A Melbourne Masonic mystery part 3: The foundation stone

Part 2 of the story described the Freemasons of Melbourne before they knew they had no place in the foundation stone ceremony for the University of Melbourne. This concluding part of the story looks at why Hiram might have imagined he’d been ‘uninvited’ and suggests what might have really been going on.

Barry’s response to Levick

Levick’s letter to Barry has apparently not survived. We do have Barry’s immediate response, however. It is worth a close reading.

Melbourne April 29 1854

Gentlemen,

In reply to your letter of the 28^th inst, I have the honor to inform you that it was proposed to adopt, on the occasion of laying the foundation stone of the University, the arrangement & order of procession observed on the 15^th of November 1850, when the separation of the Colony of Victoria from the Colony of New South Wales was celebrated by a procession to open the Prince’s Bridge.

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor would have laid the stone. No form of prayer would have been read.

The members of the various Lodges of Free and accepted Masons took their place on the 15^th of November 1850 after the Grand United Order of Odd Fellows and before the general body of inhabitants who joined the procession.

If it be the wish of you, Gentlemen, & the members of your Lodges to do honor to the procession by giving your attendance, timely notice will be published of the day on which the Ceremony now proposed will take place.

I have the honor to be Gentlemen your obedient Servant

Redmond Barry

Chancellor

Robert Levick. W.M. of the Australia Felix Lodge 697 [English Constitution]

J. W. Hall [sic though the actual WM seems to have been ‘M. Hall’]. W.M. of Lodge of Australasia No 773 [English Constitution]

Henry T. Shaw.  R.W.M. Lodge of Australasian Kilwinning 337 [Scottish Constitution]

J. Elliott. W.M. Lodge of Hiram. No 349 [Irish Constitution]

(Addressed to Robert Levick)

Barry is saying that the Freemasons were not included in his plans for 1 May except to be part of the procession. Invoking the Bridge Opening as a precedent was a convenient way to avoid the question of Masonic ceremony and is perhaps a deliberate obfuscation. The precedent should have been the foundation stone ceremony for the Bridge, but that would not have suited Barry’s purpose.

What was his purpose? ‘No form of prayer would have been said.’ The Bridge event is not invoked for this sentence and he is talking about what had been proposed for 1 May.

The next paragraph invokes the Bridge opening again on the subject of where the Freemasons would appear in the procession.

Freemasons could take part in the procession and witness the event along with everyone else if they wished but nothing more. There is no suggestion that they would officiate in setting the foundation stone and no formal prayers of any sort were to be read.

The Masters understood this clearly. There is also no suggestion of any face to face meeting

The event and letters to the editor

What occurred on 3 July 1854? Shortly after noon the governor's carriage led the procession to an untidy paddock one mile north of the city. There was no formal representation of either Freemasons or Oddfellows. Was there a boycott?

Raised seats surrounded three sides of the place where the stone was to be laid. Barry, wearing 'the very handsome robes' of the Chancellor's office, conducted Lady Hotham to her seat under a canopy. She and her husband inspected the plans of the building and expressed themselves satisfied. The Argus was less satisfied with the attendance: the spectators were fewer than expected, and ladies were not numerous.

The Melbourne correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald wrote an entertaining account which included the following:

‘… a very noticeable feature in the affair was, the military aspect it presented to an onlooker, not only were the whole of the soldiers there under arms, but there was a strong detachment of dragoons with drawn sabres present. … a friend … said it was “the way they managed these things in Ireland." But however well it chimed in with the military notions of the Irish Chancellor of the University, and acting Chief Justice of Victoria, Englishmen generally felt it to be out of place, and thought it smelt too much of continental despotism. I may remark that there is a hankering after military display in some quarters here, for I saw it noticed in the Argus, the other day, that on the opening of a new church by the Bishop, on Sunday last, "a detachment of soldiers was present". Probably we shall hear next of "strong detachments" being present at missionary and prayer meetings.’

Barry gave a protracted speech and the Argus reported that 'when the learned gentleman desired to be most impressive, he became the least audible'. Full details of the event have been preserved in a publication prepared by the University’s convocation.

The foundation stone was actually two stones: one in the ground and the other suspended above it from cross-trees. After Hotham had replied to Barry's speech, some coins and the constitution of the University were placed in a cavity in the lower stone. The cavity was covered with a brass plate carrying a Latin inscription composed by Barry. The plate pronounced that the university had been 'instituted in honour of God, for establishing young men in philosophy, literature and piety, cultivating the talent of youth, fostering the arts, and extending the bounds of science'. Hotham spread mortar with a silver trowel (inscribed with La Trobe’s name), the upper stone was lowered, and, tapping it with a mallet 'in Masonic fashion three several times', he declared it well laid.

Although the Argus describes the tapping as being ‘in Masonic fashion’ it was not in any sense a Masonic ceremony. Barry offered a prayer but the words are not recorded. In both cases these actions are more likely to have been customary practice.

We are now ready to hear ‘Hiram’. His letter appeared in The Argus, on Thursday 6 July 1854.

To the Editor if the Argus.

Sir - I regret that the ceremony of laying the foundation stones of the two public buildings by His Excellency Lieutenant-Governor Sir Charles Hotham yesterday, was not attended by any of the various public bodies who at the similar ceremonies of laying the foundation stones of the bridge and hospital by His Honor Mr La Trobe, on the 20th March, 1846, joined and contributed to enliven the procession; but more particularly regret the non-attendance of the Freemasons.

I am myself a freemason, and jealous of the privilege of our order, and among them I rank the right which in England is almost invariably conceded of being present and assisting in the ceremony of laying the foundation stone of all stately and superb edifices.

I had understood that the officers and members of the several Melbourne lodges had been invited through their respective W. M.s to assist at the ceremony when it was arranged to have taken place on the 1st of May, and should have been glad to have availed myself of the invitation then, had not the domestic affliction of Mr. La Trobe necessitated its postponement.

But why has not the Invitation been renewed? For on inquiry of a brother Mason whom I casually met, he informed me that the W. M of his lodge had not received any, nor did he believe that any other master had: nay, he went so far as to intimate that he had hardly expected from what he had heard that the invitation would be renewed; but he declined giving any reasons, as he said that the matter had been left in the hands of the W. M s, and that he placed confident reliance in their judgement.

Now, Sir. I don't in the least understand this, nor why, in a colony like this, Freemasons should be deprived of a privilege belonging to them - a privilege which they highly prize and one which is moreover cheerfully granted them in England on all occasions - [w]ether through the caprice of the officers by whom the arrangements are made, or from any other cause.

I do not mean in the least degree to question the authority of the masters of the lodges, or to impugn either their actions or their motives; but it does seem to me that some explanation is due to the large body of the fraternity who, like myself, may have expected to have been honored with an invitation, and, like myself, are mortified and annoyed at finding that they have been neglected,

Yours faithfully, HIRAM

Melbourne, July 4th.

We do not pretend to interfere with the motives or decisions of the mysterious race of W. M.s, P. G.s, &c.; but we confess that we think the foundation stones in question are quite firmly enough laid as they are. Why the Freemasons did not attend, or were not invited, we are not in the position to say. Possibly the world Is getting old enough to think that It can begin to do without the pretty babyisms of the blue apron. Ed. A

The story of Hiram is well-known to all Masonic constitutions (Hiram was set upon by three ruffians who tried to steal secrets they were not entitled to) and may suggest the writer felt persecuted so it is only a signal that the writer is a Freemason. The letter refers to supposed customs ‘in England’ suggesting the writer was English and thus a member of an English Lodge.

The response came swiftly and was published on 7 July.

To the Editor of the Argus.

Sir, - Permit me to make a few observations in reply to the letter of your correspondent Hiram, which appears in your paper of this day, and to your own remarks on the subject upon which it treats.

I believe that the masters of the several lodges have no wish to keep back the truth from any brother, however much they may condemn the mode in which he has thought proper to make his inquiry, and however little they may be disposed to recognise his right to receive a reply to an anonymous communication, addressed to the editor of a daily paper.

I will therefore state at once, and without further preface, that your correspondent has been rightly informed that the several Melbourne lodges had the compliment paid them of being invited by His Honor the Chancellor or the University of Melbourne, through their respective masters, to assist at the ceremony of laying the foundation stone on the first of May: as also, that it had not been renewed, and that the masters had not expected that it would be.

It seems hardly necessary to vindicate the acts of the masters, on whom, in the absence of a Provincial Grand Lodge, devolved the duty of considering the invitation: as, however, their silence may be misconstrued, I will proceed to say that they felt that, under the proposed arrangement, they had no alternative but to decline it.

It would occupy too much space in your valuable column to insert the correspondence which took place between them and His Honor the Chancellor upon the occasion, and your correspondent, or of any other proved brother, can, if he desired it, have access to the documents on application to me in a regular manner in open lodge.

It may suffice to say that among other objections, the following were Insurmountable: -

It was not contemplated that the stone should be laid, or assisted to be laid, by a Freemason.

The customary masonic ceremonies were to be neglected; and, above all, no form of prayer was to be observed.

I feel satisfied that the enunciation of this last startling fact will deprive every true brother of the least trace of mortification or annoyance at having been absent from the ceremony, and will only have the effect of inducing a change of those feelings into pure astonishment that such an omission should have been determined on by Christian authorities, in a Christian community. And now will your correspondent allow me to offer, on behalf of himself and the alleged large body of Mason to whom he refers, a little advice?

Let me recommend him and them to lose no time in joining, and thereafter regularly at attending, one of the lodges in this city, when it will be their own fault if they have again occasion to seek for the elucidation of any supposed masonic mystery in the columns of a public journal.

Having disposed of Brother Hiram's letter, I will now, with your permission, remark briefly on your own comment. ...

[The writer then addresses the editor’s remarks about Freemasonry.]

Yours faithfully,

M. Hall. W.M. Lodge of Australasia, N 773. [A Lodge of the English Constitution]

The Editor could not resist the opportunity to repeat his views in more detail concluding that ‘we hope the day is fast coming when a body of worthy and intelligent men shall be able to go about a grave undertaking sensibly and in plain clothing’ which was criticism not only of Freemasons but all those who enjoyed dressing up to elevate themselves above their peers - judges, mayors and a Chancellors.

So, what happened?

There was probably an initial expectation that Freemasons would take part, though Hall thinks that this was also planned for 1 May. The Freemasons were not uninvited. The WMs declined the invitation. Did anyone ask Barry why the foundation stone laying for the Prince’s Bridge was not a better precedent? Levick was probably aware of the facts but seems not to have raised it.

After some months a formal report was printed in The Freemasons’ Monthly Magazine in 1855 published in England which provides a considered summary:

‘A correspondence, involving an important Masonic principle, took place during the past year. The Chancellor of the Melbourne University, the Acting Chief Justice, Judge Barry, solicited the Masonic Lodges to attend a procession for the laying of the foundation stone of the University. But as prayer was not to be offered up on the occasion, or the Masons either to lay the foundation stone, or, after its being laid by a civilian [ie Hotham who was not a Mason], to adjust it with the usual Masonic observations, they declined to attend, to the general satisfaction of the Craft.’

However, there is one further thread in the tapestry which may explain why the Masonic leadership didn’t wish to press the case. The lodges were collectively becoming better educated and were focussed on growth and development. Hall didn’t address Hiram’s assertion of the Masonic ‘right’ to take part in such events in England, though perhaps he would have privately.

Thomas McCombie revived Masonry after the Goldrush.
Courtesy State Library of Victoria.

The Lodge of Hiram was just being brought out of its Gold Rush slump by the efforts of Thomas McCombie (1819-1869). McCombie was a journalist, merchant and politician and founding master of the Lodge of Hiram. He had probably been elected master of the Lodge in April replacing ‘J. Elliot’. The Lodge formed a committee on 4 July 1854 to take ‘all steps necessary’ for the formation of a Provincial Grand Lodge and by 8 August John Thomas Smith had been recruited to lead the effort.

From support role to centre stage

The aforementioned ‘eminent member of the Craft’ provided this somewhat clumsily worded insight. It suggests another issue for which the change of Lieutenant Governor provided the opportunity to resolve quietly. It may also be the other unmentioned issue which Hall referred to. Barry’s insistence on ‘no formal prayer’ and dismissal by silence of the idea of a Masonic ‘right’ to conduct such ceremonies, may have been a convenient way to change what seems to have been the Melbourne custom of ‘assisting’ the Governor in foundation stone laying ceremonies. Barry may well have been in silent agreement with the change and after La Trobe, Governors were not ‘assisted by Freemasons’ in laying foundation stones.

Here is the relevant section from Fairfax;

‘Contrary, however, to prescriptive right, to take a secondary part in such ceremonies, the brethren assisted Charles J. LaTrobe, Esq., Superintendent of Port Phillip, and in his subsequent position as Lieutenant Governor of Victoria, to lay the foundation stones of several public structures, namely, the Supreme Court in July, 1842 ; Prince's Bridge and the Hospital in March, 1846; and the Benevolent Asylum in June, 1850. The R.W. Master of the Australasian Kilwinning Lodge, with the Masters of the other lodges, laid the foundation-stone of the Temperance Hall, Russell-street, in December, 1846.’

In contrast, the Foundation Stone of the Freemason's Alms-houses was laid on 17 July 1867. The ceremony was conducted entirely by Freemasons. The Governor, Sir John Manners-Sutton, was present as a witness and was not a Freemason. He spoke after the ceremony.

The foundation stone ceremony at the Gas Works in December 1854 was explicitly a Masonic ceremony. The stone was laid by ‘Brother J T Smith’ who in his address said ‘Gentlemen - in compliance with your request to the Freemasons to lay with masonic honors the foundation stone of the Melbourne Gas Works.  …I have had the honor of performing this interesting ceremony.’ Smith was a Freemason, a member of Parliament and the Mayor. The event was well-attended with both military and musical entertainment, perhaps organised in part by McCombie who was a shareholder.  Hotham was toasted – in his absence.

Brother John Thomas Smith, Mayor and Masonic leader.
Courtesy State Library of Victoria.

The third example is the foundation stone ceremony for Collingwood Bridge on 7 November 1856. The entire ceremony was a Masonic one, although they were supported by the Oddfellows and a military band. The guest of honour was the Mayor of Melbourne who made clear he was a Freemason. Although not named he was probably John Thomas Smith.

The Fairfax reference suggests that what occurred in La Trobe’s tenure was unusual. It may have been one of the things corrected with the arrival of Freemasons, such as Levick, who were ‘fully conversant’ with the various rituals. Barry may well have had the same view.

Barry could not entirely escape the Omnipotent. He did say a prayer. Though it was not formal and, as far as the press was concerned, it was certainly silent.

Two Postscripts

Item 1

The Lodge of Australia Felix No 697 met on Friday, July 7, 1854, with Brother Robert Levick Worshipful Master in the Chair. After regular business Levick brought before the notice of the Lodge the (unspecified) conduct of the Worshipful Master of the Australasia Lodge Brother M. Hall.

Brother J W Hill proposed, that ‘the members of this Lodge express in the strongest terms their disapprobation of the Conduct of the W.M. of the Lodge of Australasia, and at the same time they would wish to express the fullest confidence in the W.M. of their own Lodge believing him to be quite capable of Carrying out the onerous duties entrusted to him. Carried unanimously.’

The issue is not stated but involved some kind of joint activity between the Lodges. There were only two at the time; 1 – arrangements to meet the new Governor which Hall took the lead in and seemed to go well, 2 – the non-participation at the University where Hall responded to Hiram.

What is the principal duty of the WM? Everything it seems. ‘If lodge functions go awry, it is the Master who bears the blame’. If ‘Hiram’ was a member of Hall’s lodge, Hall could be held responsible for his public outburst. Levick and the other WMs had successfully managed their memberships in not making a fuss.

Item 2

The Argus thought ‘the foundation stones in question are quite firmly enough laid … without the help of the Freemasons’. Why then did the Convocation of the University of Melbourne create a replica of the covering plate in 2007? The building was finished within two years, but the foundation stones and plate went missing. Perhaps they lie buried on the location of the wing of the original building which did not go ahead. Or perhaps some miffed Masons wanted to make a final point and it waits to be discovered.

In any case, the stones were somehow not firmly enough laid to be found again.

This concludes the series. The story will also appear in the 2020 edition of the ‘Transactions’ of the Victorian Lodge of Research with full footnotes. A more academic version will be published in March 2020 and readers will be informed when this takes place.

The University of Melbourne, Victoria Illustrated 1857. Courtesy State Library of Victoria.

A Singapore connection for Mak Sai Pang?

As noted previously clues from DNA tests to find the ancestry of Mak Sai Pang (aka Mak Sai Ying and John Shying) have been slow in coming. Patience is needed but each clue adds something to the picture.

The latest result may give some further idea of Mak’s broader family situation. The match is an autosomal link to a man born in Indonesia. His ancestry is a mix of Arab, Malay and Chinese. 

What do we know of this man’s Chinese ancestry?

His family story is that he had a Chinese great great grandmother (that is five generations back) who was born in Singapore but moved (not far) to Sumatra where she married an Arab man. At the moment, her name is not known. The other detail is that she had 'small feet' - which probably means that her feet were bound.

The common ancestor with John Shying probably goes back one or two more generations – not too far historically.

So, what can we learn from this?  This lady’s parents were based in Singapore at a time soon after it ‘opened for business’ with the British world in 1819 – the year after Mak arrived in Sydney. The fact that her feet were bound suggests that the family was well to do. It’s a guess, but reasonable to surmise that her father was involved in international trade.

Did Mak Sai Pang visit relatives here?  Singapore River and Chinatown, 1824.
National Museum of Singapore Collection, courtesy of National Archives of Singapore 

 

The precise connection to Mak Sai Pang is, of course, more speculative but it’s possible that one of this lady’s parents was a cousin to John Shying. Without further participants coming forward to add to the data, it’s impossible to tell which parent is related to ‘our Mak’. What we do have though is a general picture of a broader family involved in international trade in the region with a definite connection to Guangzhou and a possible connection to Dongguan, an industrial city in the Pearl River Delta.

What next? 

It is likely that this lady had siblings also born in Singapore so there may well be others living there today who have a ‘Mak’ connection. Hopefully further matches will emerge as DNA testing for family history amongst Chinese families becomes more popular.

Perhaps 'our Mak' met this lady on his travels and knew her parents.  

Time will tell.

Koi-Hai Book Group

Koi-Hai Book Group

The Koi-Hai website has been created as a free service for those, irrespective of nationality, who lived and worked in North East India in the Tea Industry, Ferry Service, Oil Industry, ITA Administration, ITA Research at Tocklai etc. These resourceful people included Planters, Engineers, Agronomists, Accountants, Scientists, Administrators, Aircraft Operators, Doctors, and Nurses, and many others. Contact the Editor Denys Shortt.

Some of the books we've read

View this group on Goodreads »

Private Walter Rowland Marsh, 10th Battalion, AIF

My mother Joan spoke about her uncle Wally as a frail man who suffered ‘shell-shock’ after the first world war. No letters from Wally have survived and his war experiences were not discussed, however, some understanding of the place war service had in his life is possible.

A proud new recruit.
Ready to serve his State and his country.

Photos of a Wally in uniform prior to his embarkation show him as bright and confident, while those from the 1920s show a sombre though well-dressed man. ‘Shell-shock’ was his niece’s summary of how the experience changed him. It was a commonly used phrase of ‘consolation and legitimation’ as families tried to make some sense of the changes they saw in loved ones.

Serious and dapper: Wally about 1925, surrounded by Dorrie his youngest sister (left)
 sister-in-law Evelyn, sister Phil (seated) and nieces Margaret and Joan.

Walter was born in 1893 and when he joined the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in 1915, he was the fifth of the 8 surviving children of English migrants Henry and MaryMarsh and the middle boy, between Fred born in 1891 and Frank born in 1896.

Wally grew up in Adelaide where his father had a candle factory and made a comfortable life for his family. His eldest brother Henry died after an epileptic seizure while on his way to the factory in 1899. The death had a profound effect; three of Wally’s sisters became nurses and his father’s interest in business waned. Henry senior moved to remote Coomandook to take up wheat farming, with misplaced idealism, but Wally stayed on as a clerk in the factory.

The farm soil was poor and after the first-year productivity sank. Fred and Wally joined the farm in 1908 and Frank in 1911. Soon after, Fred left for India. Wally was ‘not naturally suited to outdoor or manual labour’ according to his brother Frank, but presumably felt some obligation to help his parents.

After war was declared, Fred joined the Indian Army. Wally’s sister Elsie joined the 2nd Australian General Hospital, Nursing Staff and in December 1914 embarked for Egypt while he was helping complete the wheat harvest.

In April and May 1915, South Australian papers carried dozens of stories of Gallipoli and the prominent role of the State-based 10^th battalion. Wally’s mother had encouraged Fred to leave the unproductive farm and later would say the same thing to Frank so may have had a similar conversation with Wally.

Wally signed up on 27 May 1915 and was assigned to the 8^th reinforcements for the 10^th Battalion. Another sister Philippa (Phil) signed up in July and was assigned to the 3rd Australian General Hospital and Reinforcements embarking for Lemnos, a Greek island and a staging point for Gallipoli, in August. A month later, Wally also embarked for Lemnos and in October he was ‘taken on strength’ with the 10th Battalion after their evacuation to Lemnos in November 1915. He was now part of a legendary battalion and shared something of the experience with Phil.

Wally would be co-located twice more in similar locations to his sisters, in Egypt and France, and while this would have given them at least some broadly shared memories there is no direct evidence of their meeting.

Whatever excitement Wally felt was jolted after he landed in Alexandria Egypt in late December. He was hospitalised at the No 2 Australian General Hospital in the Ghezireh Palace in Cairo with ‘extreme’ jaundice but ‘cured’ by 16 January. He was admitted to the Red Cross Convalescent Hospital, in Montazah Palace, Alexandria for a week in March with the same complaint.

Jaundice first broke out in 1915 among troops in Egypt, spreading rapidly to Gallipoli and Lemnos and more prevalent amongst men who had not been exposed to it in their youth.

After Gallipoli, most of the AIF was sent to the war’s main theatre, the Western Front in France and Belgium. The 10^th Battalion landed in Marseilles, arriving in Godewaersvelde, by train on 5 April 1916 and commenced regular training.

On 19 May the Battalion’s billets were under ‘heavy bombardment’ with three killed and seven wounded. It was Wally’s first experience of being near death on the battlefield. The Battalion Diary for May notes the continuing wet, regular skirmishes and one further death.  

Wally’s war experience took a more dramatic turn with his participation in the worst fighting of the war in the Battle for Pozières in July 1916. The Battalion suffered 58 deaths, 264 wounded and another 46 missing. 

Wally survived without physical injuries but memories of the deaths of many comrades and visions of once green fields and a busy town turned to lifeless quagmires must have filled his later dreams.

No place for a clerk. The main street of Pozieres, December 1916.
The town was destroyed in the fighting to save it.

The battalion was reorganised in August, a necessity after the loss of so many men, followed by regular training and successful attacks. In October 10 men were killed and another 70 wounded.

The harsh trench environment brought health risks which developed into large-scale medical problems. One was ‘trench foot’, an infection and swelling of feet exposed to long periods of cold dampness, sometimes leading to amputation.

In early November the Battalion undertook road making, coped with extensive mud and ‘trenches in [a] shocking state’. On 11 November, 150 were listed as ‘wounded’ mostly with foot trouble. Wally was admitted to the field hospital on 10 November and on the 28^th arrived at the Standing Hospital, Amiens, diagnosed with ‘trench feet’. On 2 December 1916, he embarked at Calais and was admitted to the 3^rd Australian General Hospital, Brighton, England, where his sister Phil had been relocated, for further treatment.

Australian ambulance men at Bernafay, France, carrying their comrades
suffering from trench feet to transport which will take them to hospital.

Wally was granted leave from 8-23 January 1917, perhaps spent with Phil, returning to hospital on 27 January where he presumably remained until 23 March when he joined the new 70th Battalion in Wareham remaining with them until it was disbanded in September then re-joined the 10^th Battalion in France mid-October.

On 10 February 1918 he was diagnosed with a highly contagious whitlow infection in the forefinger of his right hand presumably affecting his ability to shoot. He went to the ship hospital Boulogne and after convalesce re-joined the unit on 26 April.

From May to July the Unit Diary shows more detailed planning, training, regular church parades, successes in battle and low casualties. On 23 August, during a major advance at Bray Sur-Somme, Wally suffered a gunshot wound to the right forearm. The following day he was invalided to the General Hospital at Havre and two weeks later to the Sutton Veny Hospital in Wiltshire, taking leave from 25 September to 9 October. He re-joined the 10^th on 29 November 1918 where he would wait until his return to Australia. Several courses of study were offered at this time (including bookkeeping, dairy farming, French and wheat farming) and it is likely that he took part in some - though probably not wheat farming.

He returned to England and on 24 April boarded the Armagh for Australia. His only formal discipline occurred on this journey home when he was fined two weeks’ pay for failing to ‘attend the Guard Mounting’ in Durban on 3 May, ‘after being duly warned.’ Another soldier charged with the same offence on the same day was Private R. W. Ingleton also of the 10th Battalion. Perhaps the two were looking forward to a day in Durban together. He disembarked in Adelaide on 16 May and was discharged on 8 July 1919.

By the time the war ended the ‘fighting 10^th’ had taken a prominent part in the worst of the fighting at Gallipoli and Pozières, both iconic locations, and was the most decorated of the South Australian Units. It was something to be proud of.

It is no surprise that Wally did not apply for farming land through the Soldier Settlement Scheme; he had probably had enough of the outdoors.

In 1925 he married Catherine Gladys Saunders in a small ceremony at the Congregational Manse in Alberton, Port Adelaide. The two had had a long, quiet, apparently isolated and childless marriage. Wally and his wife visited Fred in India in 1926 with his sister Phil who later left him $600 in her will, suggesting that their shared experience strengthened their relationship and the same time as it distanced them both from the rest of their family.

Wally lived in the same house from his marriage until his death. Through that half-century, he worked as a ‘clerk’, the trade he learned in his father’s factory.

Adelaide Advertiser, 19 June 1973.

Wally died ‘suddenly’ on 17 June 1973 a month after his 80^th birthday and was buried in a private ceremony the following day. His life had been defined, but personally diminished, by his membership of the 10^th battalion.

References:

if you'd like a PDF of the text of this article with references included, please send me an email.

Further reading,,,

To read about the life of Walter's parents, Henry and Mary Marsh, please look at the first of three articles Henry and Mary Marsh: Melbourne pioneers.

DNA tests: connecting cousins

Genealogical DNA testing can often provide new leads, help to get around ‘brick walls’ which are blocking the road to tracking your ancestry, and even find unknown cousins.

I’ve found it very useful in tracking my own family history and it will probably help you in your quest too.

I also hope it will help a collective effort to find out the origin and present family links to Australia’s first documented Chinese migrant Mak Sai Pang.  See: The DNA search for ancestors of 麥世鹏.

There are three types of DNA tests for family history:

• Y-DNA Tests - Discover your heritage on your father's line. This is the one of for Mak males who might want to join the Mak project.
• mtDNA Tests - Discover your heritage on your mother's line.
• Family Finder Test - Family Finder is an autosomal DNA test that automatically finds your relatives within 5 generations. It works by comparing your DNA to the DNA of other users in the massive FTDNA database. Prepare for some surprises with this one.

Only one company provides all three - FamilyTreeDNA.

Not sure what test is best for you?

Post a question below in the comments area and I’ll try to help.