A. E. Cahill "Cardinal Moran, Bathurst, and the Achievement of Federation"

Papers on Parliament No. 32
December 1998

Prev | Contents | Next

Nothing did more to draw Australia-wide attention to the 1896 Bathurst People’s Federal Convention than the presence of the Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Moran. In the view of a contemporary political radical, his ‘impassioned’[1] speech ‘did more than anything else to lift the cause of Federation beyond the wrangle of party politics.’[2] His advocacy of federation in the mid-1890s drew a tribute from even a former religious antagonist, Sir Henry Parkes: ‘We cannot underestimate the value of the Cardinal’s utterances in favour of Federation. They reach thousands whom we can never hope to reach.’[3] A more dubious source, John Norton, linked Parkes himself with Moran, added Edmund Barton, and presented them as the three to whom the cause of federation owed most. Moran’s ‘persistent and consistent advocacy of Federation’ had, Norton wrote, ‘perhaps’ done more than the efforts of anyone else to raise the cause ‘out of the ruck of party politics and partisan strife into the purer region of a healthy national sentiment.’[4]

At the time of the Bathurst Convention, Moran had been in his Sydney archdiocese for only twelve years (and had been a member of the College of Cardinals for only eleven). But, as he later claimed, he had ‘all along, since the question was mooted, looked on Federation as one of vital importance to Australia.’[5] His interest in, and detailed knowledge of, developments had a much longer history. Among the more than 300,000 Irish who chose to go to the Australian colonies in the nineteenth century, Moran was an unusual migrant.[6] Between the ages of 12 and 36 he had lived outside the British Empire, in the Papal States, as student, priest, scholar and administrator. In a real sense, it was in Rome that Moran discovered Australia. His home was the Irish College, the centre of a nineteenth-century ‘Irish ecclesiastical empire’. There, and later back in Ireland, he enjoyed the patronage of his uncle, Cardinal Cullen. In dealing with Rome’s ‘Colonial Office’, the Propaganda Congregation, he became a skilled lobbyist, specialising in the problems of the Irish bishops and priests in the Australasian colonies and acting as their agent. At one stage of his career he was the (absentee) vicar-general of the diocese of Maitland in New South Wales and, more briefly, of the diocese of Auckland in New Zealand. He built up a large collection of maps, books and pamphlets dealing with the region Propaganda called ‘Oceania’, and presented it to the Congregation when he moved back to Ireland.

From his Roman years Moran thought of ‘Australia’ in unitary transcontinental, even trans-Tasman, terms. His church was federated long before this happened to his adopted state. His first big job in Sydney was to organise and preside (as the Pope’s representative) over a meeting of bishops which would determine the structures of Catholic life in the colonies, the First Australasian Plenary Council of 1885. He welcomed the inclusion of New Zealand and was dismayed when, against his and local bishops’ protests, Rome excluded New Zealand from its Second Plenary Council in 1895.[7] With a veteran’s grasp of Propaganda Congregation politics, he quickly accepted that a trans-Tasman church federation was a lost cause.

When Moran arrived in Sydney in 1884 he said that he had come as an Australian among Australians. Publicly and privately he spoke and acted as if a union of the colonies was both a necessity and a goal achievable in the immediate future. He often expressed impatience with intercolonial rivalries and pettiness. Within five years of his arrival in Sydney, he had travelled all over the colony of New South Wales, his ‘province’ as Archbishop¾including two visits to Bathurst and a buggy journey through the Eden-Monaro region which gave him ideas about sites for a future federal capital. On church business, he had also made special visits to each of the other colonies, including one to both islands of New Zealand. By 1888 he was already well-known for his frequent references to contemporary public issues in the course of almost weekly speeches, when blessing foundation stones or opening churches and schools. He became a favourite source of ‘copy’ for journalists, in other colonies as well as in New South Wales; in the 1888 Chinese immigration debate he gave an extended interview in Adelaide, and during the 1890 Maritime Strike he made his first (of many) comments while travelling as far north as Rockhampton. A regular theme of his extempore remarks was that federation was ‘the great hope for the future of Australia’.[8] Sometimes, on more formal occasions, the theme was given a wider context: the destiny of a united Australia was to be in this southern world a ‘bulwark of civilisation and a home of freedom’, and ‘the centre of civilisation for all the races of the East’.[9]

In 1894 Moran agreed to give a special interview on the subject of federation to an Irish journalist then working for the Sydney Daily Telegraph and later to become editor of a new Catholic newspaper (the Catholic Press), J. Tighe Ryan, who had close links with pro-federation politicians such as Deakin, Barton, and Wise. In this interview, subsequently republished in pamphlet form, Moran emphasised that federation was now ‘a matter of vital importance’ and used provocative phrases to make his point:

Federation must come, and if not achieved by our political leaders, it will come as a matter of revolution ¼ I mean by revolution the determination of the people to assert their rights; and, of course, under such a republican constitution as we enjoy here, they must achieve these results.[10]

To soothe conservative alarm at the mention of the word ‘republic’ he went on to suggest that the colonies already had one form of republican government which gave colonists all the freedoms without the ‘unpleasant influences’ associated with the United States’ presidential model. There was further balm for conservative sensibilities: fears that federation implied ‘separation’ from the Empire were allayed by emphasis on the importance of cooperation with the Royal Navy for defence of Australia in an increasingly dangerous international environment. Most importantly, while he mentioned economic development issues such as the need for ‘great trunk railways to open up the resources of the interior’ he kept well clear of protectionist-free trade squabbles in local politics which had split the new Labor Party, brought an early end to a protectionist government, and was about to produce a free trade one. In fact, the interview was published three days before a New South Wales election. It was, however, the transcending of these parochial politics that brought a tribute from barrister-politician B.R. Wise, whose own political career was suffering from his commitment to federation. He wrote to Moran to thank him for an impressive and well-tuned utterance on federation which ‘sounds through the din of electioneering like the deep note of a cathedral bell’.[11]

When the organisers of the Bathurst People’s Federal Convention were trying to provide new impetus for a flagging federal movement through the action of citizens rather than politicians, Moran was an obvious person from whom to seek support. On behalf of the committee, William Astley (‘Price Warung’ of the Bulletin) wrote as if aware of Disraeli’s advice on how to deal with royalty (‘Lay it on with a trowel’):

The brilliant expositions of Federal principles which your Eminence has made on more than one occasion has linked the most distinguished and authoritative ecclesiastical station in Australasia to the magnificent cause of National Unity.[12]

The flattery was unnecessary. Moran replied with alacrity and enthusiasm. The president of the Bathurst Australasian Federation League, Dr Machattie, then wrote formally to invite Moran to attend and participate as a guest who would ‘attach a peculiar distinction and interest to the Convention’, and anticipated that his speech would be ‘the most valued portion of the educative literature which is to be one of the permanent results of the Convention’.[13]

Moran was already committed to a busy schedule of church duties and he could take part in only one of the Convention’s working sessions. He travelled up to Bathurst on 19 November with the New South Wales premier George Reid, whose attitude to the federation movement at this time was¾in the phrase of a biographer who still wants to present Reid as the ‘Father of Federation’¾‘cautious in the extreme’,[14] and devoid of any vision for a united Australia’s future such as inspired Moran. On the following day the major address of the morning session was given by Moran, preceding contributions from Reid and Edmund Barton.

Cardinal Patrick Francis Moran

It was a very long speech in which he began by stressing the great benefits that federation had brought to the United States and to Canada, before turning to a theme that was a consistent part of his advocacy of federation before and after 1896: the defence of the continent.[15] Only united colonies could repel invasion¾by implication, European rather than Asian (though he had become an early critic of Japanese expansion). He rejected the idea of a large standing army, but he did say that his personal view was that every male citizen should receive military training¾he had given strong support to the establishment of an Irish Rifles militia regiment earlier that year. His defence theme stressed the importance of imperial naval cooperation, and he decried all talk of ‘separation’. He did use the phrase ‘our republican spirit’, but he said ‘republic’ had become an ambiguous word in modern usage and that he equated it with the exercise of a high level of civic responsibility rather than with rejection of the unifying role of Crown authority. Aware of the sensitivities, and the importance, of people such as Reid, he urged that the movement which had produced the People’s Convention should be seen not as a popular protest against politicians¾if it were, he said, he would not have come to Bathurst¾but as a movement to support and encourage their local legislators to work towards national union.

In the last part of his speech there was a call which could be seen¾and was seen then¾to sit uneasily with an important part of his public activities before and after 1896: a call to keep the issue free from sectarian conflict. Catholics and Protestants, he said, should work together for unity. All through the 1890s he revelled in attacks on Protestant missionaries in the Pacific area, and he had only recently engaged willingly in fierce public exchanges on the legacy of the Reformation with Charles Camidge, the Anglican Bishop of Bathurst. Camidge had made a formal appearance on the first day of the Convention, but stayed away when Moran arrived. In his absence, Moran declared that those who sowed religious dissension among colonists were the enemies of both Christianity and Australia¾as if the problem came onesidedly from ‘a small group of bigots’.[16] Yet, despite this seeming blind spot, what was distinctive about Moran’s speech in the context of what was said that day, especially by Reid, was his attempt to raise the federation issue above intercolonial rivalries to the moral high ground.[17] Moran had begun by telling his audience that ‘an invisible moral power will sustain you’; and he ended with variations on a theme from his 1894 interview: that the need for federation was such that it should override the interests of local politics.

At Bathurst, Moran performed the role of a national leader, using the status and authority of his church position to serve the cause of national unification¾while seeming to deny the role in sectarian conflict that church position required. One side of his Bathurst performance was emphasised both by public tributes to a speech that had done more than anything else ‘to lift the cause of Federation beyond the wrangle of party politics’,[18] and by private messages such as that from a Supreme Court judge who commended his speech’s ‘noble teachings’.[19] Favourable responses showed the geographical spread of the impact. Moran later claimed that views he expressed in 1894–1896 had influenced ‘a large part of Queensland and especially Western Australia’,[20], and soon after his Bathurst speech he was told by the Catholic bishop of Perth that it had been published in Coolgardie and had aroused ‘enthusiastic’ interest among the mining communities.[21] Yet, another side of Moran’s impact was the renewal of sectarian conflict in the 1890s. As a Roman cardinal, in particular, he was seen by many colonial Protestants as the representative of a reactionary institution ‘whose object was to roll back the ocean of Protestantism, which was carrying everything in the world before it.’[22] His association with the federation movement was a threat and a challenge: ‘Protestants, beware! There is something dearer than Federation.’[23]

The catalyst for the outpouring of such feelings was Moran’s decision to accept nomination for the 1897 Convention to draft a federal constitution.[24] When accepting nomination he had said that he considered it to be his ‘patriotic duty’ to continue the public advocacy of federation which had been so successful at Bathurst, especially in arousing interest from the ‘aloof’ colonies of Queensland and Western Australia.[25] When first approached¾by what he stressed, to friend and foe, was a group of non-Catholics¾he maintained that his position as a cardinal-archbishop would be no more of a hindrance to his participation than it had been in Bathurst.[26] This attitude represented a serious misunderstanding of the basic differences between the two ‘conventions’, and an even more serious misjudgement of the political realities. The delegates elected were likely to be¾and almost all were¾current or former parliamentarians. Yet he said he would not be a politician and would not ‘contest’ an election, and believed (or allowed himself to be persuaded) that an alternative arrangement was possible, for himself and for other non-politicians.

Moran’s candidature was immediately challenged by Protestant critics, and his Bathurst appearance was now described by the chairman of a ‘United Protestant’ meeting as ‘the first visible stage in a long conceived and secret plan for aggrandising the Church of Rome at the expense of Australia.’[27] Moran insisted that he was ‘determined to stand to crush anti-Catholic bigotry’.[28] With a ‘Stop Moran’ campaign gathering force, he told his Roman agent that his candidature would ‘go a long way towards breaking down the Orange bigotry which is at times very intense’.[29] Far from crushing ‘anti-Catholic bigotry’, his 1897 intervention greatly stimulated it in a society where the position of the Catholic quarter of the population had not yet been securely established. Looking back on the years before federation had been achieved, B.R. Wise could see how Moran’s candidature had, on the one hand, aroused great public interest in a federation movement plagued by apathy and indifference but had, on the other hand, produced an outburst of the sectarianism which was ‘never far beneath the surface of the politics of New South Wales’.[30] Sectarianism, part of the warp and woof of colonial, as of federated, Australian society, is not only a neglected factor in the historiography of federation but has been similarly neglected in explorations of contemporary senses of identity

and of meanings attached to the central concept of ‘loyalty’.[31]

At Bathurst, Moran had helped delegates experience a warm inner glow by assuring them that in the Australian colonies citizens enjoyed ‘perfect civil equality’[32]¾a sweeping endorsement which, he knew, needed many qualifications. Only two weeks before the trip to Bathurst the veteran lawyer-politician Louis Heydon had written to him to remind him of one aspect of the colonial power structure. After going through a list of political, judicial and administrative offices, Heydon concluded: ‘no office of first, or even second, rate importance is held by a Catholic’.[33] Distrust of Catholics, as unfit for such offices because of their ‘disloyalty’ to the Empire and its political and religious values, deepened in the years preceding federation. In 1899, Bishop Camidge had dismissed ‘the arrogant demands of the Roman cardinal’ for an agreed system of recognition on state ceremonial occasions, and had reminded colonists that the Queen, as head of the Empire, had taken an oath to uphold ‘the Protestant Reformed Religion’.[34] It was a divisive reality of federated Australia¾now almost written out of the story¾that the new Governor-General, the Earl of Hopetoun, expressed when, in recommending an Australian lawyer-politician for a knighthood, he added that the intended recipient was ‘a loyal Catholic and a loyal Irishman’ and that ‘there are precious few of these in Australia’.[35]

In the circumstances of March 1897, with sectarian feelings fully aroused, it is hardly surprising that Moran failed to win one of the ten New South Wales positions and was placed fourteenth in the poll. As explanation for his defeat, he suggested to a Catholic bishop in another colony that ‘Government influence combined with the Bigotry of the majority won the day.’[36] He assured his Roman agent that his candidature had ‘brought out the strength of the Church in bold relief’ and added, unconvincingly: ‘I was particularly pleased to be defeated.’[37] Finding some comfort in an unintended martyr’s fate, he failed to note another unintended result of his candidature: the ‘Stop Moran’ campaign’s contribution to stirring up interest in the federal movement generally and the Convention elections specifically. New South Wales was the only colony in which a majority of qualified electors had bothered to vote.

After Moran’s triumph at Bathurst, defeat in the elections had been a humiliating experience for him. His absence from public prominence as a federation advocate was widely noticed, and regretted, in 1897–98. This was especially the case in New South Wales, where two well-known lawyer-politicians and prominent Catholics, Tom Slattery, a former Moran ‘adviser’ later described as ‘the stage manager of the anti-bilious circus’,[38] and Louis Heydon, were vehement anti-federationists, and where one of Sydney’s two Catholic newspapers, the Freeman’s Journal, was equivocal when not openly hostile. When the Convention’s draft constitution bill became the subject of a referendum, B.R. Wise wrote to Moran to express his

concern that he had refused newspaper interviews on the bill and his fear that the silence of ‘so known and earnest a champion of Union’ might be misunderstood by voters.[39] Moran replied immediately, reproachfully:

When I took some part in the Bathurst proceedings in 1896 I hoped that the Federation question might be lifted up from the mire of political intrigue to the higher plane of genuine patriotism. My anticipations in this respect have not been realised.

It amused him, he wrote, to find that newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald and ‘some prominent champions of the cause’ (from whom he excluded Wise) now complained because of the absence of the very intervention for which in 1897 ‘they abused me in every word and tense, in public and in private.’[40] The Catholic newspapers noted Moran’s ‘resolute silence’, though Catholic gossip suggested that he privately supported the bill, quoting pragmatically ‘A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.’[41] In the June referendum in New South Wales the bill failed to get the necessary minimum vote¾increased by a Reid amendment¾in a relatively low turnout of electors. In Richard Ely’s (qualified) judgement: ‘From the Billite point of view, Moran’s participation possibly was indispensable.’[42]

Moran had not completely abandoned federation as a subject for extempore remarks at parish gatherings. Two months after the defeat of the 1898 bill he told a Sunday afternoon gathering that he hoped that premier Reid would take the necessary initiatives to produce a more generally acceptable bill.[43] A month later he told another parish audience that he was ‘tempted’ to speak out again in favour of federation because, in a threatening international context, ‘There were great national interests at stake’, and he urged support for the Irish Rifles and Light Horse regiments.[44]

His reluctance to speak out had almost disappeared by the end of the year, well before a new bill was put to a new referendum in 1899. In February 1899 he told the Catholic Press that federation would soon be achieved, as he had long ‘prophesied’.[45] His occasional parish function comments on the issue usually stressed the defence aspect: only a united Australia could cope with German expansion in the Pacific, he told an inner-city audience.[46] In the same week in which one Catholic newspaper, the Freeman’s Journal, editorialised against the revised bill, on the same Sunday Moran assured two separate parish groups that he remained ‘an enthusiastic federationist’ and recommended that they should ‘disregard bogeys’ and support the present bill.[47] This was at a time when colonial-born Heydon was saying that nobody who supported Home Rule for Ireland could vote for the bill, and Irish-born Slattery was saying that federation meant cutting ‘the silken bonds’ of empire.[48] Moran still declined formal newspaper interviews on federation because it had become ‘a bitter party question’ but, as ‘an ardent federalist’, he left no doubt about his own endorsement of the revised bill.[49] In its last issue before the referendum, the Catholic Press printed a large photo of Moran with the caption ‘A Federationist Through Good Report And Ill’, and reported him as saying: ‘only blessings can follow acceptance of Federation on the present lines.’[50] On the day before the poll the Sydney Morning Herald reprinted part of his 1896 Bathurst speech under the heading: ‘An Eloquent Appeal for Union/“Guaranteed Freedom” ’.[51] When it became known that New South Wales had finally endorsed the bill, Moran expressed his delight: ‘I looked on Federation from the first as essential even to the existence of Australia.’[52]

External union, however, had hardly been achieved when internal disunion emerged to mark the way it would be celebrated. The old issue of ranking of denominational leaders at state ceremonies, which Moran had considered as settled by agreement during the governorship of Lord Jersey,[53] was reopened in an increasingly bitter sectarian atmosphere associated, in Sydney especially, with the Coningham Case. On, literally, the eve of the inauguration of the new Commonwealth, Moran told New South Wales premier Lyne that he could not take a position inferior to that of the Anglican archbishop of Sydney without compromising the civil rights of Catholics. On the day of the inaugural ceremony he took up a position outside his cathedral¾with newly hung bells ringing in the new federal state in the ‘Cardinal’s Tower’ behind him¾while the governor-general’s procession, including the Anglican primate, passed by on its way to Centennial Park.[54]

In hindsight, the lack of popular interest in the referenda, and the ‘inertia’ regarding federation generally, are striking features of the 1890s¾in fact, ‘in no colony did more than 46.63 per cent of voters cast a vote.’[55] If Moran, as Tighe Ryan claimed, ‘had awakened voters in every hole and corner in the colony’, it was not only Catholics who were aroused, it was not only federal sentiment that ‘would still be dormant without him’, and it was not only federal ideas that he ‘crooted in their minds’.[56] Richard Ely has suggested that ‘the eventual success of the federation movement probably owed more to Moran than to any other church leader.’[57] Considering both the intended national, and the unintended sectarian, consequences of his activities in the 1890s, it could be argued that Moran had done more to achieve federation than had any other leader, from church or state. To recommend the first bill to New South Wales voters, Moran was said to have quoted ‘A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.’ In a different context, he is said to have quoted ‘It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good.’ With federation becalmed by indifference, even a sectarian wind could be helpful.


[1] Richard Norris, The Emergent Commonwealth: Australian Federation, Expectations and Fulfilment, 1889–1910, Melbourne University Press, Carlton Vic., 1975, p. 50.

[2] Australian Workman (Sydney), 16 January 1897.

[3] Quoted in B.R. Wise, The Making of the Australian Commonwealth, 1889–1900: a stage in the growth of the Empire, Longmans Green, London, 1913, p. 221.

[4] John Norton, ‘Open Letter to Cardinal Moran’, Truth, 7 August 1898.

[5] Interview, Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 18 February 1897.

[6] For an outline of his career, see my article in Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol. 10, 1986, and Patrick O’Farrell, The Catholic Church and Community: an Australian History, New South Wales University Press, Kensington, NSW, 1985 (ch. 4 ‘The Reign of Cardinal Moran’).

[7] Moran to Cardinal Prefect Ledochowski, 2 April and 13 May 1985, Rubrica, vol. 216, pp. 331–2, 341, Archives of the Propaganda Congregation, Rome.

[8] As at an inner-Sydney school opening, Redfern, Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 6 February 1888.

[9] Sermon in St Mary’s Cathedral, and address at St John’s College, University of Sydney. Freeman’s Journal (Sydney), 4 February and 28 April 1888.

[10] Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 14 July 1894; J. Tighe Ryan, Federation. The Attitude of the Catholic Church: A Special Interview With His Eminence Cardinal Moran, George Robertson, Sydney, 1894.

[11] B.R. Wise to Moran, 17 July 1894, Moran Papers, Sydney Catholic Archdiocesan Archives [Hereafter SCAA].

[12] William Astley to Moran, 17 October 1896, SCAA; Letter Book of Federal Convention, Bathurst 1896, uncat.MSS 269, Mitchell Library, Sydney.

[13] Dr T.A. Machattie to Moran, 5 and 14 November 1896, SCAA.

[14] W.G. McMinn, George Reid, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1989, p. 128. ‘Father of Federation’ is the title of ch. 17.

[15] Reported in Sydney Morning Herald, 21 November 1896; official text of Moran’s speech in Proceedings, People’s Federal Convention, Bathurst, November 1896, Gordon & Gotch, Sydney 1897, pp. 83–88.

[16] The reassuring phrase used by the Catholic bishop of Bathurst, Joseph Byrne, to Moran, 12 November 1896, SCAA.

[17] A theme repeated at end-of-year prize givings at Sydney Catholic schools, for example, St Joseph’s College, Hunter’s Hill. Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 11 December 1896.

[18] Australian Workman (Sydney), 16 January 1897.

[19] Justice H.E. Cohen to Moran, 22 November 1896, SCAA.

[20] Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 18 February 1897.

[21] Bishop M. Gibney to Moran, 17 December 1896, SCAA.

[22] Rev. E.D. Madgwick, Protestant ministers meeting. Sydney Morning Herald, 17 February 1897.

[23] Rev. Edward Knapp, letter to Sydney Morning Herald, 3 March 1897.

[24] On Moran’s candidature, see Mark James Mahon, ‘Cardinal Moran’s candidature’, Manna, no. 6, 1963; on Protestant reactions, see Richard Ely, Unto God and Caesar: Religious Issues in the Emerging Commonwealth, 1891–1906, Melbourne University Press, Carlton Vic., 1976 (chapter 2 ‘The Cardinal Steps Out’).

[25] Sydney Morning Herald, 14 January 1897.

[26] ibid.

[27] Rev. George M’Innes, Sydney Morning Herald, 3 March 1897.

[28] Interview, Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 18 February 1897.

[29] Moran to Mgr M. Kelly, 8 February 1897, Irish College Archives, Rome.

[30] Wise, B.R., op. cit., p. 221.

[31] The subject is now unfashionable, not only for the federation era but in Australian historiography generally. Michael Hogan, The Sectarian Strand: Religion in Australian History, Penguin, Ringwood, Vic., 1987,

provides a mainly political outline, but the topic needs much more detailed treatment of its social and cultural contexts.

[32] Sydney Morning Herald, 21 November 1896.

[33] L.F. Heydon, MLC, to Moran, 4 November 1896, SCAA.

[34] Sydney Morning Herald, 4 August 1899.

[35] Earl of Hopetoun to Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, 25 June 1902, Chamberlain Papers, University of Birmingham. The intended recipient was Richard O’Connor who asked Hopetoun to withdraw the recommendation as, before he had the security of a High Court appointment, he feared he would become bankrupt. Hopetoun’s ‘Irishman’ had been born in Sydney half a century before with only one parent Irish-born.

[36] Moran to Bishop M. Gibney, 9 March 1897, Perth Catholic Archdiocesan Archives.

[37] Moran to Mgr M. Kelly, 8 March 1897, Irish College Archives, Rome.

[38] J. Tighe Ryan, Catholic Press (Sydney), 1 April 1899.

[39] Wise to Moran, 13 April 1898, SCAA.

[40] Moran to Wise, 13 April 1898, Wise Papers, Mitchell Library, Sydney.

[41] Freeman’s Journal (Sydney), 11 June 1898.

[42] Ely, Unto God and Caesar, op. cit., p. 107.

[43] At Liverpool. Daily Telegraph, (Sydney) 1 August 1898.

[44] At Windsor. Freeman’s Journal (Sydney), 24 September 1898.

[45] Catholic Press, 11 February 1899.

[46] At Erskineville. Catholic Press (Sydney), 13 May 1899.

[47] At Elizabeth Bay, and at Chatswood. Catholic Press (Sydney), 8 April 1899.

[48] Catholic Press (Sydney), 10, 17 June 1899.

[49] Evening News (Sydney) 8 May 1899; Catholic Press, 13 May 1899.

[50] Catholic Press (Sydney), 17 June 1899.

[51] Sydney Morning Herald, 19 June 1899.

[52] Catholic Press (Sydney), 24 June 1899.

[53] Earl of Jersey memorandum, 11 May 1892; Moran to Jersey, 13 May 1892, Jersey Papers, Australian National Library, Canberra.

[54] See Ely, op. cit., chapter 14; and Gavin Souter, Lion and Kangaroo: the Initiation of Australia, 1901–1919, Collins, Sydney, 1976, pp. 41–44.

[55] C.M.H. Clark, A History of Australia, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1981, vol. V, p. 167.

[56] J. Tighe Ryan, Catholic Press (Sydney), 8 April 1899.

[57] Ely, op. cit., p. x.

Prev | Contents | Next

Back to top