbourne and on the Western Australian Goldfields, his political base); secondly, as a minister in Hughes' War Cabinet he had been increasingly alienated by his leader's authoritarianism and bellicose rhetoric. Moreover, decisions regarding conscription had been made by Cabinet during Mahon's absence (through illness) and he clearly felt that he had been left outside 'outside the 100p'.!7 The differences between Lynch and Mahon over conscription carried over to the subsequent split in the Labor Party. At the fateful Caucus meeting on 14 November 1916 they took separate paths. Furthermore, the two men perceived this same event quite differently: for Lynch the seceders had engaged in an act ofbravery in support ofa higher principle (the defence ofthe nation),18 whereas Mahon saw the walk-out by Hughes and his supporters as an act oftreachery which defied the basic principles of democracy.'? Their crime was not their support for conscription-an issue over which there could be legitimate disagreement-but their secession and establishment of a new political party. For Mahon, such disloyalty to the labour movement-and their linking up with the Liberals-placed them 'beyond the Pale'.20 Like most Irish-Australians, Lynch and Mahon both supported the Allied cause wholeheartedly. As the war progressed, however, there developed a discernible diff­ If erence ofemphasis between the two men. For Lynch, waging the war took precedence h over everything else. Mahon's enthusiasm was tempered by other considerations such I as civil liberties and, increasingly, the Irish issue. Moreover, in late 1916 he still believed n, that a Labor government could best pursue the war effort. For Lynch, however, the in war transcended party loyalty and if that meant supporting a National Government, 111 then so be it. On the face of it, Mahon had demonstrated the greater loyalty to his in party. could be argued, however, that Mahon's loyalty owed as much to convenience ot It to as to principle. During the later stages ofhis career-particularly during the traumatic of events of November 1920-he seemed to place both the Catholic Church and the cause ofIreland ahead ofthe Labor Party. As the war progressed, so other differences emerged between Lynch and Mahon. SIC Both were Irish nationalists and both were loyal to the Empire, yet it became ng increasingly apparent that each assigned different priorities to his respective loyalties.

25 The Australian Journal ofIrish Studies

This manifested itself clearly in their differing attitudes towards the draconian measures employed by the Hughes government, especially with regard to censorship. One particular episode served to highlight differing emphases and underlying tensions. In September 1916 Lynch was initially supportive of moves by Mahon to challenge Defence Minister regarding the censorship (prior to their despatch to London) of resolutions carried by Irish organisations in Western Australia." However, Lynch subsequently informed Mahon that, having heard Pearce's viewpoint, he no longer wished to pursue the matter.F Paradoxically, Lynch, a mere backbencher, would have been much less constrained by circumstances than was Mahon, who was Minister for External Affairs at the time. Yet he did not share Mahon's preoccupation with Irish affairs and related concerns about censorship; for him, the Empire and the war effortwere paramount. And Lynch's instinctive sympathy was always with those who had to face the practical responsibilities of government rather than with what the Irish call the 'hurler on the ditch'. Nor was he ever much ofa civil libertarian.

Home Rule

The differing priorities assigned by Mahon and Lynch to Irish affairs vis avis the war effort and domestic political concerns are further underscored by their contrasting roles in the initiation of the Home Rule for Ireland resolution presented to Federal Parliament in March 1917. Although the two men had worked together previously in 1905 and 1914 to have similar resolutions approved by Federal Parliament, there was to be no such co-operation on this occasion. A close reading ofthe papers ofNew SouthWales politician].D. Fitzgerald 23 reveals that various political machinations took place in the lead up to the presentation of the Home Rule motion to the Senate in 1917 and, further, that Lynch was heavily involved. The evidence also suggests that Lynch and his colleagues were motivated primarily by domestic political concerns-a desire to shore up Irish Catholic support for the Hughes and Holman governments 24-rather than the cause of Ireland per se. 25 Nationalist governments led by Labor renegades such as Hughes and Holman were extremely vulnerable to the wrath of Irish-Australian voters, especially given the Widespread antipathy within the Irish community towards Labor pro­ conscriptionists. The resolution presented to the Senate asked Westminster to grant Ireland Home Rule as soon as possible. The 'lynchpins' in this political to have been Fitzgerald in Sydney and, in Melbourne, Morgan Jageurs State Secretary of the United Irish League). Lynch was the contact in this loose network which also included Prime Minister Holman (National Labor Premier ofNew South Wales), South Wales National Labor M.L.e. and government Ceretti and Irish Nationalist M.P. John Redmond. the presentation of the Home Rule motion in March months earlier when Fitzgerald wrote to Hughes would help remove the barrier to Irish Catholics 101:l1IDg Contrasting Irish-Australian Responses to Empire

In an undated confidential report.]ageurs and Fitzgerald acknowledged that'Senator Lynch attended all our deliberations and gave us valuable assistance'F' In fact, Lynch played a key behind the scenes role in mustering the parliamentary numbers. He was a government minister until 16 February and would have been able to utilise the additional influence which his position carried. Mahon later set out in a twelve-page hand-written document his perceptions ofthe episode." He revealed that, although he and Lynch had worked together previously to have Home Rule motions presented to the Federal Parliament, he had declined to become involved on this occasion because he knew the whole venture was a political ploy by the National Laborites to save Holman and Hughes from the wrath ofIrish voters." He further revealed his knowledge ofLynch's part in the political manoeuvres, although he incorrectly limited his involvement to the later stages ofthe operation." There is also evidence of personal animosity between Mahon and Lynch by this time. Three months after the presentation ofthe Home Rule motion, one ofMahon's supporters, Joe Monaghan, wrote to warn him that Lynch had been making harmful statements within the Perth Irish community regarding Mahon's decision to decline his support for the motion.F Replying to Monaghan, Mahon spoke disparagingly of 'Senator Lynch's vagaries' and expressed surprise that anything that Lynch may have said 'should damage me with my fellow Irishmen'i-" The tone was one of contemptuous dismissal. It was clear that the friendship between himselfand Lynch was finished. Certainly the mutual regard evident in Lynch's letter to Mahon of 2 April 1909 (quoted earlier) had evaporated." This episode involving the Home Rule motion neatly underlined the differing priorities ofMahon and Lynch. For Mahon, the cause ofIreland ought not be subject to the vicissitudes ofAustralian partypolitics. And,whilst he wholeheartedlysupported the war effort, he did not share Lynch's view that Irish-Australian politicians should be primarily motivated by a desire to encourage Irish Catholic recruitment in the armed forces.

Paradox?

We are presented with the paradox of Lynch, the former engine-driver with a solid trade union background, and Mahon, the professional journalist with much more tenuous Labor connections, taking different paths politically in 1916 from what might naturally have been expected of them. Lynch's involvement in the labour movement dated back to the great maritime strikes of1890 and 1893 while Mahon only became active in Labor politics after his arrival on the Western Australian Goldfields in 1895. On the face of it, Mahon was the more likely of the two to have declared for conscription and to have 'ratted' on the Labor Party. Instead, it was Lynch. And Mahon ended up the militant Irish nationalist, Lynch the loyal Imperialist. How do we resolve such paradoxes, if indeed paradoxes they are? Some clues to a resolution may be found through a closer examination ofthe respective backgrounds ofthe two men. Firstly, when Mahon left Ireland for Australia he was already twenty-five years of age, significantly older than Lynch who was only eighteen at the time ofhis departure.

27 The Australian Journal ofIrish Studies

These extra years gave Mahon time to be actively involved in the Land League, and to be imprisoned in Kilmainham Gaol for his troubles. For the youthful Mahon, this experience ofsome ofthe most oppressive aspects ofBritish rule must surely have had an enduring influence. Lynch, by contrast, had no such personal experience (though doubtless he would have been aware of others who had). When decades later it was deemed necessary to make a choice between Ireland and Empire, he was naturally more inclined than Mahon to overlook past British crimes in his homeland. Secondly, it is significant that Mahon spent six formative years ofhis life-from age sixteen to twenty-two-in North America. The eighteen year old Lynch, however, had only a brief stint (probably a few months) in the United States en route to Australia. He later spent most of his twenties at sea, employed for the most part by British companies such as the Australasian United Shipping National Line (AUSNL) and, in Fiji, the Colonial Sugar Refinery (CSR). Lynch thus owed his livelihood to the Empire and to the protection of the British flag. As we noted at the outset, he himself1ater acknowledged that this formative experience had in large part altered his perception ofthe Empire and the flag.35 And, we may conclude, served to undermine his Irish nationalism. In contrast to Lynch's experience, Mahon's formative years were spent mixing in predominantly Irish circles in North America. This served to reinforce Mahon's Irish nationalism; his subsequent active involvement in the Land League testifies to that." Interestingly, Lynch never returned to Ireland after he left in 1886; Mahon, however, went back on an extended visit in 1921-22. Thirdly, during the controversies ofthe GreatWar years, Lynch's political reference point was Western Australia; Mahon's was Melbourne. Although Mahon still represented a Western Australian Goldfields constituency (Kalgoorlie), Melbourne had long since become his permanent place ofresidence. Lynch was by then farming in the northern wheatbelt at Three Springs, having severed his immediate connections with the Goldfields. And, despite his lengthy parliamentary sojourns in Melbourne, he always remained an ardent Western Australian loyalist. Lynch reflected the moderate and assimilationist nature of Irish Catholicism in Anglo-Protestant dominated Western Australia." Mahon meanwhile had absorbed the more militant and nationalistic climate of Irish Catholic and Labor politics prevailing in Victoria. Mahon and Lynch each in his own way symbolised these contrasting political-religious milieux. This is exemplified by their respective stances on conscription.F' Fourthly, with respect to Ireland and Irish affairs, Mahon was radicalised after Easter 1916; Lynch was not. Both Redmondite Home Rulers hitherto, the two men reflected that division which had occurred between Irishmen in their home country, Mahon developing a greater sympathy for Sinn Fein while Lynch remained a faithful Redmondite. Reinforced by his close involvementwith Australian-Irish organizations, Mahon was deeply affected by the events of 1916 in Ireland, the subsequent War of Independence and the tragic death of McSwiney in October 1920. Lynch, more preoccupied with Australian politics and not so emotionally engaged with events in Ireland, reacted quite differently. He was reinforced in his prior commitment to the Empire and to his adopted country. Moreover, Lynch-unlike Mahon-had long

28 Contrasting Irish-Australian Responses to Empire

been one ofthe most defence-conscious and hawkish members ofthe Federal Labor Party. 39 1916 represents a pointofdivergence forthe two menin theirpoliticalloyalties-Irish as well as Australian. The stark contrast in the evolution of their respective attitudes to Irish affairs is graphically illustrated by counterposing Mahon's condemnation of Lloyd George in his Richmond address of November 1920 40 with Lynch's praising that same gentleman for achieving a peace settlement in Ireland barely twelve months later." It is, moreover,just as impossible to imagine Lynch making the kind ofspeech that Mahon did at Richmond as it is to imagine Mahon voicing such stridently Imperialist sentiments as did his former friend and colleague two years later at the Loyalty League rally in Perth.? Fifthly, though Hugh Mahon and Paddy Lynch were both staunch Catholics they related their religion to their politics differently. Mahon's religion and politics were inextricably entwined: he was very much a Catholic Labor politician. By contrast, Lynch's religion and politics were more compartmentalised: he was a Labor (later Nationalist) politician who also happened to be a Catholic. Mahon's Catholicism and Irish nationalism ultimately determined his politics. Yet this was never the case for Lynch whose always transcended his Irish nationalism. And, while most of Mahon's closest associates were Catholics, this was never so for Lynch: during his later career in particular, his closest political friends (notably the Nationalist politicians SirJosiah Symon and Sir John Latham) were non-Catholics. When dealing with Irish politics, Lynch was always inclined to down-play the role ofCatholicism. He often stressed that Protestants such as Robert Emmett and Wolfe Tone had been leaders ofthe nationalist cause. He emphasised that the various Home Rule motions with which he was involved ought not be seen exclusively as either Irish or Catholic concerns.f He displayed a life-long tendency to eschew sectarianism of any kind: for example, when it raised its ugly head on the Western Australian Goldfields in 1902. Addressing the Boulder Council on that occasion, Lynch down­ played the role of religion in the Irish conflict and emphasised the element of the d. 'racial feud'. 44 s By contrast, Mahon's Catholicism and Irish nationalism. seemed inseparable. It would be difficult to imagine Lynch, for example, using the kind of 'Holy Ireland' rhetoric employed by Mahon at Richmond in 1920. 45 Itwould, however, be a mistake to portray Mahon as some kind of sectarian bigot. He was not. He worked closely r with the Irish Protestant, H.B. Higgins M.H.R., in the presentation ofthe first Home n Rule motion to the Federal Parliament in 1905. And he once observed that one ofthe attractions ofthe Labor Party was that it was the only party which was free of sectarianism. For Lynch, politics was primarily about practical economic issues: he had much less if for the symbolic politics ofIrishness and Catholicism employed by Mahon. It is re noteworthv also that after 1916 Lynch's stance on political and economic matters in n genel'al--rlOt just Ireland and the Empire-became progressively more right-wing. Ie ofcourse reflected his new-found political loyalties.

29 The Australian Journal ofIrish Studies

Conclusion

This essay has attempted to explain the radically different pronouncements on Empire by Hugh Mahon and Paddy Lynch during the period 1920-22. It has treated these two Irish Western Australians as being in some way reflective of the diversity of opinions amongst Irish Catholics in Australia. We must, however, enter a caveat here. In highlighting the differences between Mahon and Lynch we may run the risk of exaggerating them, concealing as they do important underlying similarities. The two men shared much common ground after all. That they took opposite political paths in 1916-17, and again in 1920, may owe much to happenstance. VVe have noted Mahon's initial ambivalence and ambiguity on the conscription issue. Although it seemed eminently logical that Lynch would be amongst the dissidents who followed Hughes out ofthe party, Mahon arguably could have gone either way.As far as conscription was concerned, Mahon and Lynch were by no means diametrically opposed; the subsequent solidification ofparty political divisions may have served to conceal this basic fact. Furthermore, the dramatic and historic circumstances of Mahon's expulsion from the Federal Parliament have served to exaggerate the significance of his 1920 Richmond speech. This episode needs to be put in perspective: it was after all only a combination of legal considerations, pressure of press and public opinion, party political machinations (an attempt to win an extra seat-Kalgoorlie-for the National Laborites) and Hughes' personal vindictiveness stemming from the events of 1916, which served to elevate this relatively minor misdemeanour ofMahon's into an importance it would otherwise never have had. Mahon was no wild republican firebrand. Nor was he some kind ofleft-wing militant. His performance at Richmond may be viewed as an aberration in a career characterised by moderation. Tony Baker has argued persuasively that Mahon 'sought to climax his political career in a halo of martyrdom's'? We have also noted that originally Mahon and Lynch were both Redmondite Home Rulers" who shared a common commitment to the Empire and the war effort (Mahon's more radical Irish nationalism only coming to the fore after 1916). But along with such shared commitments went one other fundamental belief-the preservation ofWhite Australia. Mahon and Lynch shared basic assumptions about race, 'alien' labour, 'Asiatics', etc. Like all 'Britishers', Mahon and Lynch believed as an article offaith that Australia should be developed and defended as a white nation within the Empire. During their early days on the Western Australian Goldfields they had made common cause with fellow 'Britishers' on these issues. In 1897, for example, Mahon had been involved in a campaign against the presence of Afghans in the Menzies area." Seven years later, in 1904, Lynch had Boulder Council pass a resolution against the landing ofmore 'aliens' in the country." The preferred self-image of many present-day Irish-Australians is undoubtedly fashioned in large part by that conventional prototype: the Irish-Catholic republican, anti-British, anti-Establishment, anti-conscriptionist, working-class Laborite of the 1914-18 era. This prototype is false, or at best simplistic.The truth is somewhat more complex. Far from being a monolithic grouping, Irish-Australian Catholics

30 l..:ontrastlng Irrsn-.t\.usrrallan .RCSl-'VllSC" LV L-IUJe'U,",

represented a variety of positions along the spectrum between radical republicanism on the one hand and conservative Imperialism on the other. For their part, Mahon and Lynch reflected that plurality ofopinion.They did share certain common ground: ultimately, however, they came to adopt quite contrasting attitudes to the Empire and to assign quite different priorities to the cause ofIreland. Multiple layers ofidentity-class, religion, ethnicity, nation and Empire-served to fashion the allegiances ofIrish-Australians. Loyalties were divided, not only between people but within the minds ofindividuals. Hugh Mahon and Paddy Lynch reflected those competing loyalties. 50 Indeed, they encapsulated many of the complexities­ ambivalences and ambiguities, subtleties and nuances-of ethno-religious political identity. The Ned Kelly story has tended to reinforce the image oflrish-Australians as rebels. In fact, for every Ned Kelly there has been an Irish-Australian Redmond Barry. The Irish have been as much a conservative as a radical influence in Australia-in the labour movement as elsewhere. In the conflict between radicalism and conservativism, the conservative influence finally won out in Paddy Lynch's case. In the end, he was neither Empire loyalist nor Irish nationalist but Australian nationalist first and foremost. Superficially at least, Hugh Mahon appears closer to the image ofthe rebel Irishman. But in his case the circumstances of his political demise have served to grossly exaggerate both his radicalism and his republicanism.

cs

31 REFERENCES

1 The Tribune (Melbourne),11 November 1920. Note thatMahon used the words 'bloody and infamous despotism'rather than 'bloody and accursed Empire', the phrase usually attributed to him. 2 Sydney Morning Herald, 26 May 1922, p. 9. I have amended the quotation from indirect to direct speech. Empire Day (24 May) had been Lynch's 55th birthday. 3 This was under specially proclaimed regulations under the Peace Preservation Act. The Kilmainham Gaol Register for 1881 describes Mahon as being 5'11" in height, with brown hair and brown eyes, and offresh complexion. National Archives ofIreland, Prison Register 10/17. 4 Hugh Mahon, The Land League: a Narrative 0/Four Years ofIrish Agitation, Sydney, 1883. 5 The Separation for Federation Movement sought to separate the Goldfields from the rest of the colony of Western Australia with a view to becoming a part ofthe proposed Federation ofAustralia. In the eventuality, the colony as a whole voted at the last minute to join the Federation which was proclaimed on 1 January 1901. 6 Lynch's career is described in detail in Danny Cusack, With an Olive Branch anda Shillelagh: The Lift and Times 0/Senator Parrick Lynch, Perth,2004. 7 He worked for five years as a stoker, one of the most arduous and demanding occupations imaginable since it involved stokingboiling furnaces with shovelfuls ofheavy coal in cramped and confined conditions and for long periods. Later, having received his marine engineer's certificate, he was able to work as an engineer, a more prestigious and less arduous occupation. S Lynch was a member ofthe United Irish League (Boulder branch). 9 H.]. Gibbney, 'Hugh Mahon: a Political Biography', M.A. thesis, Australian National University, 1969, p. 157. 10 Lynch to Mahon (Kalgoorlie), 2 April 1909, Mahon Papers, National Library ofAustralia [NLA] 937/173. 11 NLA 937/163 (Mahon Papers). Kirwan to Mahon (15 June 1911). This occurred during one ofMahon's frequent bouts ofill-health and was obviously calculated to boost his morale. 12 For example, his speeches of9 and 25 June 1915; 11 May and 3 October 1916; 14 February, 5 and 14 March 1917; and 24 January and 13 November 1918. 13 He did, however, set out some ofhis ideas on conscription in an article in the westralian WorkCl; 8 December 1915. 14 Official Proceedings 0/the Australian Labor Federation (WA Division) General CounciI1917, held at Perth, April1917, p.10. 15 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates [CPD] , Vol. 80, p. 9167 (3 October 1916). 16 Advocate, 29 November 1919, p. 20. On meeting Mannix, Mahon apparently realised immediately the futility of his task. Recalling the incident later, the Archbishop observed: 'He did not mention the message or mission to me, and I was for months puzzling to know what was the object ofhis coming'Advocate, 6 December 1919, p. 27. 32 17 Official Proceedings ifthe Australian Labor Federation (1917), p. 7. 18 CPD, Vol. 81, p. 10970 (5 March 1917) and p.l0973 (14 March 1917). 19 Official Proceedings if the Australian Labor Federation (1917), pp. 8-9. Interestingly, Lynch and Mahon never seem to have come face-to-face in debate on the public platform during the events of 1916-17; they expressed their views at quite different forums. 20 Ibid,p. 9. Mahon referred disparagingly to the Liberals as'Tories'. He lambasted Hughes for having thrown some of his men 'to the Tory wolves', a reference to Lynch and two other National Laborites being forced to stand aside in February 1917 in order to allow three more Liberals into the ministry. 21 There was a series of letters involving Mahon, Lynch, Pearce, Hughes and James Dowling (Secretary of the United Irish League ofWestern Australia). Mahon Papers NLA 937/667. See especially, Mahon to Dowling, 8 September 1916 and Mahon to Hughes, 20 September 1916. 22 Lynch to Mahon, n.d. (September 1916), Mahon Papers, NLA 937/678. 23 Fitzgerald Papers, Mitchell Library [ML].J.D. Fitzgerald, the erstwhile Labor leader in the N.S.W. Legislative Council and sometime government minister, was an Irish-Australian Catholic pro-conscriptionist and left the Labor Party in 1916. 24 The New South Wales government at this time was led by Labor renegade William Holman. 25 Later, in August 1921, when Lynch gave notice in the Senate of yet another Home Rule motion, Labor senator Albert Gardiner interjected to ask whether this indicated an intention that the (Nationalist) government was to call an early election. He observed that 'for many years an indication ofthe approach of a general election has been a movement by Senator Lynch to make himself right with one section ~f the community'. (My emphasis). CPD, Vol. 96, p. 10759 (5 August 1921). Gardiner was obviously insinuating that Lynch was seeking to woo alienated Irish-Australian voters. 26 Fitzgerald Papers, ML QJ56/11. 27 Ibid. 28 Fitzgerald Papers, ML QJ68/291-3. Fitzgerald is the likely author of this document. 29 Mahon Papers, NLA 937/661. Undated document [c. June 1917]. 30 Holman had received a hostile reception from the crowd when he tried to address a St Patrick's Day assembly in Sydney in 1917. Patrick O'Farrell, The Catholic Church and Community: An Australian History, revised edn, Sydney, 1985), p. 329. 31 Mahon Papers, NLA 937/661, P: 10. It is clear from the Fitzgerald Papers that Lynch was involved from the outset. 32 Monaghan to Mahon, 1 June 1917 NLA 937/659. Monaghan was proprietor of the Orient Hotel in the West End of Fremantle (part of the present day University of Notre Dame), a prominent member of the Knights of the Southern Cross and sometime President ofPerth's Celtic Club.

33 The Australian Journal ofIrish Studies

33 Mahon to Monaghan, 9 June 1917, NLA 937/660. The letter itself is not extant. However, the rough draft ofMahon's reply, penned in old-style Pitman shorthand, survives amongst his papers. 34 The decision in November 1920 to expel Mahon from the House of Representatives was taken by that chamber alone; as a member of the Senate Lynch was not required to vote. However, the Nationalist Caucus (including both M.H.R.s and senators) had the previous day unanimously approved Hughes'motion. Although Lynch's attendance or otherwise is not recorded, he was in all likelihood present. Certainly there is nothing to suggest that he ever opposed the action taken against Mahon. 35 See quotation at the beginning ofthis essay. 36 Interestingly, Lynch never returned to Ireland after he left in 1886. Mahon, however, went back on an extended visit in 1921-22. 37 Forexample,the traditional Catholic/Labornexus had always been muchweaker in Western Australia than in the eastern states. For a further development of this subject see: Danny Cusack, 'With an Olive Branch and a Shillelagh: the Political Career of Senator Paddy Lynch (1867-1944): Ph.D thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, 2002, Ch. 12: 'The Politics ofIrish Catholicism in Western Australia'. 38 The contrasting political climates of Victoria and Western Australia were symbolised by, respectively, the militantly nationalist and anti-conscriptionist Archbishop Daniel Mannix in Melbourne and the more conservatively nationalist and pro-conscriptionist Archbishop P.J. Clune in Perth. Victoria returned a narrow majority for conscription in 1916 but a narrow majority against in 1917. Despite both referenda being defeated nationally, Western Australia returned a 70 per cent YES vote in 1916 and a 65 per cent YES vote in 1917. This means that many Irish Catholics-quite possibly a majority­ must have supported conscription. 39 See his early parliamentary speeches: CPD, Vol. 36, p. 150 (5 July 1907); Vol. 37, p. 1260 (1 August 1907). 40 'The nation which survived Cromwell-a decent man compared with Lloyd George', Tribune, 11 November 1920. 41 Lynch presented a motion to the Senate commending Lloyd George. CPD, Vol.98, pp. 13993-4 (7 December 1921). 42 See references in the opening page ofthis essay. 43 In 1905 he arranged for republican-minded Scotsman Wallace Nelson to take the lead in moving the Home Rule resolution in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and in 1914 he had George Henderson, a Scottish Protestant, do the honours in the Senate. 44 Kalgoorlie Miner, 14 July 1902. 45 For example: 'I would not have the sweet pastures ofholy Ireland poisoned by their carrion clay', Tribune, 11 November 1920. 46 TonyBaker, 'The Expulsion ofHughMahon from the House ofRepresentatives in November 1920', B.A. Hons thesis, Australian National University, 1967, p. 16.

34 47 Supporters of the Irish Parliamentary Party led by John Redmond M.P. This party, which advocated Home Rule for Ireland within the British Commonwealth, dominated Irish nationalist politics until being eclipsed by Sinn Fein after 1916. 48 Menzies Miner, 6 and 13 February 1897. 49 State Records Office of Western Australia 531/1892/22. This was primarily directed at Italians and Slavs. 50 The November 1920 vote against Mahon was highly significant for the way in which it reflected the clear ethnic-religious alignment of politics at the time and the cleavage which had been strongly reinforced by the events of 1916-17. Following the conscription split, Labor had become a much more strongly Irish Catholic-dominated party. To that extent, Mahon was running with the grain and Lynch very much against. The expulsion vote was conducted along strict party lines, that is to say all Nationalist and Country Party members voted for Mahon's expulsion and all Labor members voted against. Of the 17 Labor members, seven had Irish surnames. Of the 34 Nationalist members, only one (Fleming) could be said to have an Irish surname. This represents a ratio of14:1 (or, ofthe respective totals, 40 per cent as against a mere 2.2 per cent).

35