Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T09:19:47.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imperial Nexus and National Anglican Identity: The Australian 1911–12 Legal Nexus Opinions Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Robert S.M. Withycombe
Robert S.M. Withycombe
Affiliation:
randsmw@webone.com.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The legal Opinion of eminent English Counsel on the legal nexus of the Australian Anglican colonial dioceses to their Mother Church in England was delivered on 20 June 1911. It provoked a decade of debate in diocesan, provincial and national synods that revealed how leading Australian Anglicans identified themselves before and after World War One. Great diversity appears among the responses of bishops, clergy and laity. Both enthusiasm for change and wariness of it were confined to no one region or diocese. Lay understandings and participation in these debates, along with churchmanship anxieties and long traditions of colonial diocesan independence, were among important factors that governed the Australian Anglicans' long march towards constitutional autonomy in 1962. Lambeth archives, printed Synod Reports, Australian secular and religious press reports are quarried to reconstruct these images of a diverse and uncertain pre-1921 Australian Anglican identity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Anglican Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , June 2004 , pp. 62 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) and The Journal of Anglican Studies Trust 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. These debates have been examined in broader context by Davis, John, Australian Anglicans and their Constitution (Canberra: Acorn Press, 1993)Google Scholar, especially in ch. 2. Ruth Frappell's ‘Imperial Fervour and Anglican Loyalty, 1901–29’, ch. 4 in Kaye, B. (ed.), Anglicanism in Australia (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2002), summarizes it (pp. 89–90)Google Scholar. More helpful to this article was ch. 13 of Kidd, A.P.'s unpublished PhD University of Queensland dissertation on ‘The Brisbane Episcopate of St Clair Donaldson, 1904–1921’Google Scholar, which excellently delineates Donaldson's role and its ecclesial context. This article will examine more fully what these debates reveal about Australian Anglicanism.

2. Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), 4 10 1905, p. 7.Google Scholar

3. SMH, 10 10 1905, p. 6Google Scholar; 13 October 1905, p. 5.

4. See Benson Papers, Archbishops’ Papers, Lambeth Palace Library, Vol. 133, pp. 47, 55–60.Google Scholar

5. Benson Papers, Vol. 133, p. 60 (8 10 1894).Google Scholar

6. Papers, F. Temple, loc. cit., Vol. 8, p. 244 (30 07 1897).Google Scholar

7. ‘Private and Confidential’ [Typed] Memorandum of a conversation (2 06 1906)Google ScholarDavidson Papers, loc. cit., Vol. 236: 30–35Google Scholar. Davidson also urged caution in the colonial bishops’ exercise of any Ius liturgicum.

8. Davidson, R.T. to Clarke, H.L., 2 06 1906Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 236: 29.Google Scholar

9. Encyclical Letter, Resolutions and Reports of the 1908 Lambeth Conference, Report X, pp. 163–68 (quotation from p. 168).Google Scholar

10. SMH, 12 10 1910, p. 7Google Scholar; 13 October 1910, p. 7; 14 October 1910, p. 5.

11. Davidson Papers, Vol. 236, pp. 150–60Google Scholar. Those chosen as counsel were the Rt Hon. Arthur Cohen, KC, Lord Robert Cecil, KC and Mr A.B. Kempe.

12. Undated MSS notes, Davidson Papers, Vol. 236, pp. 165–67.Google Scholar

13. Dated 15 April 1912. The two eminent Australian counsel were Adrian Knox and J. Musgrave Harvey. Texts of the Case and the two Opinions were published in General Synod Report 1916, Appendix 1, pp. 57–86.Google Scholar

14. Wright, to Davidson, , 20 12 1910Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 236, pp. 154–55.Google Scholar

15. Wright, to Davidson, , 14 08 1911, 12 09 1911Google Scholar; Davidson, to Wright, , 14 10 1911Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 236, pp. 182, 184, 185.Google Scholar

16. See Benson Papers, Vol. 133, pp. 41, 44, 55–60 (28 08 1894)Google Scholar; Vol. 142, p. 91 (1 April 1895).

17. Davidson, to Donaldson, (Private and Confidential), 28 11 1905Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 236, pp. 16–18.Google Scholar

18. Davidson, to Wright, , Primate, 14 07 1911, 4 08 1911Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 236, pp. 175–79.Google Scholar

19. ‘My friend … a man of singular capacity, devotion and attractiveness’ as Davidson described him to Sir Henry Rawson, 2 May 1906, Davidson Papers, Vol. 121, p. 261Google Scholar; ‘Oh! Thank God Donaldson is out there… We must make these great Churches independent—but it requires care’. Montgomery, Bishop H.H. [Secretary, SPG] to Davidson, 1 12 1905Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 236, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

20. Dimont, C.T. and de Witt Batty, F., St Clair Donaldson (London: Faber & Faber, 1939), pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

21. St Donaldson, C. to Davidson, , 17 10 1905Google Scholar, Davidson, to Donaldson, , 28 11 1905Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 236, pp. 14–18.Google Scholar

22. He also referred to the ‘national’ principle ‘asserted in the Report of the Committee on Organisation [of the Anglican Communion]’ at the 1908 Lambeth Conference. Donaldson, to Davidson, , 10 06 1912Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 176, p. 80.Google Scholar

23. Address to Provincial Synod, 12 10 1909Google Scholar, Brisbane Courier, 13 10 1909, p. 5.Google Scholar

24. Donaldson, to Davidson, , 10 06 1912Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 176, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar

25. Osborn, Canon (Brisbane), Brisbane Anglican Church Congress Report, p. 141Google Scholar. Editorials in the Brisbane Courier, 6 06 1912, p. 6Google Scholar commended the laymen for ‘strengthening the religious and civil bonds of the Empire’ and again on 7 June, urged the Anglicans against taking unilateral Queensland action but to promote the church parallel to a centralized imperial institutional unity such as Lord Milner had been advocating. The hour had surely come to strengthen imperial unity.

26. These Brisbane Diocesan Synod debates are reported in the Brisbane Courier, 5 06 1912, pp. 5–6Google Scholar; 6 June, pp. 7–8; and 7 June, pp. 7–8.

27. Donaldson, to Davidson, , 10 06 1912Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 176, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar

28. Donaldson, to Davidson, , 10 06 1912Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 176, p. 82.Google Scholar

29. Davidson, to Donaldson, , 5 08 1912Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 176, pp. 97–98.Google Scholar

30. Frodsham, G. (Bishop of North Queensland, Townsville) to Davidson, 19 09 1912Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 176, pp. 103–104.Google Scholar

31. Report of his sermon to Queensland's Provincial Synod, SMH, 21 09 1912, p. 7Google Scholar; and more fully in The Church Standard, 20 09, 1912, p. 5.Google Scholar

32. Clarke, to Davidson, , 24 07 1912Google Scholar; 21 September 1912, Davidson Papers, Vol. 176, pp. 95, 111Google Scholar. On his retirement Clarke wrote a book on constitutional church government among Anglicans overseas (Clark, H.L., Constitutional Church Government in the Dominions Beyond the Seas and in Other Parts of the Anglican Communion (London: SPCK, 1924).Google Scholar

33. The Age, 9 05 1912, p. 8.Google Scholar

34. The Presidential Address was reported in The Age, 1 10 1912, p. 8.Google Scholar

35. The Age, 9 05 1912, p. 8Google Scholar; 2 October 1912, p. 13.

36. The Age, 2 10 1912, p. 13.Google Scholar

37. Reported in The Church Standard, 27 09 1912, p. 11.Google Scholar

38. The Church Standard, 23 08 1912, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

39. He was applauded in The Church Standard editorial, 11 10 1912, p. 1Google Scholar as ‘a stalwart patriot, and a firm advocate of a United Australia, in Church as in State’.

40. Brisbane Anglican Church Congress Report, 1913, pp. 142–52 (at p. 152).Google Scholar

41. Their debate on the Nexus is reported in The Church Standard, 13 09 1912, p. 12.Google Scholar

42. Address to Synod, , 22 11 1911Google Scholar, Goulburn Diocesan Synod Reports, 1911, p. 29.Google Scholar

43. The Church Standard, 13 09 1912, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

44. NSW Provincial Synod Report, 1912, pp. 25–30Google Scholar; text also in The Church Standard, 16 08 1912, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

45. The Church Standard, 4 10 1912, p. 4Google Scholar; 3 October 1913, pp. 9–10. There is no press report of any ‘nexus’ or autonomy discussion in Sydney's 1911 Synod.

46. The Church Standard, 10 10 1913, p. 10Google Scholar. The arrival of the Australian Fleet in Sydney Harbour would reinforce the message of immediate imperial naval dependence, SMH, 3 10 1913, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

47. Those who met in General Synod in October 1915 considered themselves ‘only a fragment of the whole synod’ and effectively transacted no major business. General Synod Report 1915, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

48. General Synod Report 1916, pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

49. See ‘Report of the Committee to enquire into the Basis of the Church Constitution in Australia’ (Appendix 10) General Synod Report 1921, pp. 128–41.Google Scholar

50. St Clair Donaldson, however, though born in London, was the third son of Sir Stuart Alexander Donaldson, who had been NSW Premier; and his mother had been born Amelia Cowper.

51. Osborn, Canon in Brisbane Anglican Church Congress Report, 1913, pp. 138–39.Google Scholar

52. Hilliard, David, ‘The Ties that Used to Bind: A Fresh Look at the History of Australian Anglicanism’, Pacifica 11 (10 1998), pp. 265–80, esp. pp. 271–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. See correspondence from Taylor, H. Minton, Hart, J.S. and de Witt Batty, F. in The Church Standard, 5 07 1912, pp. 1, 5Google Scholar; 12 July 1912, pp. 6–7; 19 July 1912, p. 6.

54. Brisbane Anglican Church Congress Report 1913, pp. 126–36Google Scholar. R.J. Lucas was a politician and member of the Tasmanian Synod.

55. See, for example, Davidson, to Donaldson, , 5 08 1912Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 176, pp. 98–09.Google Scholar

56. 12 October 1905. See debates recorded in SMH, 5 10, 7 10, p. 14Google Scholar; 10 October, p. 6; 12 October p. 10, and 13 October, p. 5.

57. See, for example, Montgomery, H.H. (Hobart) to Thorold, A.W. (Bishop of Rochester) 23 03 1890Google Scholar, Benson Papers, Vol. 92, pp. 123–24Google Scholar; Montgomery, to Davidson, , 15 08 1891Google Scholar, Davidson Papers, Vol. 29, pp. 320–25Google Scholar; 5 October 1891, Davidson Papers, Vol. 33, pp. 1–4Google Scholar; 14 July 1892, pp. 7–9; 5 February 1897, Davidson Papers, Vol. 50, pp. 220–21Google Scholar; and Montgomery's call in his presidential address to the Hobart Church Congress for united action for the whole Anglican Church in Australia (Hobart Church Congress Report, 1894, p. 13)Google Scholar, and echoed by Stretch, Dean J.F. of Newcastle (pp. 56–58)Google Scholar and the Bishop of Goulburn (W. Chalmers): ‘May the General Synod of our own Australian “nation” or “country” take its legitimate place and exercise its legitimate powers’ (pp. 60–61)Google Scholar. Sir Harry Rawson, the NSW Governor, complained too, wanting Archbishop Smith recalled (see the letters in Davidson Papers, Vol. 121, pp. 258–61 [1906]).Google Scholar