Change and challenge a history of the municipality of canterbury

First published in Australia 1979

by Canterbury Municipal Council Digital Edition published 2013.

Copyright Š 1979 by Canterbury Municipal Council.

All rights reserved.

National Library of Australia Card No. and ISBN 0 9595654 0 X Printed in Australia by Griffin Press Limited 262 Marion Road, Netley, South Australia. 5037 Designed by Judy Hungerford

CONTENTS FOREWORD 8 PREFACE 10 INTRODUCTION 12

PART ONE 14 CHAPTER ONE: ORIGINS 16 CHAPTER TWO: THE RIVER 54 CHAPTER THREE: THE ROADS TO CANTERBURY 72 CHAPTER FOUR: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1841-1879 98 CHAPTER FIVE: THE INCORPORATION OF CANTERBURY 140 CHAPTER SIX: BUILDING BOOM AND DEPRESSION, 1880-1906 170 CHAPTER SEVEN: THROUGH WARS AND DEPRESSION 204 CHAPTER EIGHT: MODERN CANTERBURY, 1945-1979 230

PART TWO 250 CHAPTER NINE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 252 CHAPTER TEN: CANTERBURY’S SCHOOLS 278 CHAPTER ELEVEN: CANTERBURY’S CHURCHES AND WELFARE ORGANISATIONS 300 CHAPTER TWELVE: CANTERBURY AT SPORT 322 CHAPTER THIRTEEN: INDUSTRIAL CANTERBURY 358 MAYORS OF CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, 1879-1979 379 ALDERMEN OF CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, 1879-1979 380 TOWN CLERKS OF CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, 1879-1979 382 ALDERMEN OF CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, 1979 384 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 391 INDEX PERSONS 396 PLACES SUBJECTS CHRONOLOGY

FOREWORD

History is not necessarily the story of the great deeds of important people.

The efforts of ordinary men and women throughout their lives may produce changes which have more significant and enduring results. The story of Canterbury Municipality, from its initial settlement and use for agricultural purposes, to its later intensive development as a residential area, is one such case.

It is to provide the people of this area with an understanding of the lives, achievements and disappointments of the previous generations who made Canterbury their home that your Council commissioned this centenary history of the Municipality.

History is written from fragments of information scattered throughout a great variety of books, newspapers, manuscripts and maps. The material may be in private hands, in archives and libraries, and in the records of the various levels of government. The collection and compilation of the story of Can­ terbury was a difficult and time-consuming task which has been accomplished with energy and enthusiasm by Mr. F. A. Larcombe. This book is intended to honour the efforts of everyone who has contributed to the history of Canterbury, from the Reverend Richard Johnson who in 1793 named his grant ‘Canterbury Vale’, to the new settlers who are adding a fresh cultural 8

element to the Canterbury of today. Particular tribute must be made to the mayors and aldermen, and to the Council staff, who have served the people of the Municipality since its incorporation in 1879.

It is to be hoped that this book, which was initiated and sponsored by Canterbury Municipal Council to mark the centenary of local government in this area, will find a place in homes throughout the Municipality and that it will convey the story of Canterbury to people elsewhere. An understanding of the history of the area in which we live can assist in the development of greater community pride and awareness and provide a sense of belonging to a Municipality which is part of the story of Australia.

It gives me great pride, as Mayor in this centenary year, to dedicate this book to the people of the Municipality of Canterbury. I invite them to join with Council in improving the standards of living in our suburbs so that future generations will view with pride our achievements in this era.

John Mountford, Mayor, Council Chambers, Campsie 1979

9

PREFACE I have been fortunate in the preparation of the history of the Municipality of Canterbury to have had access to material, both published and unpub­ lished, which has enabled me not only to avoid some time-consuming research, but also to get a clearer picture of the path to be followed. In this regard I must pay tribute to the late James Jervis for having written the first history of the Municipality. His work proved to be a valuable general guideline indicating sources of worthwhile research and making my task much the easier.

I have a high regard for those people who work tirelessly, without hope of financial return to dig up rare and valuable historical material of days long ago. In this regard, I deeply appreciate the work undertaken by the Canter­ bury Historical Society, composed of dedicated members who toil gratui­ tously and give every assistance. I deeply appreciate new material and suggestions. I specially thank Brian Madden, Ron Lloyd, Thelma Fleming, Nora Peek, A. C. Tanner and I. E. Currey for monographs, unpublished references, useful suggestions and checking the manuscript. In addition there were local residents, such as W. E. Moser, B. Fraser, Francis Norwood, W. Tant, E. S. Ward, E. M. Pearson and Ms. Harding who offered assistance.

My thanks to the following groups of people who provided material on special activities and checked the manuscript: R.S.L. Clubs—D. Morrison (State Office), G. B. Park (Belmore), T. E. Davies (Campsie), J. Brown (Canterbury-Hurlstone Park).

Schools, Colleges—D. Burling, C. Johnson, W. Flannery, T. W. Sumners, Norma Lee, Vere Humphreys, A. J. Spence, Bro. L. Coyle, A. R. McKenzie, R. O’Connor, G. Bywaters, Gillian George, G. N. Norman, Ivy M. Thompson, P. Ford, Monica Thom (Catholic Ed. Office), Jan Burnswoods, J. J. Fletcher, (Dept. Educ.) A. D. Burns, M. L. Gordon, L. Geoghegan, R. Tindale (Cant. D. H.).

Churches—W. Carter, S. M. Brook, P. O. Bonner, A. Rae, D. J. Schofield, C. Duffy, P. Bell, G. D. Wallington, H. R. Dews, T. W. Bird, Capt. T. Hubbard, Mjr. P. Mackintosh, Ethel Williams, R. J. Lawton, Khalil Chami, C. Papapostolou.

Sport—A. R. Davis, S. Boddy, A. Schwebel, G. Hughes, M. Gorham, A. J. Seaton, F. Sponberg, V. Saunders, J. Moss, K. McCaffery, A. Brinkley, K. Smith, A. Sullivan, A. Pearce, K. Gilliver, B. McLachlin, M. Duncan, L. Landon, A. Elphinson, R. Bennett, A. Carrington, G. Bywaters, L. Nicholson, 10

R. Fischer, E. Tagg, R. Lloyd, A. &c N. Robinson, J. Kidney, M. Thelander, J. Coulthard, D. Pasfield and J. Saviane. Sydney Turf Club, W. P. Parker, R. J. Wiggins.

Business Firms—Huttons Ltd., A. E. Maginnis (Tip Top Bakeries), D. Pulsford (Collins), K. N. Lloyd (W. C. Penfold), C. F. Vinall (Sunbeam), H. W. Hutchinson (Thomas Electronics), W. M. Vincin (Geo. L. Thompson), J. W. Pavey (Simpson-Pope), E. Barth (King Gee), J. H. Mayo (Twentieth Century Blinds), A. W. Bradley, A. Galbraith (Franklin-Manufacturing), R. W. Frew (R. J. Brodie), T. Coffey (Ceeco Products), J. A. Macdonald ( A. &c A. Construction), N. H. Smee (N. H. Smee & Sons), L. W. Golding (Coca-Cola), F. Siro (Grace Bros.), R. Heins (Rainsfords Ltd.).

Cook’s River—Ald. K. Moss, Milo Dunphy, Jeff Angel, (Total Environment Centre), Ron Lloyd, R. M. Holt (Shell).

Public Services—Australia Post, V. Cremer, E. Osmond, F. Cullen, A.G.L., J. Dummett, Police Dept., Louise Maley, Sydney C. C., A. May, N.S.W. S. &c D. Board, P. Dorter, Fire Bgde., P. Dunstan, W. Baker (Campsie), D. Blake (Lakemba).

General—Ken Whitmore—Dept. Local Government.

The assistance and guidance of the Council and staff of the Municipality of Canterbury is gratefully acknowledged. I am particularly thankful for the encouragement given by the Town Clerk, J. E. Whitmarsh, his deputy W. H. Howell, and the heads of the various departments—D. H. Sheffield, G. W. Hitchell, A. Ford, R. Forsdike, R. Leonard and Noeline Baker. I appreciate the willing co-operation given to me by Rita Liseo upon whom fell the onerous task of typing the manuscript and making many changes in it.

Judith Rooke and Ursula Hitchin gave me valuable assistance in the use of the library files as did the Mitchell and N.S.W. Library Staff.

The special committee which dealt with policy and technical details of this history deserve commendation. The members of this committee were Ald. J. Mountford (Mayor), Aldermen, K. J. Moss, Judith Mahon, H. M. Bull, J. H. Mayo, H. C. Birkinshaw, J. R. Beaman, J. H. Pearce, J. F. Gorrie, H. M. Wilton, G. A. E. Cayley, C. G. Williams, Jack Whitmarsh (Town Clerk), Judith Rooke (Librarian), Ron Lloyd (President, Canterbury Historical Society) B. J. Madden, Thelma Roberts.

I appreciate the assistance given by Judith Rooke and Brian Madden in arranging illustrations, maps, and proof reading.

11

INTRODUCTION he Canterbury Municipality, at its proclamation on 17 March, 1879, contained approximately 2896 hectares (11.2 sq.ml.), a comparatively large initial area for a suburban municipality. Subsequent additions, parti­ cularly the Salt Pan area in 1906 have increased its area to 3340 hectares (13 sq.ml.). Because of this large area and relatively poor transport links with Sydney and within its own confines, the Municipality originally experienced ‘spotty’ residential development which gave rise to the various villages such as Campsie, Belmore and Earlwood. These developments in turn, upset the cohesion and rendered their integration into one municipal unit slow and very difficult, especially in view of the inadequacy of the Council’s revenue to achieve overall improvements.

The origin of the developments outlined above is to be found in the first settlement of the Municipality. Its original settlers as distinct from land­ owners were of the ordinary people, who more often than not, were transported convicts. They were hard workers willing to carve out a kingdom from the virgin bush and not very co-operative soil. Prominent landowners, who played important colonial roles, were more interested in speculation than in the promotion of Canterbury’s political, social and economic welfare.

Numbered among these were John and Alfred Stephen, Chief Justices of N.S.W., John Hosking, James R. Wilshire, Mayors of Sydney and Thomas Ware Smart, a prominent businessman of Darling Point. Canterbury’s history then is a record of the ordinary citizens in their search for better lives, evidence of which is to be seen in the vast and impressive improvements they have made to the Canterbury environment.

The general history of Canterbury is a necessary background to the specialist studies of the various communities mentioned above. It is essential that the stories of these communities be told to do justice to the numerous citizens who have made important contributions to the development of these communities, but unfortunately cannot be mentioned in a general overall history. This is most regrettable for the mention of names of many citizens who have lived long periods of their lives in the Municipality has become impossible. Thus there is still much scope for Historical Society members to delve into Canterbury’s past history.

The format of this book is set in accordance with Council guidelines that the history was ‘to be a chronological narrative adequately illustrated, complete with an index and references . . . aimed at general readership’. The chronological narrative consists of the first eight chapters. The nature of the

T

12

remaining chapters demanded their separation and forced a departure. It will be noted that Chapter 4 dealt with these developments because of the limited nature of the material on social and economic development, but in modern times its great increase demanded separate chapters.

Hurstville, September, 1978 F. A. Larcombe

13

BEFORE SETTLEMENT

W

hatever may be the charm of the suburbs of Sydney today, the most interesting part of their existence is that which lingers in the memories of their earliest days. In the minds of many of the old colonists, as they laboured in old Sydney’s busy atmosphere, there seems to have been a deep desire to reach that stage where they could build themselves a house far from the maddening crowd. ’ Thus Alexander Spark built Tempe House, in the ‘cosiest’ part of Cook’s River. Frederick Unwin, Wanstead House and Arthur Jeffreys, Canterbury House.l Geographically, the area which was to be incorporated as the Municipality of Canterbury, is located on the physical division, the Cumberland Plain. The presence of Wianamatta shales produced the predomination of heavy clayey soils with some loams. The area generally was an open forest of eucalypt varieties, and a very sparse undergrowth permitted a grass cover to develop.

In the river basin there were accumulations of alluvium and close to the stream a thick scrub grew in abundance. As the river neared its mouth outcrops of sandstone appeared while along the northern edges gravel was present. 2 The river and its hinterland first caught sight of the type of people, who could despoil their natural beauty, when James Cook on 29 April, 1770, sailed into the ‘tolerably well sheltered’ Botany Bay. Cook discovered the ‘very fine stream’ afterwards to bear his name, and his map of Botany Bay shows he travelled up it at least as far as the Wolli Creek junction, but made no particular comment. Cook’s ‘fine meadow’ was probably the swamps at the river’s estuary.3 Serenity returned to the river for nearly eighteen years, until 18 January, 1788 when Phillip’s ship, Supply, entered the bay, within two days the remainder of the convoy had arrived. Phillip was far from impressed with Botany Bay as a settlement site, but was prepared to make further investi­ gations. On 19 January, Phillip, with Philip Gidley King and others began a systematic examination of the bay hinterland. King reported that the party left in three boats at 11 a.m., from the bay’s north shore. A shoal, which prevented the party from nearing the shore, directed it towards the mouth of a river entering the bay from the north west. The party rowed up the river for six miles, but the low and boggy nature of the country, and the absence of fresh water, led to the abandonment of further exploration.4 Phillip’s disenchantment with the settlement site, following the bay’s examination and the reports on Port Jackson, delayed the ring of the settler’s axe along the river and its hinterland. There were further early investigations, for example, by 18

William Bradley and the ensuing reports, particularly those stressing the shallow nature of the river, served more to discourage than to encourage settlement along its banks.

THE REV. RICHARD JOHNSON 1753-1827 The first grantee the Rev. Richard Johnson, who gave Canterbury its name, did not establish his farm to escape from the ‘maddening crowd’. His presence was determined by circumstances beyond his control. The Rev. Johnson, Australia’s first clergyman, was born in Welton, Yorkshire and after a university education was ordained in 1786. In October, he was given a royal appointment as chaplain to the New South Wales settlement. Using as his text: ‘What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits towards me’, preached his first sermon on 3 February, 1788 under ‘a great tree’. The place and the text were most appropriate and because of them Johnson became an exceedingly busy person.5 Amongst the benefits was an extensive well timbered land grant. The instructions with regard to these grants did not reach the colony until June 1790. The governor was instructed ‘that a particular spot in or near each town as possible be set aside for the building of a church, and four hundred acres thereto allotted for the maintenance of a minister, and two hundred for a school master’.6 The church lands were duly located on the Glebe side of the present University of Sydney, but they were of little use to Johnson, not worth 400 pence he wrote to a friend. Though the land had been measured it remained in its virgin state as Johnson wrote: ‘To this day (March 1792) (the governor) has not been able to let me have any help to cultivate it, neither has there been so much as a tree fallen upon it. I cannot suppose (the) government meant me to use an axe or a spade myself, but this I have done day after day; otherwise, bad as my situation, it would have been still worse, I mention this circumstance, being aware that the sound of four hundred acres will appear great.

But what, sir, are four hundred or four thousand acres full of large green trees, unless some convicts be allowed to cultivate it?

I did not come out here as overseer or as a farmer. I have other things more, much more important, to attend to. My duty as a clergyman fully takes up all my time.

Neither will my constitution admit of it—this is much impaired since I came into country, and at this very time I feel such rheumatic pains and weakness that I can scarcely go through the duties of my office. ’7 Phillip left Sydney in December, 1792 and Major Francis Grose succeeded as Lieutenant-Governor. Being ‘a man of little cultivation’ he found the devoted Rev. Richard Johnson much to his distaste.8 He was in fact, really a most trouble-some character.9 Johnson’s disenchantment for Grose arose from several sources. Firstly, there was his recommendation that no recom­ pense be made for Johnson’s expenditure of £67 12s lid on the erection of 19

his church and secondly the limiting of services to forty five minutes, but on one point they came to terms. Since Grose had offered each officer one hundred acres of land and the aid of ten or more men, Johnson ‘thought it proper and reasonable to apply to the Lieutenant-Governor for more assistance to clear the land belonging to the church’. Grose refused the request and Johnson wrote: (He) at the same time signified that, if I chose to resign (my) claim to the church land, I should have a grant the same as the others, otherwise he did not feel himself disposed to allow me any further assistance whatsoever, . . . A grant of one hundred acres was then given me, and seven men more to assist in clearing and cultivating it.’10 Johnson called the grant Canterbury Vale. Its actual location was vaguely described in the Grants Records, but if plotted nowadays roughly would ‘extend diagonally from the south west corner of Trinity College grounds to near the north west corner of Canterbury Park.11 A glance at a street directory places the greater proportion of the Johnson grant in the neigh­ bouring Municipality of Ashfield. One must agree with Arnold Wood that what eventuated for Johnson was not church land, but private property.

Instead of a church in Sydney he ended with a farm at Canterbury. 12 It may be suprising that a not very successful preacher should finish as ‘the best farmer in the country’.13 In a letter, 4 October, 1791, he complained: ‘Never surely was a man and a minister more exercised or tried with the crooked ways of sinners, and few I believe have met with more and greater trials in worldly matters, considering my status and office.’14 Despite his reluctance to clear and work lands, Johnson made a success of it. His biographer in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, George Bergman, states that following his education at a grammar school, Johnson was ‘engaged in farming and teaching’ until his entrance to Cambridge University. 15 He must have, therefore, learned some of the rudiments of farming and gardening. Following the first landing, Johnson in common with other fleet officers, was given two acres, located on Brickfield Hill. Necessity forced him to supplement his food rations by gardening. In August, 1790 Johnson wrote of his garden to a friend,—Henry Fricker.

I have taken great pains with my garden . . . Last year I cut. . . not less than a thousand cucumbers . . . Have also raised some lemons . . . and pumpkins too . . .

At our first landing I put in some pips of oranges, limes and lemons; there are now some two feet high, and seem to be very promising . . . Some guavas too are likely to come to perfection . . . Strawberries we had last summer . . . the Governor brought out one root. . . which has so increased that now there are scarcely any but who have them in their gardens . . . vines will do well in time . . . I promise if ever wine be made here, I will send you a specimen and perhaps drink your health in a bumper of New Holland wine. . . Add to this some tobacco I have raised and am persuaded this would grow if any could be found to order and cure it. You see I am quite a farmer 20

and have the prospect of being much greater; am going to have 400 acres laid out as glebe land. . . for which I would not pay 400 pence, having other ground to dig and cultivate which I think of more consequences. ’16 21

His ability as a gardener, commended him to his friend, the Rev. John Newton who wrote: ‘Preaching, reading and study . . . are of your first consideration; but if necessity required you to work with your hands, to procure the necessary sustenance for your family, this was part of your calling likewise.’ 17 From these simple experiences, Johnson, with the aid of a work force of seven men, made a considerable success of his farm at Canterbury Vale. In the course of time further grants were made to ‘the best farmer in the country’ adjoining the original farm and on the northern banks of Cook’s River. At the time of its sale to William Cox, prior to Johnson’s return to England in October, 1800, his farmlands and stock, according to a former Irish rebel general, Joseph Holt: ‘Consisted of 600 acres of land, about ISO sheep, a mare and three fillies, and some horned cattle . . . There was in it about two acres of vineyard, which some years bore abundantly; another acre covered with large orange trees, early nectarines, peaches and some apricots. The place was called Canterbury; it was about five miles from Sydney. ’18 One could then well agree with John Newton when he wrote to Johnson, ‘Me thinks I see you, like Abraham and Isaac, whom the Lord blessed. You have flocks, if not herds, chickens and pigs and ducks, and, I suppose men servants and women servants’.19 Richard Johnson, then, made a greater success of his farming than of his calling. The outcome was a sound financial return. The reward was not easily earned, by a body broken in health, facing almost insurmountable difficulties. ‘Whatever may have been the defects and limitations of the Rev. Richard Johnson,’ wrote Arnold Wood, ‘he had two merits of surpassing importance: he was a sticker, and he was a learner. He came to Sydney without any pretence of enthusiasm, or even of interest, in the work he had undertaken. He never, as far as we know, found it possible to say one good thing either of the people or of the place. But at all events “he stuck it out”.’ 20 Having thus briefly sketched the experiences of Canterbury’s first land­ owner and its ‘christener’ one must agree with his own conclusion: ‘Never surely was a man and a minister more exercised or tried with the crooked and ungodly ways of sinners, and few I believe have met with more and greater trials in worldly matters, considering my status and office’.21

WILLIAM COX 1764-1837 Mention has been previously made of the Rev. Johnson’s sale of Canterbury Vale Farm to William Cox in 1800. Cox was perhaps an opposite character to the more gentle and inexperienced Johnson. He was a military officer by 22

calling, and later in 1797 enrolled in the New South Wales Corps with the rank of lieutenant succeeding John Macarthur as its paymaster. Shortly after his arrival in New South Wales in January, 1800, Cox began a land-buying spree, quickly amassing 1400 acres. Of these purchases from settlers, in 1802, 350 acres had been cleared and 220 were sown in wheat and maize. The farm stock consisted of twenty one horses, forty one horned cattle, 1100 sheep and eighty hogs. Thirty convicts had been assigned for farm work.22 Though Brush Farm at Dundas was the largest of Cox’s purchases, he was particularly interested in Canterbury Vale. During his voyage to Australia, in charge of convicts he met the ‘redoubtable’ General Joseph Holt, exiled to New South Wales for his part in the Irish rebellion. Holt was an experienced farmer and proved very useful to Cox as the general manager of his properties.23 At Canterbury, Cox erected ‘a handsome place’ under Holt’s supervision, but was not destined to enjoy occupancy for very long. Cox’s land purchases overstrained his credit. There was a deficiency in his regimental accounts of some £7900 and Cox was duly suspended. The story of the bankruptcy has been told by Holt in his ‘not very accurate’ Memoirs: ‘Mr. Cox was one night at Sydney in company with Doctor Jamison, who was Surgeon-General of New South Wales. They had some words and Mr. Cox owed him two hundred pounds. This happened in January, 1803, and in February Doctor Jamison pressed him for the money. The sum itself was a trifle to pay; but the doctor had circulated a report that Mr. Cox had failed, which made everyone who had the slightest demand press forward with their claims at once. When all the claims were added up, they made no less a sum than twenty-two thousand pounds and all his creditors made a seizure at the same time. ’24 A meeting of creditors was duly held and four trustees, including the Rev. Samuel Marsden, and a treasurer, Robert Campbell were appointed. The first sale of Cox’s assets occurred on 15 April, 1803. Canterbury was advertised to be sold by Simeon Lord on 26 May, 1803, as a property ‘pleasantly situated within six miles of Sydney, and from its extent and vicinity to town it (would) become the most desirable and valuable “freehold in this colony”.’ The purchaser of the 900 acres was the treasurer, Robert Campbell, at a price of £525.25

By 1806 all Cox’s debts had been met, but he was ordered to England to answer charges, though there is no record of any trial. Three years later he resigned his commission and returned to Claredon near Windsor, where he lived after selling Brush Farm. He was appointed to the magistracy by Macquarie in 18i0, and soon made a good impression by his humanity. His issue of leave passes, popularly known as ‘Captain Cox’s Liberties’, greatly annoyed Commissioner Bigge who was assigned to New South Wales to examine the effectiveness of the transport system as a deterrent to criminals.

Amongst Cox’s civil pursuits was his work as a builder, and some of his structures, for example, Windsor Court House, 1820 still remain. His 23

greatest achievement was his part in the construction of the road over the Blue Mountains from Sydney to Bathurst.26

ROBERT CAMPBELL 1769-1846 Robert Campbell, the purchaser of Canterbury farm was of Scottish origin.

After an early unsuccessful venture in his home town of Greenock, he joined his elder brother in Calcutta, India, and later became a partner in the firm, which was endeavouring to trade with New South Wales. Though Campbell came out to Sydney to develop his firm’s connection, he became a resident and a very successful merchant.27 In 1801, Campbell entered into the first of several contracts with the government to supply Bengal cattle to settlers for breeding purposes. Of these the government rejected some fifty eight cows and two calves. The need to accommodate the rejects forced Campbell to acquire the Canterbury estate.

The sale occurred in May 1803, and in the presence of ‘a number of the most respectful inhabitants of the colony’, Campbell paid £525 for the 900 acres.28 Margaret Steven, in her book, Merchant Campbell, wrote: ‘From this almost accidental beginning it was a comparatively easy transition to the first 5000 acres of “Duntroon” and many thousands of acres that Campbell held by the 1840s.’29 Within seven years he increased his land holdings to 1611 acres and owned 640 head of cattle, 266 sheep and twenty horses. In his own words he became the largest private holder of cattle because ‘the cattle arose from having so many rejected of the various contracts I had with the government for supplying the colony with cows from Bengal and at the same time the Governor (King) refused to give me a grant of land without reference to the Secretary of State which obliged me to make purchase at a very considerable expense and a great detriment to our mercantile pursuits.’30 Campbell, who had dined with Bligh prior to his deposition, was arrested and dismissed from his offices of treasurer, and collector of taxes, because of the suspicions that he was endeavouring to act collusively with Bligh to establish a trading monopoly. He was roughly treated by the mutineers but nevertheless remained staunch to Bligh and his allies. The ensuing distractions together with Campbell’s return to England in 1810 to act as a witness for Bligh, caused him to appoint Charles Hook to manage both his property and business affairs, a task beyond his energies.31 As a result Canterbury suffered from depredations.

The property lay across a short cut to George’s River, and this turn, was proffered as an excuse for trespassing. The inevitable result was pilfering and vandalism. In September, 1806, Campbell offered a reward of ten guineas or ten gallons of spirits for the apprehension of the ‘evil disposed’ persons who 24

had ‘repeatedly’ forced off and stolen the gate locks, causing his horses to stray and become impounded for damaging neighbouring crops.32 From time to time, rewards up to twenty or thirty guineas were offered for information leading to the conviction of those ‘evil disposed’ persons who illegally trespassed on the Canterbury property. Several sacks of unripe oranges had been dumped during a chase and their removal had destroyed the trees ‘in the most infamous manner.’ Some ‘malicious’ person had shot a mare.33 During Campbell’s visit to England, early in 1811, the failure of his London agent, brought business misfortune. The loss of £30 000 caused his New South Wales empire to collapse. ‘Campbell and Coy by 1815’, wrote Margaret Steven, ‘was virtually moribund, paralysed by debts, hopeless of credit with which to remain in power and facing competition from newer and stronger rivals’.34 She further records that ‘for the next few years Campbell was engaged in sorting out the neglected and complicated business of the previous five years in an attempt to honour his obligations, while his family lived frugally on the produce of his farms and rental of warehouses and land’.35 His urgent need for funds led to endeavours to rent and to sell the Canterbury farm. An advertisement July, 1812 listed the original Johnson grant of 100 acres, described as ‘mostly cleared with house, offices, orchard, garden and several large paddocks,’ for renting for a term not exceeding five years. Included were eleven other properties surrounding the Canterbury farm, which Campbell had purchased from time to time.36 It does not appear that Campbell was successful in renting the farm, for eighteen months later it was advertised for sale.37 By 1820, Campbell’s business acumen had enabled him to regain much of former integrity and ‘with great perseverance and industry’ he rebuilt ‘an imposing mercantile establishment’. His business revival led to his regaining his prominence in public affairs. He became a member of the Legislative Council and engaged in a number of social, religious and charitable duties.

Further land was added to his domains, perhaps the most interesting of which was 4000 acres he named Duntroon, the present site of Canberra.38 For a part of this period the Canterbury farm was rented to the government for a nominal fee of £50, but from time to time, Campbell was either giving repeated warnings to trespassers who continued ‘in defiance’ to remove timber from Canterbury or advertising goods such as hay for sale.39 The Canterbury farm remained intact until the subdivision of 1841 inaugurated the ‘ancient village’. Five years later Robert Campbell died at Duntroon.

HANNAH LAYCOCK 1758-1831 Hannah Laycock, wife of the quarter-master and soldier, Thomas Laycock,

25

came to the colony in September, 1791. Hannah returned to England in 1805, and no doubt her husband took advantage of her absence and was severely censured for indecent behaviour. He lost the office of quarter-master in 1808 and subsequently became so mentally deranged, that his affairs were placed under his sons William and Thomas and two others. Laycock died in 1809, leaving an extensive estate which he had acquired both by grant and purchase.

Hannah and two of her three sons, William and Samuel, had received land grants from Governor King in August, 1804. She named her 500 acres, the largest of the Canterbury grants, King’s Grove in honour of the Governor, and returned to settle there in September, 1810.40 Later, on 13 December, Governor Macquarie during the course of an inspection of farms south of Parramatta Road, paid a visit to Hannah’s domain and wrote in his diary: ‘At 1 p.m. we set out again from Captain Townson’s KogarahBay cottage for Mrs. Laycock’s farm near Cook’s River, and arrived there at half past 2 o ’clock. We found Mrs. Laycock and her two daughters (she had three) at home in a very neat comfortable well built farm house and well furnished; the good old lady’s farm being also in a forward state of improvement in other respects. After resting for half an hour at Mrs. Lay cock’s, we pursued our journey to Canterbury; thus crossing Cook’s River twice over a very slender bad bridge within two miles from Mrs. Laycock’s farm and is rather dangerous for a carriage. At 4 p.m. we arrived at Canterbury, a farm belonging to Mr. Robert Campbell senior, Merchant at Sydney. It is an extensive farm and a good deal of the wood has been cleared, but the soil is bad and neither good for tillage or pasturage.

I quitted the carriage and mounted my horse at Canterbury in order to inspect the few remaining small farms between this and Sydney. ’41 Macquarie must have been greatly pleased with Hannah’s bent for farming for in August, 1812, he granted her the 120 acres lying between King’s Grove and her son William’s Northumberland Farm. A year later a further 100 acres was granted at Putty, in the Hunter River district.42 Among themselves the Laycocks then held a continuous area of 820 acres, stretching in the north from South Campsie, Clemton Park, through to Stoney Creek Road in the south.

Hannah must have found her properties too difficult to manage herself or too costly to pay an overseer. During September, 1815, weekly advertisements offered ‘immediate possession’ of the ‘very fine and beautiful farm of King’s Grove’ to renters. At the time the farm contained some 700 acres, of which ninety acres were cleared and fenced in paddocks.43 A year later, Hannah went further and advertised the farm for either renting or sale. It was then described as ‘an extensive farm’ of 620 acres of which one hundred acres were cleared and fenced in paddocks. It contained a ‘good orchard’, gardens and outhouses and could be had immediately for a deposit and sound security.44 Later Hannah left King’s Grove to reside in Pitt Street, Sydney, where she died in 1831. The farm seemed to have a similar history to that of Canterbury.

26

There were the usual warnings to trespassers and finally in 1829, the Laycock farm was purchased by Simeon Lord, an emancipated convict. Lord, through his zeal for business enterprise, became interested in a variety of commercial activities ranging from whaling, fulling and banking. Within twenty years from his transportation in 1791, Lord ‘had become a merchant whose stores and factories were the largest in the antipodes, one whose vessels were as well known to the whales of the Antarctic and the cunning savages of New Zealand as to the “shroffs” and “purvoes” of Bombay’.45 From 1793, he embarked on a policy of land purchasing, even as far afield as Tasmania. Besides such extensive purchases as King’s Grove, Lord received large grants, one of which a re-grant of 800 acres, in 1816, lying between Liverpool Road and Cook’s River, extended into northern Canterbury in the vicinity of Rosedale Park.46 As a result of Lord’s death in January, 1840, his properties were offered for sale in the following year. Among these were ‘a very rising property of fifty acres’ adjoining Kingsgrove at the Punch Bowl (now Belfield); ‘a pretty little investment or purchase’ and ‘a very pretty farm of thirty acres’ at Punch Bowl, adjoining the ‘beautiful’ King’s Grove.47 Finally in April, part of Hannah’s King’s Grove and adjoining land was subdivided into forty ‘very eligible farms’, suitable for market gardeners, cowkeepers, milkmen, hus­ bandmen, and all the industrial classes. The sale offered purchasers a ‘favourable chance’ to become ‘upcountry proprietors’. Seventeen of the farms contained from nine to twenty four acres; fourteen from seventeen to twenty three, and the remainder from thirteen to eighteen acres. An added incentive for purchasers was the ‘useful’ timber, native shrubs, ‘luxuriantly growing saplings, interspersed in beautiful variety’ and there were many suitable sites for reservoirs. The sale realised £6000.48

OTHER GRANTEES AND SOME OF THEIR SUCCESSORS By the 1840’s the Canterbury municipal area had been taken up by original grants, a list of which is given in the table below. This is not a complete list as it excludes most of the grantees whose small portions of lands extended from neighbouring municipal areas into Canterbury, for example, William Poor’s thirty acres known as Poor Farm, located east of Holden Street and Christopher Coleman’s Snugborough. It also excludes the names of origin grantees such as John Champion, Henry Howell, George Tyrrell, Patrick Moore and William Goodwin, whose unimproved and unoccupied lands were either later claimed by other persons or offered by the government at auction.

Ninety-six grants, totalling 7117 acres, were made to eighty-four persons of whom four were women. The average size of the grants was 74.1 acres.

The largest single grant was Hannah Laycock’s 500 acre farm King’s Grove; the large total was Abraham Polack’s eight grants totalling 790 acres. The smallest was Isaac Titterton’s twenty-eight acres.

27

TABLE 1 LAND GRANTS WITHIN CANTERBURY MUNICIPALITY No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

28

GRANTEE Tuckwell, Richard Podmore, Richard Emery, Walter Parrott, James Lack, Robert Holmes, William Pashley, George Batty, David Calcutt, Richard Bond, William Stacey, Denis Harris, John Bracken, John Wilson, William Morgan, H. B Brailey, John Gorman, James Anslep, John O’Brien, Terrence Nowland, Brian Welch, Richard Welch, William R. Howell, Mary (Henry Howell) Greenslade, James Meredith, Frederick Moxon, Thomas Murphy, Andrew Piper, William Plunkett, James Piper, Francis McCarty, John Morgan, William Wall, John Redman, John Laycock, Samuel Robinson, Richard Mansfield, Thomas Wilde, Francis Sullivan, John Ward, William Hines, Patrick Pithers, William Palmer, Richard Wilkinson, Robert Butler, Henry

Acres 100 100 30 30 50 50 80 60 60 50 30 34 60 50 50 50 96 50 50 50 60 60 60

Year 1810 1810 1810 1831 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1823 1810 1823 1823 1842 1823 1840 1831 1831 1831 1841 1840 1831

40 120 50 60 80 30 60 40 80 50 100 100 100 60 30 30 30 60 100 100 60 30

1831 1810 1810 1810 1823 1810 1823 1831 1840 1831 1812 1804 1810 1810 1823 1823 1810 1810 1823 1810 1831 1823

No. GRANTEE 51 Laycock, William 52 Laycock, Hannah 53 Leadbeater, John 54 Lees, William 55 Braimson, Thomas 56 Watson, Charles 57 Miller, John 58 Laycock, Hannah 59 Nichols, John 60 Hyndes, Thomas 61 Turner, Edward 62 Broadbent, Joseph 63 Redman, John (William Goodwin) 64 Redman, John 65 Capon, Thomas 66 Crook, William 67 Bennett, William 68 Salmon, Joseph 69 Lane, James 70 Bull, James 71 Hockley, Samuel 72 Titterton, Isaac 73 Hodgkinson, Sarah 74 Campbell, Robert 75 Johnson, Richard 76 Bentley, John 77 Burke, John 78 McCabe, Michael 79 Sylvester, Thomas 80 Riley, John 81 Flaherty, Winfred 82 Thorp, Joshua (Patrick Moore) 83 Polack, Abraham 84 Polack, Abraham 85 Polack, Abraham 86 Polack, Abraham 87 Polack, Abraham 88 Polack, Abraham 89 Polack, Abraham 90 Polack, Abraham 91 Gordon, Lewis 92 Gordon, Lewis 93 Nobbs, Joseph (George Tyrrell)

Acres 100 120 80 100 40 80 90 500 100 100 30 40 50

Year 1804 1812 1823 1823 1823 1823 1810 1804 1831 1831 1836 1831 1831

100 200 100 100 30 50 90 50 28 60 177 100 80 35 50 100 30 30 50

1831 1817 1812 1812 1810 1813 1810 1810 1840 1799 1842 1793 1823 1823 1823 1812 1831 1831 1836

100 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 68 114 60

1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1836 1836 1836 1838 1841 1841

Acres Year No. GRANTEE Acres Year No. GRANTEE 100 1840 46 Flood, Thomas 60 1831 94 Unwin, Frederick 50 1831 30 1823 95 Perks, John 47 Madden, John 30 75 1831 96 Thorp, Joshua (John 1838 48 Waldbourne, James 50 1823 Champion) 49 Bowers, Thomas 80 1823 50 Maxwell, Robert Source: Department of Lands, Municipality of Canterbury, Sheets, 1, 2, 3, 4.

Field Plan of the Kingsgrove Homestead

29

Hannah’s King’s Grove property was roughly divided into sections by Wolli Creek and is therefore as much a part of Rockdale as of Canterbury.

The latter section containing the homestead and paddocks lay between Bexley and Kingsgrove Roads as far north as William Street, Earlwood. Farther to the north and separated by Canterbury Road, were the Percy and Northumberland Farms, each 100 acres, granted to Hanna’s sons, Samuel and William, simultaneously with King’s Grove in 1804.49 These are interesting grants for the sons were in their teens. William being but eighteen and Samuel barely seventeen.

Probably because of his age and other land interests, Samuel did not reveal any keenness for developing Percy Farm. Between 1811 and 1822 the property was ‘bargained and sold’ to several persons, for example, Solomon Levey and John Williams.50 In September, 1853, this property containing 104 acres, was purchased by a farmer Francis Bemish. The area later became known as Percy Ville. The eastern section bounded by Beamish Street and Canterbury Road, containing thirty seven acres was transferred to Torrens Title in 1901,51 twenty seven acres of which were almost immediately purchased by the Minister for Public Instruction, John Perry. The department in 1902 sold the land which was then subdivided into 112 blocks, bounded

by Unara and Una Streets.52 Samuel Laycock held other land interests at Bringelly, but after his mother’s death, he took over her Putty estate, dying there in July, 1832.53 William Laycock’s Northumberland Farm was on the side of Canterbury Road opposite to the Percy Farm. Both farms were offered as one property for letting or sale in May, 1825. The 200 acres had been newly enclosed by a three railed fence and divided into paddocks. There were sixty acres of cleared land, a three-acre orchard containing ‘choice’ fruit trees and a four-roomed weatherboard cottage.54 Northumberland Farm was subsequently purchased by James Quigg and remained in the family for a considerable period. The Quiggs occupied a residence at the corner of Canterbury Road and Charlotte Street.55 The Laycock grants divided the true Cook’s River settlers from the ‘inlanders’ to the west. A group of grants were made adjoining the Laycock brothers’ farms. To the west was the grant of 100 acres made to Richard Robinson in 1810. It was divided by Canterbury Road and was located roughly eastwards of Sharpe Street and Kingsgrove Roads. Adjoining the western boundary of Robinson’s farm were grants made to Thomas Mans­ field, sixty acres, 1810, Francis Wild, thirty acres and John Sullivan, thirty acres, 1823. Across Kingsgrove Road on the higher ground, was Patrick Hines 60 acre farm, Hines’ Mount, granted in 1810.56 South of the municipal boundary at Parry Park and Punchbowl Road there was a cluster of grants, mainly in the Lakemba district. These grantees were John Wall, fifty acres, 1831, covering the site of Lakemba Station, Thomas 30

Lane, fifty acres, 1813, Joseph Salmon, thirty acres, 1810, John McCarty, forty acres, 1821 and James Bull, ninety acres, 1810.57 The last grant covered the land crossed by Garrong, Yerrick and Barrema Roads.58 This grant together with those of Joseph Salmon and given in 1810 to Samuel Hockley, were the first in the Lakemba district. Hockley’s grant was located immediately south of Parry Park, covering Fairmont, Colin and Macdonald Streets.

Samuel Hockley was granted his fifty acres in 1810. The area formerly known as Potato Hill because of the early crops grown there, was renamed Essex Hill by Hockley, after his native county in England. He was originally a member of the New South Wales Corps, and, in common with other soldiers, was given land at Brickfield Hill, where he set up a butchery. Acorns from the English oaks he planted there were later grown at Belmore. His Essex Hill estate was divided on his death between his two married daughters, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Miller. The former’s daughter married John Tritton, a local farmer and family descendants are still Kingsgrove residents. Both Hockley’s daughters were active social and church workers.59 Another interesting group made their homes in the Moorefields area, westward of Hannah Laycock’s King’s Grove. The origin of the name Moorefield is somewhat obscure. Originally it was believed that it was derived from Patrick Moore’s farm, Moorefield, but this grant of sixty acres was in Kogarah, hence Moorefield Racecourse and Moorefield Girls’ High School.

Though ‘Moorefields’ was not derived from Patrick Moore’s farm, it could have originated from his surname. Moore, a blacksmith, entered the Can­ terbury scene by acquiring two adjoining farms, roughly contained by King Georges and Broadarrow Roads. In August, 1819, he purchased seventy acres from Richard Podmore, and shortly afterwards the remaining thirty acres of the grant which had been earlier acquired by Robert Gardner. Next he obtained Richard Tuckwell’s 100 acre grant in November, 1820 by agreeing to pay the accrued quit-rent. Moore disposed of the Podmore grant in 1827, but that of Tuckwell remained in the possession of his descendants until 1906 when it was sold for subdivision.60 The difficulty which now arises, is to explain how Moorefields Road runs from Moorefield hamlet towards Moore’s property when it should, really run from it. Mary Salmon, in her Evening News article on Canterbury, claims that Moorefields was named after William Henry Moore, the colony’s first free solicitor. Moore engaged extensively in land deals and in 1824 he purchased from Simeon Lord a large tract of 800 acres located at Liberty Plains, south of the Liverpool Road between the seventh and eighth milestones. Moore’s farm, described as having ‘much cleared land’ and being ‘securely fenced for the purposes of grazing’, extended into Canterbury, as far south as Cook’s River.61 Furthermore, Moore assisted materially to open up the northern 31

section of the Municipality by making a new road to the Punch Bowl and inviting public use of it. The facts, together with Moore’s prominence as a land owner and his colonial status, could have influenced the naming of the Moorefields district. 62 For a more definite origin of the name we may have to look overseas and consider Moorfields, a London public reserve which had a special significance in the advancement of the Methodist Church. It was here that John Wesley proved the effectiveness of open-air services as a means of attracting very large congregations. He chose Moorfields for the experiment, because of the large crowds which gathered on holidays to witness a variety of sports. Wesley’s oratory brought thousands flocking to listen to his preaching and the Methodist movement gained many adherents.63 The early settlers immediately to the west of King’s Grove contained a strong Methodist element, and because of the significance of Moorfield in the church’s extension, they adopted the name for their district. The use of the London spelling, ‘Moorfield,’ particularly for the Methodist Church, strongly supports this conjecture. The name for the district was in use prior to 1840. It was first officially recognised as a settlement in the 1841 census which listed Jeramiah Crawley and four others occupying Moorfield Farm.64 Christopher Coleman was granted forty acres in the Moorefields section of the municipality in June, 1823. He named the property Snugborough. This farm was acquired by James Oatley in May, 1834, for £45.65 Oatley was an interesting character. Convicted for an offence he was sentenced to transportation for life. He arrived in Sydney in January, 1815, and commenced business as a watch and clock maker. His skill attracted Macquarie’s attention and he was appointed keeper of the town clock. He was given the task of making a turret clock for the new prisoners’ barracks in Macquarie Street, for which he received £75. Following his conditional pardon in 1821, Oatley, between 1831 and 1835 received substantial land grants of 515 acres in the Hurstville district. To these he added further properties by purchases, for Canterbury the most interesting of which was that of Snugborough, possibly his most favoured. Oatley died in October, 1839 and was buried there.66 The presence of his body in a vault gave rise to an interesting condition governing the future sales of Snugborough. The purchaser had to agree to take over the sepulchre and its occupants. It is assumed that likely purchasers would be asked the question: ‘Do you mind this old man being on the estate?’ The intending purchaser was supposed to have replied ‘Not if he is quiet.’67 The discovery of Oatley’s tombstone on vacant land at Beverly Hills in 1925 by William Sivertsen has given rise to an interesting speculation concerning his occupancy of the vault. Was Oatley’s body actually ever placed in the vault or later buried by a subsequent purchaser of his land disturbed by the macabre nature of the contract condition? Sivertsen was 34

unable to locate the vault, but was informed that, when opened, it was empty. 68 For most of the 1800’s the name ‘Chard,’ was synonymous with Moore­ fields. The original Chard, James, probably settled or worked in the Moorefields district following his arrival in the colony in 1818. Chard’s first wife Rebecca, with her sons, John and Thomas, joined him five years later.

In February 1827, Chard purchased Charles Watson’s original grant of eighty acres for £80, though at first he was required to recognise the grantee’s inalienable rights to the five acres on which his home was located.69 Within a year Chard held thirty cleared acres and had a further seventy acres under cultivation. In June 1823, Thomas Braimson (Brimson) was granted forty acres adjoining Watson’s farm. In January, 1825, Chard successfully sued Braimson for the return of the £20 which he held of the plaintiff’s money. A court notice, published in the Australian threatened an auction sale if no prior agreement had been reached. Evidently Chard accepted Braimson’s land in settlement of the debt. This land, which lay to the west of Glamis Street, Moorefields in the vicinity of the Canterbury Municipal golf links, was supposedly the location of Chard’s home until his death on 29 March, 1856.70 James Chard, in 1845, divided the Watson grant into two thirty-acre blocks and one of twenty acres. He conveyed the former to his sons, John and Thomas, for a consideration of £30.71 The following year he conveyed the remaining block to John for a similar consideration. The elder son, tiring of farm life, sold his fifty acres to Charles Sarpy, a city wine and spirit merchant, in 1857. The purchase price of £3000, was a most handsome return on his initial investment of £60.72 Thomas continued to work his land and in 1850, added considerably to it by acquiring an adjoining 130 acres of the Oatley estate which included the former Miller Farm (Richland Estate). For many years Chard resided on the present site of Washington Soul’s factory at the end of Forrester Street, Kingsgrove. He was accorded the honour of being Moorefield’s oldest resident. When he died at the age of eighty nine on 19 March, 1904, 101 blood relations attended his funeral.73 It is interesting to note that, in 1977,172 living people could claim to be descendants of Thomas Chard.

Commencing in 1810, several further land grants were made in the Moorefields region. In that year, John Miller was granted ninety acres originally known as Miller’s farm and later the Richland Estate, subsequently purchased by James Oatley.74 The previous year William Ward was granted thirty acres, marked to-day by the ‘Towers’ in South Belmore. No further grants were made until June, 1823, when William Pithers received 100 acres.75 In 1826, Pithers was appointed constable at Botany Bay, an area which lay between Cook’s and George’s River, inland as far as Liverpool Road.76 35

Evidently Pithers preferred the duties of constable to those of farmer, because his land suffered from lack of attention. In 1869, the farm, then belonging to James Pithers,77 a sawyer, was described as ‘vacant and unfenced.’ Robert Maxwell’s grant of eighty acres adjoined the Chard farm on the north. Bounding Maxwell’s grant to the north east was Thomas Bower’s fifty acres. John Madden’s thirty acres lay between Pither’s and Bower’s grants and Henry Butler’s similar grants between those of Madden and Pithers.78 At that relatively isolated western fringe of the municipality along the Salt Pan, the first settlers received land from Macquarie in 1810. The grants, ranging from 30 to 120 acres, were bounded mainly by Canterbury and Belmore Roads, and the first settlers comprised Thomas Moxon, Frederick Meredith, Richard Calcutt, William Bond, Andrew Murphy, David Batty and George Pashley. The latter three occupied the Herne Bay housing settlement area, south of Wiggs Road. Other first settlers between Belmore and King Georges Road comprised Robert Lack, James Plunkett, and William Holmes, (Bond’s Road) Walter Emery, John Harris in the Narwee-Beverly Hills area.

Of some interest—the Roselands shopping complex area was first granted to H. R. Morgan in 1842. In the Punchbowl region the first settlers were John Anslep, Terrence O’Brien and Brian Nowland in 1831 and James Gorman, 1840. Unfortunately, very little more than names and grant details are known about these early settlers.

Several of the western grants were purchased by James Wilshire who came to the colony in 1800. At first he was a public servant but soon turned to tanning and at Brickfield Hill established a profitable enterprise producing leather and processing by-products into soap, candles, glue and parchment.

He received several large grants, one of which for 570 acres at Strathfield brought him in proximity to Canterbury, and no doubt, led to his land investment in the south western portion of the Municipality.79 By the 1830’s, he had acquired the land grants of Robert Lack, William Holmes, James Plunkett, Andrew Murphy, part of Frederick Meredith’s 120 acres, David Batty, and George Pashley, in all a compact block of 360 acres lying between Bond’s Road and the Salt Pan, in the far south western corner of the Municipality.

James Wilshire died in 1840 but the division of his estate was delayed pending the adulthood of his youngest son. The Canterbury lands were divided among two sons and two daughters. Some of these legacies were soon sold, for example in 1861, Elizabeth Wilshire sold Batty’s farm to William Pepprell for £150. In 1862 those of Holmes and Plunkett were purchased by Adam Bond from Austin Wilshire for £550, and named Show (?) Farm.80 James Robert Wilshire, the second son, who with his brother Austin, took over the Brickfield Hill tanning enterprise, also made land investments in Canterbury. In 1853, he purchased Thomas Mansfield’s sixty acres at 38

Belmore for £40.81 James was more politically minded than his father. In 1842, he was elected for Phillip Ward at the first Sydney City Council elections though he warned electors he was ‘excessively indolent’ and ‘exceedingly bad-tempered’. In 1844 he became Sydney’s second mayor.

Wilshire was deeply involved in colonial politics and secured election to Legislative Council and the new Legislative Assembly. His eldest son, James Thompson, was similarly minded, and from 1889—91 represented the Canterbury electorate.82 Between the Laycock lands and Cook’s River were the land holdings of the Redmans. The patriarch of the family, John Redman, arrived in the colony in 1790 as a convict facing a fourteen years sentence. After being pardoned, he was appointed chief constable at Sydney. 83 By 1807 Redman was engaging in the coastal trade, having built a vessel ‘ Charming Sally’, to ply between the Hawkesbury River and Sydney, carrying stores and other goods for the settlers and returning with cargoes such as wheat. 84 Sally foundered at sea in August, 1812, but Redman was able to continue his trading ventures with the sloop, Martha. These must have proved lucrative because he was able to acquire land in George Street, Sydney and there build a substantial two-storey house.85 In 1812, he married Mary George, a pardoned ‘lifer’ who presented him with five sons and two daughters. By 1820 Redman, having apparently given up his trading, and that year having resigned from chief constable, he was appointed under-gaoler then keeper of gaols. Mary Redman had entered the business world by becoming a publican.86 Redman became a landowner at Canterbury in August, 1812, when he was granted 100 acres by Macquarie, presumably for faithful service. Two months later he received a cash reward of £15 for a similar reason.87 His grant, John’s Farm, was situated in Campsie, west of First Avenue.88 In September, 1817, Thomas Capon was granted 200 acres on the south bank of Cook’s River between John’s Farm and the government road which became Beamish Street, now the area covering the Campsie numbered avenues. This grant, Stoneless Bay, apparently was never occupied by Capon, who preferred to become wealthy and socially important in Hobart rather than a Canterbury farmer.89 Two months later John Redman acquired Stoneless Bay for £50.90 During his governorship, Macquarie made numerous grants for which no deeds were ever issued. Darling, in a government order dated 19 September, 1831, described these promised grants, in order to give the parties the opportunity to correct errors and omissions before the deeds were issued. A second order, issued 29 September, named individuals claiming certain grants as their bona fide property.

In July, 1804, William Goodwin was promised fifty acres lying between Punchbowl Road and John’s Farm.91 The second order, however, listed the grant with John Redman as the bona fide owner, the deed being accordingly 39

issued in 1832. Directly north of Stoneless Bay was a 100 acre grant which was supposedly promised to Redman in June, 1811. When his ownership was recognised in December, 1831, he named the property Sudbury.92 Finally when he acquired by deed poll for £30, William Bennett’s 100-acre St. Clair Farm, which adjoined John’s Farm, Redman had amassed a compact 550 acre domain. 93 Redman retired from government service in 1832, and when he died five year later at the ‘advanced age’ of seventy-five years he fully merited recognition as a ‘very old and respected colonist.’94 Nora Peek in her monograph, Stoneless Bay, and Harcourt, records that in his will Redman left his properties to his wife, Mary, trusting that she would fairly allocate the various lands to the children. There was one reservation, that Stoneless Bay would eventually go to the youngest son Robert. This condition was fulfilled in 1849. Mary was given the right to reside on the property and collect the farm revenue for thirty years. Thus, over the years, it was known as Mrs. Redman’s farm. By coincidence Robert’s wife was named Mary, enabling the farm name to continue. After his death in 1864 the property was sold to William Phillips, who purchased estates for subdivision and resale and as a result, Stoneless Bay became Harcourt Model Suburb.95 The first of the Redman grants, John’s Farm, apparently was allocated to the oldest son, John George, a cabinet maker, who lost little time in mortgaging it to a Wesleyan Missionary, Rev. James Watkin, for a £100 loan in December, 1837. On redemption, the farm was conveyed to John Stevenson Clarke in 1839. More interesting was the sale to Justice Alfred Stephen in July, 1841, of the fifty acres bordering Punchbowl Road.96 To that time, Stephen would have been easily the most prominent person to possess land interests in Canterbury Municipality.

Stephen was the fourth son of John Stephen, a Scotsman who had gained a considerable reputation as barrister in the West Indies. In 1824, the father was appointed the first Solicitor-General in New South Wales, with the right of private practice, and the following year the first puisne (junior) judge of the Supreme Court.97 In 1828, Stephen built his country residence Clairville, on the south bank of Cook’s River, in a depression just beyond the Canterbury boundary. Clairville gave its name to the area, alternatively known as the Punch Bowl, because of its situation ‘in a sort of basin surrounded by gently rising ground’.98 The following year Stephen became a Canterbury landowner when he purchased the eighty acres originally granted to John Bentley in 1823 for £70.

The land adjoined Bramshott and was located east of Beamish Street.99 The son, Alfred, followed his father’s calling but had a more illustrious record in the colony’s legal history. After some English experience, he set up a practice in Hobart in 1825. Alfred possessed a cheerful personality, which distinguished him from the stiffness of the general run of lawyers. He was a 42

pleasant, lively, talkative youth who had ‘never thought nor read deeply upon any subject. . . generally well informed, though not profound in his own profession as a lawyer . . . something of a spendthrift’ . . . He was further renowned as a sire, his two wives presented him in all with sixteen chil­ dren—nine sons and seven daughters.

Because of disagreements with Governor Arthur and the death of his first wife, Stephen came to Sydney in 1839. He became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1845 and was knighted the following year. Ten years later he was appointed to the Legislative Council, serving as president for eight months. He had rather a peculiar career in the Upper House having been appointed and resigning on four separate occasions between 1856 and 1890.

In his later years, Sir Alfred Stephen was described as ‘handsome, sprightly and joyous’ possessing ‘wit and charm’ and having ‘the family perception of the ridiculous and humourous side of things’. He died in Sydney in 1894 at the age of ninety-two.l00 Very little is known of Stephen’s interests at Canterbury. His father died at Clairville in December, 1833, pre-deceasing his wife, Mary Anne, by almost thirty years. 101 Alfred, his mother and brother-in-law, Henry Shadforth, were appointed co-executors and under the terms of the will they had the power ‘to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber’, whenever it was considered ‘needful’ to raise funds sufficient to maintain Mary Anne. She was to occupy any house on the estate, rent free. 102 It is not clear whether Mary Anne lived permanently at Clairville. During the 1840’s she was living at Mulgoa with her second daughter, married to Henry Shadforth, an army officer. 103 In 1843, some 250 acres including Clairville, were leased for seven years to Charles Elliott, who later in 1849, purchased the property for £600.104 John Stephen’s eighty acres fronting Beamish Street, purchased from William Faulkner, were sold to Cornelius Prout for £130 in October, 1837, while Alfred was living in Hobart. 105 When he came to Sydney he probably made some use of Clairville, though his involvement with his legal career, court circuits and a variety of interests such as the University, the Temperance Society and keeness for social occasions would have left little time to spend there. The executors of the will purchased Redman’s fifty acres opposite the Clairville estates, probably as an investment for Mary Anne. In 1849 it was acquired by Elliott as part of the whole Stephen Estate. 106 West of John’s farm was Isaac Titterton’s twenty eight acres granted in 1840, and Thomas Hynde’s 100 acres. On the east of Stoneless Bay and Sudbury separated by the government road which eventually became Beamish Street, the Rev. William Pascoe Crook held a grant of 100 acres, first promised by Macquarie in 1813, but not confirmed until 1831. The property Bramshott, extended from Beamish Street to the river, and the present council buildings in Campsie occupy a portion of it. 107 William Pascoe Crook, 43

described as ‘a tireless evangelist, who made a considerable contribution to general education in the colony’ was probably the most colourful of the original grantees. He was, at the one time, a missionary, school-master, pastor in the Congregational Church, though he was never ordained and creator of the Temperance Society. After extensive work in the islands of the South Pacific, he returned to Sydney where he met Marsden. Similarly a chaplain, missionary and farmer, Marsden, an Anglican clergyman, was stationed at Parramatta and engaged Crook to open a school there, subse­ quently Australia’s first boarding school. He returned to his missionary work in 1816, but was back in Sydney in 1830. The following year his grant was officially recognised. His health broke down under the strain of his various and constant activities, forcing his retirement in 1841. He went to live with his son in Melbourne, where he died five years later. 108 When one considers Crook’s numerous activities, it is surprising that he had time for farming. A requirement of the grant was that twenty acres were to be cleared within five years and permanent improvements worth £100 made. In July, 1834, Crook sold Bramshott to Abraham B. Polack, who later leased it to John Burt of Rosedale.109 Polack was one of those interesting characters transported to the colony whose business acumen enabled him to make a success of a variety of undertakings. His father was a prominent painter of miniatures and engravings, but Abraham gained his notoriety from transportation for allegedly stealing a lady’s watch. He arrived in the colony in 1820, married and within seven years had a family of two children. Commencing as a clerk and shopman, he became a publican, and a small possessor of stock. Next, he engaged in a jewellery business in association with Jacob Josephson, following which he became a very successful auctioneer. His activities in this calling enabled him to purchase extensive land holdings in the Cumberland County and elsewhere. By 1836, Polack had become Canterbury’s largest land owner. His eight grants totalling 790 acres, extended from Canterbury Road, south of the river, and included the Undercliffe estate, and most of Earlwood.110 Polack obtained this large holding in a manner different from that of the first settlers. The original grants were given on condition that certain improvements were made and a small quit-rent paid.111 In April, 1835, it was announced that the Collector of Internal Revenue would auction, on certain government conditions, numerous land grants of which five were located between Cook’s River and Wolli Creek. Joshua Thorp made a tentative offer for each of five shillings an acre, but at the auction in July, Abraham Polack acquired the 500 acres for £435.112 At a similar sale in March, 1836, Polack secured three further grants totalling 290 acres for £231 after a tentative offer of five shillings an acre by James Bryan. 113 The 790 acres were subsequently leased for seven years to Frederick Ebhart 44

and later sold. One interesting purchaser of 100 acres was Thomas Ware Smart, a farmer convict and successful businessman and politician, who developed from ‘a poor friendless boy’ to the tycoon of fashionable Darling Point. He served as Colonial Treasurer and Secretary for Public Works in the Cowper Government of the 1860’s but unfortunately similar to several other prominent men who invested in Canterbury land, played no part it its affairs.114 By 1840, Polack had assured his children of the advantages of the ‘best society’ by enrolling them in the foremost English schools, as a means of using some of the ‘ample reward’ resulting from his industry and skill in business.115 In view of the expensiveness of his children’s education it is not surprising that Polack sold some of his Canterbury properties. In 1841, he instructed his trustees to sell Bramshott. The property was advertised as a ‘pretty home­ stead’ set in a hundred acres, ‘delightfully’ situated on the banks of Cook’s River. The house was a weatherboard, brick-nogged, verandah cottage, surrounded by ‘a first rate garden well stocked with choice fruit trees under a high state of cultivation.’ The cottage was part of ‘a sweet villa residence’, with a coachhouse, detached stabling, overseer and men’s weatherboard and shingle huts. The farm was divided into paddocks, two of which were under cultivation and there was a ‘never failing supply of pure water’. The sale to Samuel Miller in April realised £2050.116 Immediately south of Bramshott was a grant of eighty acres, made to John Bentley in 1823, and almost immediately it was sold to William Faulkner.117 Farther down the river, south of Wardell Road, was a grant of sixty acres extending to Mangrove Island in Cook’s River, originally promised to George Tyrrell in 1814 and re-granted to Joseph Nobbs in January, 1841. Nowadays most of Nobbs Flat consists of Beaman Park.118 Farther east Joshua Thorp held eighty acres which extended from Cook’s River to Wolli Creek. Thorp’s lands were not originally granted to him but to Patrick Moore, and Abraham Champion, who were granted fifty and thirty acres respectively in 1821. Neither of the two grantees occupied their properties, but Thorp immediately purchased Champion’s thirty acres where he built his home and extended his occupation to Moore’s grant. The latter was advertised in Thorp’s favour in March, 1835, and when formally granted to him in February, 1836, it was named ‘Juang (or Tuang) Munna’. The purchase from Abraham Champion was never registered and Thorp’s claim was at first rejected by the Commissioners, but recognised by Governor Bourke officially in January, 1838.119 The remainder of the municipality ‘Wanstead’, lying between Cook’s River and Wolli Creek was owned by Frederick Unwin, a solicitor, reputedly the constructor of the first slate-roofed house in Sydney. In December, 1814, one Arthur Martin was promised a grant of land by Macquarie. In December, 1839, it was advertised at Martin’s request in favour of Frederick Wright 45

Unwin. 120 Having obtained title to the land in February, 1840, Unwin built a fine house on a hill, commanding a fine panoramic view of Botany Bay, and named it Wanstead House after his home in Essex. Unwin having built his stables on the north side of the river, had therefore, to construct a bridge. It was erected by 100 men provided by the Government. The bridge gave Wanstead direct access to Sydney, via Unwin’s Road (Bayview Avenue).121 Unwin added to his estate by making further purchases in the vicinity of Wanstead. In 1840, he purchased Thorp’s eighty acres for £400, and renamed the lands bordering Cook’s River, ‘Quarry Minna’. 122 Later Wanstead was rented to Knox Child, no doubt because of his association with Unwin in the Australasian Sugar Company. Following Unwin’s death in October, 1852, the Wanstead lands were sold. In 1854, John Hosking, a Sydney merchant, purchased sixty acres for £820.123 Hosking, Sydney’s first mayor, became bankrupt in the depression of the 1840’s and lost most of his extensive land interests, but he had recovered sufficiently to purchase small lots. 124 The Wanstead purchase did not include the house which continued to be the property of Unwin’s widow, Ann. In January, 1855, ‘this beautiful and complete gentlemanly residence’, was offered for sale. It contained a ‘splendid’ grand drawing room, dining room, library and four bedrooms, and ‘fine’ entrance hall. There were numerous farm conveniences, and most of the property was ‘under a high rate of cultivation’ and designed in ‘a most elegant and tasteful manner’. In the garden were fruit trees of ‘every description’ and ‘exceedingly fine quality’.

Added attractions were a ‘capital’ bathing house and a river which abounded in fish and fowl. 125 Wanstead House was subsequently acquired by Edward Campbell, a Sydney merchant, and following his death remained in the occupancy of his wife for some thirty years. By the 1920’s Wanstead had fallen into a dilapidated condition and was demolished.

Despite the advantages of river frontages stressed by land salesmen, the far eastern tip of the municipality was not destined for housing development. In 1906, the government declared the land between the junction of the water­ ways ‘unhealthy’ under the Public Health Act, 1902. Building was, therefore, forbidden because the land was low-lying and contained water-logged soil of an ‘offensive character’. It gave off gases and vapours, which were ‘prejudicial and dangerous to health’. Hence the area remained to be converted into parkland. 126 By the 1840’s, Canterbury’s colonial era had virtually come to an end. Its true founding fathers had either passed to the great beyond or were spending their days in well-earned retirement. While a few retained an interest in their estates, mostly they were occupied by their descendants or had been sold to others. Some subdivision had occurred but the farm atmosphere still pre­ vailed. The home building block era had had its baptism with the 1841 subdivision of the southern portion of Robert Campbell’s estate, perhaps motivated by the construction of the sugar works.

48

The founding fathers could feel consoled that, at least, they had proved that ‘success in this world must be won. It does not come to those who sit down and wait for it. Nor does it come to those alone who are favoured by fortune, who possess the advantages conferred by birth, education and worldly position. Success is open to all who seek it with a bold heart, honest purpose, and a determination not to be turned aside by anything.’l27 To the founding fathers then, the two merits of ‘surpassing importance’ possessed by the Rev. Richard Johnson, could be justly applied. They were surely ‘stickers’ and ‘learners’.

It was said that Sparke’s Camp, an elevated plateau in Earlwood produced men such as Sydney S. Poole, who were ‘of a hardy and vigorous type.’ One must further agree with Mary Salmon that ‘they were a sturdy, long lived race, those early settlers. “Tommy Doughboy” lived to be nearly one hundred. A Chard looked on ninety as a fair thing, but Bob Gardiner was a healthy man at 105. There were no doctors in the district and the only physic was “sweet” tea, made from the so-called native sarsaparilla.’128 Canterbury’s founding father’s contributed to the municipality’s progress with tears and sweat. They gave the initial impetus to its social and economic development. There were subsequent landowners of high repute, men with standing and capacity who could have made a substantial contribution to Canterbury’s progress. Unfortunately, they used their lands as merely investments and played no part in the political social and economic life of the Canterbury community. Amongst these were John and Alfred Stephen, the colony’s chief Justices, John Hosking and James R. Wilshire, Sydney’s first and second mayors, Thomas Ware Smart, cabinet minister and James Wilshire, James Oatley and Simeon Lord, amongst the most prominent of the colony’s businessmen.

49

1. W. E. Bethel, ‘Tall Timber’ Sydney Sun, 9 May, 1931 2. T. M. Perry, Australia's First Frontier, pp. 17-19 3. G. A. Wood, The Discovery of Australia, pp. 414—418 See Cook’s chart of Botany Bay p. 414 4. P. G. King, Journals, Historical Records of N.S.W. Vol. 2 pp. 540—2 5. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 2, pp. 17-19 6. Historical Records of N.S.W. Vol. 1 Part 2, p. 259 7. Historical Records of N.S.W., Extracts of Letters of Johnson Vol. 1, Pt. 2 pp. 601-3 8. C. M. H. Clark, A History of Australia, Vol. 1, p. 132 9. Grose to Henry Dundas Historical Records of N.S.W. p. 238 10. Historical Records of N.S.W. Vol. 2, p. 203 11. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury (typescript) p. 11 12. G. A. Wood, The Reverend Richard Johnson, J.R.A.H.S. 1926-7, Vol. XII. Part 5, p. 253 13. Watkin Tench, ‘ A Complete Account of the Settlement of Port Jackson in New South Wales, p. 75 14. G. A. Wood, Ibid, f/n, pp. 257-8, Quoted from a letter in the Mitchell Library 15. Australian Dictionary of Biography Vol. 2, p. 17 16. Ida Lee, The Pioneer of Christianity in Australia, The Empire Review April, 1909, pp.222-3 17. Historical Records of N.S.W., Vol. 2 pp. 195-6, John Newton to Rev. Johnson, 29 March, 1794 18. T. Crofton Crocker, Memoirs of Joseph Holt. Vol. 2, p. 98 (Note: Holt was notorious for a bad memory) 19. Newton to Johnson, Historical Records of N.S.W., Vol. 3, p. 90 20. G. A. Wood, The Reverend Richard Johnson, J.R.A.H.S. 1926-7, p. 257 21. Ibid, Letter 4 Oct., 1791, f/n pp. 257-8 22. Historical Records of Australia (si), Vol. 3, List of Grants, p. 614 23. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 1, pp. 258-9, 550 24. T. Crofton Crocker, (ed), Memoirs of Joseph Holt, Vol. 2, pp. 170—2 25. Sydney Gazette, 15, 29 May, 1803 26. Australian Dictionary of Biography pp. 99, 258—9 27. Ibid, pp. 202-3 28. Sydney Gazette, 29 May, 1803 29. M. J. E. Steven, Merchant Campbell, p. 72 30. Ibid, p. 189 31. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 1, pp. 203-4 32. Sydney Gazette, 28 September, 1806 33. Ibid, 16 April, 1809, 22 June, 1811 34. M. J. E. Steven, Merchant Campbell, p. 249 35. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 1, p. 204 36. Sydney Gazette, 25 July, 1812 37. Ibid, 22 January, 1814 38. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 1, pp. 204-5 39. Sydney Gazette, 19 February 1824 40. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 2, p. 97 41. Lachlan Macquarie, Journal of His Tours of N.S.W. and Van Dieman’s Land 1810-22, p. 98 42. Registrar General’s Department, S. E. Tearle, Hannah Laycock of King’s Grove Farm, p. 3 43. Sydney Gazette, 2 September, 1815

50

44. Ibid, 12 October, 1816 45. M. H. Ellis, Lachlan Macquarie, p. 228, F. A. Larcombe, History of Botany, p. 7 46. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 2 pp. 128—131 S. E. Tearle, Hannah Lay cock of Kingsgrove, pp. 1-6; Registrar General’s Department, Register N. No. 745 47. Australian, 9 January, 1841 48. Ibid, 20 April, 15 May, 1841 49. Registrar General’s Department, Serial 5 pp. 152—3 50. The system of ‘bargain and sale’ was a method of conveying land under which the conveyee had occupancy for a short period, usually one year. See B. A. Helmore, The Law of Real Property (2nd ed.) p. 316 51. Real Property Act, Act. 26, Vic. No. 9, 1862 52. Registrar General’s Department, Registers 1383, folio 232, application 11471; 1396, f 236; 7, No. 47; 27, No. 462 53. Sydney Morning Herald, 16th July, 1832 54. Ibid 26 May, 1825 55. See diagram, Fitzroy Park subdivision, Canterbury Municipal Library files 56. Registrar-General’s Department, Serial 5 p. 164; 6 pp. 9, 53; 15 pp. 9, 7 57. See Sydney Gazette, 20 September, 1831 58. I. E. Currey, The Settlement of Lakemba District, Canterbury Historical Society, Journal, Series 2, No. 3, 9-12 59. Echo, 2 October, 1890 Reminiscences of Mrs Tritton (aged 84, 1890) 60. Ibid, Serial 5 p. 21, 40; Old Register 8 pp. 81, 85, 189; Information and references supplied by Dr J. Hatton, Hurstville Historical Society 61. Evening News, 24 September, 1904; Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol 2, pp. 255—7, Register General’s Department, Register N. No. 745 62. N.S. W. Calendar and Directory, 1832 (1966 Reprint), p. 51 Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 2, pp. 255-7 63. For an account of Moorfields see R. Southey, Life of Wesley and the Rise and Progress of Methodism, Vol. 2, pp. 352-6 64. N.S.W. Census 1841, Ref 4/1245 (ML) 65. Registrar General’s Department serial 17, p. 15 Register G. No. 15 66. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 2, pp. 291-2, L. K. Stevens, Forest to Suburbia pp. 2—3, The Jubilee History of Hurstville, pp. 15—16 67. Evening News, Article by Mary Salmon, 24 September, 1904 68. The Jubilee History of Hurstville, pp. 16-17 69. Registrar General’s Department, Register Serial 15, p. 33, Register A. No. 19 70. Ibid, Serial 17 p. 20; Australian, 19 May, 1825, B. J. Madden, unpublished material 71. Ibid, Registers 9, No. 529, 10 No. 511 72. Ibid Register 10, No. 122 73. Evening News, 24 September, 1904 74. Registrar General’s Department, Serial 5, p. 201 75. Ibid, Serial 16, p. 4 76. Sydney Gazette, 1 November, 1826 77. Registrar General’s Department, Register 39 No. 294 I. E. Currey, The Early History of the MooreSelds District, Canterbury Historical Society, Journal, Series 2, No. 2 p. 3 78. Registrar General’s Department, serial 15, p. 31; 17, p. 17, 15, p. 19; 15, p. 16 79. Australian Dictionary of Biography Vol. 2, pp. 608-9 80. Registrar-General’s Department, Register 72 No. 604 81. Ibid, Registers 81 No. 818, 83 No. 920 82. Ibid, Register 26, No. 807 83. Sydney Gazette, 24 February, 1810

51

84. Ibid, 21 March, 1812 85. See J. Fowles, Sydney in 1848, p. 16, for a sketch of Redman’s House 86. Sydney Gazette, 11 July, 30 September, 21 October, 1820 N. K. Peek, Stoneless Bay and Harcourt, Canterbury Historical Society, Journal Series 2, No. 8 pp. 3-4 87. Sydney Gazette, 24 October, 1832 88. Registrar General’s Department, Serial 7, p. 37 89. N. K. Peek, Stoneless Bay andHarcourt, Canterbury Historical Society Journal Series 2, No. 8, p. 2 90. Registrar General’s Department, Serial 6, p. 130 91. Sydney Gazette, 20 September, 6 October, 1831, Registrar General’s Department Serial 30, p. 178 92. Registrar General’s Department, Serial 30, p. 95 93. Ibid, Serial 8, p. 23; Register G. No. 803 94. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 November, 1837 95. N. K. Peek, Stoneless Bay and Harcourt, Canterbury Historical Society Journal Series 2, pp. 6—8 96. Registrar General’s Department, Register T. No. 223 97. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 2, pp. 476—8 98. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury (Typescript) p. 67, N.S.W. Calendar and Directory, (Reprint 1966) p. 51 99. Registrar General’s Department, Register C. No. 49 100. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 6, 180-7 101. Sydney Gazette 21 December, 1833 102. Registrar-General’s Department, Register 17, No. 495 103. Sydney Gazette 17 March, 1828 104. Registrar General’s Department, Register 4, No. 456, 17 No. 495 105. IbidM. No. 418 106. Ibid 17, No. 495 107. Registrar General’s Department, Land Grants, Serial 30, p. 92 108. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 1, pp. 259-61; Vol. 2, p. 208, J. Ham, A Biographical Sketch of the Life and Labours of the Late Rev. William Pascoe Crook, pp.15-19 109. Registrar-General’s Department, Grant Records, Ser. No. 30, p. 92, Register G/843, p. 113 Book L, No. 370 110. T. M. Roberts, The Earlwood and Under cliffe District, Journal, Canterbury Historical Society, Ser. 2 No. 2, pp. 15-17 111. Quit-rent was a relic of the Middle Ages where a tenant paid money instead of rendering service on owner’s land. In N.S.W. it was used as means of revesting the property in the government 112. Sydney Gazette, 2 April, 1835, Registrar-General’s Department, Registers Serial 38 pp. 215—19 113. Ibid, 8 December, 1835, Registers Serial 46, pp. 78, 92-3 114. Australian Dictionary of Biography Vol. 6 p. 138 115. T. M. Roberts, The Earlwood and Undercliffe District; Ibid, Department of Lands, Canterbury Municipality, Grant Maps 1—4 116. The Australian, 15, 24 April, 1841 117. Registrar-General’s Department, Serial 15, p. 32, Register N. No. 649 118. Ibid, Serial 56, p. 90 T. M. Roberts, The Earlwood and Undercliffe District, Journal, Canterbury Historical Society, Series 2 No. 2, p. 18 119. Registrar-General’s Dept., Serial 43 p. 71, 54 p. 95, Register D. No. 46 120. N.S.W. Government Gazette 1839 Vol. 2 pp. 1429-30

52

121. T. M. Roberts, The Earlwood and Undercliffe District, Canterbury Historical Society, Journal, Series 2, No. 2 pp. 19-20; Echo, 2 October, 1890 122. Registrar General’s Department Register R No. 149 123. Sydney Morning Herald2 October 1852 Registrar General’s Department Registers 25 No. 17; 31, No. 514 124. F. A. Larcombe, The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W. 1831-1858, pp. 93-4; Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 1 pp. 554-5 125. Illustrated Sydney News 13 January, 1855 126. N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1906, Vol. 1 p. 1951, Act No. 30, 1902 Section 55 127. C. F. Maxwell (ed.) Australian Men of Mark, Vol. 2, p. 327 128. Evening News, 24 September, 1904

S3

INTRODUCTION

C

anterbury and Cook’s River are intimately associated for this compa­ ratively small stream with its tributary Wolli Creek, (originally Wollar) form the municipality’s chief physical features. The river has its source near Graf Park, Yagoona and from it as an open stream meanders twenty one kilometres through the municipalities of Strathfield, Burwood, Ashfield, Canterbury, Marrickville and Rockdale, before entering the sea at Botany Bay. The river system area of one hundred square kilometres includes four tributary creeks, Wolli, Cup and Saucer, so named because of the peculiar sandstone formations in its bed, Cox and Shea’s (Alexandra Canal). Within the system’s area in 1976 there was a population of 400 000. Since the first settlement ‘the river and its tributaries have been overwhelmed by develop­ ment. Many of the minor tributaries are now underground stormwater drains, the river channel has been changed by concreting and sheet piling, almost all the wetlands of the river and estuary have been filled in, and most of the original vegetation of the catchment has been cleared’.l

THE RIVER AT SETTLEMENT The river must have presented an idyllic scene to the first white men who discovered it. It impressed James Cook, who went in a pinnace ‘almost to the head of the inlet.’ He examined the immediate hinterland and wrote in his journal.2 . . we landed and travel9d some distance inland. We found the country much the same . . . but much richer for in stead of sand I found in many places a deep black soil which we thought was capable of producing any kind of grain, at present it produceth beside timber as fine a meadow as ever was seen. However, we found it not all like this; Some few places were very rocky but this I "believe" to be uncommon; the stone is sandy and very proper for building!'3

Watkin Tench, when searching for the convict murderers of some aborigines, debunked Cook’s ‘fine meadows.’ In his Complete Account he wrote: 'We bad passed through the country, which the discoverers of Botany Bay extol as “Some of the finest meadows in the world.99 The meadows, instead of grass are covered with high coarse rushes, growing in a rotten spungy bog, into which we plunged knee deep at every step. '4 As previously mentioned Philip Gidley King, on 19 January, 1788, first 56

explored the river, but gave it no name. Some eight months later, John Hunter described a similar examination.

‘Having gone to the head of the river (Georges River) and returned to the bay again we then entered a small river (Cook’s River). As far as I went up, which was about Eve miles, is all shoal water; in short these rivers were with me no objects at this time to throw away time upon; I therefore made no other survey. ’5

On 1 December 1789, William Bradley was sent to examine the river estuary, and after four days exploring the channel, he wrote: 'I found it to be a creek of about eight miles in length to the north west with a winding shoal channel. It ended in a drain to a swamp, all salt water. Saw several natives in small parties. They would not come near us. On our return we landed in a bay about three miles to the northward of Botany Bay. ’6 The Botany Bay shore was the homeland of a small population of aborigines, estimated at about 1500 by Phillip. Relics discovered during excavations such as the Alexandra Canal, point to an existence there for at least 7000 years. During this period, they had lived in a virtual paradise, ‘a place of abundant game, fish and fresh water, with a pleasant climate’.

Though nomadic, they seldom went inland and therefore made litle impact upon their environment. 7 The first white settlers were attracted to the river estuary for their livelihood. Beside the fish urgently required by a community suffering from a shortage of fresh food, they gained income from another sea commodity ‘salt’, then in great demand for food preservation, and lime obtained from the burning of sea shells, obtained from the aborigine middens.8 Cook’s River, in the early years ‘possessed diversified characteristics. Above the Rocky Point road poetic scenery predominated; but east of the road, the long arm of the sea crept around the marshes. The estuary of the river provided a small semi-circular haven for a small fleet of fishing boats, the owners of which occupied adjacent cottages . . . Along the foreshores of this little haven were three lime kilns . . . Whilst the fishermen and the limeburners hugged the foreshores of the salt water, the residences of three magnates overlooked the fresh water. First there was ‘Tempe’, the beautiful cottage home of Alexander Brodie Spark. Separated from the river by a beautiful lawn, sheltered by a ring of trees, Tempe looked an ideal home. Solid cedar doors opened into cool sheltered rooms enriched by cornices and mouldings’.

Frederick Wright Unwin’s Wanstead, ‘nestled under a hill, up which climbed through a wealth of wild flowers, a red road’. Finally there was the Warren, Thomas Holt’s ‘imposing mansion’.9 Originally then, the river presented an attractive appearance. Wild flowers grew in ‘great profusion’ along the shores of this ‘peaceful and beautiful river’. The banks of its upper reaches were covered with tall trees. 10 The 57

granting of land along the river valley, commencing with the Rev. Johnson in 1793, rudely changed the sylvan scenes. The river served as a natural boundary for these grants. The consequent taking up of land led to tracks which crossed and recrossed the river and as more use was made of them, the need for punts and bridges arose, adding artificiality to the natural envi­ ronment, which further felt the impact of white settlement through land clearing and the use of timber and stone for building construction and other purposes.

COOK’S RIVER DAM In the late 1830’s a new use was found for the river itself—a water supply source for Sydney Town. The old Tank Stream never more than a dubious supply, was abandoned in 1826 and until the 1830’s the citizens were forced to depend upon the costly cartage of water from Lachlan Swamps. In 1827, John Busby gave promise of alleviation by commencing the construction of a bore from these swamps. It was completed in 1837, ironically at the beginning of a prolonged drought. 11 This in turn served to draw attention to the need for better sources the most convenient of which was Cook’s River.

In a despatch to Lord Glenelg, Gipps described the dam as ‘the first operation of the sort upon a large scale’, yet attempted in the colony. He forecast it would ‘preserve an inexhaustible supply of fresh water through a course of nearly twenty miles’ and ‘effectively secure the Town of Sydney against any reoccurrence of the apprehension of a scarcity of water’. The colony would meet the entire expense except the lodging and feeding of the convicts. Approval was given for the expenditure of £4078.11s.ll3/4d. upon the dam and works at Cockatoo Island. 12 The Government’s intention to use the river as a water supply source was outlined in the Sydney Gazette in February, 1839: ‘A most important and gratifying determination has been arrived at by the Government, with a view to securing to the town of Sydney, a sure supply of fresh water, in order to remedy the serious inconvenience resulting at times from the scanty supply from Botany swamps. With a view to this object it has been determined to erect a substantial dam across Cook’s River a little distance above Mr. A.B. Spark’s house, Tempe, in order to prevent the ingress of salt water. A canal is then to be cut through the country from the spot to within about a mile of Sydney whence the water will be conducted into the town in pipes. In order to expedite the design as much as possible a gang of one hundred men is to be set to work immediately. This measure, when completed, will prove the greatest boon ever conferred upon the town. ’13

It was the government’s intention to make extensive use of convict labour and immediately the next two prison ships arrived a probationary gang of 500 men was to be employed on the dam construction and housed in a stockade. The men were to be controlled by two overseers, superintended by 58

Lieutenant Bentley, already overburdened with similar duties. Early in June, it was reported that ‘in consequence of the accession of hands’ and ‘late arrivals’ the stockade was nearing completion. 14 The dam was completed in 1840. A picture published in 1879 shows the solid nature of the wall and the sluice gates which were located at the northern end.15 Despite all the hopes and effort which went into its construction the dam played no part in slaking Sydney’s thirst. Though, until replaced by a bridge, it had some value as a roadway, it proved to be a considerable nuisance by aggravating floods and contributing to pollution which destroyed the river’s marine life.

Nevertheless, the river’s potential as a source of a water supply was not entirely forgotten. In 1852, a City Council Committee considered water supplies from various sources, including Cook’s River but preferred Simeon Lord’s dam at Botany. During the 1860’s the colony suffered a prolonged drought. The inadequacy of the existing Botany Swamps to cope with such adversities, led to a variety of suggestions for new water supply sources.

Among these was a proposal to dam Cook’s River at the Wolli Creek junction. This was never seriously considered. The ‘Laird of the Warren’, Thomas Holt, was too busy espousing a similar plan for the George’s River at Tom Ugly’s. No doubt, he considered this location to be more beneficial for his large estate which stretched from Botany Bay to Port Hacking. 16

RIVER SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENTS The original grants and the subsequent land subdivisions brought an influx of population along the river valley. The main alterations in the river’s environment came from land clearing, access roads and the necessary bridges.

The river was a natural barrier for marketing of produce for these farmers, timber getters and others who lived south of it. At first fording was practised and then only by circuitous routes. Cornelius Prout came to the rescue by providing a punt and later a bridge. The 1841 subdivision which led to the establishment of the ‘ancient village’ of Canterbury, ‘charmingly situated on Cook’s River’ which by ‘serpentine wanderings’ through the district greatly improved its ‘natural attraction’. 17 The river rather surprisingly gave little encouragement to industrial development based upon its water. The Aus­ tralasian Sugar Company built a dam, which like the Tempe counterpart was to prove a similar nuisance. Attempts to mine coal proved unsuccessful. Dams were built for wool washing and two tanneries established. By 1896 only one of these enterprises, a tannery remained. Similarly, little use was made of the river as a transport medium. Small craft carried timber and sea shells, the raw material for lime, down river to access roads. In October, 1870, a meeting at the Pulteney Hotel was called at the request of ‘one or two poor hardworking men of Cook’s River’ who were engaged in the wood and shell 59

trade and desired river improvements to enable them to earn a more certain living. It was considered that the navigation of the river was ‘almost perfect’.

All that was necessary was to remove a few mud banks and hummocks to straighten the channel and so obtain continuous deep water. Not only would this work benefit commercial interests, but would improve the river for recreation and reduce flooding. It could, in fact, be made ‘a beautiful place.’18 A deputation which met the Minister for Public Works, John Sutherland, argued that, for a small expenditure of £500-£600, there would be advan­ tages—abundance of water favourable to manufacturers, improved rec­ reational facilities, and a means of escape for sewage and refuse. While the minister saw the benefits, he emphasised that it was not a function of the government to undertake the work. Its first duty was to provide roads. In fact the government was doing too much for the people and was ‘destroying their energy’. A survey indicated that the improvements would cost £10 000, but the population was too small to warrant such expenditure. Sutherland then suggested that each council provide £1000 and then claim recompense for their expenditure. The usual government promise of a survey was made.19 The Pulteney meeting achieved little. During the 1880’ssome dredging was undertaken. In the main the river was used for pleasure—fishing, boating, picnicking, bathing or just strolling along its banks, not only for ‘locals’ but town visitors as well. In 1833 the Sydney Gazette emphasised the river’s importance to town dwellers. The Cook’s River Road was ‘every day becoming a more favourite drive with our Sydney folks.’ A. B. Spark’s picturesque residence rendered it particularly attractive in spring.20 By the 1870’s the river was still being described as flowing ‘dreamily between banks of cool green rushes’ and winding ‘around little verdant islets that break the water in the pleasantest possible relief’. The boating enthusiasts rowed up ‘a mild and fresh a land river as ever flowed’ to Canterbury.21 A Herald correspondent, Charles St. Julian, local goverment’s first expert, argued strongly in favour of river improvements by removing the dams, and promoting the boating potential by emphasising the scenery and the joys for boating parties. In fact a small gondola steamer, similar to that operating on the Yarra River, would pay dividends. There were other advantages, abundance of water for industrial processes and a means of refuse and sewage discharge. 22 The proximity of the river to the city and its easy accessibility by road and rail by the end of the century, had unfortunately caused the area to be eagerly sought by workmen for residences. Though occupation, in turn, ‘largely removed the picturesqueness from the greater part of the river,’ there still remained ‘some of much scenic beauty.’ One of these was a ‘glimpse’ from Undercliffe Bridge, which revealed ‘an attractive river with natural bushland banks over which passed a footbridge crowded with men and women in their Sunday best. Further up the stream a couple are enjoying a boating trip.’23 62

THE GREAT DELUGE, 1889 Early on the morning of Queen Victoria’s seventieth birthday, Friday, 24th May, 1889, heavy rain began to fall and continued almost unceasingly for a week. By Monday there was a strong flow of water over Canterbury Bridge but this did not deter George Coleman’s omnibus from making the normal morning run to Sydney. The omnibus on its return journey, the prologue to a tragedy, reached Canterbury shortly before 1 p.m. It contained the driver, William Hindron, fare boy, Herbert Price and Constable Plunkett. The volume of water flowing over the bridge had, in the meantime, considerably increased. Nevertheless Hindron ventured a crossing. After a short distance the four horses were swept into the river, together with the omnibus and its passengers. The horses were drowned and the omnibus wrecked, but Chi­ namen down stream rescued Plunkett and a friendly tree performed a similar feat for Hindron. Price had completely disappeared. His body, dressed in an oilskin suit with the fare bag still strapped around the waist, was found the next day, some 200 yards from the bridge.24 The rainfall for the week, 20.37 inches sent weather men scurrying to search through the statistics to claim a record. The municipality suffered considerable damage. Salt Pan bridge and the approaches to Punchbowl Road bridge were swept away. The latter remained ‘right away from the roadway, something like a monument’. The race course, though ‘almost totally submerged’, was not seriously damaged. The Chinese gardens were six feet under water and their condition was ‘pitiable in the extreme.’ The river rose to a record height of two feet at Croydon Bridge and it was ten feet above the dam at Tempe.25

63

The worst hit area was the Tramvale Estate, low lying land in Marrickville which had been sold cheaply as building sites to workmen and other artisans.

The estate which stood across a natural channel for the escape of flood waters, was unsewered, and a public health hazard was created through the flooding of cesspits and the deposition of sewage into the river. A public meeting was held, attended by John Sharp, and a committee formed consisting of aldermen from Marrickville, Newtown, Petersham, St Peters and Canterbury, to promote legislation to have the Tramvale building sites withdrawn from sale.26 At an ordinary meeting of the Canterbury Council on 5 June, Ald. James McBean’s motion for the convening of a public meeting at the town hall to devise means of assisting John Coleman, the omnibus proprietor for his loss through the floods, was amended to ‘sympathise with the sufferers.’ A letter was forwarded to the Inspector-General of Police requesting the recognition of Constable Plunkett’s heroism, but he saw nothing in particular in the event to warrant any special award. Perhaps the Chinamen who saved Plunkett should have received the recognition.27

POLLUTION EPIDEMIC As the population along the river increased, so did the pollution of its waters.

This was caused by the deposition of rubbish, subsequently washed into the stream, and household slops often fouled by raw sewage from cess pits.

During the 1870’s when attention was first drawn to pollution, a general system of sewerage was still a half century away. The Council’s attention was first drawn to river pollution in May, 1882, by the residents’ complaints, but as its main concern was the silting of the river bed, the pollution continued unabated.28 Evidence given before a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, examining the improvement of Cook’s River in 1896, indicates the extent of the pollution. Sydney Lorking, Mayor of Canterbury, stressed that the arch villain was the Tempe dam. It was the chief cause of the silting, and encouraging the growth of weeds, while fallen timber caused the accumulation of all floating refuse, which in dry periods, remained ‘festering in the sun’. The accumulation was therefore, ‘a very great nuisance’ and ‘a menace to the health of the population’. The sugar house dam was almost as culpable because it kept the fresh water above it in a stagnant condition which often was very offensive. Frederick Davis, the inspector of nuisances fully agreed. Even the action of oars caused ‘a terrible stink’.29 John Quigg told how the tide once flowed as far as Hilly’s Crossing at Burwood Road where he had caught sea mullet. Hilly’s was a favourite bathing spot in the 1860’s, but only those prepared to risk typhoid fever bathed there in the 1890’s. Silting was so extensive that in a place once deep water, the Chinese had a market garden. Davis referred to sewage matter 64

from streets entering the river, an outbreak of typhoid fever at Rosedale, contracted by children bathing in the river and the prevalence of illness during dry periods.30 Witnesses generally agreed that the dams were the main cause of the pollution denying to the river the cleansing power of tidal waters. Salt settled in the still water, replacing a once sandy bottom with slime mud encouraging the growth of reeds. Miss Campbell, a subsequent owner of Wanstead, blamed the railway embankment. The Canterbury residents were most complacent about the gradual poisoning of their river. ‘They are’, said Inspector Evans, ‘a quiet, rather retiring people . . . and it takes a lot to stir then! up. They bear evils remarkably well’.3i The stirring began in the 1890’s when fears of a grave deterioration in public health conditions were being openly expressed. The Cook’s River Project described the conditions which prove these fears were far from groundless.

‘It was declared at the time that the odours arising from Cook’s River had achieved a world-wide reputation. A health inspector discovered cows with typhoid drinking the river water and people were warned against bathing. The settlers who had used the river as a drain and a waste repository were now suffering for their folly. ’32

The Professional Engineering Association was foremost in recognising the need for action. The removal of Tempe and sugar works dams was recom­ mended and a canal cut from Cook’s to Parramatta Rivers. It also had now become obvious that the pollution problem was not a matter for Canterbury alone and in 1893, it joined forces with Marrickville to agitate for river improvement and protection. The Minister for Public works, James Young, promised consideration, but apart from some dredging in the 1880’s little improvement was made.

In May, 1895, at a public meeting at Canterbury, the residents expressed their alarm at the insanitary condition of Cook’s River and its tributaries and, since these streams were a government responsibility, immediate alleviation was demanded.33 Three years later, the government acted. Cook’s River Improvement Bill was presented by James Young in May, 1896, providing an estimated expenditure of £56 000 on works near Tempe to facilitate the discharge of flood waters and to achieve the ‘great object’ of improving sanitary conditions.34 The presentation of the bill led to a keen debate. Edmund Molesworth argued strongly in favour of the proposed expenditure: 'The state of the river is a menace to the health of the community. Not only is it dangerous to the health of the community in the neighbourhood, but also to that of the people who are still in the habit of using it as a pleasure resort. At one time that locality was largely availed of by the people residing about Sydney as a place for excursions, but of late years it has become such an abominable place that it is unsafe to go there. '35

65

The main opposition to the bill was directed at the expenditure from which the private landowners would gain in property improvement. Even some parliamentarians owned land at Cook’s River. The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, which, though approving of the necessity for the work, made a drastic cut of £41 000 in the estimated cost. The balance, £15 000 was to be spent on lowering the sills at the southern end of Tempe Dam, extending the sluice gates to a minimum width of 200 feet, dredging Cook’s River and Wolli Creek and constructing an embankment, with escapes for flood waters across the entrance to Marrickville Creek.36

COOK’S RIVER IMPROVEMENT LEAGUE The Cook’s River Improvement Act, 1897, was aimed at Tempe Dam, which was regarded as the pollution and flood villain. The government unfortu­ nately, disregarded the human contribution and the pollution epidemic continued unchecked. Finally in 1925, a group of environment conscious persons formed the Cook’s River Improvement League, representative of some forty organisations. The League undertook its task with considerable vigour. Tangible evidence of its enthusiasm was the regular publication of pamphlets, cartoons, songs and slogans for which it gained national pro­ minence. Its main medium for the dissemination of its ideas and promotion of its improvement campaign was a series of pamphlets entitled Our Ocean to Ocean Opportunity. Here various ideas were expounded, perhaps the most novel of which was a scheme to honour Captain Cook by improving his river, which ‘our shame’ had degenerated into ‘a disgraceful condition’. Such a scheme would be ‘a memorial more in keeping with Cook’s humane democratic nature, than stone monuments . . . How much better to create a monument that will contribute to the well-being and happier existence of the people!’ The value of such a scheme is that it would promote public health protection, industrial enterprise, river valley beautification and recreation.

These benefits, in turn, as an everlasting memorial to the famous navigator could not be surpassed. It is interesting to note that Ald. Bernard D. Doolan of Canterbury became wedded to the proposal. At the inaugural meeting to plan for the Cook Sesqui Centenary celebrations, his suggestion for a public gathering on the river banks, was greeted with derisive laughter. The Mayor of Marrickville, Benjamin Richards, acted on Doolan’s suggestion and organised a very successful gathering in Riverside Park.37 The Cook’s River Improvement League made effective use of cartoons to drive home to the people the extent of the river pollution. One such example concerned a conversation among four persons. It ran thus: ‘Visitor: What an awful smell. What’s this?

No Water Boardian: Oh that’s “decayed seaweed”. It’s most horrible stuff.

66

Old Resident: (Overhearing the conversation): Garn that’s Brown’s dead dog, and there are a couple of cats further up.

Mr. Civic Pride: Oh we’ve been so used to that sort of thing that we don’t take any notice of it, but you mustn’t say our historic river is polluted with sewerage.’38

There were others too who vented their criticism. An engineer, Charles Harrison, for example reiterated much of the unsavoury conditions and their causes. Because a large section of the suburban area fronting the river was unsewered, considerable house drainage was permitted to foul the river, virtually completely discouraging boating and swimming. Harrison proposed a canal because ‘a properly developed waterway’ was ‘a distinct economic asset’, on account of its provision of the ‘cheapest form of transport’, which was ‘an essential commodity in a civilised community’. The canal project, linking Cook’s and Parramatta Rivers, was espoused by the Improvement League as its ultimate objective.

The League’s energetic vociferation was not without effect on the government. Local members, Arthur Tonge, Canterbury, John Cahill, St. George and Fred Stanley, Lakemba, bombarded the Secretary for Public Works, Ernest Buttenshaw, with numerous questioning on the government’s intentions on Cook’s River. ‘It was’, said John Cahill, ‘almost a daily occurrence to hear the minister ask what steps were to be taken to carry out the work’.40 The continual pressure produced results. In December, 1928, the question of dredging, reclaiming and improving the river channel between Tempe Dam and Burwood Road, a distance of 5.75 miles, was referred to the Public Works Committee. Typical of governments, the committee con­ sidered that reclamation works and the improvement of lands, such as parks, were the responsibility of the relevant municipalities because they conferred local benefits. This decision led to lengthy negotiations which were concluded by the government’s agreement to undertake the concreting of the upper reaches of the river as a depression relief work.41

THE COUNTY COUNCIL INTERLUDE During these negotiations the four councils concerned, Canterbury, Mar­ rickville, Rockdale and St. Peters, in 1931, constituted a Cook’s River Joint Works Committee, under the chairmanship of Reginald Reid, but the tardy settlement of responsibility for the financial cost, led to its petering out. In 1936, the Minister for Local Government, Eric Spooner, expressed the Government’s willingness to provide the major portion of the funds for a river improvement scheme. The minister suggested the formation of a county council to enable the relevant municipalities to assume the responsibililty for the control of the ‘sadly neglected waterway’. The promise of funds interested the four councils. At a meeting of their delegates at Canterbury Town Hall, it was agreed to constitute a county council in order that definite financial 67

proposals be prepared and immediate steps be taken to remove the ‘ugliest feature’ of their landscapes. The formation of a county council for such a unique purpose was commendable, but for some reason, the government failed to fulfil its promise.42

THE COOK’S RIVER IMPROVEMENT ACT 1946 The relief work of concreting the upper reaches was completed to River Street in 1941, but the outbreak of war caused a cessation of further activity. In March, 1946, the Minister for Public Works, John Cahill, when introducing a Cook’s River Improvement Bill, to sanction further river works to cost £600 000 stressed their urgency. Earlier ‘Cook’s River had been a pleasure resort. Pleasure boats and launches used to travel upon it’, but now it was ‘full of slime’ and had become ‘a slow sluggish stream, not more than twenty feet wide and easily fordable in many spots’. The government, therefore, proposed to align and dredge parts of Cook’s River and Wolli Creek channels, construct levee banks and protection works, reclaim and improve low lying adjacent areas, extend existing bridges and drains and remove the tidal gates at Tempe bridge. Cahill prophesied that the completion of the works would transform ‘an unsightly, sluggish watercourse into a broad flowing stream’ and ‘provide an effective and safe channel for the clearing of stormwaters’.

The flooding of adjacent low lying areas would be prevented and recreational facilities greatly improved. Finally the works would eradicate ‘an ever­ growing menace’ to the health of this densely populated area.43 At the time the Commonwealth Government had decided to make exten­ sive improvements to Kingsford-Smith Airport, involving the filling in of the river from Shea’s Creek to its mouth. The scheme required the diversion of the river channel with a new opening into Botany Bay. The Cook’s River Improvement Act was passed, and the works, both federal and state com­ pleted. Concrete replaced the original natural beauty. The river had degenerated into a canal with its uniform width and artificial banks.

While the shape of the river may have been improved by reclaiming and realignment, the pollution of its waters continued unabated. A study of the river system by A. B. Distefano and S. J. Richards revealed that from Botany Bay to Princes Highway, the river is devoid of marine life for some 80 per cent of the time and up-river for eight kilometres it was virtually non-existent. The authors concluded: ‘The Cook’s River system is heavily polluted, with large portions of it incapable of sustaining aquatic life. It is not suitable for bathing and needs a massive clean up campaign to restore it to a tolerable level, not to mention a respectable level. ’44

Meanwhile councils have been busy with their river parklands, because they regard them as ‘a valuable community asset deserving of improvement’.

68

Canterbury has been actively engaged in planting trees along the foreshores.

Unfortunately there are other forces at work threatening to undo the Council’s preservation of the river environment by aesthetic improvements.

The development of Botany Bay as a port and associated industrial complex has led to plans for the use of the river valley as a corridor for freeways, pipelines, railways and other services. An outcome has been the constitution in August, 1974 of the Parklands, Rivers and Open-Space Defenders, a coalition of resident groups and conservationists formed to fight in the defence of rivers, parklands and open spaces against their usurpation and destruction by interests promoting the service corridors.

Besides the corridor threat, the continued pollution of the river water has caused grave concern. The Minister for Public Works, Leon Punch, as a matter of urgency, formed a committee to study the river’s problems.

Canterbury in association with Marrickville, South West Sydney Regional Social Development Council and the Total Environment Centre, financially sponsored the Cook’s River Project in 1975 to conduct an environmental study and devise a landscape design for the Cook’s River in order ‘to present an alternative way to develop the river, not as a service corridor, but as a landscaped natural river providing recreational open space for the people of the valley.’ 45 Alderman Kevin Moss represents Canterbury as Liaison Officer.

The Project issued its report in 1976 and wrote: ‘The state of the Cook’s River catchment is the result of its natural and human history.

The topography, soils, plants and animals of the area are the result of millions of years of slow change which resulted in a balanced ecosystem. The soil erosion, water pollution and often desolate looking landscape we now see are the result of a few hundred years of European settlement.’46

Any endeavour to clean the river is confronted with a tangle of administrative controls—boards, local councils, the State Pollution Control Commission, the Cook’s River Valley Association and the various government depart­ ments. ‘These organisations’ wrote Jeff Angel, research officer, Total Envi­ ronment Centre, ‘reflect the many and conflicting demands on the river and our own confused priorities. What is the future of Cook’s River—a rec­ reational waterway, a sewerage outlet, or a service corridor? The physical, legal and administrative urban tangle surrounding the river clouds the answer.’47 One fact remains certain—Cook’s River is a good waterway in a bad situation. It is only through public awareness that man-made pollution can be stopped. The Cook’s River Festival Committee was formed from the Cook’s River Project for this very purpose. Two annual festivals in February, 1976 and April, 1977, have been staged, the latter at Mackey Park, being six times the success of the former, both in attendances and group participation.

Three television channels sent crews.

69

1. Cook’s River Project, Report, Environmental Survey and Landscape Design p 3 2. Cook’s report has raised an unresolved historical controversy, whether the head of inlet was George’s or Cook’s River 3. J. C. Beaglehole (Ed.) The journals of Capt. James Cook, Vol. 1 pp 308-9 4. W. Tench: A Complete Account of the Settlement of Port Jackson in N. S. W. pp 101-2 5. Capt. John Hunter, An Historical Journal of Events at Sydney and at Sea, 1787-1793.

R.A.H.S. edition, pp 111-12 6. Lieutenant William Bradley, A Voyage to New South Wales, 1786-1792 p 184 7. Cook’s River Project Report—Environmental Survey of Landscape Design, p 3 8. F. A. Larcombe, The History of Botany, 1788-1970, pp 12-13 9. W. Freame, Sylvan Scenes. Old Cook’s River Homes of Yesterday, compiled from Records of the Marrickville Historical Society and published in the Cook’s River Improvement League’s Our Ocean—to Ocean Opportunity, 1928, p 3 10. P. W. Gledhill, A History of St. Peter's Church, 1838-1958, The Historic River, p 1 11. F. A. Larcombe, The History of Botany, 1788-1970, pp 12-13, W. V. Aird, The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney, 1788-1960 pp 3, 5-6 12. Historical Records of Australia Series 1, Vol. xx, pp 216, 628 13. Sydney Gazette 5 February, 1839 14. Ibid, 23 May, 1839, P. Geeves, J. Jervis, Rockdale, pp 28-30 15. Gibbs and Shallard Coy., Illustrated Guide to the International Exhibitions, 1879, p 125. See also picture, P. Geeves, J. Jervis Rockdale, between pp 24-5 16. F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W. p 92 17. Evening News, 17 November, 1917 18. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 October, 1870 19. Ibid, 3 November, 1870 20. Sydney Gazette, 12 September, 1833 21. Cook’s River Project, Cook’s River—Beauty or the Beast Article 1, Campsie News and Lakemba Advance, 5 November, 1975 22. Sydney Morning Herald, 1 November, 1870 23. Gordon and Gotch, Glimpses of Australia, 1897, p 191, J. Angel, Caught in an Urban Tangle: Sydney’s Cook’s River, Community (D.U.R.D.) No. 9, April, 1975 24. Sydney Morning Herald, 27-8 May, 1889 25. Ibid, 28-30 May, 1, 6 June, 1889 26. Ibid, 5 June, 1889 27. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, 1889, pp 195, 198, 204 28. Ibid, Vol 1 (19/6/79-29/11/82), p 224 29. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report, The Improvement of Cook’s River, 1896, pp 38-9, 43-4 30. Ibid, pp 40-3 31. Ibid, p 43 32. Cook’s River Project, Report, Environmental Survey and Landscape Design, p 5 33. Ibid, pp 43-4 34. Hansard, 1896, Vol. 82, p 405. £56 000 was given as £36 000 in the Parliamentary Standing Committee, Report p 5 35. Ibid, p 408 36. Hansard, 1896, Vol. 86, p 4383 37. Cook’s River Improvement League, Our Ocean to Ocean Opportunity 1928, p 6, Total Environment Centre—Files 38. Ibid 39. Ibid, p 19 40. Hansard, 1946, Vol. 180, p 2789

70

41. Ibid p 2790 42. Canterbury Municipal Library Files, Newspaper Cutting (Unnamed) circulated in the Municipality in 1936 43. Hansard, 1946, Vol. 180, pp 2790-1 44. A. B. Distefano, S. J. Richards, The Environment Situation around Sydney Airport, p 20 (Requote J. Angel Community, p 11) 45. Cook’s River Project, Report, Cook’s River Environment Survey of Landscape Design, P3 46. Ibid 47. J. Angel, Caught in an Urban Tangle: Sydney’s Cook’s River, Community, (D.U.R.D.) Vol. 9, April, 1975, p 11

71

ORIGINS

he colonial highways had a Topsy-like origin, being ‘in general bush roads, uncleared, and in the same state as when discovered by stockmen many years ago, no labour having been expended upon them and no efforts made to discover shorter and more level tracks’. 1 Economic activities and the granting of lands to settlers led to the blazing of tracks. Use too, was made of aborigine paths to watering places and hunting grounds. These tracks formed the basis of the early colonial road system. The first roads were built by government order issued upon farm-owning Corps officers, and others.

Since ‘the necessity of having roads between the different settlements . . . made easy and convenient for travelling’ should be ‘obvious to every inhabitant’, each settler was either to labour for eight hours daily or provide a man to work on Parramatta Road as far as Duck River, together with the necessary implements because at the time, 1797, there was ‘a scarcity of tools in the public stores.’2 Later lack of government funds prompted land owners to make subscriptions. The cost of the road to Botany was financed in this manner, because the existing means of communication were ‘intricate and precarious and in many places dangerous.’3 This was essentially true of all roads at the time, for to wander off the track meant possible death from being lost in the ‘wild’ lands.

The extension of the settlement inland requiring longer lines of road posed a cost quandary for the government. This it attempted to solve by creating the nineteen counties to mark the settlement limits. The quandary did not end there for it became a tug-of-war between the most important county, Cumberland, and the others for preferential treatment. The poorness of communications with Cook’s River prompted a local settler to write to the Gazette, in August, 1831, demanding preferential treatment at the expense of the country where roads were constructed ‘all for an uncertain good.’

He inquired:

T

‘Is it of no consequence to the metropolis that a large tract of land, superior to what is generally around its environ, should be laid open to every access for the inhabitants . . . when this may be done by forming a line of road, for two miles only, over a nearly level country, together with a bridge? Do you complain of the scarcity of timber? Here it may be had for the trouble of fetching; or we send it to you at a low price, and take out manure in lieu of it. One alone would be able to supply you with from two to five thousands tons annually ... of course the manure which we should receive in exchange, would be used to raise crops for the Sydney Market. ’4

The roads to Canterbury like that to Botany, began as tributaries to the 74

Parramatta or Liverpool Roads. Perhaps the first of these was George’s River-Punchbowl system by which the early salt gatherers travelled to the Salt Pan. The New South Wales Calendar and Directory, 1832, states that the George’s River Road was the old means of communication with the Punch Bowl, from which several bush tracks led to farms lying between George’s and Cook’s Rivers, and on to Salt Pan Creek, thence farther into the ‘wild country’ to the south.5 At that time the road to Canterbury left Parramatta Road on the left, six miles from Sydney, opposite a popular inn, The Old Cheshire Cheese. On reaching Canterbury, further progress to the south was effectively barred by Cook’s River and the Salt Pan. The initiative of Cornelius Prout in operating a punt, later superseded by a bridge, hastened the development of the Canterbury Road. In the late 1850’s a new and more direct route to Prout’s Bridge, New Canterbury Road, connected the village with Newtown and the city.

A further road from Sydney ran through Newtown to the dam at Cook’s River. In 1833 it was described as ‘fair travelling for a gig’, but until the dam was constructed, the river had to be forded. From this crossing bush roads ran into Canterbury from the south, connecting with farms lying between the two rivers.6 Ten years later construction was begun on the road to Wollon­ gong. The first section from the dam to the ferry at Lugarno, which began operations in 1843, became known as Forest Road. From it branches such as Stoney Creek Road, the Kingsgrove Road system and the old Dumbleton and Canary Roads served the southern and central portions of the municipality.

CORNELIUS PROUT 1793-1855 The first person to make a constructive contribution towards the facilitation of direct communication with Canterbury was Cornelius Prout. Having joined the British Navy and being promoted to the rank of purser, Cornelius Prout visited New South Wales in 1826, as a member of the crew of the Warspite. Dissatisfied with his career in the navy, he obtained his discharge and two years later he was appointed under-sheriff, responsible for the issue of writs from the Supreme Court.

For some ten years after his discharge from the navy, Prout tenaciously hammered the colonial government for a land grant to which he considered he was entitled because of his service in the armed forces. A grant of sixty acres in the Parish of St. Luke, promised by Macquarie to William Hawkins was finally given to Prout in 1835 under an act passed in 1833 which empowered Commissioners to determine claims on government land.7 Prout married in 1829, and the following year he purchased Hawkin’s 90 acre farm 75

near Liverpool, from Abraham Polack, but preferred to live in Canterbury because of its proximity to his employment at the Supreme Court.8 Prout appears to have settled there shortly after the birth of his first child, a daughter, in September, 1832.9 He occupied the 35-acre grant given to John Burke in 1823 and subsequently acquired by Abraham Polack. Apparently Prout rented the farm for a short period before finally purchasing it for £250 in July, 1834.10 He gave the property the rather poetic name, Belle-Ombre, meaning ‘beautiful shade’, stemming, no doubt, from the family’s creative background. Prout’s uncle, Samuel, and his brother John, were noted artists.11 Simultaneously with Belle-Ombre, Prout purchased the adjoining McCabe farm of fifty acres from James Morisset for £80, and three years later the 80-acre Bentley grant from the Stephen estate for £130.12 He finally acquired Polack’s 100-acre grant which lay between Canterbury Road and Cup and Saucer Creek. Prout thus became on paper a substantial owner of some 265 acres in the heart of Canterbury, but his actual financial state was not very strong. From time to time these and properties elsewhere, were mortgaged to raise funds. 13 Belle-Ombre fronted the south bank of Cook’s River almost opposite the road from Petersham, and access to it could only be made by circuitous routes on which fording was possible. Prout solved the problem in 1833 by construcing a ‘substantial punt. . . capable of conveying a loaded waggon and team of bullocks acress the river with perfect ease and safety.’ ‘This will’, continued the Sydney Gazette, ‘no doubt, prove of very great advantage to the settlers in that district, as they may thus save a distance of six miles . . . to Sydney, and avoid a long range of bush road at times almost impassable owing to the want of necessary repairs.’ 14 While Prout’s may have been the most important of the punts to cross the river, it is not certain whether it was the first. A very successful lawyer and journalist Dr. Robert Wardell whose property of some 2100 acres extended from Petersham to Cook’s River at Marrickville, was murdered in September, 1834, by escaped convicts at the south-west extremities of his property. Press accounts, tracing the subsequent movements of Wardell’s slayers refer to their crossing of Cook’s River at Pickering’s punt, visiting Joshua Thorp’s house and re-crossing at the same place.15 It is reasonable to fix the river crossing in the vicinity of the Undercliffe bridge site. There is no record of a land grant to a Pickering in the Cook’s River region. There was a Gowin Pickering, a ticket of leave ‘lifer’who was the tenant of a 60-acre holding at Botany, and by accounts, a successful farmer, but it is unlikely that he would operate a punt so far upstream. 16 Joshua Thorp operated a punt in this vicinity which shown by Brownrigg, who mapped the parishes in the County of Cumberland in the late 1840’s, at Unwin’s bridge, but he makes no mention of Pickering.

On the other hand, James Willis’ 1868 map of Sydney and adjacent suburbs 76

shows a Pickering Point where the municipal boundary meets Cook’s River at Hurlstone Park, a feasible crossing place. Both maps show a road from the south to this point.17 From the very first, Canterbury’s settlers felt the urgent need for a bridge.

Hannah Laycock’s King’s Grove was accessible from the south and a road from it ran north to Cook’s River somewhere upstream from Cup and Saucer Creek, possibly at Beamish Street. A small bridge was constructed there sometime before Macquarie’s visit in 1810. It is mentioned by the surveyor, Thomas Meehan, who traced the river in 1809, and the following year Macquarie described it as ‘a very slender bad bridge . . . rather dangerous for a carriage.’18 The fate of the Laycock bridge is not known. In 1818 John Redman inserted an advertisement which stated that settlers in the Cook’s River and Botany Bay districts felt ‘the necessity of erecting a bridge over the Punchbowl Creek’ which they claimed would be to the ‘general advantage’ of residents in those areas. All settlers, sawyers and others were urged to meet at Redman’s hotel in George Street, Sydney, to discuss the necessary steps to construct the bridge.19 The creek was probably the upper reaches of Cook’s River, which drained the Punch Bowl and was crossed by the government road to Hannah Laycock’s homestead at Kingsgrove, which bordered Redman’s holdings. Again his Stoneless Bay property was directly accessible by way of Hilly’s Crossing. As yet there is no definite information whether the bridge was constructed.

Before the 1840’s the Canterbury Road was little more than a track across private property. In 1839, Robert Campbell and Cornelius Prout agreed to a public road through their properties on condition that the latter erect a bridge across the river. The bargain was kept. Prout busied himself collecting subscriptions from local landowners, and an advertisement called for tenders from stonemasons and carpenters to construct the bridge. It emphasised that there was ‘an excellent quarry’ and ‘timber in great abundance’ convenient to the construction site.20 Early the following year, a meeting of interested landowners was convened to discuss the erection of the bridge, a matter of ‘vast importance’ for Banks Town and the Salt Pan. Beside saving miles it would avoid ‘the worst bush road in the colony’.21 Suffice it to say that the bridge was duly erected by contract and prison labour at a cost of £220. The subscriptions collected by Prout amounted to between £70 to £80 and so he set up business as a toll gatherer to meet the deficiency. On the south side of the river he erected a round, two storey building and toll collection began. Prout soon found it a lucrative business which in view of his mortgages, he was most reluctant to surrender. It is estimated that by 1853 total tolls amounted to £1000, some seven times the original deficiency. The travelling public, considering Prout had been more than fairly served, refused to pay any more tolls. Prout countered by locking 77

the gates at certain times. This, in turn, led to the fracas at the bridge, involving John Chard.

On 5 September, 1853, Chard arrived at the toll gates, only to find them securely locked against his supposed ‘right of road’. Though payment was offered, Prout refused to open the gates. Spurred on by a group of objectors to Cornelius’ stubborness in particular and his right to collect tolls in general, Chard took positive action. He ‘wilfully and maliciously’ took an axe, knocked the iron fastening off the gate and then ‘chopped it to pieces.’ 22 One may well imagine the anger and consternation with which the helpless Prout viewed the destruction of his property and heard the spontaneous cheers of the spectators who had long suffered Cornelius’ petulance and profiteering.

Prout sought an immediate redress. On the following day he successfully requested the Sydney Magistrate, James Dowling, to issue a warrant for John Chard’s arrest on a charge of wilful damage estimated at £10. The warrant was presented to Chard under rather peculiar circumstances by Inspector Patrick Connor and his constables, Harris and Newton. Chard described his rather dramatic arrest: ‘On Tuesday night about 11 o’clock (it being very dark), I, being in bed, heard a knock at my door. My house, being situated in a very lonely part of the bush (Moorfields), where I have lived for the last thirty years upon my own property,23 and some distance from other houses, I was naturally alarmed, and enquired who was there; the answer was “open the door, we have a warrant for you”. Now, as a burglar might say the same, for the purpose of gaining easy admission, I asked them what they came for at that hour of the night. They immediately burst open my door and (whilst in the act of buttoning my trowsers) beat me most violently, and handcuffed me. Had I committed a murder their violence was as illegal as it was unjustifiable. After all this was done, upon my remarking that they ought to have read the warrant, they did so, and then conveyed me, at that dead hour of the night, to the Sydney Watchhouse.’ 24

Chard was remanded until Friday, 10 September, and released on a bail of £20, by the magistrate Daniel Egan, then Mayor of Sydney. The case, Prout v Chard, was heard before James Dowling and Charles Chambers, who, after listening to Prout’s version of the episode, dismissed the case, mainly on the grounds of his admission that Chard having used the bridge for ten years, cut the gate down believing that he had the right to do so.

It was now Chard’s turn to seek redress, not against Prout, but against the three policemen who so forcefully arrested him. On 19 September, he wrote to the Inspector General of Police, William Mayne, alleging that the mis­ conduct of his arresters was such that they were unfit to hold a government situation. Chard warned that, if the policemen were merely fined, he would bring the matter before the Legislative Council.25 Strangely, Chard’s ultimatum was signed‘Yos.Mo.obdy’ and requested the reply to be addressed to him at Pemmell’s bakery, Parramatta Street, Sydney.

79

The Inspector General wrote to Daniel Chard, care of this address, stating that an assault charge must first be heard before an ordinary tribunal where the evidence would reveal any ‘ulterior proceedings’.26 Chard, dissatisfied with the reply, brought his complaint against the police to the Legislative Council. As a result, Charles Cowper moved that the relevant papers be laid upon the table of the House.

Cowper outlined the arrest episode according to the the Inspector of Police’s version which described Chard as a person ‘of violent disposition and likely to resist’. He proffered the excuse for the late arrival at Chard’s residence, because of its ‘out of the way locality’. The police had lost their way in the dense bush delaying their arrival until 11 p.m. Chard refused the police entry, the door was forced and, after ‘considerable resistance’ Chard was arrested. James Martin, in support of Cowper’s motion, spoke of the circumstances which could not be revealed in court. Prior to the arrest, the police were observed imbibing in the company of Prout’s son for two to three hours. Dr. Douglass warned that if the practice of issuing warrants at midnight went unnoticed it ‘would become most dangerous to the public liberty’, because robbers could demand entry to homes in the name of the law.

The House agreed to Cowper’s motion.27 The mention of his son’s being on hotel premises stung Prout into a strong denial. As the boy only turned fourteen in February, the accusation was a reflection on his father that he should ‘train up’ his child in this manner. He denied the charges and concluded: ‘From lying and slandering and all the uncharitableness, Good Lord deliver us’.28

The relevant papers were tabled on 11 October, following which the Council adjourned until 6 December. On resumption Rober Campbell (junior) asked of Deas Thomson, the Colonial Secretary, whether the executive had con­ sidered Prout’s conduct. Thomson replied that, as the dispute was purely private or local and could be settled by an appeal to the ordinary tribunals, the government never had any intention to interfere.29 Thus ended the case of Prout v Chard.

Within three years both adversaries departed from the the Canterbury scene, Prout by death in 1855, and the following year, Chard sold his farm and went to reside at Purley House, Newtown. The Prout domain was sold over a period of time for the benefit of his second wife, Eliza and her children.

In 1859, for example, the 100-acre Polack grant between Canterbury Road and Cup and Saucer Creek was divided into forty lots of two to three acres and offered for sale to meet outstanding mortgage debts. Twenty-two of the lots were purchased by William Redman, a solicitor, who later purchased the part of the Bridgewater estate, containing the Prout’s toll house and the former Bentley grant. Other purchasers of lots were John Catley, John Perfrement, Henry Jackson, James Jones and Elias Bethel.30 80

CANTERBURY ROAD TRUST Colonial roads posed two problems for the government, namely, the cost contribution and the form of management. Until the 1830’s tolls seemed to be the main source of revenue, and supervision was undertaken by appointed trustees or commissioners. Legislation in 1833 and 1835 attempted to distinguish between colonial and local roads, the latter being the responsibility of the parish in which they were located. The Parish Roads Act, 1840, provided for an elected trust which would raise finance from tolls as well as from a tax on landowners, benefiting from the existence of the roads. The first of these trusts for the Old Botany Road, constituted in January, 1841, was the colony’s first elected authority.31 From time to time odd trusts appeared in various parts of the colony, one, for example, administered the Cook’s River Road which terminated at the dam. In October, 1854, the government acting under the provisions of the Road and Streets Act 1833, found it ‘expedient to open and make a parish road, to be maintained at the expense of the parishes . . . from Parramatta Road at Petersham to Prout’s Bridge at Canterbury.’32 The route began opposite the Old Cheshire Cheese tavern in Parramatta Road, and ran via Prout’s Bridge to as far south of the river as William Laycock’s North­ umberland Farm.

The Gazette notification of the government’s proposal called for ‘well grounded’ objections to the road since the resumptions involved about twenty-one acres of private land. The Canterbury landowners were more concerned about the proposed route of the road than the resumptions and at a public meeting at the Canterbury Arms, unanimously resolved that the road should be continued as directly as possible to the crossing at Salt Pan Creek.33 The people’s wishes were respected and in April, 1855, the Canterbury Road was proclaimed.34 Four months later, the route was formally marked and opened for public use.35 It was the wish of the owners whose land was in the vicinity of the road that a management trust be constituted. The procedure outlined in the Parish Roads Act, 1840, was for the convening of a preliminary meeting of landowners by the Magistrate in Petty Sessions, when requested by at least one third of eligible proprietors. If the meeting favoured the constitution of a managment trust then the election of its members followed.36 The necessary meeting was held on 16 October, 1855 and elected five trustees—William Welch, Samuel Miller, John Crofton Molloy, William Hellyer and James O’Neill. The election was simple—just a showing of hands. Jacob Pearson was the first secretary.

The trustees represented a fair distribution of landowners along Canter­ bury Road. In 1840 William Welch was granted sixty acres on the northern side of Canterbury Road in the vicinity of the Punchbowl Broadway. Samuel 81

Miller, the publican, no doubt represented the village business interests. John Crofton Molloy and James O’Neill were signatories to the Canterbury Municipal petitions, though the former owned a Sydney pawnbroking business. William Hellyer held land in Petersham on Parramatta Road.

Canterbury Road, 11.6 kilometres in length, was well above that managed by most trusts. A considerable portion south of Cook’s River was generally in a virgin state, so that the construction and maintenance of the road posed almost insurmountable problems for an inexperienced road trust with very limited financial means. Rates, assessed per acre of land within three miles of the road were the trust’s initial source of revenue. The second source, tolls, were not to be collected until the trust was spending a minimum of £350 annually. Other sources included government grants and public subscriptions.

TABLE 2 PROPOSED ROUTE FOR CANTERBURY ROAD ROUTE

Landowners

From Petersham at junction with Representatives Parramatta Road, opposite*the of the late Old Cheshire Cheese tavern to the McDermott bridge at Long Cove Creek. (Parramatta Road to Summerhill Street) From the Long Cove Creek Bridge Robert Campbell to the North bank of Cook’s River and Company (Summerhill Street to Canterbury Railway Station) Across Prout’s Bridge to the Crown Land northern boundary of A. Polack’s 100 acres (Canterbury Bridge to Fore Street) From this point to W. Laycock’s 100 acres (From Fore Street to Dan’s corner) From this point to the western most corner of W. Laycock’s 100 acres (Dan’s corner to Charlotte Street)

C. Prout

Jemima Jenkins (Purchased 200 acres of H. Laycock’s estate in 1831—R. G. Reg. E.225)

Source: N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1854, Vol 2 p 2142

82

Nature of Ground Cleared level, gravelly

‘Undulating, tolerably good for cultivation’

‘Indifferent; gravelly and rocky.’

Gravelly and ironstone

Area Resumed (Acres) 2.8

11.5

3.3

3.3

The trust must have fulfilled the spending condition for it erected a ‘quaint looking round house’ to shelter the keeper and gates to net the road users at the junction of Canterbury Road and Floss Street. The tolls were not collected by trust officials but were put up by auction annually.37 The successful bidder was required to lodge ample security, generally one month’s rent in advance ‘on the fall of the hammer’.38 The toll keepers were then his responsibility.

Robert Parry records that one keeper had a cork leg, but despite the ‘serious handicap for locomotion often successfully negotiated to capture unprincipled persons dodging the toll charges.’39 Unfortunately no statistics are available for toll tenders or other sources of income, but apparently there was some dissatisfaction with the trust’s handling of its financial affairs. An unsigned open letter requesting Canterbury municipal voters at the first council elections to ask a few questions before going to the poll was published in the Herald on 9 June, 1879. Two of these concerning the road trust inquired what had become of the money ‘so liberally voted’ for roads and who were the spenders of the money ‘so unlawfully’ and ‘so illegally’ for some years previously.40 There is sufficient evidence to show that the trusts were ineffective and unpopular authorities and because there was little interest in their elections, trustees were hard to come by.41 At the end of the first term of office the trustees were completely replaced by better known Canterbury residents— William Slocombe, John File, James Quigg, William Rogers and Timothy Daniels.42 Thereafter the elections resulted as follows:43 YEAR 1862

1865

TRUSTEES

Thomas Faux, Thomas A. Davis, John Mitchell, Thomas Perrott, William Welch.

Adam Bond, William Rogers, Barnabas Hartshorn, James Quigg, John File.

As no further elections were gazetted it may be assumed that the 1865 trustees remained continuously in office or simply nominated their successors. This was true of most trusts and the onus for the finances fell more and more upon the government. When the municipality was incorporated, the trust, Canterbury’s first taste of local government really became redundant. It was able to exist because part of the road was outside its area enabling it to linger on through the early 1880’s and finally petering out in July, 1885.

The Council considered the toll house to be an impediment to the improvement of Floss Street and ordered the trust to remove it, but the order was ignored, despite repeated warnings.44 In 1884 letters were written to the Canterbury M’s.L.A. requesting that the letting of tolls be stopped and the trust abolished. The trustees ignored the Colonial Secretary’s request and sold the toll lease.45 The Council, not certain of its powers to demolish the toll house, sought the advice of the Department of Public Works, which, at that 83

time, administered local government. An investigation by the Roads Com­ missioner led to the confirmation of the Council’s powers to demolish buildings and the toll house was removed. The Canterbury Road Trust, in common with those of its kind, had fought tenaciously for its independence, but was eventually forced to surrender. In July 1885, the Council assumed complete control of the section of Canterbury Road within its boundaries.46 Because of the paucity of Council’s revenue and government aid it was virtually impossible to keep Canterbury Road, or any other of its main roads in satisfactory repair. This fact is highlighted by the visit of John Sutherland, Minister for Public Works, to Canterbury when touring the electorate in September, 1888. Sutherland accompanied by local members, William Henson, Joseph Carruthers and William Davis and prominent officers of his Department, made a somewhat triumphant entry to the municipality. At Croydon Park they were met by a Council deputation consisting of Aldermen Thompson and Scott. The mayor, Thomas Austen Davis, was most upset. He had received his notification after the event. The Herald account relates that: ‘When a start was again made for Canterbury quite a procession was formed. After a long drive over rough road the bridge . . . was crossed. The loud creaking of the timbers, and swaying of the structure, caused alarm. As vehicle after vehicle crossed with its living freight the creaking increased and the passengers became alarmed’.

The procession proceeded along Beamish Street and Canterbury Road, where Ald. Thompson pointed out several culverts and bridges which the Council had either constructed or repaired. A sum of £1700 had been spent on the road, but a miserable annual ‘pittance’ of £75 was all the Council received from the government. A larger grant was demanded.

The Herald report continued: ‘Mr. Davis, evidently bent on fun, and for the purpose of showing the Minister how £75 a year would keep a main road in repair, drove along the Old Canterbury Road for nearly a mile. A worse road it would be difficult to find in the metropolitan area.

Ruts, ditches and man traps innumerable were the order of the drive. ’47

From its humble beginning as a mere track among the dense trees, the Canterbury Road has become a major highway, costing approximately $100 000 per annum to maintain it at present day road safety standards.

OTHER ROADS AND BRIDGES During the 1840’s the opening up process of the Canterbury area began in earnest. Previously its main lines of communication touched only the northern and southern fringes. The internal routes were little more than tracks to and from these roads. Bridges built by Cornelius Prout and Frederick 84

Unwin and the dam at Cook’s River at Tempe opened up access from the centre and the east.

By 1850, the framework of the Canterbury road system though unmade, had become firmly established, but street development was limited to the village. From Prout’s bridge the Canterbury Road ran roughly south-west to William Laycock’s Northumberland Farm. On the left at Fore Street, a branch crossed Cup and Saucer Creek and ran through Polack’s grants across Homer Street to finish in Thorp’s grant at Wolli Creek. From Pickering’s Point (Wardell Bridge) a road, later named Wardell Road, linked up with the Fore Street branch and a road from King’s Grove to Thorp’s Punt and Unwin’s Bridge. Laycock Road, perhaps Canterbury’s earliest highway, ran from Stoney Creek Road, past Hannah Laycock’s homestead, through her son’s properties to a government road (Beamish Street) which divided the Redman properties of Sudbury and Stoneless Bay from Bramshott. The Kingsgrove Road commencing at Stoney Creek Road ran only as far as William Street. From Punchbowl Road at the western extremity, a road ran through the properties of Meredith, William Bond, Calcutt, Piper, Harris, Tuckwell and Coleman to the Townson grants. Another road intersected this line at the Harris and Stacey farms and forked to the Salt Pan and Robert Townson’s grant.48 Thorp’s punt was better positioned for Canterbury’s southern and eastern settlers than either of Prout’s or Unwin’s bridges, because of its closer proximity to the city. The advantages of erecting a bridge at this point to connect the roads from Canterbury and King’s Grove with a line to Enmore and Newtown spurred two landowners, Piddocke A. Tompson of Bexley and Thomas J. Fisher of St. Leonards, to seek government sanction for its erection.

Piddocke, a lawyer, was the nephew of a former convict, Charles Tompson, of Clydesdale near Windsor. In 1836, the uncle, who had gained some prominence as a grazier, purchased the 1300-acre Bexley estate from James Chandler, a Sydney merchant. The latter, ‘a man of substance, well educated and a devout churchman’, built up the estate by first purchasing Thomas Sylvester’s farm which lay eastwards of Hannah Laycock’s King’s Grove.

That year, 1822, Chandler was granted 1200 acres south of Wolli Creek, adjoining the Sylvester grant. He found caring for his new domain too onerous a task and, after the confirmation of the grant, lost little time in attempting to dispose of it relying mainly on Sylvester’s farm improvements to attract buyers.49 Finally in 1836, Charles Tompson purchased the whole estate for £991.5s.50 In the 1840’s the Sylvester’s farm was described as having ‘buildings . . . consisting of a dwelling house . . . store and out-offices, a garden . . . con­ taining five hundred choice trees . . . pear, plum, almond, peach, nectarine, apricot and pomegranate ... of the best kind; a vinery; an excellent stock85

86

yard . . . milking sheds, pig sties, a gardener’s cottage ... a dairy and a well of good water.’51 The farm was very appropriate for Piddocke Tompson, who had cemented his family relationship by marrying his uncle’s eldest step­ daughter in April, 1841.52 Five years later he purchased it for £200.53 The advantages of a bridge at a point on the river nearest the farm prompted Tompson to seek the aid of a fellow lawyer, Thomas Fisher, who owned property on the northern approach. Under the terms of Dr. Wardell’s will, Fisher, his nephew, received a third share of the Petersham estate. He married Thomasina, the eldest daughter of the eminent lawyer-statesman, William C. Wentworth, and settled at St. Leonards, but he willingly cooperated with Tompson, safe in the knowledge of the property appreciation which would accompany the construction of another road to Cook’s River.54 Tompson and Fisher were prepared to meet the expense of the bridge’s erection and its immediate approaches, estimated at considerably more than £1000. To empower them to undertake the task a Cook’s River Bridge Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council in September, 1854.55 The measure was duly passed and the two landowners were empowered to construct a bridge or dam, make and form roads and the necessary approaches, within three years. The builders were empowered to charge tolls and to invite tenders if desired. The Cook’s River Bridge Act set the toll charges, varying from eight pence for four-wheeled waggons and carriages, four pence for a gig, dray and cart to halfpenny a head for sheep, pigs and goats. No tolls were charged on Sundays, and the bridge was to become public property after ten years.56 To enable the approaches to be constructed, Tompson, in 1855, purchased seventeen acres from Frederick Unwin’s widow, Ann King. The purchase divided by Cook’s River, lay mostly on the southern bank. This portion of thirteen acres was formerly part of the Thorp deed poll grants of 1836 and 1839, which Unwin bought in 1840.57 Tompson’s land was well situated overlooking the river and the quiet rural area through which it flowed. It was there that he built his family residence, Undercliffe House, named appro­ priately because of the ‘bold steep cliffs’ at its rear, which ‘completely sheltered’ it from ‘inclement southerly winds’.58 Within five years after the bridge’s opening Piddocke Tompson, probably for financial reasons, began to dispose of his Undercliffe Estate. The property, described as ‘beautiful’ and situated ‘romantically’ on Cook’s River, was divided into eight lots and advertised for sale in November, 1859. Undercliffe House, the ‘handsome and substantial’ Tompson residence was offered for auction without reserve.59 Other properties, between the Sylvester Farm and Undercliffe, acquired from Abraham Polack, for example, Richmond Grove, were also sold.60 Tompson left to reside in Bay Street, Glebe, and confine his attention to his legal profession.

It was natural to expect that as the municipality became more populous 88

other means of access would be developed, and that the early bridges would, from time to time, have to be replaced by more imposing structures. In 1868, gazettal notices announced that the government would open two roads to be maintained at the parish expense. The first, the George’s River Road, ran from Punchbowl Road through the Brighton and Canterbury estates to Liverpool Road, mainly through the holdings of John Alexander. The second, Kingsgrove Road, ran from Canterbury Road to Illawarra Road, through the properties of Jemima Jenkins, who had purchased some two hundred acres of the Laycock estate,61 John and Adam Bond, William Hannon and others.62 No trusts were elected for these roads and they remained generally in a rough state until the incorporation of the Municipality. In November, 1879, the Council sought without much success, a government alignment of Canter­ bury and Kingsgrove Roads. From time to time contracts were let for stumping the roads to Kingsgrove and Undercliffe and petitions were presented complaining about the ‘dangerous state’ of the former. Originally the Council did not control all the roads within the municipality. 63 As previously outlined, Canterbury Road was controlled by a trust and roads such as Punchbowl by the Department of Public Works. The latter was transferred to Council in 1887.

EARLY ROAD TRANSPORT In its early days Canterbury was not well served with road accesses. These, as previously explained, were more of a discouragement than an enticement to traders. In the 1840’s for this reason, land was difficult to sell. Transport costs, it will be remembered, caused the removal of the sugar works. The commercial vehicles which traded to and from Canterbury were the usual drays and waggons drawn by horses or bullock teams. Private travel was by two-wheeled gigs or four wheeled carriages. Some use was made of Cook’s River by small commercial and pleasure craft.

For a considerable period there was no means of public transport. Until the opening of the southern railway in 1855, visits to Sydney were made in private vehicles, on horseback and even by foot. The opening of the railway improved transport facilities for it was much easier to get to Ashfield, particularly for those on Shank’s pony. The railway combined with the poor state of the Canterbury’s roads delayed the introduction of the horse-drawn passenger omnibus until after the incorporation of the Municipality.

Public vehicles and their drivers had become subject to licensing from 1833, firstly boatmen, and two years later stagecoaches. When Sydney was incor­ porated in 1842, the licensing powers were transferred to the City Council which was empowered to make the necessary by-laws and regulations. It fixed the fines and penalties, hours of services, number of passengers and fares. The licensing of public vehicles was a lucrative source of revenue for the City 89

90

91

Council, but their free use of suburban roads created considerable dissatisfaction with the neighbouring municipalities, forced to foot the bill for the wear and tear. An outcome was the constitution of the Board of Transit Commissioners in 1873 to assume city licensing functions.

The Council lost some £5000 annually in revenue, and the suburban municipalities continued to meet the cost of the wear and tear, so the dissatisfaction continued with the inevitable result—the government abolished the Commissioners and grabbed the revenue.64 It does not appear that Canterbury had a bus service to the city until the 1860’s, when a waggonette plied between the village and Sydney.65 The vehicle would hold a city licence and no doubt the owner would have lived in Sydney. After Canterbury’s incorporation, the Council first gave permission but the Transit Commission issued the licence. The first to seek Council permission was J. Milner in June, 1880. He proposed a waggonette service from Belmore to Sydney and later ran an omnibus. The extensive subdivisions of the 1880’s encouraged home building and increased the need for more services to Sydney both for workers and shoppers, either directly or feeder routes to rail and train heads. Thus T. Clifton ran vehicles from Canterbury to Ashfield, H. Lauchlan Kingsgrove to Canterbury, T. Hascham and W. Jolly, Kingsgrove to Sydney, William Farrell via Undercliffe and so on.66 The bus services operated by James Cook, William Rogers and John Coleman commenced at the ‘Tree’ store and catered for the travelling public of Kingsgrove, Moorefield, Campsie, Belmore and even Hurstville.67 These early bus rides were at times rather hectic. Generally, the buses were two-deckers, drawn by three or more horses, depending upon the state of the roads. They were manned by a driver, and a conductor, often a mere boy. The services were mostly daytime, but late buses ran from Sydney on Saturday nights. Schoolmaster, R. B. Parry, in his reminiscences described the journey to Sydney by buses such as the Belmore, Carrington, Canterbury and Rose of Belmore ‘whose bugle calls, as these old stagers sped through the efficient hamlet, startling it from its propriety, but delighting the ears of rustic school boys . . . Passengers were piloted by the never failing skill of Peter Lawrence, affectionately known by his Christian name, a justly-famed Jehu (a biblical furious driver) ... It is not easy to forget the occasional discomfort, inseparable from overcrowding. The passenger thought himself in clover if fortunate enough to obtain a full share seat and Elysium (ideal happiness) if he had not before reaching his destination, to get out good humouredly, struggling for standing room on the doorstep.’68 Peter’s commuters certainly had great faith in his driving ability. They showed their appreciation tangibly by presenting him with a Christmas present, an inscribed watch, given by the passengers of 7.10 a.m. and 6.10 p.m. buses for his ‘attention and civility.’69 The bus fares to the city were a shilling from Belmore Post Office and ninepence from Canterbury. Three times a day each way were considered 92

sufficient and missing the bus meant ‘a long and cheerless trudge via Ashfield.’

The last bus home from late Saturday night shopping and the associated spree at city taverns added both to excitement of the journey and its discomfort. Where two buses ran the same route there was the even more exciting race-home, made all the more thrilling if the drivers had been imbibing at the tavern too. A general description of the late ride home refers to ‘the passengers sitting on one another’s knees, some even balancing on the steps, while the four horses, their heads towards their stable, making good progress over a road that often set the overloaded vehicle pitching and rolling like a Sydney trawler in a southerly buster.’70 The opening of the railway to Belmore in 1895 and to a lesser extent the tramway to Hurlstone Park opened in 1913 offered strong competition with the buses, but did not deter their services because of the flexibility of their routes and their proximity to the passengers’ homes and work. This may be noted by the extensive list of applications given by James Jervis in his Canterbury history.71 The horse-drawn vehicles gave way to the motor buses.

These, in turn, offered serious competition for the trams. A common sight for city workers was to see the white Campsie-Canterbury Sydney bus (Route 41) engaging in a race with trams, similar to those of the early buses but with a difference. The buses tried to reach the tram stop to pick up passengers, and were mostly successful. In 1930 the Bavin Government constituted the Metropolitan Transport Trust to assume control of tramways and the licensing of public vehicles. The Trust endeavoured to reduce competition by imposing higher licence fees for competitive private lines and improving tram services. The personnel donned ‘new look’ uniforms, but the omnibuses were little affected. When Labor came to power it made no bones about eliminating private competition. The Trust was replaced by the State Transport (Co­ ordination) Board. A special tax drove the competitive omnibus from the streets, and, except for feeder services, the government monopolised public road transport. Nevertheless, private lines have continued to operate to this day on routes which offer no serious challenge to the government services.

Punchbowl, Lakemba, Campsie and Earlwood for example are linked with Hurstville by buses run by Belmore, Lakemba Bus & Coach Service and Cumberland Coaches.

93

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

96

Sydney Herald, 18 February, 1831 Historical Records of Australia, Vol. 3, p 188 Sydney Gazette, 20 March, 1813

Ibid, 9 August, 1831. It is interesting to note that the settler proposed a county rate—This is the earliest known suggestion for a local rate N.S. W. Calendar and Directory, 1832, p 51 N.S.W. Calendar and Post Office Directory, 1833, p 54 Registrar-General’s Department, Serial 41 p 12, Act 4, Wm. No. 9 Ibid, Register C No. 512A Sydney Morning Herald, 1 October, 1832 Registrar-General’s Department, Register G No. 252 Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol 2, pp 353-4 Registrar-GeneraPs Department, Registers G No. 46, M No. 418 Ibid, Register, G. No. 260-K No. 891 &c 895, N. Peek, Cornelius Prout Canterbury Historical Society, Journal, Ser. 2 No. 5, pp 13-17 Sydney Gazette, 1 August, 1833 Australian 16 th September, 1834; T. Kenny, Who Murdered Dr. Wardell of Petersham, pp 30, 32; Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol 2, pp 570-2; B. J. Madden, Unpublished Research, 1977 The 1828 Census, Vol. M-Q, p 128 M. Kelly, R. Crocker, Sydney Takes Shape, pp 26-8; W. M. Brownrigg, Maps of the Parishes of the County of Cumberland, (about 1850), Vol 2, Parishes of Petersham and St. George. J. A. C. Willis, Map, Port Jackson and City of Sydney, adjacent municipalities, Mitchel Library J. Jervis, History of the Municipality of Canterbury-, Lachlan Macquarie Journal of His Tours of N.S.W. and Van Dieman’s Land, 1810-1822, p 98 Sydney Gazette, 11 July, 1818 Australian, 14 March, 1839 Ibid, 18 February, 1840 N.S.W. P. V. 6c P., 1853, Vol 2, p 609, Papers—Prout v Chard, p 2 John arrived in N.S.W. with his mother and brother in 1823 N.S.W. P. V. Sc P., 1853, Vol 2, p 609, Papers, Prout v Chard, pp 2, 3 Ibid, pp 2-3 Ibid, p 4 B. J. Madden, Lesley Muir, Unpublished Research; Empire, 1, 8, October, 1853 Empire, 8 October, 1853 Sydney Morning Herald, 12 October, 7 December, 1853 Registrar-General’s Department, Registers 61 No. 933, 62 No. 435, 64 No. 481, 75 Nos. 631, 635, 126 No. 250-1 F. A. Larcombe, The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W. 1831-1858, pp 53-4 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1854, Vol 2, p 2142, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 October, 1854, Act 4 Wm, No. 11, 1833 J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p 26 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1855, Vol 1, p 1130 Ibid, 1855, Vol 2, p 2116 Act 4 Vic. No. 12 Sydney Morning Herald, 31 October, 1859 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1858, Vol. 2, p 1886; 1861, Vol. 2, p 2286 Evening News, 14 November, 1908 Sydney Morning Herald, 9 June, 1879 F. A. Larcombe, The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W., 1831-58, pp 56-9

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1858, Vol. 2, p 1844 Ibid, 1862, Vol 1, 1120, 1865, Vol 2, p 2463 Canterbury Municipal Council, Minutes (22/6/1881) Vol 1, p 141 Ibid (13/6/1883), Vol 2, pp 53, 58 Ibid, (16/5/1885), Vol 3, p 215. Ibid, (8/7/1885), Vol. 3, p 228 Sydney Morning Herald, 1 October, 1888 W. M. Brownrigg, Maps of the Parishes of the County of Cumberland, Vol 1 (large), Parish of St. George (M.L.) Registrar-General’s Department Old Register 8, p 294; P. Geeves, J. Jervis, Rockdale, pp 15-17, For Chandler see pp 12-24 Registrar-General’s Department, Register K. No. 448 Australian, 29 May, 1841 Sydney Morning Herald, 13 April, 1841 Registrar-General’s Department, Register 10, No. 980 Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol 2, p 572, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 January, 1844 P, V. & P., 1854, p 1311 (pages unnumbered) Act 18 Vic. 1854 (Private Act) Registrar-General’s Department Register R, No. 149 T. M. Roberts, Canterbury Flistorical Society, Journal, Ser. 2, No. 2, p 19, Sydney Morning Herald, 1 November, 1859 Sydney Morning Herald, 1 November, 1859 Registrar-General’s Department, Register 69, No. 584 Ibid, Register E, No. 225 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1868, Vol. I,p74 Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, Vol 1 (17/11/79) pp 72, 107-8 F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W. 1858-1906, PP 71-87 J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p 35 Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, Vol 1, pp 50-1, 135, 157, 176 W. E. Bethel, Sydney Sun, 9 May, 1931 R. B. Parry, Evening News, 14 November, 1908 G. Davies (Nephew of Peter Lawrence) Inscription-Presentation Watch F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., 1858-1906, p 73; A History of Botany, 1770-1970, pp 18-19 J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, pp 36-8

97

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

When the colony was first founded in 1788, its most urgent need was for food supplies. Governor Phillip, for example, was most generous in making grants to those who showed any pretence for farming. The Cook’s River valley offered some prospects for agricultural and pastoral pursuits.

The soil was clayey, a breakdown from the underlying Wianamatta shale, and opinions as to its fertility show a wide variation. The boggy nature of the river’s estuary and descriptions given by Lieutenant Bradley, Tench, Hunter and King, served to discourage the immediate use of the valley for food production. While the Rev. Johnson had proved the feasibility of agricultural development, Governor Macquarie was adamant that the soil in this area was ‘neither good for tillage or pasturage’.l When the proposal was first gazetted for the opening and making of a parish road from Petersham to the Salt Pan in 1854, the above area was described as undulating and ‘tolerably good for cultivation’. On the south side of Cook’s River to Samuel Laycock’s one hundred acres, the soil was described as ‘indifferent’ and ‘gravelly and rocky’ or gravelly and ironstone.2 A similar description of Canterbury’s ‘very poor’ soil appears in Bailliere’s New South Wales Gazette for 1870.3 Advertisements giving details of subdivided land sales naturally exaggerated the fertility of the Canterbury soils. An advertisement for such a sale at Canterbury in 1841 stated that the soil was of the ‘best description’ and none was equal to it near Sydney’.4 Likewise press articles written on the municipality, for example, by R. B. Parry, have a similar tendency to exaggerate.

The fertility of the Cook’s River bank was ‘proverbial’. Even chicory was grown by one Farrow, who kept boats for hire, and was reported as having run a ‘steamer’ to the Canterbury dam.5 The modern farmer will affirm that Canterbury’s heavy clayey soils can be made productive, but only through consistent effort. These soils tend to be acidic and therefore require applications of lime or dolomite and frequent manuring.

When the first grantees settled in the area they therefore faced great difficulties. There was an urgent need for food production but the land had to be first cleared of its heavy timber. The settlers then set to work to make themselves generally self-sufficient and so a system of mixed farming developed. A homestead was erected from the readily available building materials.

Farmers ran a variety of stock and poultry, planted fruit trees, prepared homestead gardens, and areas for cultivation. Exceptions were a chosen few, who had sufficient wealth to establish country houses.

The method of land preparation used by the early settlers, described by 100

James Ruse, the first farmer, is of interest and no doubt, was adopted at Canterbury: ‘My land I prepared thus: having burnt the fallen timber, I dug in, the ashes, then hoed it up .. . then I clod-moulded it and dug in the grass and weeds; this I think almost equal to ploughing. I then let it lie as long as I could, exposed to air and sun; and just before I sowed my seed, I turned it up afresh. When I shall have reaped my crop, I purpose to hoe it again and harrow it fine and then sow it with turnip seed, which will mellow and prepare it for next year. ’6

Some details of the nature of the Canterbury crops are known, but very little of their extent or marketing. Only some five years after James Ruse grew the first wheat at his Experiment Farm at Rosehill in 1790, the Rev. Johnson produced a similar crop at Canterbury on land not far from the present racecourse.7 No other crop details are available, except potatoes at Essex Hill and mention of the market gardeners.

The gold rushes had encouraged an influx of Chinese who tended to return to their homeland agricultural pursuits, such as vegetable gardening. As Cook’s River flats appeared suitable, some Chinese established market gardens along the stream. Because the majority of the inhabitants of Can­ terbury were able to see to their own needs, most of the surplus produce was sold in the city markets. An advertisement for the sale of nineteen small farms, for example, stressed their productive capacity for poultry, eggs, vegetables and dairy products for which there was a ready sale in the village across the river or under better conditions in the Sydney Markets.

A common feature of advertisements of farms for sale was the stress laid upon the suitability of the land for gardens and orcharding. For ‘a few pounds’ the farm dwellings could be surrounded with productive gardens and fruit trees, the produce from which was readily marketable.8 A variety of English fruits was grown, together with some citrus. Hilly’s orchard, located on Cook’s River opposite to John Redman’s Stoneless Bay property was described by a traveller in 1868 as famous for its apples and had a ‘good number’ of orange trees.

For crops to be successful a ready supply of manure was essential. One must agree with James Ruse that as the soil of the metropolitan area was ‘middling, neither good nor bad’, it could be made ‘do’ by manuring, ‘but’, he emphasised ‘without cattle it will fail’.9 The open nature of the Canterbury ‘bush’ permitted grazing, and there were frequent references to straying cattle, but, apart from later dairying, Canterbury’s herds were restricted to a few head per farm. This is borne out by Hannah Laycock’s contracts to supply the Commissariat with meat, such as 2000 pounds in 1814.10 As the best bred cattle in England were tipping the scales at 800 pounds at the time, it is not expected that the dressed weight of Hannah’s cattle would exceed 250 pounds. Only eight to a dozen head, therefore, would be required to fulfil the contracts for 2000 and 3000 pounds of meat.

101

Supplementary sources of manure for agricultural purposes became necessary. These were provided by pigs and poultry which required less attention than cattle. Belmore, for example, was described as a region of small farms and a ‘fine place’ for pigs and poultry. By 1904, the number of these farms had grown to about thirty. Because of their tenacity under unfavour­ able conditions, goats were popular animals with early farmers but their capacity for straying eventually caused a nuisance problem.

Apparently the supply of farm animal manure was inadequate and farmers turned to human nightsoil. It was a common practice for carriers to supply the contents of city cesspits to suburban market gardeners, often in exchange for vegetables and similar practices may have operated in Canterbury. In August, 1881, the council dealt with reports of crude nightsoil deposition in various parts of the municipality. The Council decided to put an end to ‘such a disgraceful proceeding’ and offered a reward of £10 for the discovery of the parties. 11 Later, the overseer reported that one Farrow had deposited nightsoil on his farm. When ordered to stop the practice, Farrow sought permission to continue for a term and produced a document signed by five neighbours that no nuisance was being created. No action was taken and further requests led to the Council’s drafting of a by-law to control the practice.12 This appears to have been ineffective, because in 1889, Ald. P. J. Scahill moved that permission be given to gardeners to use nightsoil as a manure on payment of an annual fee of £2.2s and provided certain conditions of use were observed. The motion was subsequently withdrawn. 13 The isolated nature of Canterbury attracted noxious trades to its area.

These included boiling down works, tanneries and wool scours. John Gall, in his reminiscences, records that his grandfather and great uncles were associated in the slaughter yards at the present site of Dan’s Corner, Beamish Street. It is interesting to note that the Galls first bred the ‘now world famous’ Australian blue cattle dog. 14 Boiling down works which were often associated with slaughter yards and had a nuisance potential through offensive odours.

William Mayne’s works in Fore Street were the cause of the first petition presented to the Council by residents protesting against its obnoxious odour. 15 Tanneries are similarly offensive. Jeffrey Denniss, later four times mayor of Canterbury between 1900—7, commenced a tannery business at Cook’s River, on the site where Frederick Clissold had previously operated a wool washing plant. Denniss, described as an ‘enterprising resident’ determined ‘to stay and grow with the certain advancement’ of Canterbury, developed a progressive enterprise ‘employing a great number of workmen’.

The tannery produced annually about £12 000 worth of leather. Jeffrey Denniss became prominent in business and local affairs. He was a member of the Marrickville Hospital Committee, and became president of the Chamber of Manufacturers. He had a benevolent disposition and permitted the tannery paddocks to be used for sport and picnics.16 About 1880, a second 102

tannery was established by E. T. Sayers and Edward J. Tebbutt, later taken over by the firm of Byrnes and Fischer. 17 The ample supplies of fresh water attracted wool washing and scouring business to the banks of Cook’s River, in the vicinity of the ‘ancient village’.

Samuel Lucas set up a plant about 1863, and five years later more extensive washing operations were begun by Frederick Clissold, experienced in the wool and fellmongering trades. In 1838 when only seven years of age, his parents migrated to the colony. After schooling he was given a preliminary training in his father’s fellmongering business, but in order to gain wider experience, he obtained employment with other firms. He then returned to his father’s firm and after the latter’s death in 1867, he established a successful fellmongering business at Newtown.

As a necessary adjunct he set up large wool washing works on ten acres at Cork’s River. A dam was constructed from which water was pumped to the scours by a steam engine, capable of lifting fifteen tons hourly. The wool was brought to Ashfield by rail and then transported by drays to Canterbury.

The plant had an output capacity of twenty five bales, which, when cleaned and dried, were despatched for sale in the Sydney markets. Shortly after commencing business, Clissold formed a partnership with George Hill, but this was dissolved in 1877. Previously, Clissold had retired from active participation in this partnership but he engaged in other ventures mostly speculatory such as mining and land deals.

Though he resided in a ‘handsome’ house, Glenworth, in Victoria Street, Ashfield, Clissold was prominent in Canterbury affairs. At the first Council elections in 1879, he acted as returning officer, but is best remembered for his keenness for horses and the sport of kings. He acted as a steward for the first official race at the Canterbury course in 1871, and was a member of the first board of directors of the company which purchased the existing course in 1884. His memory is honoured by the Frederick Clissold Handicap held annually. 18 It can be fairly stated that Canterbury never possessed the necessary potential for extensive agricultural production. In common with original inner metropolitan food producing areas, it lost out to the superior farming lands along the fertile Hawkesbury flats. Canterbury did, possess certain other resources suitable for development for a reasonable period of time, for example it possessed stands of commercial timber. Advertisements for land sales mention ‘useful’ varieties such as oak, iron and stringy bark, blue gum and mahogany, described as ‘excessively scarce in the cabinet trade.’ It is interesting to note that the early grantees did not have a monopoly on the timber growing of their lands. The grants covering heavily wooded areas such as Moorefields contained certain reservations. The grant of sixty acres to Sarah Hodgkinson in 1799, on the north side of Canterbury, west of the Poor Farm, contained the clause, ‘Such timber as may be now growing or that may 103

grow hereafter upon the said lands which may be deemed fit for naval purposes to be reserved for the use of the Crown.’19 The timber, naturally attracted the timber-getters, charcoal burners, sawyers and shinglers, who felled the trees on the various properties, not always with the owner’s permission. Firewood was the most elementary use of the Canterbury timber resources and probably the most wasteful. Land clearage provided a constant source for city markets. John Redman, no doubt because of his office as keep of the gaols, gained several contracts to supply these institutions and watch houses.20 The forest timbers were used for a variety of other purposes, building and wood products and charcoal for city consumption as well as local use. The story is told of one timber-getter, Adam Bond, an early farmer on a large scale. He loaded a cart with timber and took the horse to the tow track. For a distance of three miles ‘the faithful animal’ would drag the dray to the doors of the Rising Sun Inn. Here the dray would be unloaded and the horse returned to its owner.21 Timber was a limited resource and the somewhat reckless and indiscrimate use particularly for firewood, led Mary Salmon to lament, ‘There is a mournful dearth of trees in the Canterbury-Belmore district.’22 An interesting but short-lived bush industry was the manufacture of cabbage tree hats. In the early days these trees grew in the lower Wolli valley, giving to it the early names of Cabbage Tree Creek. The hats described as well made fine plaits, which lasted for years, sold at £2. Together with a netted green veil for protection against flies and sometimes a fringe, they contributed a gay touch to a young bush blood’s correct apparel—lavender coat, grey belltop pants, Crimean shirt and netted silk waistband. 23 While the bush industries suffered from the gradual disappearance of the forest cover, Canterbury had two other natural resources in abundance, namely clayey soil and sandstone deposits, each of which has considerable value for building. Brick-making became a common occupation during the 1880’s and the number of men employed in the trade was second to gardeners. Sand’s Sydney Directory, for example, lists as brickmakers, T. Cavey, Patrick Fox, Thomas Hillard, J. McCloskey, Thomas McGill, J. McKevett, W. Pendlebury and Henry Shortus.24 The municipality contained extensive sandstone deposits which attracted attention from the beginning. Cook, in his journal, recorded that the stone was ‘sandy and very proper for building.’25 From time to time various descriptions were given of the sandstone, praising its beauty and whiteness.26 Most of the early stone supplies came from ‘a very fine whitestone quarry’ located at the end of Minter Street and was probably the reason for naming Close Street.27 The first house reputedly constructed of its ‘good stone’ in the municipality was erected nearby on the site of Canterbury railway station.28 The census returns, 1846—56, reveal a strong preference for wooden dwellings, no doubt because of the accessibility and cheapness of timber supplies.

104

The first statistics available on housing, issued in 1846, show that the ‘ancient village’ possessed six stone or brick and fifty nine wooden houses. Of these eighteen were shingled and only one slated. Ten years later, the stone or brick buildings had only increased to twenty three while weatherboard and slab houses had increased to seventy eight. Shingling was used to roof sixty buildings and slate only five. The remainder used materials such as bark and other forest products.29 The limited use of brick and stone, then suggests that most of these materials were used in city buildings.

SECONDARY INDUSTRIES The manufacture of sugar was the first secondary industry to operate at Canterbury. By the 1840’s Sydney’s population had grown to 30 000 and the township had become an attractive market for overseas manufacturing especially goods such as sugar for which the original settlement possessed neither the physical conditions for cane nor the means for refining it. The profit potential of the latter was first conceived by a London Company promoter, Francis Kemble, who had some experience in the manufacture of sugar. Having insufficient capital he interested William Knox Child, Deputy Lieutenant of Kent County in the venture, ‘by grandiose predictions’ of profits of £40 000 annually. As a result, the Australian Sugar Company was formed in London in 1839. The sale of Child’s assets realised some £20 000 which was devoted to the purchase of the necessary plant, and engineers and skilled operators engaged under agreements.30 One such agreement, signed on 31st January, 1840, with William Jeffress and his son John, provided for a weekly wage of £1 during the voyage in the Ann Gales and after embarkation £3. Jeffress and his family were given free passage and allowed fifty square feet hold space for baggage. They were to continue in the company’s service for one year after the work’s completion.

Jeffress senior was required to enter into a bond of £200 for the full performance of the agreement and not to engage in any other employment.31 The Ann Gales departed on 11 March, 1840 and arrived in Sydney four months later on 13 July. The following day the Herald announced: ‘From London yesterday, having left the downs on 11th March, the barque Anne Gales, 300 tons, Captain Giles, with merchandise. Passengers—Mr. and Mrs. Knox Child, three Misses Childs, Mr. Coles Child and Mr. William Child, Mr. and Mrs. Kemble and three children, Mr. Walter Kemble. ’32

The Herald further announced the formation of a company ‘to carry on upon a large scale the trade of refining sugar in or near Sydney. A valuable steam engine with needful and most improved plant and machinery to the amount of about £20 000 in value have arrived in the Ann Gales. . .’ In addition the directors and their families there were ‘forty engineers and 105

The Sugar Refinery, photographed about 1895

superior workmen conversant with sugar refining.’ The enterprise was ‘a new and important feature in the commerce of the colony’. This ‘bold’ enterprise might have consequences of which the extent was not easy to foresee.33 The refining of sugar requires a plentiful supply of water and proximity to fuel supplies and for the company promoters the problem of location arose.

At the time Sydney’s water supply gravitated from the Lachlan Swamps through Busby’s bore to an exit in Hyde Park. Not only was the town supply very limited but in the absence of pumping, pipe reticulation was only possible to the lower adjacent areas. The nearest source to the Sydney market with an ample supply was Cook’s River. A well chosen site of sixty acres on Robert Campbell’s Canterbury estate worth £1200 was exchanged for twenty four £50 shares in the company, which held its first meeting at Campbell’s Wharf . 34 Shares sold well and in May, 1843, the last one hundred unappropriated shares were offered for sale by public auction.35 The sugar house ‘an exclusive manufactory’, was ‘erected with great spirit and enterprise by a few gentlemen’. It was located within one hundred feet

of the river, which was expected shortly to become fresh water, because a dam, ‘built of beautiful white sandstone’ had been constructed nearby. The contractor was William Lucas, brother of John Lucas who represented the Canterbury electorate for eight terms between 1860 and 1880. The building, six storeys high, measured one hundred by sixty feet and its ‘extent . . . the superiority of the workmanship, and its general appearance’ surprised ‘those who had not seen it before’. The 130 feet circular chimney which carried off smoke from the seven furnaces was ‘a notable piece of brickwork’ and ‘quite equal’ to that of the Gas Company. In addition to the building with its ‘six spacious floors’, there were mill, engine and boiler houses, and storerooms, ‘all heated and worked by a steam engine of considerable power’, which drove ‘a mill of great capabilities’ of grinding animal charcoal. There was ‘a complete set of retorts for the purposes of manufactory and two smaller steam engines ... to act as a crane and to do the work of the house. The whole arrangements proved that Outtrim, the Company’s engineer, Williams the surveyor and MacBeth and Co., the contractor, were ‘men of judgment’ who ‘thoroughly’ understood their work.36 According to the Herald over one hundred workers were employed in the erection of the sugar house and the installation of the plant at a cost exceeding £30 000. The company housed its employees in conveniently located slab huts, and a school nearby, attended by over forty children was used as a chapel on Sundays. ‘We cannot conclude,’ wrote the Herald, ‘without noticing the unremitting exertions and perseverance of the manager, Mr. William Knox Child . . . firstly in bringing 16 000 miles from England, a valuable plant, and all the mechanics necessary to work it . . . and next in the short space of nine months, placed them in a township formerly known as the Canterbury Bush.’37 On 18 December, 1841, a group of about twenty interested persons paid a visit to the sugar house in order to see the first working of the steam engine and found that it ‘went to work beautifully.’ The visit was made more pleasurable by ‘an excellent lunch’, during which toasts were proposed to Robert Campbell. William Child forecast that refining operations would commence within two months. Considerable optimism was expressed by the Herald. The refinery would probably be able to supply all the neighbouring colonies and open up a new trade with the West Indies, sugar cane in exchange for salted provisions. The journal’s optimism was considerably dampened by the realisation that such a trade would not be allowable under the notorious Navigation Acts, which required that all produce of the colonies find their markets indirectly by way of the mother country.38 A cursory glance through the advertisement columns of the press of the day will reveal that considerable imports of a variety of sugars, raw refined and yellow were frequently auctioned. These threatened strong competition for the Canterbury mills as soon as production commenced. Late in February, 107

1842, the company took advantage of the Excise and Customs Bill, then before the Legislative Council, to seek protection. A petition for higher duties on raw and refined sugar imports from countries other than Great Britain, in particularly, America, was presented on behalf of the company by K. Kemble. The Legislative Council merely received the petition.39 While the machinery might have operated ‘beautifully’, the relationship between the principals, Kemble and Child, did not. This disharmony led to an impasse, solved eventually by the formation in March, 1842, of a new firm, the Australasian Sugar Company ‘to carry on the trade or business of purchasing and refining raw sugar, the sale of sugar . . . raw or refined . . . the sale of molasses, or (its) distillation . . . into spirits, the manufacture of animal charcoal, ivory, black, soda, sal ammonia, black ink and such other business connected with the general objects of the company as the directors . . . think fit’. The new firm’s capital totalled £23 000, consisting of 460, £50 shares. William Child was appointed financial manager at a salary of £500, Francis Kemble Works Manager and Sydney Director at £250, plus directors fees. The other directors were A. Abercrombie, Robert Campbell, Jnr., William Knox Child, John Ross, J. Tingecombe and Frederick Wright Unwin. There were more than sixty shareholders.40 Disharmony among its principals was not the only problem which confronted the company. Among its objects—given above was the distillation of spirits from molasses. The act which had been passed in 1838 to regulate the distillation of spirits in the colony, forbade such activities except in Sydney or towns and other places appointed by the governor, and then only if licenced. Since the Sugar Company held no such authority, its object to produce spirits was, therefore, illegal, and required the prior sanction of the governor before manufacturing could begin. A private Act was passed to debar spirit manufacture. In addition an amendment, passed December, 1 8 4 1 , imposed an excise duty of nine shillings per gallon on locally produced spirits. This, together with legislation to facilitate proceedings against the company, served to discourage it from manufacturing spirits.4l In September, 1841, an advertisement announced that the Australasian Sugar Company had arranged for a constant supply of raw sugar from Manilla, in the Philippines. It was certain that within three months the company would be able to supply merchants, grocers, storekeepers and dealers with a product ‘of a quality far superior to the sugar (then) imported, and at a price much less than the colony (had) hitherto paid.’ Furthermore, the company would supply at a low price, inferior sugar for use in preserving fruit, treacle for brewers’ distillation, and whale fisheries.42 The works were then in ‘a state of forwardness’ and sugar was expected to retail at sixpence per pound. The output was estimated at between fifty to sixty tons annually. It was not until September, 1842, that the actual manufacture of refined sugar was begun. An advertisement in the press later 108

in the year announced that the company would supply all the Australian colonies with refined sugar at the following prices:43 Fine loaves or titlers Lump Crushed lump Fine pieces Molasses

5d per pound 4V2d per pound £43 per ton £26 per ton £13 per ton

Unfortunately, the path of the Australasian Sugar Company was never intended to run smoothly, at least while the two promoters, Francis Kemble and William Knox Child, headed the management. In March, 1843, a futher eleven acres were obtained from Robert Campbell, but quarrels broke out afresh between the principals and ‘charges and countercharges were hurled, each accusing the other of incompetency in the work; each writing letters to the directors and shareholders and to the press.’ 44 The outcome was the formation for the third time of a new company. The Canterbury works were sold by the proprietors, who with the directors, ‘were glad to get out of a company surely drifting to ruin’ .45 The new owners were Ralph M. Robey, Charles Knox and Charles Irving. Prior to the formation of the third firm, Edward Knox had superseded Child as manager. He was born in Denmark of English parents, and after his arrival in 1839, com­ menced business as a commission agent in Sydney. Through his business activities, Knox came into contact with the Australasian Sugar Company, of which he was appointed manager in August, 1843. Having shown capacity for management he retained his position under the new company and together with the new works overseer, W. James Robey, succeeded in restoring the company’s progressiveness.

Shortly after the formation of the new company, in May, its increased business led to the acquiring of ‘large commodious stores’ in Bank Court, King Street East, to provide facilities for merchants, grocers and storekeepers to examine samples of loaves and titlers, ‘fully equal to British refined sugar, crushed lump, fine pieces, and molasses’. The pieces were advertised as being ‘superior to any moist sugar known to the colony’. The stores had a few packed hogsheads and tierces of refined sugar ‘always available for imme­ diate shipment.’46 The Sugar Company, being the first and only manufactory of its kind in the Australian colonies, was a pure monopoly, and its successes after its reorganisation in 1843, invited competition. A rival firm was established in 1847 by T. W. Bowden in Sydney at the corner of Pitt and Liverpool Streets on the side opposite the present Court House. The Australasian Sugar Company re-established its monopoly in 1850 by purchasing Bowden’s works. The following year, the 'colony experienced the thrills of the gold rushes and the Sugar Company took immediate advantage by offering, rather 109

amusingly, at their stores, at 427 George Street, ‘No. 1 pieces of superior quality, at £25 per ton, specially packed for the use of parties proceeding to the diggings in strong canvass bags containing seventy pounds.’47 The affairs of the company ran smoothly until 1854. Edward Knox resigned his managership but remained director until 1854, when the company was again smitten by internal strife between the partners, and the dissolution of the Australasian Sugar Company was the unfortunate result.

A new firm, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, was formed on 1 January, 1855, as an unlimited liability partnership, with a capital of £150 000.48 The C.S.R. that year purchased Cooper’s Brisbane Distillery, George Street West.

This purchase proved unfortunate for Canterbury, for it hastened the demise of that enterprise. The company decided to close the Canterbury mill because of its high transport costs, and to transfer both employees and plant to the Brisbane Distillery.49 The company’s decision was most unfortunate for Canterbury. At a vital stage in its economic development, its only secondary industry was suddenly terminated. The mills had given employment to some twenty men and had led to the establishment of certain businesses to supply both the mill employees and their family needs. The effect of the removal of the employees is to be seen in the village population statistics given in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 Census

1846 1851 1856

CANTERBURY AGE DISTRIBUTION 1846-1856

Under 2 20 50 27

2-7 44 93 78

Age Distribution 7-14 14-21 21-45 29 17 90 77 42 172 79 33 125

Total 45-60 Over 6000 6 12 218 36 3 473 39 9 390

Source: Returns of the Colony, 1847, pp. 451—8; N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1851, supplement, 7 November, 1851. N.S.W. Census, 1856.

The age distribution shows clearly the effect of the closing of the sugar works. The transfer of the employees meant the removal of their families, thus increasing the number of uninhabited houses from four in 1851 to twelve in 1856. This in turn, led to the closing of businesses, such as two hotels and the cessation of orders for wood fuel and other goods and services. The population in 1856 was 17.5 per cent less than that of 1851 and it was not until some fifteen years later that the village recouped its lost inhabitants.

The sugar house remained unoccupied for several years. It was then taken over by Blacketts, an engineering firm and used as an iron foundry. In 1908 the building was acquired by J. C. Hutton and ‘metamorphosed’ into a ham and bacon manufactory. Extensions, such as a new bacon depot, a washout and packing, and a modern engine room were subsequently added. The ‘tall out of pendicular chimney was for more than half a century a conspicuous 110

landmark. It had a “lean” like the Tower of Pisa, but, unlike that edifice, the lean becoming more and more pronounced, and, as years advanced public safety successfully urged its demolition.’50 The sugar dam degenerated into a public footway.

While the Sugar Company may have benefited from lower production costs, it must have missed the river’s ample and pure water. The high cost of obtaining a supply for the city mains forced it to dam a local creek which flowed through habitable regions in Darlington. During its course it received ‘fresh additions of foul matters from cesspits, cowyards, and stables’. In fact for its industrial processes the Sugar Company was obtaining water from ‘a foul and open sewer’. The dam aided the pollution by allowing the offensive additives to accumulate.51 The sugar house still stands, a perpetual memorial to Canterbury’s first secondary industry. The men who directed and managed the undertaking were prominent in colonial business affairs, and of necessity, dwelt in the city.

The workmen likewise exerted little influence upon Canterbury though some, for example, John Bennett, built residences there.52 There are exceptions, Thomas Draper, who built a ‘fine’ two storey house in the village and William Slocombe, a skilled operator, who came to New South Wales in the Ann Gales, under contract with the Australian Sugar Company. His decision to join Kemble and Child met with his father’s strong disapproval. William was warned against taking his ‘four young children into a foreign land to starve’ and further to subject them to ‘Australian flies that blow the ears and nostrils.’ 53 Despite the paternal warnings, William Slocombe came to the colony and served in the sugar works as overseer of the sugar boilers.

In 1842, Slocombe built a very large two-storey house in George Street and because of its size suffered much derision. Whether this had any influence upon him it is difficult to say, but he gave a positive reply to his critics by producing a large family. His son James, who for a long period, conducted a store and bakery at Canterbury, was prominent in municipal affairs during the 1880’s being twice elected as mayor in 1886—7. He erected a ‘handsome building’ with a ‘modern looking shop’ at the corner of Cross Street and Canterbury Road, next to the old home. Behind the shop were a large bakehouse, ‘extensive’ stables and other ‘conveniences’. William Slocombe’s grandson, Percival, later served as an alderman of Canterbury from 1928 to 1931. Another Sugar Company employee also built a ‘fine’ two-storeyed house in the village and reared his family there.54 The location of the sugar works in Canterbury opened further possibilities for industrial development. Sydney is the centre of a coal ‘saucer’ whose rims surface at Newcastle, Lithgow and Wollongong. The Sugar Company needed a readily available supply of fuel. At the time there were adequate supplies of wood, but this resource was limited, so the company set about sinking a shaft to tap the coal seams. The shaft was located between the works and 111

Hutton’s Bacon Factory, formerly The Old Sugar Refinery, photographed from the River, 1908

Prout’s Bridge, but though sunk a ‘considerable distance’, the coal failed to materialise, and the work was discontinued. In a way the abortive attempt to discover coal was perhaps fortunate for the municipality. An industrial area based on coal, attracting heavy industries is far from an attractive sight.

To the pollution from smoke and soot is added the sordidness of the factories engaged in heavy industries, and the general griminess of the neighbourhood with its potential for slum development. Perhaps the few feet which separated the shaft sinkers from the coal seams saved Canterbury from such a fate.

TERTIARY DEVELOPMENTS The development of tertiary or service industries in new colonies is naturally very slow. Until the 1840’s Canterbury possessed practically no service industries, mainly because of the dispersal of the early settlers and their tendency to be virtually self-sufficient. Dependence on the activities of other persons came with the establishment of the Sugar Company . It is reasonably 112

safe to assert that the forerunner of tertiary industry was the local ‘pub’. The earliest applications for licences for Canterbury were probably those of John Eckhardt, Canterbury Arms, and Patrick McGrath and Alexander Holmes for the Sugar Loaf in 1843.55 The first hotel, the Canterbury Arms, was opened that year, and by 1858 was one of the two existing inns. The Sugar Loaf came later and so Samuel Miller has been credited with having erected Canterbury’s first hotel, appropriately named The Sugar Works Inn, in Unwin Street, a name supposedly a corruption of ‘Union’ (unwin).

The hotel, which catered for the drivers employed by Patrick Fox, the contractor responsible for transporting cane to the works and refined sugar back to Sydney was at first a single storey building, but a second floor was later added. Patrick Murphy was ‘Mine Host’ at the time of its closure, following the shutting down of the sugar mill. One Kendall built the second inn, The Gardener’s Arms, another name determined by a local industry. It was located off Caterbury Road and had several keepers among whom were Charles Kelsey, William File and Samuel Miller. Subsequently, it was renamed the Woolpack by a Mrs West, probably because of its proximity to the wool scours. A third hotel, the Sugarloaf Inn was built by Paulis in Canterbury nearer the river. At the time of its closure, about 1860, it was kept

by Julius Perry. Before its demolition some years later, it served as the residence of Thomas Perrott, Canterbury’s first school master. A fourth inn, the Wheatsheaf Hotel, built by Cornelius Prout, was opened by a Mr Griffin and in the 1890’s was kept by Mary Jane Green. A fifth hotel, The Rising Sun, a popular place for meetings, was first erected by George Dent and first kept

by Thomas Sparkes who gained some prominence through his brother Bill’s bare-fisted pugilistic capacity. Bill, recognised as Colonial Champion, challenged Nat Langham, a noted English bare-knuckle expert. The fight was no mean gladiatorial combat for it lasted sixty seven rounds, for the last five of which Sparkes fought with a broken right arm, but refused to throw in the towel. Other inns, such as the Punch and Bowl and the Man of Kent, were established from time to time, in other parts of the municipality. At the founding of the municipality the Canterbury village had two hotels, the Rising Sun, W. L. Lawson and the Woolpack Inn, John McCoy.56 The general store was an associated development stemming from the establishment of the village. Prior to this it was difficult for interested persons to set up stores in any area where the population was so dispersed. It will be noted that the early land sale advertisements before the 1840’s confirm this by making no mention of conveniences such as stores. Necessary goods were, no doubt, purchased at nearby Ashfield, Marrickville, Petersham or in Sydney. The 1841 subdivision and the establishment of the sugar refinery brought an element of population concentration and let to business developments. An account of a robbery confirms the existence of a store at 113

Canterbury as early as 1841, but the name of the owner was not mentioned.57 Other early storekeepers included Barnabas Hartshorne and James Slocombe. Thomas Austin Davis and John Quigg established butcher shops. At the incorporation of the municipality in 1879, A. B. Miller was a bootmaker, James Coleman, a butcher, Charles Ford, a blacksmith, John and William Gelding, nurserymen, Francis Quigg, W. Rogers and Mrs A. Reem, general storekeepers, Thomas Saddler, a tailor, J. McMinn, produce storekeeper and J. Russell, a saddler. There were no businesses such as insurance, banks, chemists, dentists, hairdressers or fruiterers.58

OF PEOPLE BLACK AND WHITE, GOOD AND BAD, RICH AND POOR The first residents of Botany Bay were shy and retiring tribes of aborigines.

They tended to cling to the shores of the bay and only penetrated the hinterland in search of game in ‘Kangaroo’ ground, perhaps Canterbury’s first name. Only scant mention had been made of black and white relationships. There is a recorded attack by natives on settlers at Punchbowl. The episode concerned the farms of William Bond and Frederick Meredith, two grants roughly divided by Cullen’s Road. In October, 1809, the Sydney Gazette recorded ‘on Tuesday last, a number of natives assembled about the farm of Mr Bond, at Georges River, and behaved in a very outrageous manner. They manifested an inclination to plunder but were prevented by the determination that was shown to resist them. They threw several spears, one of which grazed the ear of Mr F. Meredith, who assisted in the defence of the place, which it was at length found necessary to abandon. Tedbury is said to be one of the assailants.’59 Probably the same marauders ‘fell upon’ a flock of Edward Powell’s sheep, between Parramatta Road and Canterbury. They were pursued as far as Cook’s River. Here two sheep were discovered being roasted. At a camp a half mile distant, there were three carcasses in a ‘putrid state’, with wool singed off. Besides eleven more sheep, native dogs had killed three of Powell’s pigs. Evidence confirms that Tedbury, the son of Pemulvoy, was the scoundrel and ‘chief director of mischiefs.’ The Gazette reported that these atrocities were mainly confined to the native hordes about George’s River. ‘They have’, it asserted, ‘several muskets, and what is no less to be dreaded, several desperate offenders who from a preference to idleness have deserted to the woods, are suspected to have joined them.’60 These instances probably sum up the friction between black and white. Though the Sydney Gazette reported frequently on settler relationships and friction with the aborigines, the above raids appear the only such episodes concerning Canterbury.

Unfortunately, there were good and bad whites, too, but in the formative years, reports of serious crime were rare. Early advertisements warned 116

trespassers and vandals who helped themselves to timber and farm products, and did damage in removing them, with fines, but what is perhaps one of the first recorded crime in Canterbury concerned a ‘daring’ robbery at a house opposite the village. It is reported that two men and a woman robbed a shop by the old ruse of one person distracting the owner, while others ‘managed very dexterously to abstract some articles of property.’ Two of the culprits were captured by the chief constable, the sole enforcer of law and order in the district.61 No doubt petty crimes of this nature occurred from time to time, but the ‘ancient’ village was not shaken by a really serious crime until 1885 when, on the 13 August, Constable William Hird was the victim of a brutal murder, being savagely done to death at Prout’s Bridge by blows from an axe, wielded by one Joseph Thompson.62 Canterbury’s settlers, were in the main, people who attained a status of modest affluence from the land by the sweat of their brows. There was a sprinkling of wealthy persons who built palatial homes financed mainly through business activities. Ernest Greenwood, in his history of St Paul’s Canterbury, stresses this view when he wrote that the people were mainly working class and poor, but in the district there were wealthy families living in fine houses.63 The census statistics, 1846—56, are futher evidence of the working class nature and educational standard of Canterbury population.

The occupational distribution shows a preponderance of artificers and unskilled labourers and the educational standard is revealed by the high proportion unable to read and write.64

A COLONIAL MANSION The dotting of the landscape with palatial colonial mansions was a charac­ teristic of early colonial settlement generally and Canterbury was no excep­ tion. It possessed several such homes, either in the area or at its periphery.

Mention has been made in other pages of Frederick Unwin’s ‘Wanstead’, John Stephen’s ‘Clairville’, and Alexander Brodie Spark’s ‘Tempe’. Thomas Holt, a wool merchant and politician built a stone gothic mansion, ‘The Warren’, overlooking Cook’s River on the side opposite to Wanstead, but within the municipality the most splendid of all the early homes was Canterbury House, constructed by Arthur Jeffreys about 1850. This mansion which was erected about 200 metres within the northern municipal boundary on a block now bounded by Leith, Forbes, Allison and Leopold Streets, had its main entrance off George’s River Road. The building faced south overlooking Cook’s River, about 700 metres distance at its closest point. The main driveway ran from George’s River Road, along Watson’s Avenue and Goodlet Street, while a second connected the homesite with the ‘ancient village’.65 117

Canterbury House - sketch by Conrad Martens, 18&Q, Reproduced by pi Mitchell Library, State Library of N.S.W.

118

119

Canterbury House stood on land which formed part of a third grant, 260 acres in extent, made to the Rev. Richard Johnson in 1799, subsequently purchased by Robert Campbell. Arthur Jeffreys, who had formerly served in the navy, was Campbell’s son-in-law, having married his fifth child, Sarah, in February, 1841, less than a year after his arrival in the colony. It was materially a fortunate marriage because following Campbell’s death in 1846, Jeffreys as Sarah’s husband, inherited the southern half of the Canterbury estate, the greater proportion of which lay in the north-east corner of the municipality. 66 Those fortunate to have seen Canterbury House extol its splendour, Robert Parry, headmaster of Canterbury Public School, wrote in 1908, that the mansion ‘deeply embedded amid majestic trees, with here and there an opening glade’ was ‘without doubt the most imposing and beautiful residential edifice in the district.’ He continued: ‘Its style is Elizabethan and most graceful. The grounds are extensive, undulating and picturesque. The approach to the mansion (from Georges River Road) is by a magnificent carriage drive. Hundreds of happy Sabbath scholars, accompanied by their teachers, by permission of the owner are annually allowed to picnic in these delightful grounds ... So charming an estate and residence are vividly reminiscent of stately homes of Britain and their tall ancestral trees and any sketch of Canterbury with no reference at all to this almost palatial mansion would be suggested of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” minus the Prince of Denmark. ’67

Other and certainly more nostalgic descriptions were recorded in corre­ spondence written by Rachel Henning to relatives in England during the 1870’s. Rachel had personally experienced the pleasures and comforts of Canterbury House since her brother-in-law George Hedgeland, an officer of the Surveyor General’s Department and later her brother, Biddulph, had held leases of the property.68 Rachel’s account of Canterbury House substantially agrees with that given by Parry. In a letter to her sister, she gave the description below, after reading which one must agree with her that Can­ terbury House would be a ‘pleasant place to stay’.

‘It is about the most charming country house I ever saw even in England. About half a mile from Ashfield station you come to a white gate which brings you into a drive through what would be called an open wood in England, and is called open bush here.

The drive is planted with firs at the sides, and well gravelled and kept, in half a mile more there is an iron gate, and the road goes on through beautiful flowering shrubs, turns round a bed of perfect dazzling azaleas and camelliais the house.69 A very pretty house it is, raised on a slope of green turf, with a double row of white steps leading to the balcony and door. Inside it is very comfortable—a dining room, drawing-room, and a billiard room and another little room, and, upstairs, five large bedrooms. The kitchen, servants’ hall and servants’ rooms are all at the back. There are also a laundry, dairy etc., in a stone court, then up some steps you come to a back paddock, round which are built the coachhouse, stables, cow-houses, milking bail, pigsties and fowlhouses, these last covered in with wirenetting.

120

There is a large kitchen garden, vineyard, etc., and any amount of lawn and flower garden. I never saw such quantities of flowers anywhere. Just in front of the house the drive goes round an immense bed of azaleas, camellias and rhododendrons. There are, besides, roses and camellias and geraniums everywhere. The azaleas were in full bloom when I left. A mass of white, purple and red. 70

Arthur Jeffreys aspired to importance in the public’s service and in September, 1851, was elected to the Legislative Council to represent the Pastoral District of Maneroo, but he was not destined to prominence as a statesman. Continuous bouts of ill-health prevented his attendance at Council sessions and forced his resignation in March, 1854.71 Family sadness too, permeated the halls of Canterbury House. Two of his children died, one a daughter at infancy, another a son before adulthood. Sarah, Arthur’s wife did not enjoy the pleasures of life at Canterbury for long, she passed away in the 1850’s and finally, the master himself followed in 1861.72 The Canterbury estates were willed to Jeffrey’s three sons, but held in trust by their uncles. As a result a succession of leaseholders then held sway and later descriptions provide sufficient evidence of their maintaining of Canterbury House’s traditional splendour and colourful appearance. The first of these was Major Frederick Fanning. Possibly his brother, William, also shared the premises. The latter’s biographer, Ruth Teale, states that some time after 1861, he lived for a period at Canterbury House, but the various reminiscences published in the press and directories mention only the Major.73 The Fannings were wealthy and successful businessmen. The younger brother, William, arrived in the colony about 1842 and shortly afterwards partnered George R. Griffiths in an importing business. In addition he acquired country pastoral interests and was a foundation director of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company which was responsible for closing the Canterbury works. Frederick, on the other hand, enlisted in the Indian army and retired at the rank of major in July, 1858, with a reputation for his interest in native languages. He then came to Sydney and joined in his brother’s business ventures as well as his own land deals. The firm and the two brothers, jointly and individually, owned extensive tracts of land and large herds of cattle and sheep in New South Wales and in the Queensland Maranoa district. Frederick, for example, prior to his return to England in 1871, owned personally, twenty-two properties. William died in England in 1887 pre-deceasing his brother, Frederick, by eighteen years. It is of interest to note that the family name is perpetuated by the Pacific atoll and cable station, Fanning Island, discovered by an ancestor.74 Major Fanning made a deep impression upon the people of Canterbury for his generosity and hospitality ‘on a large scale’. He gave the local residents picnics on his ‘beautiful grounds,’ and all he required was that they bring only themselves armed with pannikins and plates. The liquid refreshments and food were supplied gratis. During Frederick Fanning’s occupation, the best 121

traditions and glory of Canterbury House were upheld and perhaps, because of the Fannings’ wealth, even extended.75 During the early 1870’s, Canterbury House was let to several persons, perhaps the last of whom was Biddulph Henning. His sister Rachel’s letters during this period continue to praise the beauty and pleasantness of the Canterbury abode and its grounds. It was still truly ‘a beautiful place’ with ‘such a nice garden full of camellias, azaleas and all sorts of flowering shrubs’, which in the five years of Rachel’s association with the property, had ‘grown a good deal’. The camellias had become ‘real’ trees, yielding an abundance of flowers.76 In 1878, Canterbury House was purchased by John Hay Goodlet, the Scottish building materials merchant, soldier and philanthropist. After a short period of employment with a building firm in Melbourne, Goodlet came to Sydney in 1855 and launched a successful business career with a profitable disposal of a cargo of American doors. Next followed the establishment of a sawmill in Erskine Street, complete with its own wharf. About seven years later he was partnered by James Smith and during the time Goodlet was a resident of Canterbury, the firm was trading large-scale in building materials.

Besides the original timber yards Goodlet and Smith owned two coastal sawmills, a brick and cement works and a pottery producing pipes, tiles terracotta and chimney pots and stoneware. The firm suffered severely in the depression of the 1890’s, but Goodlet’s business acumen enabled him to recover and progress. Though some sixty-five years have passed since his death, the firm of Goodlet and Smith still survives. In 1920, a new company was formed retaining the original name. The business enjoyed moderate prosperity until 1925, when a disastrous fire caused the discontinuance of the tile works at Granville, the company’s major income source. In 1955 the firm became a subsidiary of the Newbold Group and nowadays concentrates solely upon the manufacture of household bricks.77 Goodlet’s business interests extended beyond his own firm. He was a director and twice chairman of the A.M.P. Society. His versatility is further demonstrated by his interest in military affairs. He worked keenly for the development of the volunteer corps, later achieving the rank of lieutenantcolonel of the second infantry regiment.

Despite these activities Goodlet was best known for the wide range of his philanthropy. His charitable activities involved generous aid for a variety of benevolent institutions. The consumptives’ home at Thirlmere, Sydney Hospital, the Benevolent Society, Royal Hospital for Women, Deaf and Dumb and Blind Institute and the Sydney City Mission—all benefited in no small way from his never ending generosity.

The softest spot in his heart was for the Presbyterian Church, to which, as a good Scotsman, he was so devotedly attached. Here again, his energetic activities were wide-ranged. From the simple office of a Sunday school 124

superintendent at Ashfield, Goodlet’s church work involved convenorship of the finance committee of the Presbyterian overall authority, the General Assembly of Australia, for which he represented his state at the World Missionary Conference in Scotland in 1910. He was chairman of directors of the publication, the Presbyterian, the originator of the new Messenger, a trustee of Coverwell Boys’ School, co-founder of the Croydon Presbyterian Ladies College and a member of the Council of St. Andrew’s College, Sydney University.

Goodlet’s financial generosity knew no bounds. He guaranteed loans and half stipends for three bush missionaries, helped materially to secure the finances of St. Andrew’s College, gave 2000 shares in his firm to provide Goodlet scholarships for students for the ministry, built a hospital for a mission in India, and left most of his estate to the church and its mission. He married three times and was fortunate in his choice of wives. His first, Mary Hay, died before his business successes enabled him to participate in his philanthropic activites, but Anne and Elizabeth were keen participators in all their husband’s charitable work.78 Unfortunately John Goodlet died childless in 1914, but his third wife Elizabeth, not until 1926. Thus was the fate of Canterbury House sealed.

Because of his leaving the estate to the church, it was inevitable that failing a use for it, it would be eventually sold. The sad aspect is that it became involved in a subdivision and was not destined for posterity to enjoy. By the 1920’s the era of stately suburban homes had come to an end, and with them all the social benefits and privileges enjoyed by the not so fortunate. The 1914-18 war was followed by a boom period especially in housing. There was a readily available flow of loan funds to promote the concept of home ownership among the lower income earners, so subdivisions of suburban estates became the order of the day. A materialistic outlook prevailed blinding people of need for the preservation of historical links with the past, and so the savagery of the wreckers’ hammers destroyed the grandeur and the glory which was typified by Canterbury House. All that remains are the recollec­ tions of Rachel Henning. Not all the mansions suffered a similar fate.

Alexander Spark’s ‘Tempe’ remains to this day. In Canterbury ‘The Towers’ at Moorefields is still a notable landmark attracting attention. It was built by David Jones in the 1870’s.79

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS—THE CHURCH Though the church’s main function is concerned with morality and good living, it has even before the beginning of Christianity, exerted an important influence upon social development. Religious buildings and shrines have become important meeting centres thus overcoming the loneliness of isolation and facilitating the communication of ideas and the development of com­ 125

munal effort. The church parish was, in fact, the earliest local government unit. Isolation arising from the dispersal of the early colonists, because of their land grants in virgin country and their pursuit of primary activities, was typical of settlement in New South Wales and Canterbury was no exception.

In those days there were no local meeting places and this essential need was fulfilled by the various church denominations.

The Rev. Richard Johnson, Canterbury’s first settler, had plenty of ‘great’ trees, under which to preach, but no local congregation, and it was not until the 1820’s that first but unsubstantiated mention of church services was made. The reminiscences of old Canterbury residents, published in the Echo refer to services conducted in 1826 in the largest men’s huts by a minister of the Established Church of Scotland Rev. John McGarvie.80 Sydney’s first Presbyterian clergyman, Dr. John Dunmore Lang, arrived in the colony in 1823. He was devoted to his church and set about with considerable zeal and energy to extend its influence throughout the colonies. He selected other clergy to assist in his work the first of whom to be appointed to a church was the Rev. John McGarvie, in 1826. He arrived in May and spent about two months in Sydney before taking up his duties at Ebenezer near Windsor. 81 Though several church historical works covering the period make no mention of McGarvie’s preaching at Canterbury, some credence must be given to the Echo statement.82 McGarvie was described as a ‘frank and outspoken’ clergyman, whose epitaph bore testimony to his church work—(he was) widely respected for his labours in the cause of religion and philanthropy.83 Because of these aspects of his character taken together with John Lang’s enthusiastic zeal, McGarvie would never allow him to while idly away his two months in Sydney. It is therefore reasonably safe to assume that he did preach at Canterbury some time between May and July, 1826.

There was mention of a Methodist Minister, Rev. James Colwell preaching in Canterbury in 1840, but it was not until 1841 that the first building for religious worship was erected and church services conducted by the Methodist circuit.84 A half acre of land was purchased from the Sugar Company for £30 and a wooden school-church erected. The first services described as ‘well attended’. At the time Canterbury included the area lying between Liverpool Road and Cook’s River, and it is interesting to note that the Methodist Church at Ashfield was called ‘Canterbury’ and that at Canterbury village, ‘Sugar Works’. Services were held in the morning at the former and afternoon at the latter.85 The organiser of services for the area was the Rev. William Schofield, who as a circuit minister was ‘indefatigable in pastoral work’, preached ‘evangelical and earnest’ sermons, had ‘a remarkable gift in prayer and was an affectionate and faithful leader and judicial adviser.’ 86 Local preachers assisted in the organisation until the first resident minister, the Rev. Daniel J. Draper was appointed to Canterbury. He was conscientious in the performance of his duties, and unfortunately drowned 126

with his wife in the wreck of the London in the Bay of Biscay in 1866. It is recorded the he ‘met his death when engaged in preaching and praying and pointing agonised souls to the Everlasting Refuge.’87 The 1846 census shows that out of the Canterbury village population of 218 only thirty-two were Wesleyans. Perhaps their number was insufficient to maintain the chapel for it was allowed to become very dilapidated. The school and the services were discontinued, but in 1846, the Rev. Nathaniel Turner, a former Tongan missionary, laid the foundation stone of a new stone chapel. It was erected by Jacob Ward and described as ‘a plain square building, without any pretence to architectural beauty.’ The Rev. Turner controlled the Sydney circuit, whose district headquarters were at the Rocks.

From there preachers travelled on foot to conduct services at Ashfield, Canterbury and Moorefields.88 Their efforts were well rewarded at Canter­ bury village for the number of Wesleyans increased to 102 out of a population of 473. With the population loss following the closure of the sugar works, the Wesleyan strength fell to sixty.

At the time of the municipality’s incorporation no services were being held in the chapel. After the breakdown of negotiations for hire of the Church of England school house for municipal offices, the Council rented the chapel pending the erection of a town hall.89 In 1889, arrangements were made to hold services in the new town hall. The church was re-opened in 1893, following extensive repairs.

The first settlement at Moorefields, originally Moorfield, was characterised by a strong Wesleyan influence. Perhaps the first Wesleyan was James Chard, joined later by his family. Other settlers’ families were those of William Lees and William Pithers. An old Canterbury family, the Nortons were keen supporters of the Moorfield’s chapel. Its members descended from James and Charlotte Norton, who settled on 127 acres at Moorefields after their marriage in 1837. James, a farmer was convicted for poaching and sentenced to transportation for fourteen years, a period he served at Moreton Bay in a road gang. In common with other hardy old settlers, he lived to be ninety, and produced a family of ten children.90 He was opposed to the inclusion of Moorefields in the proposed Canterbury Municipality and registered his mark of protest on the counter petition presented December, 1878. When the counter petition failed to prevent incorporation, his son, James, and he supported the separation of Moorefield as part of the proposed Queensborough Municipality. 91 Before the advent of special buildings, the early settlers maintained religious cohesion by regular meetings in private homes. The Wesleyans met at various residences in particular Thomas Chard’s ‘Moorfield Cottage’. In August, 1850, the Rev. Frederick Lewis, the first Minister, wrote of these Moorefields meetings: ‘a considerable number of persons have assembled every Lord’s day for the last six

127

months to hear the word of life; nor have they heard in vain for already has a class been formed consisting of eleven persons many of whom have been powerfully awakened to a sense of guilt and danger and are sincerely enquiring “what must I do to be saved”. ’92

Perhaps the congregation could not have had a better man to answer this question. The Rev. Frederick Lewis earned a reputation as ‘a Welshman, full of fire and love, who knew how to bring sinners to Christ.’ Fie was ‘remarkable for his zeal, abundant labours, and great success’.93 The sincerity and desires of these early worshippers no doubt prompted John Chard’s gift in 1851 of an acre block fronting Moorefields Road upon which a brick chapel, twenty-five feet by eighteen feet was erected at a cost of £100. There were many ‘devoted souls’ associated with Moorfields Chapel.

Its ‘grand old man’ was James Ridgwell, a foundation member who for forty years from the first service in 1850, toiled ceaselessly and faithfully in the promotion of the Wesleyan cause. He was a class leader, Sunday school superintendent for twenty-five years, and a church steward for forty years.

He was ably supported by his family. His daughter, Sophia Ridgwell, was an early day and Sunday school teacher. Of particular interests are the strong family attachments to the old chapel. Several generations of Thomas Chard’s family have faithfully maintained contact with it. William Lees’ descendants for example, his grandson, Benjamin, have made valuable contributions towards the glory of Moorfields. Other families who were early members included the Nortons, Tomkins, James Forrester, Thomas Chard’s son-inlaw and Cornelius Webb. The latter two purchased of a portion of the Kingsgrove Estate in 1855.94 By the 1960’s the old chapel had become a crumbling building. In May, 1967, the Council’s approval of its demolition to provide a site for a new church prompted M. Lalor, a Norton descendant to pray for the preservation of the Chapel, one of the few churches of any denomination in Australia that could boast of continuous occupancy as a place of worship for over a century.95 Mrs. Lalor explained her defence of the chapel: My grandfather (James Norton) was an ex-convict sent out to Australia for some small offence. After serving his time in the chain gang, he married and had ten children. They also lived to an old age, and eight of them are buried in the old church yard. Several of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren were christened, went to Sunday School and were married in the historic Moorefields church. I will remember the delightful picnics we enjoyed long ago, with lunch served in the old church. . . .’

(In the Gosford district, old churches have been preserved and) I fervently hope and pray that you will be able to save the lovely little church at Moorefields as a memorial to our early pioneers, who first settled in the district. If there is some small way in which I could help the society to save this dear church from the demolisher’s hammer, I would like to know about it. ’96

The sincerity of Mrs. Lalor’s prayer failed to move the aldermen’s hearts.

128

The last service was held on 17 September, 1967 and within two months the old chapel was but a memory for those who had worked assiduously for its maintenance. It was replaced by Moorefields Peace Memorial Church, dedicated to those who served and paid the supreme sacrifice in the cause of peace in two world wars.

Perhaps the first Anglican place of worship was a private chapel erected

by Robert Campbell on his Canterbury estates. Campbell, originally a Presbyterian was later attracted toward the Church of England, but he was most generous financially towards both persuasions. Of importance to Canterbury was his donation of land and money in 1837 towards the building of St. Peter’s Church at Cook’s River.97 It was from this centre that Anglican preachers first came to Canterbury. Despite their greater comparative num­ bers there do not appear to have been any organised Church of England services until the late 1840’s. St. Peters was opened in November, 1839, but some ten years were to pass before its services were extended to Canterbury.

On 5 June, 1849, the first Anglican service was conducted at the school house

by Rev. James S. Hassal, relieving rector at St. Peters.

Hassal was the eldest son of Thomas Hassal, who at first was employed as a clerk by Robert Campbell. The father later entered the ministry and married Anne, eldest daughter of Samuel Marsden. He served extensively in the southern districts, was a keen woolgrower, and for his wide ranging services earned recognition as the first of the Australian bush parsons, known affectionately to his parishioners as the ‘squire of Denbigh’, the ‘galloping parson’, but more familiarly as just plain ‘Thomas’. Much of the father’s zeal rubbed off on his son James, first a chaplain at Berrima Gaol, and later noted for his pioneering work in New South Wales and Queensland.98 In 1849 a school was opened in a room of a Canterbury dwelling and licensed as a church by Bishop Broughton.99 It was here that Hassal conducted subsequent services. In his In Old Australia, published in Brisbane in 1902, two years before his death, he described the parish served by St. Peter’s Church: ‘My parish in those days, included Newtown, Botany, Cook’s and George’s Rivers, Petersham, Canterbury and George’s Hall, within three miles of Liverpool. . . .

I must say, I never have had since a worse class of people to deal with than were some of the old fishermen at Botany and the charcoal burners between George’s and Cook’s Rivers . . . The district was as wild and godless a place as I have ever known, although so near Sydney. Still I have baptized as many as eight children at a time from one family, and had the satisfaction of starting a school there with forty children and Canterbury with as many more.’

The difficulties confronting ministers in those days in taking parish services were further emphasised by Hassal: I often had to ride home on pitch-dark nights through Petersham bush, and never saw a track but was able to trust my horse, which always brought me safe home. ’100 129

St. Paul's Church, Canterbury, completed in 1859, was a gift for the people of the district from Miss Sophie Campbell

Rev. Hassal’s services at Canterbury were deeply appreciated by its par­ ishioners. When the rector, Dr. Steele returned to St. Peters, Hassal accepted a post at Bungonia near Goulburn and it is interesting to note that his new parish covered some 5000 square miles. As an expression of their esteem and the high regard for him every pewholder at St. Peter’s signed the ‘cordial’ address below: ‘It must we are assured, gratify you to know that, during your first temporary appointment, extending over a term of eighteen months, the exemplary manner in which you have discharged the duties of your Ministry, has not failed to attract our frequent attention. We cannot forget the satisfaction of alluding, irrespective of your charitable attention to the sick and needy in your parish, to your exertions in founding the schools in the village of Canterbury, and in the parish of St. George, evincing as they do, your resolution, though your time among us might be short, it should at least be productive of permanent benefit. 101

Some nine years after the Rev. Hassal’s transfer to Bungonia, work was commenced on the erection of the first Anglican church, St. Paul’s. The corner stone was laid on 16 August, 1858 and the building completed in October, 1859, was consecrated by Bishop Barker on 12 April, 1860. St. Paul’s was a gift to the people of Canterbury by Robert Campbell’s elder daughter, Sophia Ives, 'a shining example of the faith and liberality of her class in the nineteenth century’. She met the cost of the building, £1 848.19s 6d, as well as endowing the church with £2000 as part payment towards the minister’s stipend. In a centenary publication Ernest Greenwood wrote the following description: ‘The Church is in the Gothic style and built of sandstone. The original roof was of shingles. It is of its kind an architectural gem, and of great beauty. It is the work of (Edmund T.) Blacket, a leading architect of the day, who built the Great Hall of the University of Sydney. 102 The seating accommodation is rather limited, there being space for only about ISO people. The bell has a good clear tone and there is a fine celtic cross at the eastern apex of the main roof. *103

The first rector was Rev. Percy J. Smith and the first church wardens, Arthur Jeffreys, William S. Bell, and George K. Holden. The following ‘firsts’ are of interest: Baptism: Marriage: Burial: Last Burial:

Emily Elizabeth Reid, daughter of John and Elizabeth Reid (Canterbury) Edith Blake (Stanmore)—IS April, 1860.

James Monk, to Elizabeth Stone—9 June, 1860.

Henry Monk (aged two days) 26 August, 1860.

Edward Samuel Taylor (77 years)—7 May, 19SS. 104

The early Presbyterian services were held in various homes in the muni­ cipality. Dr. John D. Lang gave such services. On many Sunday mornings he 132

was met by James Quigg of Northumberland Farm and taken by gig to Canterbury to preach in his barn. Years later, Neil Quigg performed a similar service for the Rev. William Ridley, ‘a fine scholar and a devout Christian’. 105 In the 1850’s another minister, Rev. Mcllroy a bachelor, renowned for his ‘deep, resonant, singing voice . . .’ as great a gift to a clergyman as is the power of oratory’, conducted services in the front room of his Canterbury stone house. To attract his congregation, he ‘opened his doors and sent forth into the still, calm air his deep ponderous voice.’ These tactics were effective.

‘The room would gradually fill and soon a number of men in working clothes would come in, forming a choir that made the Presbyterian metrical version of the psalms roll gloriously down the main street, penetrating the bark huts as a lullaby to put the children to sleep.’106

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS—EDUCATION From the beginning the churches have always been associated with teaching and general education. The early monasteries, for example, were the centres of learning, and, until the introduction of the public school system, the various churches undertook the provision of school rooms. The first school in Canterbury was erected by the Wesleyans in Minter Street, in 1841.

Thomas Perrott was the first teacher. The auctioneer, R. Stubbs, made use of the school as an incentive for buyers of blocks, resulting from the first subdivision of a portion of the Canterbury estate. There were as many as forty children ‘deriving all the benefit of a useful and religious education.’ This ‘gratifying establishment’ had ‘promoted great harmony and excellent demeanour throughout the township’. 107 Thomas Perrott resigned in 1846 and the school was eventually closed in 1850.

The previous year, through the ardent efforts of the Rev. James Hassal, a school was commenced in a private dwelling room measuring twenty-four by twelve feet, rented for the purpose. Though supposedly sufficient for twenty-nine pupils, there were forty-nine enrolled in 1855. The school was administered by the Church of England, but was open to any denomination.

In fact of the above enrolment, only fifteen were Church of England. The remainder consisted of twenty Catholics and fourteen of other persuasions.

There were five classes, taught then by two teachers. Disregarding the first teacher, dismissed for insobriety after one week, the school was taught by a brewer, William Smith, until 1855. The Select Committee on Education, appointed that year to report upon schools, found the Canterbury scholars, housed in a ‘tolerably suitable’ room. It further reported: ‘There is but one water closet. The supply of fittings, apparatus and books is insufficient. The children read fairly. They know little of arithmetic and nothing of grammar or geography. Only two children knew the Church Catechism, but all 133

possessed a good knowledge of scripture history. The children are irregular in their cfttendance, but punctual. They are clean, but noisy and disorderly. They are attentive under instruction. ’108

The Canterbury school, contrasted sharply with that at Cook’s River.

Though this school was ‘well situated’ and of ‘good form and size’ it was ‘dirty and ill-ventilated.’ The closets were ‘in a filthy state,’ and ‘not sufficiently separated for decency.’ There was an insufficiency of furniture, a ‘scanty supply’ of apparatus, but books were ‘plentiful.’ The Select Committee’s Report continued: 'The chidren read and spell badly, understand nothing of what they read, and write very badly. Very little is known of arithmetic, and nothing of grammar or geography.

The knowledge of the catechism and scripture is also lamentably deficient. Tolerable regularity of attendance prevails, but the children are very unpunctual; they are also dirty, noisy and disorderly. ’109 Following the consecration of St. Paul’s, steps were taken to erect a new school house as an adjunct to the church. The site was donated by Arthur Jeffreys and a meeting of Canterbury citizens, in July, 1860, took up subscriptions to meet an estimated cost of £3000.110 The opening of the new school house, a ‘substantial stone structure, with gothic headed doors’ was celebrated in March the following year by a tea meeting. The Church of England Chronicle reported: 'An excellent tea had been provided by the kindness of the ladies in the neighbourhood, and the room was well lighted and decorated with flowers and evergreens.

After the various good things had been disposed of the Reverend Percy Smith addressed the company, ’1ll Two years later a similar school was opened by the Wesleyans at Moorefield.

The first teacher was William Miller. Three of the old scholars were C. Gabb, E. A. Miller and E. Forrester. Though not without great difficulties, the school was continued until the first public school was built in 1878. When the third teacher, Sophia Ridgwell died, the school was continued by Francis Bemish.

Following the Public Schools Act, 1866, Moorefields was classified as a provisional school. Its maintenance and appointment of staff then remained the duty of the local parents. The government gave small grants and undertook periodic inspections. 1 1 2 These early parish schools, though sincere in their objects, faced insur­ mountable difficulties which severely limited their effectiveness. These were stressed by the Rev. James Hassal: 'The difficulties in the way of establishing school, were at that time very great. There was no government grant, with the exception of certain small sums for salaries dispensed, through the Bishop who had the appointment of the Church of England

134

teachers. Teachers, too, were scarce, and it was by no means easy to make sure of their character and fitness. One occasion, for example, a teacher being needed for Canterbury, the Bishop suggested that I should make enquiries about a man who had applied to him for a school. . . (Rev. Hassal endeavoured, without avail to learn something of his character but he was employed). We had a good school the first week. On the following Monday (the teacher) was off “on the spree” and I had to take the school myself. . . The children had never been to school before and, I must say, I would sooner have been in a stock-yard with as many unbroken colts. Luckily I obtained another teacher, (William Smith), who proved to be a very suitable man . . .’113

Teachers were poorly paid, about three dollars a week, supplemented by fees collected from the children. At Canterbury in 1855, the forty-nine pupils each paid weekly fees of sixpence. The teachers were untrained and at best had only a primary school education at a model school. They came from a variety of occupations—engineers, clerks, merchants, settlers, tailors, policemen, store-keepers, grocers, auctioneers and chemists. The reports on schools stress their general incompetence and slovenly appearance, though some were zealous and competent. The main subjects taught were the three ‘R’s’, grammar, geography, history, religious instruction and needlework for girls.114 From the 1830’s there had been recommendations for the introduction of public schools. In 1844, the Legislative Council set up a committee with Robert Lowe, as chairman, to review the colonial educational system. A system of non-sectarian national education was recommended. Four years later two Boards of Education were established, one to administer and control a national non-sectarian system and the other the denominational schools.

Until 1867 the Canterbury schools were centrally administered under this dual system. In 1866, Henry Parkes was instrumental in passing the Public Schools Act which replaced the two boards with the Council of Education.

Though government financial assistance continued, the old parish schools, except those of the Catholic Church, were closed. This process was acceler­ ated by the Public Instruction Act, 1880, which abolished financial aid to denominational schools.

136

Lachlan Macquarie, Journals of his Tours in N.S.W. and Van Diemen’s Land, 1810-1822, 13 December, 1810 2. N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1854, Vol. 2, p 2142 3. R. P. Whitworth (ed.), Bailliere’s New South Wales Gazetteer and Road Guide, 1870, 1.

p 120 4. Sydney Morning Herald, 20 July, 1841 5. Evening News, 21 November, 1908 6. Capt. W. Tench, ‘A Complete Account of the Settlement of Port Jackson in N.S.W.’, pp. 80-1.

7. Echo, 2 October, 1890 8. Empire, 20 May, 1856 9. Capt. W. Tench, ‘A Complete Account of the Settlement of Port Jackson in N.S.W.,’ P 81 10. S. E. Tearle, Hannah Laycock of Kingsgrove Farm, p. 3 11. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1 (19/6/79-29/11/82), pp. 79, 159. Sand’s Sydney and Suburban Directory, 1883 12. Ibid, pp. 225, 234, 264 13. Ibid, 1889, pp. 167-8 14. Campsie News, 20 July, 1961 15. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1, p. 56 16. Advertiser, 26 January, 1895, 27 January, 1906 17. Echo, 2 October, 1890 18. W. E. Bethel, Tall Timber, Sydney Sun, 9 May, 1931, Echo, 2 October, 1890, C. F. Maxwell (ed.); Australian Men of Mark, pp. 327-8; I. E. Currey, Frederick Clissold, Canterbury Historical Society, Journal, Series 2, No. 3, pp. 26-8 19. Colonial Secretary, Register of Land Grants, 1795-1800. p. 379 20. Sydney Gazette, 24 April, 1813 21. Canterbury Municipal Library, Newspaper cutting about 1929-30 22. Evening News, 24 September, 1904 23. Ibid 24. Sand’s Sydney and Suburban Directory, 1883 25. J. C. Beaglehole (ed.), Journals of Captain James Cook, Vol. 1, p. 309 26. Australian, 28 September, 1841 27. Evening News, 17 November, 1917, reprinted by New Gazette, 18 May, 1961, Canterbury Municipal Library, Map of Subdivision, 30 July, 1841 28. Ibid 29. Returns of the Colony, 1846, pp. 451-8, N.S.W. Census, 1856, pp. 19-25; for full details of housing see Table p.

30. Colonial Sugar Refining Company, South Pacific Enterprise, p. 12 31. E. G. Boden, Article, Sugar Refinement, Its Australian Beginning, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August, 1933 32. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 July, 1840 33. Ibid 34. M. J. E. Stevens, Merchant Campbell, p. 296, Registrar-General’s Department Register No. 185 35. Sydney Morning Herald, 2 May, 1843 36. Australian, 28 September, 1841 37. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, 20 November, 1841 38. Ibid 39. Ibid, 12 August, 1933

137

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

138

Colonial Sugar Refinery, South Pacific Enterprise, pp. 12-13; E. G. Boden, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August, 1933. Note: N.S.W. P.V. P., 1842, p. 287, gave the

capital as £24 400—488 £50 shares obtainable on a deposit of £10 Private Act, 6 Vic. 1842. N.S.W. P.V. &c P., 1842, p. 287, Acts 2, Vic. No. 24, 5 Vic. No. 16 Australian, 7 September, 1841 Colonial Sugar Refining Company, South Pacific Enterprise, 13. E. G. Boden, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August, 1933 Registrar-General’s Department, Register 4, No. 656 Ibid Sydney Morning Herald, 18 May, 1843 Ibid, Advt. No. 3681, 18 November, 1851—-See South Pacific Enterprise for copy of advt.

Colonial Sugar Refining Company, South Pacific Enterprise, p. 13 E. G. Boden, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August, 1933 R. B. Parry, An Old Sydney Suburb, Evening News, 14 November, 1908 F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W. p. 127 Echo, 2 October, 1890 J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 18 (typescript) Echo, 2 October, 1890 Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May, 1843. The actual licences were issued on 30 June—Archives Reference No. 4/75, No. 411 Echo, 2 October, 1890; Sydney Sun, 9 May, 1931; Sand's Sydney and Suburban Directory, 1879 Australian, 27 February, 1841 Sand’s Sydney and Suburban Directory, 1879 B. J. Madden, Attack by Natives, Canterbury Historical Society Journal, Series 2, No. 8, pp. 16-17; Sydney Gazette, 1 October, 1809 Sydney Gazette, 15 October, 1809 Australian, 27 February, 1841 See page 184-5 for full details E. Greenwood, St. Paul’s Canterbury—The story of a Parish, p. 4 For statistical tables, see pp. 146-8 N. K. Peek, Canterbury House, Sketch Plan, p. 4, Details, pp. 6, 7, 9. Canterbury Historical Society Journal, Series 2, No. 6 Ibid, pp. 7 & 8 R. B. Parry, Articles on Canterbury, Evening News, 21 November, 1908 N. K. Peek, Canterbury House, p. 5 D. Adams (ed.), The Letters of Rachel Henning, p. 253 Ibid N.S.W. Parliamentary Record, Vol. 1 (19th. ed.), p. 19 N. K. Peek, Canterbury House, pp. 7-8 Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 4, p. 152; Bailliere’s N.S.W. Gazetteer and Road Guide, 1870, pp. 78-9 Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 4, pp. 151-3 Canterbury Municipal Library files, Newspaper cutting (about 1929-30) D. Adams (ed.), The Letters of Rachel Henning, p. 275 Newbolt General Refractories Ltd., Newbolt News, Vol. 1, No. 3, May, 1975 Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 4, pp. 263-4 I. E. Currey, The Towers, Canterbury Historical Society, Journal Series 2, No. 2, p. 9, Interview A. C. Fletcher

80. Echo, 2 October, 1890 81. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 2, pp. 76, 166 82. No mention is made of McGarvie’s preaching by: J. Cameron, A Centenary History of the Presbyterian Church in N.S.W., 1905; J. D. Lang, Narrative of the Settlement of the Scots Church, Sydney, N.S.W., 1828. J. McGarvie, Papers (M.L.). G. R. S. Reid, The History of Ebenezer, Australia’s Oldest Church, 1939 83. G. R. S. Reid, The History of Ebenezer, p. 12 84. E. Greenwood, St. Paul’s Canterbury, p. 2 85. Centenary Committee, 100 Years of Methodism in Canterbury, 1847-1947, pp. 9-11 86. I. Colwell, The Illustrated History of Methodism, p. 469 87. Ibid, p. 248 88. Echo, 2 October, 1890, J. Colwell, Ibid, p. 369 89. Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, Vol. 1, pp. 4, 5 90. I. E. Currey, The Early History of the Moorefields District, Canterbury Historical Society, Journal, Series 2, No. 2, pp. 6-7 91. N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1878, Vol. 4, pp. 5155-6; 1880, Vol. 3, pp. 4929-30.

Two James Nortons signed this petition, perhaps Norton Senior could then write his name 92. Moorfield’s Methodist Church, A Century of Methodism, 1851-1951, p. 6 93. J. Colwell, The Illustrated History of Methodism, p. 246 94. Moorfield’s Methodist Church, A Century of Methodism, 1581-1951, pp. 6-11 95. F. R. Swynny, Moorefields, N.S.W. Article, Australian Methodist Historical Society Journal, October, 1944, p. 602 96. Canterbury Municipal Library, Typescript, Historical File 97. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 1, p. 205 98. Ibid, Vol. 1, pp. 522-3 99. E. Greenwood, St. Paul’s Canterbury, pp. 2-3 100. J. S. Hassal, In Old Australia, pp. 67-8 101. Address written 6 October, 1849, published in Sydney Morning Herald, 4 December, 1849 102. For Blacket see Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 3, pp. 173-4; No mention is made of Blacket’s work on St. Paul’s in this article nor in M. E. Herman, The Blackets 103. E. Greenwood, St. Paul’s Canterbury, pp. 2-5 104. Ibid, p. 95 105. Mary Salmon, Evening News, 24 September, 1904; J. Cameron A Centenary History of the Presbyterian Church in N.S.W., p. 329 106. W. E. Bethel, Tall Timbers, Sydney Sun, 9 May, 1931. No mention of Rev. Mcllroy as a clergyman by J. Cameron, A Centenary History of the Presbyterian Church in 107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

N.S.W. Sydney Morning Herald, 22 November, 1841

Select Committee on Education, Report, N.S.W. P.V. &c P. 1855, Vol. 1, p. 38 Ibid, p. 38 Church of England Chronicle, 16 July, 1860, p. 101.

Ibid, 22 April, 1861, p. 62 Moorfield’s Methodist Church, A Century of Methodism, p. 8 J. S. Hassal, In Old Australia, pp. 67-8 Select Committee on Education, Report N.S.W. P.V. P. 1855, Vol. 1. Information culled from committee investigations

139

THE ORIGIN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

our main circumstances, stemming from the nature and early develop­ ment of the New South Wales colony, delayed the introduction of a general system of local government for seventy years after its foundation.

First and foremost was the penal nature of the colony. Because of this the government was centralised under the autocratic rule of the governor.

Secondly, the free settlers were few and, because of the breakdown of the old English local system, they were inexperienced in the conduct of municipal affairs. Thirdly, the free settlers tended toward the pursuit of primary production, particularly the pastoral industries, which dispersed them, preventing the development of community interests. Finally as there was no direct system of taxation, the colonists were far from anxious to set up rating authorities, l The circumstances were eventually overcome by pressures without and within the colony. The home government had never been happy with the rising costs of the colony and sought means of forcing the colonists to contribute towards the expense of local services. By the 1830’s Sydney’s population had risen to 30 000 and the colonial government found the provision of municipal services an onerous burden with which it could only partly cope.

During the early 1840’s the first forms of local government, the specialist trusts, began to appear. The Parish Roads Trust Act, 1840, empowered the governor to set up trusts to construct and maintain purely local roads out of rate levied upon owners of land in the vicinity of the roads and tolls paid by users. The first of these authorities was the Old Botany Road Trust set up in January, 1841.2 Later, in 1855, a similar authority was constituted to control Canterbury Road, and was, therefore, Canterbury’s first practical form of local government.

In 1842, Sydney’s urgent need for municipal services, and Melbourne’s to a lesser extent, led to their incorporation. Unfortunately municipal status was acquired by separate acts which tended to discourage other areas, and only one other incorporation by this method, Geelong, eventuated. In 1842, the colony was first granted representative government but the enabling act went further and provided for a system of district councils, to be compulsorily constituted by the governor. In all, twenty-nine such council districts were created and one of these, Sydney, included Canterbury. This was proclaimed as the sixteenth district on 24 August, 1843. The area, 129 square miles, excluded the city, and contained a population of 5534 at the 1841 census.

F

142

There were only 799 houses within the district. Part of the western boundary ran from the junction of Parramatta Road and the Hume Highway, following the latter, and then terminating at the Salt Pan. The governor appointed the first Council with Thomas Barker as warden on 24 August, 1843. One of the twelve councillors, Frederick Wright Unwin, at least gave the Canterbury area some direct representation. 3 By the 1850’s, apart from a few road trusts, the colony was without any significant form of local government. Sydney Corporation had failed and had been replaced by an appointed commission. Melbourne and Geelong, two progressive municipalities, had been lost in 1851 to the newly created state of Victoria. The district council system accomplished nothing because of the refusal of the Legislative Council to implement the vital rating provisions. The absence of a local system thrust upon the government the responsibility for the provision of all services, a task it could not or was not prepared to undertake. The result was the restoration of the Sydney Corporation in 1857 and the passage of the Municipalities Act, 1858, to provide for a general system of local government.

CANTERBURY VILLAGE The first nucleus of a village was the small collection of slab and bark huts which was situated at the head of the waterway of Cook’s River.4 The subdivision of the Campbell estate in 1841 led to the creation of the ‘ancient’ village of Canterbury ‘charmingly situated on Cook’s River’,5 which soon superseded in importance, the settlement to its west. In 1841, an advertise­ ment announced that Samuel Lyons would sell by public auction on 30 July, seventy allotments of ‘the best portion of the Canterbury estate’ consisting of half and quarter acre plots. A plan of the subdivision, prepared for the sale

by W. H. Wells, land surveyor, shows the location of ninety five allotments.

The subdivision was a trapezium with Jeffery Street and the Sugar House Road (Church Street) parallel and the other sides, the present Princess Street and railway line. Other streets were Minter, Unwin and ‘Tingcombe’ with George Street (Canterbury Road) running diagonally from Prout’s bridge to the intersection of Unwin and Sugar House Road.

The population in the vicinity was given as 300, mostly employed in the ‘great sugar house and works’, then under construction. The advantages claimed for the plots were that they were close to fresh water and ‘sure to give much employment to mechanics and others and will always command a large population.’ Flattering descriptions of the soil, private sales of £100 per acre were quoted as proof and industrial prospects included a colliery, and a railway to Sydney were stressed. Terms included a 25 per cent deposit and the residue at three, six, nine and twelve months without interest. 6 In September a further sale of a portion of the Campbell estate was 143

advertised. The subdivision included land on both sides of the new Prout’s bridge and consisted of sixty-six allotments. R. Stubbs, the auctioneer stressed the advantages to ‘ operative classes of emigrants’ recently arriving from England. Here was the opportunity to purchase an allotment and put their handicraft to a profitable use in a ‘delightful suburb’ with ‘a wide field for productive employment.’7 A further sale of part of the Campbell estate was advertised in November.

There were ninety-five allotments of a half and quarter acre and thirty-two acres were divided into seventy-two allotments. New advantages and job opportunities for purchasers were emphasised. Forty children were ‘deriving the benefits of a useful and religious education. This gratifying establishment’ had ‘promoted great harmony and excellent demeanour throughout the township’. A general store had been established but there was an urgent need for specialist businesses such as butchers, bakers and grocers. Wives could find employment in such businesses ‘carrying the shop on at home whilst the husband was earning a good thing abroad, but what is most seriously felt is the absence of a medical practitioner. Supplies of building bricks could be obtained at a kiln conveniently located on the subdivision. Water was obtained at depths between fifteen and sixty feet.8.

It is evident from the repetitious nature of the three series of advertisements that the auctioneers found the land difficult to sell, no doubt because of the difficulty of access and the depression of the 1840’s. At this stage Canterbury Road was little more than an unproclaimed track carved out by the users, and as the Australasian Sugar Company discovered, added considerably to the cost of transporting goods. Perhaps, too, the auctioneers were somewhat naive in their policy to stress the absence of some conveniences, a grocery, bakery, butchery, a ‘slop shop’ and a doctor in order to encourage such developments in the village.

Proof of the lack of successful sales is further advertisements in May, 1843, and 1854. In the former‘choice garden lots’ and ‘small farm portions adjacent to the sugar works’, were offered to mechanics and working men. The advertisement stressed that Canterbury’s ‘daily bustle’, the ‘immense traffic on the road to Prout’s bridge’ and ‘the constant employment and happy condition of everyone about the sugar works’ left no doubt that the village would become ‘the most popular and valuable neighbourhood anywhere in the suburbs of Sydney.’9 The 1854 advertisement, offered forty-one, half acre lots and forecast a bright future for Canterbury. These were centrally situated and were sur­ rounded by nature’s choice for a ‘rising town’ set in an area of ‘extensive fertility’ every inch of which was productive and in easy access to water. The ‘highest quarter’ had informed the auctioneer that the Sugar Company was ‘in treaty with a body of scientific engineers to construct a tramroad ... to the Petersham line—only a quarter of a mile’. Finally the districts natural 144

resources—plenty of firewood, stone for building, ‘inexhaustible’ water supply of the ‘purest description’ were stressed. 1 0 A different type of sale was advertised in May, 1856, by Bowden and Threlkeld. Nineteen small farms were offered, described as ‘all the unsold portions of that valuable estate directly opposite the Canterbury sugar works, bounded in part by Cook’s River and Cup and Saucer Creek.’ This area had been subdivided into farmlets of two to three and a quarter acres. The farms had the advantage of being multi-use and ‘well suited to the labouring classes’ who were ‘profitably employed for miles around in obtaining firewood, sawn timber, and charcoal for consumption in the city; others also raise a great quantity of poultry, and eggs, vegetables, dairy produce all of which find a ready sale in the village. ’ 1 1 The subdivision of the Campbell estate and the consequent marking out of streets was an important milestone in the history of Canterbury Munici­ pality, because the siting of a village virtually gave to ‘airy nothing, a local habitation and a name.’ During the 1790’s, the region immediately west of Sydney, between Parramatta Road and the north bank of Cook’s River, was known as Bulanaming. The name appears on a map of the settlements in 1796 drawn by the deputy surveyor, Charles Grimes, and from time to time, references were made to Bulanaming in government and general orders. 1 2 On 3 December, 1796, for example, a general muster of all male inhabitants was announced and those settlers at Bulanaming, then farming land on its northern fringes, were to report in Sydney. An order of 11 January, 1797, stressing ‘the necessity of having roads between the different settlements . . . made easy and convenient for travelling’ required the Bulanaming settlers to provide labour and equipment to aid in the construction of Parramatta Road from Sydney to Duck River.

The name, Bulanaming, seems to have quietly disappeared, perhaps because of the absence of generally recognised boundaries and the creation of parishes in 1835. The various farms, such as Canterbury Vale, gave more definiteness to localities and eventually place names as the small villages developed in the immediate vicinity. Finally, the various subdivisions of the original grants and the marking of streets gave a further impetus to the fixation of defined localities, and when these were incorporated, the name was retained for the municipality.

INCORPORATION POTENTIAL At this stage the Municipalities Act received assent on 29 October, 1858. It was provided for a feasible system of local government. Incorporation was permissive or voluntary and granted on presentation of a petition signed by at least fifty householders, provided a counter petition containing a greater number of signatures was not received. The 1858 act remained in force until 145

1867 and under its provisions thirty-eight municipalities were proclaimed.

In 1846, the ‘ancient’ village of Canterbury had a population of 218, and sixty-five homes. In 1851, through the subdivision sales and natural increase, the population had increased to 473. The loss of workers through the closure of the sugar works in 1855 was mainly responsible for a population decrease of 18.5 per cent in 1856. In that year the village contained 390 persons, living in eighty-nine houses. 13 It therefore had the potential to incorporate. Areas subsequently incorporated with similar populations (400), included Randwick, Orange, Hunter’s Hill and North Willoughby, whereas Camperdown had but 300.14.

TABLE 4 CANTERBURY POPULA TION ANALYSES, 1846-1856 SEX and AGE Census Year 1846

1851 1856

Ages Sex

Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total

Under 2 13 7 20 30 20 50 15 12 27

2-7

7-14

24 20 44 45 48 93 42 36 78

14-21

17 12 29 46 31 77 41 38 79

21-45 45-60 56 34 90 105 67 172 52 73 125

7 10 17 18 24 42 17 16 33

Over 60

8 4 12 18 18 36 22 17 39

3 3 6 3 -

3 6 3 9

Total 128 90 218 265 208 473 195 195 390

MARITAL CONDITION

Census Year

MF

1846 1851 1856

Married

43 43 85 88 70 88

Total

Single F Total

M

86 173 158

85 180 125

47 120 107

132 300 232

Grand Total 218 473 390

RELIGION

Census Year 1846 1851 1856

146

C. of E. C. of Scot. Wes. Pres.

97 165 178

24 56 31

32 102 60

Other Prot.

—

49 39

R.C. 65 94 77

Jews Others ——

—7 —5

Total 218 473 390

EDUCATION Persons Under 21 Years Census Year 1846 1851

Cannot R ead M F 36 26 73 58

R ead Only M F 9 8 20 32

R ead &c Write M F 16 15 46 33

Total M 61 139

Total U. 21

F 49 123

110 262

Persons over 21 years Census Year 1846 1851

Cannot R ead M F 17 10 17 20

R ead Only M F 9 8 14 13

R ead 5c Write M F 41 23 95 52

Total M 67 126

Total Over 21

F 41 85

Total Pop.

108 211

218 473

All Ages Census Year 1856

Cannot R ead M F 63 60

Can R ead M F 28 39

Can Write M F 104 96

Total M 195

Total Pop.

F 195

390

NATURAL ORIGIN Where Born Census Year

Colony

M F T 1846 43 27 70 1851 119 87 206 1856 87* 75* 162 ■“includes New Zealand

United K ’Dom.

British Dom.

M F T 83 62 145 141 121 262 106 119 225

M — — 1

T 1

F 1 —

M 2 5 1

—

1

Total

Foreign

2

F — — —

T 2 5 1

218 473 390

Status Census Year 1846 1851 1856

Born in Colony or Free arrival F M 112 88 264 198 193 194

Other Free M 14 1 2

F 1 10 1

Bondsman M 2

F 1

—

—

—

—

Grand Total

218 473 390

147

OCCUPATIONS

Agric.

Census Trade Year Commerce Manu.

1846 1851 1856

Census Year 1846 1851 1856

13 22 8

Grazing

—

3 12 13

—

—

Other Educ.

Prof.

—

3

31 62 33

Total Pop.

Misc. Resident Pop. 6 22

2 5 1 29

—

12 9 20

1 2 3

—

2 2

Dom. Teachers Servants

Hortc. Mech. Sc Unskil.

Artif.

150 136 278

218 473 390

HOUSING

Census Year 1846 1851 1856

Census Year 1846 1851 1856

Total Shingled

Stone Wood Sc Brick Slab 6 59 14 23

Finish

Unfin.

61 86 88

4 6

13

1

18 91 60

65 92 101

78 78

Total 65

92 101

Total

Slated Others

65 92

46

1 5

—

36

101

Inhab. Uninhab. Total 53 88 89

12 4 12

65 92

101

Sources: 1846—N.S.W. Colonial Secretary, Returns of the Colony 1847, pp. 451-8 1851—N.S.W. Government Gazette, Supplement, 7 November, 1851 1856—N.S.W. Census Papers.

Nevertheless no tangible evidence is as yet available to show that the inhabitants of Canterbury showed either any desire or opposition to incor­ porate. They appear to have remained completely disinterested.

Several reasons may be advanced to explain Canterbury’s apparent indif­ ference to incorporation. The primary nature of the early industries caused a dispersal of the population. Isolation was further increased by limited lines of communication. An advertisement in the Empire, giving details of land sales at Canterbury, stressed this point by emphasising that there were ‘scores of men and some with families . . . obliged to live in temporary, uncom­ fortable huts, near their work, on land which they cannot purchase from wealthy and independent proprietors’. The sales offered these people the opportunity to purchase ‘a small freehold’ near the village and with its chapels, schools and stores ‘provided with everything necessary for their wants and comforts’. 15 148

Generally, in other areas, most of the preliminary activity for incorporation was motivated by residents prominent in public affairs, parliamentarians and the like. In Randwick, for example, the whole of the negotiations were undertaken by one person, Simeon Henry Pearce. In Canterbury village at the time, there does not appear to have been any such man of prominence. At the 1856 census, the age distribution of the village population shows that of the 195 males, eighty or 41 per cent were adults. The occupational distribution of the population reveals that of the 390 persons 278 or 71.3 per cent had no stated occupation. Of those with stated occupations, 40 per cent were either unskilled or employed as domestics. There were three teachers and one other person engaged in an educated profession. 16 Experience in other areas indicates that at meetings, incorporation was more actively opposed than supported and the main reason advanced was objection to the payment of rates. When it is considered that under the Municipalities Act, 1858, only some 700 square miles or 0.2 per cent of New South Wales were incorporated there must have been very little interest in local councils and Canterbury, therefore, shared with 99.8 per cent of the colony the desire to let the government provide all its local services. 17 Finally, a considerable proportion of the lack of enthusiasm for local government stemmed from the 1858 act itself. Serious limitations were soon revealed by practice and these, together with a Supreme Court decision which cast grave doubts upon the legality of some incorporated municipalities, served to discourage the setting up of local councils.18

THE INCORPORATION OF CANTERBURY It was not until 1867 that a new Municipalities Act was passed, and because Canterbury incorporated under its provisions, an outline of these is appropriate. An area could be proclaimed a municipality on petition from at least fifty persons liable to be assessed for rates, provided that a counter petition containing a greater number of signatures was not presented.

Municipalities were divided into boroughs and districts. The former must not contain more than nine square miles; no one point was to be more than six miles from any other and there must be a minimum population of 1000. For districts the respective requirements were a maximum area of fifty square miles; no point to be more than twenty miles from any other and a minimum population of 500. Municipalities were to be governed by elective councils consisting of from six to twelve aldermen, holding office for three years, one third retiring annually. Division into wards was optional, but if desired there could be two wards for populations up to 1000; three to 4000 and over 4000 four wards. The mayor was to be elected from and by the aldermen annually.

Qualification for electors included adulthood and responsibility for rates.

149

From one to four votes could be cast on the assessed annual value of the property.

Revenue was to be derived from a general rate levied on the assessed annual value, and special rates. Limits of one shilling for the general rate and two shillings for all rates were imposed. Councils were entitled to endowments on a sliding scale based on rates collected; loans could be raised up to a limit of five years annual revenue. Councils were empowered to undertake the normal routine functions, make a variety of by-laws, establish libraries and even free infant schools for disadvantaged children. Councils had the power to appoint servants but no qualifications were stipulated.19 Shortly after the passage of the Municipalities Act, 1867, the first moves were made to incorporate Canterbury. On 22 August, 1868, a notice under the name of Thomas Perrott, advertised a meeting at the Rising Sun Hotel on the subject of having or not having a municipality; and to adopt a petition and other measures to counteract any clandestine efforts for its introduction into Canterbury. 2 0 The latter statement is interesting because it appears to imply that there were efforts being made by persons interested in incorpor­ ation to sound out the inhabitants quietly prior to obtaining signatures for the petition. There were whispers about a supposed ‘Council’, probably a committee to promote incorporation, with Thomas Scahill, chairman or ‘mayor’ and Jacob Pearson, first Road Trust secretary, was named as an ardent worker for the cause.

The meeting was duly held on 24 August with Luke Featherstone in the chair. A motion was put by Thomas Perrott and Neil Quigg to the effect that ‘the formation of a municipality in Canterbury is premature and as the neighbourhood is not in a position to bear the expenses necessarily incurred in supporting one, and that, therefore, the wishes of the majority of the householders resident in the . . . locality are opposed to its establishment.’

Perrott, in support of the motion, made ‘lengthy observations to define what a municipality ought to be by the Act . . . and how its provisions and wise intentions may be, and sometimes are, defeated by the appointment of persons to office void of the necessary qualifications’.

Neil Quigg emphasised ‘the evils that could arise and be inflicted by the introduction of a municipality into a poor neighbourhood like Canterbury and adjacent district towards George’s River; . . . most of the present holders of land are not in a position to bear additional burdens consequent upon incorporation. ... It would be impolitic in the extreme to force a municipality upon poor people against their will and inclination which would eventually result in depriving many poor settlers of the power of the holding their tenements.’

No one responded to the chairman’s invitation to any persons present to speak in favour of a municipality and Perrott’s motion was carried unani­ mously. The refusal adds substance to the existence of clandestine activities, 150

particularly as Neil Quigg successfully moved that ‘the movement as reported to be in operation to obtain a municipality for Canterbury is not conducted in a fair and open-hand manner to meet public approbation’ . 2 1 Apparently the carrying of Perrott’s motion did not upset the movement for a municipality. A letter in the press by Charles St. Julian indicates its continuation: ‘It has been long understood that a fourth municipality (Canterbury) is to be applied for which will commence where West Botany (Rockdale) ends and take in the rest of the southern side of Cook’s River, or most of it. It looks like a breach of faith that this has not been already done, for it was in reliance on a promise to do it that this part of the country was not included, as it could very easily have been within the proposed municipality of West Botany. I assume, however, that faith will be kept, although with less promptitude than could have been wished. ’22

Unfortunately, no published details of incorporation moves in Canterbury during the 1870’s have as yet been discovered. Yet the gazettal of a petition signed by 103 persons for incorporation on 3 April, 1877 is evidence of such activity. The petitioners chose a large area of about fourteen square miles, which extended beyond the present municipality to include a section bounded

by Old and New Canterbury Roads and Toothill Street (Lewisham) and contained a population exceeding 600. The guarantors of the authenticity of the signatures, Thomas Nightingale and Charles Gabb were no doubt responsible for sponsoring the petition. Among the signatories were Thomas Perrott, William Slocombe, James and Francis Quigg, Thomas Scahill, Frederick Clissold, John O’Neil and William Rogers.23 It is not clear what happened to the petition for no further action was taken upon it. Only four of the petitioners were from the Dulwich Hill sector and it could be reasonably assumed that its inclusion in a Canterbury Munici­ pality was not popular. A counter petition with a greater number of signatures was therefore a distinct possibility.

The following year a second petition containing 122 signatures was presented on 26th September, 1878 for a smaller area. Of the petitioners four were women and three could not write their signatures. The signatories came chiefly from Canterbury Road and village with freeholder or householder qualifications, numbering roughly seventy seven. Fifteen came from Kingsgrove, six from Moorefields, two from Belmore and the remainder from farms, other scattered small localities, the city and other suburbs. It is further interesting to note that two of the signatories were Thomas Perrott and Neil Quigg, who ten years previously had argued strongly against incorporation. 2 4 The petitioners selected an area of some twelve square miles which contained a population of 800. Since this was greater than the nine square miles maximum set for boroughs, and did not contain a population of at least 1000, the petitioners had to be content with a municipal district. In view of 151

the current tendency for smaller areas to seek incorporation, the selection of that for Canterbury is very surprising. Statistics show that the average size of municipalities generally fell progressively from 1860 to 1905 from 28.4 to 14.7 square miles, while the number of units rose from 20 to 192.25 The predominance of Canterbury petitioners easily allowed them to select an area of their own choosing. This was reminiscent of the Shoalhaven fiasco, where the Nowra predominance enabled the selection of boundaries to avoid those hostile to incorporation but to include the extensive lands of the wealthy Alexander Berry. As with Shoalhaven, the Canterbury boundaries invited opposition, and it is not surprising that on 28 December, a counter petition from ninety six persons was gazetted protesting against the proposed municipal district.

The signatories again came chiefly from Canterbury (23) Canterbury Road (11), Belmore (17), Punchbowl and Punchbowl Road (12). The remainder were scattered among the various farms, camps, localities such as Essex Hill, Cook’s River, Moorefields, Kingsgrove, the city and suburbs. Of ninety six counter petitioners, nine were women and twenty three including two of the women, were markspeople. Some family divisions occurred over the question of incorporation, for example at St. Clair farm (now Belmore), Frederick Lester supported the creation of a municipality while Alfred Lester was opposed to it.

The counter petitioners were no doubt, suffering from ‘hip-pocket’ nerves for the first reason given for their opposition was ‘that they would upon incorporation be liable to be assessed for municipal taxes’. Next followed the argument that the boundaries had been altered after the signatures had been attached to the petition. This manipulation was a fairly common practice for it aimed to exclude possible counter-petitioners who might have had sufficient numbers to prevent incorporation. 2 6 Finally certain petitioners were ineli­ gible because they were not liable for rate assessment. These may have been some of the signatories, such as F. McMarten, who signed as ‘resident’ or the twenty three householders and odd farm workers.27 The counter petition contained less signatures than the original petition and therefore was rejected. The Municipal District of Canterbury was proclaimed on 17 March, 1879.28 Frederick Clissold was appointed returning officer and the first elections, really the nomination of candidates, were set down to be held at the Church of England School Room, Canterbury on Tuesday 3 June.29 There were twelve candidates and some preliminary campaigning. The press advertisements seem to indicate some antagonism against members of the Canterbury Road Trust. There was at the time some support for the view that in trust areas a municipal council was unnecessary because experience proved that the latter could do little more than repair the roads, only then at a greater cost to the people’s pockets. On the other hand, the trust, through 152

Belmore House

153

lack of interest in the triennial elections, tended to become a law unto themselves. Some evidence of these currents and undercurrents appears in the pre-election press advertisements. One such anonymous advertisement, addressed to the Canterbury electors ran thus:— ‘A few questions gentlemen before going to poll What had become of the money so liberally voted for your roads?

I need not answer.

Who are the gentlemen that have now enclosed our public streets?

I need not answer.

What has kept Canterbury in the mire these twenty years?

I need not answer.

Has a boiling down establishment in the middle of the town improved it?

I need not answer.

But I hear you exclaim NO, NO, a thousand times NO. Then you do not return a man that will support such an abominable nuisance, but return such as are ready at once to expose the wrongful expenditure of your money as has been for some years back, known to the sorrow of many.' 30

The advertisement, obviously advises electors not to vote for candidates such as Thomas Perrott and Thomas Austen Davis, each of whom had been trust members for varying periods.

Other advertisements listed candidates worthy of the electors’ choice, while at the same time, either pointedly or judiciously, excluding others. One stressed the difficulty in deciding which of twelve candidates was the least worthy. How, then, were the electors to make a choice of six men? The best method was to omit those engaged in shop keeping and handicrafts. ‘Do you not think,’ asked the advertiser, ‘that a monstrous proposition for so doing you will really benefit THEM. Vote then for SHARP, PERROTT, MOONEY, SCAHILL, SAYERS and SPROULE.31 In other words the electors were advised to exclude candidates such as John Nightingale, carpenter, Francis Quigg, grocer, and Thomas Davis, butcher. At a later date, presumably the same advertiser, revealed talent as a poet by writing a catchy jingle: ‘Place SHARP at the top of the list Each of you too PERROTT assist; Raise MOONEY, the Council to grace; Rough diamond give SCAHILL next place; Of SA YERS for knowledge place here; Though last SPROULE must bring up the rear’.32

The couplets did not prove to be ‘catchy’ for the electors. They omitted Sharp, Perrott and Mooney, placed Scahill and Sayers, fifth and sixth, and put Sproule first. Neither was the advice regarding shopkeepers and handi­ crafts heeded. Quigg, Davis and Nightingale were elected.

Only one of the candidates, an independent, John Campbell Sharp, thought 154

fit to solicit votes on his own behalf. He did not promise any immediate reforms, but simply to do his duty by supporting ‘any and all’ measures which were, in his opinion, ‘consistent’ and ‘conducive’ to the district’s benefit.

Canterbury had been ‘so liberally dealt with by nature, but so much neglected by the people’. It was perhaps, second to none among Sydney’s suburbs, but the residents deserved the sobriquet, ‘Sleepy H ollow’. The time had arrived to change this name, but this required the ‘right men’, with ‘a direct and distinct interest’ in the district, men who would act conscientiously and equitably to the people in general and their ‘beautiful locality’ in particular.

They must not be ‘butterfly men’-—here to-day, gone to-morrow. Sharp advised electors to vote, if not for him then those deserving of the trust.

TABLE 5

CANDIDATES CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 1879 N am e o f Candidate

DAVIS, Thomas Austen MOONEY, John NIGHTINGALE John 0 ‘NEIL*, John Edward PERROTT, Thomas QUIGG, Francis SAYERS, Edwin Tyrell SCAHILL, Thomas SHARP*, John Campbell SPROULE, John

Place o f Residence

Electoral Qualification

Forest Lodge Freeholder Canterbury Cup

Saucer Creek Canterbury Canterbury Canterbury Rd. Canterbury Canterbury Canterbury Rd. Canterbury Rd.

Signed Result o f Petition Election For Against Result Order o f Vote Polling — x elected 3

Freeholder

elected

Freeholder Freeholder Freeholder

elected

Freeholder Freeholder Freeholder

elected elected

Freeholder

elected

1

WAKELY, Andrew Alfred WILEY, John Valentine Belmore Freeholder Elected at the first annual elections, 6 February, 1880.

Sources: N.S.W. Government Gazettes 1878, Vol. 2 pp. 3873-4, 5155-6; 1879, Vol. 2, p. 2693 Sydney Morning H erald 4 June, 1879 The gazettal of the result of the annual elections held in February 1880,1881 and 1882 confirms that John Sproule headed the poll and that the other elected aldermen followed the order as published in the Gazette (See Table 7).

Unfortunately very little else is known about the first elections held on Monday 9th June, the polling hours being from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The main polling booth was the school house at St, Paul’s Church of England, while IS S

a subsidiary booth for qualified non-residents operated at the Temperance Hall in Pitt Street, Sydney.33 The original roll of electors has been destroyed, but the experience in other areas generally reveals that the compilation of the original rolls was hasty and haphazard. The plurality provisions of the 1867 Act, requiring the division of the qualified electors into four groups based on the assessed annual value of their properties, then unknown, made the compilation of rolls very complicated. Since enrolment was not compulsory, only a comparative handful of voters would have attended the first election.

The N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1880 gives no details of the division of electors into voting groups, but shows that there were one hundred residents and thirty non-residents enrolled. No returns were submitted for 1881, but in 1882, the voters were divided into their groups and the number of qualified electors had sharply increased to 758 (See Table 6).

Unfortunately, the number of votes polled by each candidate was never published. A sole reference in the press was that ‘considerable interest’ was shown in the elections and the results were considered to be ‘satisfactory’.34 The gazettal of the duly elected aldermen gives the following order.35 John Sproule Francis Quigg Thomas Austen Davis John Nightingale Thomas Scahill Edwin Tyrell Sayers

Landowner Grocer Butcher Carpenter, Contractor Gardener Commission Agent

John Sharp narrowly failed to gain election by two votes. In a press advertisement he expressed his ‘grateful thanks’ to John Gelding and Mathew Roberts for supporting his candidature. He ascribed his defeat to circumstances beyond his control. Nevertheless his narrow loss by two votes gave him ‘not a little satisfaction’ and he hoped that the condition of the ‘infant municipality of Sleepy Hollow would soon be improved’.36 Sharp’s sporting

TABLE 6 CANTERBURY QUALIFIED ELECTORS 1879-1887 Year

Electors on Roll Resident Vote qualification total 1 4 2 3 — _ — — 100

1879 1880 1881* 1882 620 17 504 23 98 1883 17 504 620 98 23 1884 30 256 758 154 31 1885 28 933 175 39 395 1886 1216 39 190 34 900 1887 971 208 42 42 531 * No return Source: N.S. W. Statistical Register 1879-1889

156

Non Resident 30

Total

254 254 717 780 579 732

758 758 973 1175 1479 1263

130

Voting at Last Annual Election No. of Plural Votes Non Resident 1 2 Resident 3 4 —

_

_

389 389 250 202

47 47 110 48

9 9 51 12

—

—

4 229 4 299 60 267 8 128 No Contest No Contest

—

150 150 204 142

Total % —

449 59.2 449 59.2 471 48.4 270 23.0

gesture did not go unrewarded, for he was returned at the first annual elections.

The fact that the list is not alphabetical suggests that this was the order of polling. Further grounds for this view are that the act provided for retirement by rotation. One third of the council was to retire annually, and for the first retirements the order was determined by the votes polled at the first elections.

TABLE 7 CANTERBURY ANNUAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 1880-2 Original Council

Order of Votes Polled 1879

1880

Council After Annual Elections 1881

1882

Roberts, M. (2) (Sproule J. Roberts, M.* (Roberts, M. (1) 2 Quigg F. (2) Williams, F. QUIGG, Francis Quigg, F. Davis T. A. (2) Davis, T. A. Davis T. A. 3 DAVIS, Thomas A. 4 Nightingale J. Nightingale J. Nightingale J. NIGHTINGALE, John Sharp, J. C. Sharp, J. C. Sharp, J. C. SCAHILL, Thomas 5 O’Neil, J. E. SAYERS, Edwin T. 6 O’Neil, J. E. O’Neil, J. E. * (1) Mathew Roberts of Queen Street, Ashfield, elected in March 18 8 0 to fill vacancy caused by the resignation of John Sproule.

(2) re-elected at annual elections.

Source: N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1880, Vol. 1, pp. 862,1480; 1881, Vol. l,p. 1118; 1882, Vol. 1, p. 1177 SPROULE, John

1

THE FIRST EIGHTEEN MONTHS The first meeting of the Canterbury Municipal Council was held at John Sproule’s residence on 19 June, 1879 with one absentee, Edwin Sayers. John Sproule was chosen as the mayor, perhaps prior to the meeting, though the minutes make no mention of the election. The first business was a letter of apology from Alderman Sayers. Tenders for the position of council clerk, previously called had yielded several applications, but only those of Neil W. Quigg and Alfred B. Miller were considered. The selection led to the first motion. It was moved by John Nightingale, seconded by Thomas Scahill and carried that Neil Quigg be appointed clerk at salary of £25. The first municipal business for the new clerk was an application to the Minister for Lands, James Hoskins for a surveyor to align the streets. The Minister treated the request in a lackadaisical fashion for some five months later the Council applied to the Department of Mines for the alignment of particular streets, Fore Street, Canterbury Parish, Sugar House and Kingsgrove Roads. Finally a motion was carried to call for tenders from ‘competent persons’ to value the municipal rateable property.37 The meeting was then adjourned to 25 June.

157

The Council had several pressing needs. It required a staff, chambers and revenue to undertake its allotted tasks. Firstly, concerning the appointment of officials, it is important to note that the Municipalities Act made no stipulation as to qualifications. The council clerk was the first and only one senior official until James Kerr was appointed working overseer and health inspector in March, 1881. The first clerk, Neil Quigg the son of John Quigg of Northumberland Farm, served in a part-time capacity on two evenings, Monday and Wednesday, from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. at an hourly rate of about five shillings (50c). He certainly was not a competent clerk, nor did he appear to have any educational qualifications. He was, in fact, a poor speller.

Throughout the minutes there are misspellings such as ‘currant’ year, ‘definate’, ‘referance’ the ‘devision’ of the borough. Perhaps the most interesting examples ‘i (Ald. Sayers) feel justified with the “caurse” I have adopted,’ and the mayor ‘being still under the “controul” of his “midical” adviser he “beged” to retire from the meeting’.38 Because of the large area of the Municipality and the clerk’s short time at his office, punctuality and diligence were required of him, but Quigg soon gave evidence of negligence. Ratepayers began to complain that the clerk was absent on Wednesday, 5 November. The matter was raised at the next meeting and Quigg gave that rather threadbare excuse that his lateness, his first, had been caused by his missing of the bus from the city. He was therefore upset, particularly as he had kept his office open after hours to oblige ratepayers. His remark, that ‘there was a spite in the question’, caused Ald. Nightingale, the informant, to move for the clerk’s immediate dismissal. The mayor interceded by drawing Quigg’s attention to the ‘impropriety of language’ and warning him that if he persisted the Council would take action.

Quigg apologised for his ‘hasty’ remark and promised never to be absent again.39 The mayor truly expressed the doubt that the Council had the power to dismiss the clerk. In fact the act definitely stated that the Mayor may only suspend servants guilty of misconduct or neglect and temporarily appoint another. The Council would then decide the question.40 The following year, at an ordinary meeting in May, the mayor, John C. Sharp, reported the Clerk’s ‘remissiveness’ for his absence from his office.

Later, on 25 August, he called a special meeting, because he had been ‘compelled’ to suspend Quigg for ‘irregularities’. The Council, as a result, recommended immediate dismissal. The council clerk at Ashfield, E. T. Sayers, agreed to act temporarily, but was later appointed as Quigg’s successor at a salary of £50. The new office hours were alternate Mondays 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Wednesdays 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.41 Sayer’s appointment is interesting, because not only had he previously served as clerk on Randwick Council, 1868—70, but had been elected as a Canterbury alderman in the first Council. During the mayor’s absence he had acted as chairman, but he lost his seat at the first annual elections. Because 158

clerks worked part-time in Canterbury and Ashfield, Sayers was able to fill both positions. For reasons similar to those for Neil Quigg, Sayers soon ran foul of the new mayor, John Campbell Sharp, who succeeded John Sproule in February, 1880. He was the cause of the issue of the first mayoral minutes.

The first of these was presented to the Council on 27th April, 1881, protesting against the payment of £1, to Sayers for his absence last meeting because of his duties as a poll clerk, Sayers missed a further meeting on 25 May, causing the issue of a second minute. The mayor was particularly annoyed because the printers had made an error in the rate notices which could have resulted in ‘serious loss to the Council fund’ if the wrong papers had been sent to ratepayers. Sayers excused himself on the grounds that a holiday had forced Ashfield Council to meet on Canterbury’s regular night.42 A longer and more critical minute was issued on 17 March, 1882. The mayor found it necessary to minute his disapproval of the clerk’s ‘general neglect’ of his duties, and his objection to the excuses offered, which were ‘not in accordance with fact.’ Sayers had revealed his neglect in ‘his great delay in answering correspondence, his confusing business papers by getting them mixed up with other papers, by taking books and papers from the council chambers without permission and keeping them till asked for, his not taking steps to recover rates lost since due, . . . his keeping records . . .so carelessly as to cause great confusion and annoyance—his failing to enter the minutes . . . correctly—the bad and inaccurate compilation of (the) electoral list—his failing to supply Council with fidelity security ... his refusing to open the doors of this Council on the day of the last election . . . (and) his general neglect and want of alteration to his duty as a clerk of this Council.43 In view of Sharp’s condemnatory minute, it is not surprising that Sayers tended his resignation.

Perhaps the most controversial point discussed by the Council during its first years was the question of a town hall and municipal offices. The first letters received by the Council, written by John Quigg and Rev. James Carter, concerned the former’s offer to build a room twenty four feet by fourteen feet (7.3m x 4.3m) either at the existing bus stand or on his farm facing Can­ terbury Road, provided that the Council would take out a lease for five years at an annual rent of £10. The Rev. Carter offered the use of the Church of England School room at an annual rental of £12. An amendment on the motion to accept the Rev. Carter’s offer, that the matter be deferred was carried on the mayor’s first casting vote. It was then agreed to call tenders for a suitable building. Two further tenders were submitted, namely those of Thomas Manewell, £12 and William Cross, £10, while the Rev. Carter amended his to £4 for the remainder of the current year. These tenders gave rise to ‘considerable discussion’ and a battle of motions and amendments ensued, culminating in a decision to purchase a half-acre block on the eastern side of the bus stand. The selectors, the mayor and Ald. Davis, recommended 159

the purchase of a site fronting Canterbury Parish Road. The owner, John Quigg, offered the land for £60 (£1 per foot) which the council accepted by a narrow majority. At a meeting, 6th August, the mayor informed the Aldermen that a deposit had been paid but at this stage the proceedings were rudely interrupted by Ald. Davis’ interjection, ‘I object’. The new meeting place had not been gazetted and according to Ald. Nightingale the ‘whole proceedings’ were ‘illegal’.44 Ald. Scahill gave notice he would move for the erection of a building at a cost not exceeding £100.

Scahill’s motion triggered another lively debate. Ald. Davis opposed the erection of a building on the grounds of its prematurity while streets and roads were not in ‘thorough repair’. Ald. Sayers favoured the project on the grounds of economy where its rental would nearly meet interest commitments. Ald. Nightingale, Davis’ partner in a butcher shop, was pessimistic about the whole affair. The Council could not borrow money; the chambers would not be erected under £120, while annual painting costs of £20 would have to be met. Ald. Sayers accused the butcher shop partners of taking a one sided view of the question. Later specifications were adopted and tenders called. Nothing further eventuated, except a semi-legal battle waged by John Quigg’s solicitors to obtain settlement for the site sale.45 The most pressing of the Council’s problems was finance, made all the more acute by the undeveloped nature of its large areas with its miles of unmade streets and roads. At the time of its incorporation the Municipality had according to the petitioners an estimated population of only about 800. The Echo, which published a series of articles on Sydney suburban municipalities, compiled from recollections of old residents in 1890, gave the population as 750 living in 213 houses.46 Thus the ratepayers faced a stupendous task in financing the development of the area municipally. The Council’s first financial step was the appointment of valuers in order that properties could be assessed for rates. Four tenders were received from supposedly ‘competent persons’ and that of Albert Miller and Charles Gabb for £40 accepted.47 The Council had two auditors, George Ridgway Lockett and John Gabb, elected concurrently with the aldermen, but it had no books of account. These were purchased together with a ‘fireproof’ safe and arrangements were made with the English, Scottish and Australian Chartered bank for an overdraft.

The valuation of the Municipality was completed during August and in October an Appeals Court, consisting of six independent persons was set up to hear protest. Ald. Davis was appointed treasurer.48 The appointment of aldermen to offices was a common practice, because of the Council’s inability to employ more staff. A general rate of one shilling in £AAV was set for 1879.

This was the maximum levy permissible under the 1867 Act, and because government endowment was based upon revenue, Councils were constrained to set the maximum rate during the fifteen years of entitlement to such aid.49 A further step was the setting up of a Finance Committee of the whole 160

Council, to prepare an estimate of the probable income and expenditure for 1879. These estimates were required by the act within three months of the election of the mayor. Canterbury was unable to comply with this require­ ment because of insufficient time. The estimates for 1880 were merely given as Revenue, £1133.50 Expenditure £1133.50 The actual statistics for revenue and expenditure from 4 August 1880 to 31 January, 1881 are given in the Table 8.

TABLE 8 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT REVENUE and EXPENDITURE 4 AUGUST, 1880—31 JANUARY, 1881 Revenue Balance—3 August 1880 31 January, 1881 Rates Contributions Endowment Ashfield (half cost Holden Street)

Expenditure £ 13

s 16

d 4

135 1

19 1

4

285

3

55

-

-

4

31 January 1881 Salaries Sundries 13 Petty Cash 3 Advertising Printing

15 5

3 0

0 0

19 0 5 6

-

Interest Improvements Holden Street 110 Dunstaffnace Street 7 Crinan St. 22 Duntroon St. 2 Main Road 1 Kingsgrove Road 47 Cup, Saucer Bridge 56 Undercliff Road 12 Balance

791 0 1

£

—

—

18 1 10

5 1

10

s

d

12

18

0

16

3

0

21

5 5

6 5

142

9

9

—

—

3

8

13

9

—

—

117 480 791

7 5 11 0

1

Note: There is a penny discrepancy on revenue. This could have been caused by the omission of half pence by rounding. The total of improvements does not agree with £142 9s 9d.

Source: N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1881, Vol. 1, p. 1424.

It was not until April, 1881, that detailed estimates were given. (see Table 9)

161

TABLE 9 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT—ESTIMATES—INCOME and EXPENDITURE, 1881.

Probable Revenue

Probable Expenditure

Fines Contributions Endowment

£ 10 50 650

Balance (from rates*)

650

£ 160 760 390 10 10 10 20

Salaries &c Wages Roads Bridges Law Expenses Printing Stationery Advertising

1360

1360

* Estimate of rate income was £654 18s 9d.

Source: Municipal Minutes Vol. 1 (19/6/76—29/11/82) pp. 124—6.

TABLE 10 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT—RECEIPTS 1879-1889* Year

Rate £AAV. Ord. Spec.

SP

1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887

1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/-

Total Annual Value Value Rateable for Property Rating £ £ 110,000 110,000 150,000 22,554 454,700 220,000 451,270 446,964 458,275

11,555 11,555 13,038 22,197 22,739 24,682 12,637 35,464 36,495

Ord. Lighting Revenue Govt.

Rates Rates Subs. Sc EndowOther ment £

138 422 400 830 720 1,369 1,664 1,632 1,534

£ — — — — — — — —

121

£

5 7 125 79 56 21 26 133 310

Total

£ —

428 586 782 1,388 1,514 1,385 1,497 2,433

£

143 857 1,111 1,690 2,163 2,904 3,016 3,262 4,398

*The Council did not submit any returns for 1888 or 1889.

The amounts are to the nearest £.

The table contains statistical errors, e.g. total value of rateable property for 1882, annual value for 1884, etc.

Source: N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1879-1889

The collection of the rates was undertaken by the council clerk who received a commission of 5 per cent, thereby supplementing his salary. The first collection amounted to £77 and the totals for 1879 and 1880 were £13 8 and £42251 (See Table 10). The rates were levied half yearly. This was of doubtful validity and was one of the three points on which the Shoalhaven Municipality was declared illegal in 1862. Later, in April 1881, the Council was directed that the whole rate was to be paid as one annual amount. Rate 162

arrears became part and parcel of municipal experiences from the first assessment and Canterbury fared no differently. In March 1880, the clerk was instructed to take ‘immediate proceedings’ for the recovery of rates from J. Farrow, Mrs M. Campbell, J. W. Chadwick, Nealds, C. Birrell and W. Redman. Later the Council decided to sue for arrears this supposedly brought results.52 TABLE 11 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT—EXPENDITURE 1879—1889.

EXPENDITURE Year Salaries Public Lighting Miscell.

Sc Office Works Exp. £ £ £ £

1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887

64 30 124 151 213 324 312 313 415

17 293 1,406 998 1,427 2,627 3,127 1,992 4,205

— — — — — — —

38 147

40 3 216 89 240 528 380 60 714

EXTENT ROADS STREETS Int. Total Made Unmade Total Loans Miles Miles Miles Repay. £ £ — — — — — — —

44 —

121 326 1,746 1,238 1,880 3,480 3,819 2,447 5,481

—

10 20 10 5 6 11 45 40

250 240 230 260 45 44 56 30 35

250 250 250 270 50 50 67 75 75

Note: Same comments as Table 10 apply here. Note particularly street statistics.

Source: Ibid

Official figures issued in 1883 reveal accumulated arrears in Canterbury since incorporation were £362 owing on improved property and £121 on unimproved property. The total arrears, £483, represented 43.8 per cent of Canterbury’s 1883 rate revenue, £1105, and it is of interest to note that only one metropolitan municipal district, St Peters, with £488, and three metro­ politan boroughs, Marrickville, £740, Burwood, £730, and Ashfield, £639, rather peculiarly all Canterbury’s neighbours, had greater arrears. In 1883, one could correctly affirm that a compact area mostly north of Cook’s River was notorious for its non-payment of rates.53 The Council’s main expenditure and pre-occupation was with its streets and roads. There were constant appeals to the government for alignment surveyors: border works, such as repairs to Holden Street caused problems with Ashfield and the first money voted was £15 on Sugar House Road (Church Street), though William Cross’s tender was accepted for £9. In November, 1880, the Towns, Police and Alignment Act was extended to Canterbury. Subdividers were to fill in forms for the dedication of the ensuing streets or roads. Rewards were offered for information on persons damaging Holden Street. In some instances, for example, Kingsgrove Road, the removal of stumps was a necessary first step to facilitate traffic.54 163

There was a dearth of bridges across creeks and Cook’s River. Ald. Sayers brought to the Councils’s attention the construction of a bridge over Cook’s River at Croydon Park. As the government and the contractor ‘were making a botch of the work’ a deputation was appointed to wait on the Minister for Public Works. A bridge was proposed in Kingsgrove Road over Cup and Saucer Creek.55 As the present Kingsgrove Road, formerly Sharp Street, was not so named until 1930, the bridge over the creek was probably for another more direct access from Canterbury, such as Northcote Street.

First mention of public health services concerned an application to the mayor to remove a cow’s carcase from the road from Burwood Station to Rocky Point. Since there was as yet no inspector of nuisances, the mayor must have seen to the task himself. Other public health services concerned a petition from ratepayers protesting against nuisances arising from boiling down works, slaughter houses, persons placing obstructions on streets and roads and ‘a deposit of offensive matter.’56 There were two other matters which concerned the Council during its first eighteen months. The size of the municipal area and the dominant position of the village over the scattered communities as regards council representa­ tion, demanded division into wards.

The act provided for the division of a municipality into wards on a population basis on petition as follows: Over 500 but less than 1000—2 wards 1000 4000—3 wards Over 4000—4 wards 57

First mention of such a division was made by Ald. Davis who had joined forces with Aldermen Nightingale and Sayers. He proposed that Canterbury Road be the dividing line. A later and better division was proposed by Ald. Roberts who suggested Cook’s River as the dividing line. The Council agreed and a petition was presented by 114 electors, requesting the division into two wards, each represented by three aldermen. The division was proclaimed on 20 April, 1881.58 A second unhappy problem was the question of the mayor’s absences from meetings through illness. During October, 1879, meetings lapsed through the lack of a quorum of four aldermen. In November, John Nightingale asked the question without notice whether the mayor had obtained leave of absence, and if not whether he was disqualified under the act.59 The Chairman, Ald. Sayers, gave two ‘noes’ but stated that if the Mayor was absent next meeting, the matter would have to be considered by the Council. As a result, no doubt, Sproule attended a full meeting, apologised for his absence and explained that he would have resigned but for the fact, that from meeting to meeting, he felt sufficiently well to attend. He thereupon begged to retire from the meeting.

164

H aldon Street, Lakem ba, 1918

On 18 February, 1880, Sproule submitted his resignation. John Campbell Sharp, who had just been elected to the Council was chosen mayor.60 Sharp was an interesting person. The son of an Essex cattle farmer, he went to Chile in South America and opened a hotel. N ext he became a silver miner in Peru where a revolution forced his leaving for Australia. He settled in Bendigo, took part in the gold rush at Port Curtis in Queensland, and eventually went to New Zealand where he prospered as a storekeeper. He returned to Sydney and became a reasonably successful commission agent.

He returned to the hotel business in M anly and from there undertook a world tour which ended with a visit to U.S.A. Back in Sydney, he married and settled down as a resident of George Street, Canterbury where he worked in the district’s interests. John Sharp, a gentleman ‘of a most genial and kindly disposition’, died at his residence, Chesney, at the age of sixty-seven on 10 September, 1896.61

SECESSION Prior to the creation of wards, a division of vital importance to the munici­ pality was proposed. On 22 September, 1880, a petition signed by 133 persons requesting the separation of the western portion of the municipality, roughly bounded by Cook’s River, Punchbowl Road, and Wolli Creek, as the M unicipality of Queensborough. The act empowered the governor to divide 165

an existing municipality on receipt of a petition from at least two thirds of the electors from the separating area.62 The Queensborough petitioners claimed that they fulfilled this requirement and had the necessary qualifications for a new municipal district, namely a population exceeding 500, living within an area of less than twenty square miles. The petitioners further requested the division of their area into two wards, Kingsgrove and Belmore.63 It is clear from the petition that the concocters of the division were John Sproule, John V. Wiley, and Frederick C. Jarrett. Sproule’s attitude is understandable. The Council was never happy with his continual absences from meetings because of illness which eventually forced his resignation. The Wiley family of Belmore (now Punchbowl) were active campaigners for the counter petition, Joseph Wiley having verified the genuineness of the signatures. Jarrett does not appear in either petition. It is further clear that a goodly proportion in favour of Queensborough were originally opposed to incorporation, but now that Canterbury was a fait accompli, supported separation as the best alternative. These included prominent families such as the Petits, Hockleys, Redmans and individuals such as JohnTritton, Thomas Chard, Margaret Elliott, Richard Bradburn and even Thomas Scahill, a former alderman, who lost his seat at the first annual elections.

The petitioners gave no reasons for separation, but these are not far to seek.

The Municipalities Acts, 1858 and 1867 set maximum but not minimum size limits and therefore encouraged subdivision into smaller and smaller areas.

Even units such as Redfern were sub-divided. It lost Waterloo, which in turn lost Alexandria.64 Canterbury was particularly vulnerable to division. Its large area and the existence of small communities at a distance from the municipal centre, for example, Belmore, encouraged a narrow ‘localism’ which led to clashes of interests with the more powerful sectors such as the Canterbury village. Experience shows, too that wards further tend to develop these parochial aspirations. It was, therefore, quite easy to fulfil separation requirements by disgruntled persons whipping up the antagonism of two thirds of the electors in a community or ward who felt or, were made to feel, that their interests were not being served by the Council. Such antagonism was easy to stir in Canterbury at the time, especially when it is considered that its revenue for 1880 was only £857 to be spent over an undeveloped area of twelve square miles.

The Council was quick to defend its area. In October, the mayor, John Sharp, begged that the aldermen would express their individual opinions on the proposed separation which he considered ‘would prove one of the most disastrous things that could happen to the district.’ No doubt influenced by the mayor’s emotional outburst the Council unaminously agreed to draft a counter petition which was presented on 15 December, 1880.65 The counter petition, containing 158 signatures, strongly opposed the 166

creation of the Municipality of Queensborough on three counts. Firstly, many of the petitioners were not adults, many had neither freehold nor household qualifications and were, therefore, not ratepayers. Secondly, a good point, as the municipality contained a population less than 1000, the loss of over 500 to Queensborough would leave Canterbury with less than the legal minimum. Thirdly, separation into two districts would not permit either to be administered profitably. Their revenues would be absorbed in working expenses and ‘to disunite, or allow any branching off of any portion of the present district would prove most disastrous in its effects’.66 The Council’s counter petition, having a greater number of signatures won the day. Subsequently, there have been other abortive attempts to secede. In 1927, a movement in the Earlwood-Undercliffe area planned to break away from Canterbury as a separate municipality, while Ashbury endeavoured to unite with Ashfield. That Canterbury was able to maintain its original large area proved advantageous in the long run. It has, to date, saved the municipality from the threat of amalgamation, especially those of 1948.

167

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

168

F. A. Larcombe, The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W., 1831-58, pp. 1-14 Ibid, pp. 53-9 Ibid, pp. 205-11, N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1843, Vol. 2, p. 1117 Echo, 2 October, 1890 Evening News, 17 November, 1917 Sydney Morning Herald, 20 July, 1841 Ibid, 15 September, 1841 Ibid, 22 November, 1841 Ibid, 22 May, 1843 Ibid, 8 May, 1854 Empire, 20 May, 1856 Historical Records of N.S.W., Vol. 3, Map by C. Grimes, Frontispiece, (For a modification see T. M. Perry, Australia’s First Frontier, p. 21); Government and General Orders, pp. 185, 188 N.S.W. Colonial Secretary. Returns of the Colony, 1847, pp. 451-58; N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1851, Supplement, 7 November, 1851; N.S.W. Census Papers, 1856 F. A. Larcombe, The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W., 1831-58, pp. 270-1 Empire, 20 May, 1856 N.S.W. Census, 1856 F. A. Larcombe, The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W., 1831-58, pp. 264-6 Ibid, for court decision (Berry 8t Graham), pp. 177-96, and defects 1858 Act, pp. 296-303 F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., 1858-1906, pp.158-9 Sydney Morning Herald, 22 August, 1868 Ibid, 29 August, 1968 Sydney Morning Herald, 1 November, 1870 N.S.W. Government Gazette, Vol. 2, pp. 1323-4 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1878, Vol. 2, pp. 3873-4 F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., 1858-1906,p. 162 F. A. Larcombe, The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W., 1831-58, p. 273 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1878, Vol. 2, pp. 5155-6 Ibid, 1879, Vol. 1, p. 1241 Ibid, Vol. 2, p. 2021 Sydney Morning Herald, 7 June, 1879, from unpublished research by B. J. Madden Ibid, 31 May, 1879. Unpublished research by B. J. Madden Ibid, 7 June, 1879 Sydney Morning Herald, 4 June, 1879 Sydney Morning Herald, 11 June, 1879 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1879, Vol. 2, p. 2693, Sand's Sydney Suburban Directory, 1879 Sydney Morning Herald, 14 June, 1879. Unpublished research by B. J. Madden Municipal Minutes, Vol. (19/6/1879-29/11/1882), pp. 1, 23 Ibid, pp. 4, 12-13, 18-29, 56 etc.

Ibid, pp. 24-5 Act No. 31, No. 12 S.152 Municipal Minutes, Vol. (19/6/1879-29/11/1882), 65-6, 68, 71 Ibid, 122, 131-2 Ibid, p. 199 Municipal Minutes, Vol. (19/6/79-29/11/82), pp. 4-6, 9-10

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

Ibid, pp. 13, 16 The Echo, 2 October, 1892 Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1 (19/6/79-29/11/82), pp. 1, 3 Ibid, pp. 7, 9 Ibid, p. 15; Act 31, Vic. sl63 Ibid, p. 18; Ibid sl64 Ibid, p. 47 Ibid, pp. 40, 62, 90-1, 126-7 F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., 1858-82, 1906, Appendix 2, pp. 313-14 Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1 (19/6/1879-29/11/82), pp. 1,10-11,17-19,22,55, 61, 72, 82 Ibid, pp. 14, 38 Ibid, pp. 8, 5 6 , 7 9 Act 31, Vic. No. 12 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1881, Vol. 2, pp. 2247 Act 31, Vic. No. 12, s37 states an alderman, absent without leave for three successive months was disqualified from office and liable to a fine of ÂŁ25 (s.35) Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1 (19/6/79-29/11/82), pp. 21-2, 27, 34 J. Jervis, The History of Canterbury (Typescript), p. 25 Act 31, Vic. No. 12 s.

N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1880, Vol. 3, pp. 4929-30 F. A. Larcombe, The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W., 1831-58, pp. 297-8 Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1 (19/6/79-29/11/82), p. 76 N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1880, Vol. 2, pp. 2248, 1881, Vol. 1, pp. 897-8

169

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE 1880’s

n the years before incorporation Canterbury had experienced little development industrially. Apart from some farming and the removal of timber, its broad undulating acres were much the same as when the area was first settled. The first series of subdivisions, which began in the 1840’s were more concerned in the cutting up of the larger land holdings into smaller farms and farmlets. Until incorporation the Canterbury village was the only true housing subdivision, l Conditions changed dramatically during the 1880’s. The Sydney metropolis experienced a remarkable growth in urban development. James Inglis in his book, Our Australian Cousins, aptly described the building boom:

I

‘The overflow of bricks and mortar has spread like a lava flood, over the adjacent slopes, heights, and valleys, till the houses now lie, pile on pile, tier on tier, and succeed each other row after row, street after street, far into the surrounding country, and the eruption is still in active play, and everywhere the work of building and city extension proceeds at a rapid pace. The invasion of construction has bridged the harbour. . . masonry crowns every island. . . every projecting buttress of rock maintains a pedestal of wall and gable and roof. Verandahs outrun the heights and chimney-stacks peep out from the hollows. The sand drives are covered with cottages, the very marshes have a crop of dwellings . . . Handsome villa residences, match-box cottages, toy houses, and flimsy habitations stud the slopes in all directions round the city; and suburban extension is proceeding with wonderful speed. Everywhere the sound of the workman's tools is heard, all through the busy day. Brickyards are worked to their utmost capacity; iron foundries are taxed to their greatest powers, saw-mills and joinery establishments are in full activity and at present the building trades are in constant and vigorous employment.2 The Canterbury terrain was well suited to residential development. It offered housing opportunities in the country, not far distant from the city so ‘the somewhat neglected village of Canterbury . . . came in for a share of notice from land speculators and syndicates, and in the fullness of time its environs bristled with section pegs.’3 Subdivision went on apace, examples of which may be seen in Table 12.

The most interesting of the subdivisions was Harcourt Model Suburb, because it was perhaps the first simple planning experiment certainly in New South Wales, if not in Australia, a forerunner of the garden city concept. It will be remembered that William Phillips purchased Stoneless Bay 200 acres from the Robert Redman estate in 1888 for £ 10 215. He anticipated the work of Ebenezer Howard whose theories published in Garden Cities of Tomorrow 172

led to the construction of Letch worth, Hertfortshire in 1903.4 Phillips drew up subdivision plans for his model suburb at Redman’s Bush and these were first submitted to the Council in June, 1888.5 The preparation of the land was begun immediately and was well advanced by the end of September. A Herald description of the Minister for Public Works’ tour of Canterbury at that time refers to his survey of ‘the immense estate of an enterprising firm.’ It was planned ‘in splendid style; ornamental trees, enclosed by a fancy fence’ were ‘being planted along some four miles of roads,’ which ‘have been formed and (will) be metalled, before the estate was put on the market,’ and water and gas installed.6 The nine streets, numbered ‘Grand Avenues’ on the New York style, were ninety-nine and sixty-six feet wide.

TABLE 12 SELECTED SUBDIVISIONS IN CANTERBURY MUNICIPALITY 1882-4 Date of Sale

Subdivision

Location 1979

No. of Lots

6th May, 1882

Golden Park

Redman, Gould Sts. Canterbury Rd., Duke St.

17th June, 1882

Maudeville

Canterbury Rd., Charlotte Elizabeth, Harp Sts.

52

25 Nov. 1882

Prout’s Bridge

63

15 Dec. 1883

Aldon Estate, Canterbury Heights

Canterbury Rd., Howard, High Sts., Cook’s Ave. Myee, Quigg, Canterbury Rd., Willeroo St., Lakemba

21 April, 1884

W. Redman’s Estate Burlington, Thompson, Spark, Woolcott St., Earlwood

23 Aug., 1884

Bridgewater Estate divided by Prout’s Bridge Estate

Canterbury Road, Fore St., High & Northcote Sts.

100

74 — —

Source: Sales Advertisement Pamphlets—Canterbury Municipal Council, Library Files.

The submission of a framed plan to Council gave an official recognition of Harcourt Estate. Unfortunately for the ‘enterprising’ Phillips and Com­ pany, the preparation of the estate was badly timed. The metropolitan building boom was on the eve of collapse. Speculation, such as Harcourt, caused artificial increases in land values and borrowing rates. During the 1890’s hard times were being experienced, particularly by developers who were unable to sell new houses and blocks of land at the inflated values. The firm of Phillips & Co., was no exception. It attractively advertised the model suburb, but sales were delayed by Council requirements for certain works.

Though councils generally were adversely affected by the slump in land values, and the increase in rate arrears, Canterbury agreed to contribute to the costs of road works such as culverts. Nevertheless Phillip’s firm was forced to transfer Harcourt to the Burwood Land Building and Investment Company.7 173

At the time of the transfer, the Centennial Magazine of 1889-90 in an article, Model Suburb: Harcourt, Burwood, published a glowing description of Phillip’s experiment. The estate of 200 acres, contained 400 building blocks, ranging in size from a quarter to 1.5 acres. The preparation required a work force of 150 men, and the nine wide avenues were planted with 150 evergreens of various species. They had been ‘set out with a keen eye to artistic contrast of their different foliage; the stately Norfolk Pine, the graceful camphor laurel, the more fragile pepper-tree, the fragrant and hygienic eucalyptus, the Queensland gum tree, the Tasmanian blue gum, and any number more.’ Urns for cactus and agava, added further embellishment of the avenue intersections.8 Phillips was keenly aware of the need for good access roads to the Model Suburb and during the preparation of the site, he kept a constant pressure on the Council for road repairs. Towards the end of 1891, the estate had reached the stage where the avenues could be dedicated. The Council agreed and assumed responsibility for the avenues in October.9 The promoters were somewhat unfortunate in their timing of placing Harcourt on the market. The colony was on the eve of a sharp depression, which naturally was accompanied by pessimism and a tightening of investors’ pockets. Little further was accomplished until 1896, when the first land sale to Henry Pickard was made in January, 1897, and a local paper advertised a sale of blocks at Harcourt. The auctioneers, Richardson and Wrench, offered free train tickets to Campsie as an added attraction to attend the sale.

In addition two existing residences were offered, one an ‘attractive’, neat, brick cottage, stood on two acres, on a hill in proximity to Campsie Station, probably the old Redman home. It was subsequently purchased by John Rowan and known as Harcourt House. The other house, described by the Centennial Magazine as ‘a pretty villa cottage’ had been erected as an office-cum-exhibition home. It is not surprising that the sales were disap­ pointing. The colonial economy had just experienced the trough of the depression and the climb out was exceedingly slow. By 1900 only twenty-five allotments had been sold and many years were to pass before Harcourt was fully built. 10 Nora Peek had considerable incentive to pen in some detail her story of Stoneless Bay and Harcourt. The first purchaser, Henry Pickard, a builder, erected a dwelling on his three lots in Second Avenue on the slopes towards Cook’s River. The house was a large brick structure, and because of the site slope its cellars were commodious. It was unique in the estate as it was the only structure of its kind, being built level with the footpath line. In 1911, the Pickard property was purchased by Nora’s father, John R. Peek, and therefore must hold many nostalgic memories for her.il The various subdivisions of the 1880’s did not influence Canterbury’s growth to the extent one would expect. This is not surprising when lines of 174

Aldon Estate, Canterbury Heights (Lakemba), 1883

175

communications are considered. Canterbury was only one of numerous areas in which subdivided land was being offered for sale. The poor state of its roads accentuated the advantages enjoyed by suburbs linked to the city by train and tram. The municipal population rose only by 1500 persons from 1880 to 1892 and Canterbury therefore retained much of its rural character. Thus a columnist in a newspaper 1888, could write: 'Everything about this municipality appears to be somewhat old-fashioned. The houses are widely scattered, and seldom of modern construction, and the majority of roads and footpaths remind one much of the country lanes in out-of-the-way places in England. Nor does there appear to be any intention to alter the existing arrangements in other respects. The inhabitants, for instance, do not desire to have water brought into their houses. There would be little difficulty in extending the Nepean supply to portions of the borough, but the ratepayers argue that they have their wells and tanks, and that when these fail then they can fall back upon Cook’s River, all of which are free of cost. The latter source of supply too, is exhaustible, the water from the old sugar works to Druitt Town, a distance of between four and five miles, being perfectly fresh, and fit for household purposes. The borough is unconnected with the main sewerage system. The sanitary condition is excellent, not a single case of typhoid fever having occurred during the last eight years.'12 The general state of the municipality was very primitive. Of the seventy-five miles of streets, only ten were metalled, twenty-five partially formed, while the remainder were completely unimproved, no work as yet having been undertaken. Only about two miles of footpaths were kerbed and guttered and there was very little evidence of asphalting. Some twenty-seven men were employed on improvements. The lighting of the municipality could 'scarcely be looked upon as satisfactory,' particularly as there were only twenty-five public lamps in an area of twelve square miles. At the time the annual revenue from all sources was only £3696. This was about £500 less than expenditure necessitating the raising of £7000 loan.13 Most of the people were housed in simple cottages. A few of the more opulent continued to build stately mansions. About 1880 John Fenwick, the founder of a tug business, purchased 100 acres at Belmore bounded by Canterbury, Canary and Bonds Roads. His first home was a slab house, but later he built a fine mansion, Belmore House, ‘the showpiece of the district.’

In common with other large householders, his grounds were the venue for public picnics and sports carnivals while the house was surrounded by beautiful gardens, and was centre of a farm providing a variety of dairy and garden produce. John Fenwick died in 1901, but Belmore House remained in the family, his son, Peter, dying there in 1941. The house was occupied for a time by the Army and then sold to Stanley Parry in 1943. After the formation of Roselands Golf Club it was converted to a club house. Again, like many other stately homes, it fell to the wrecker’s hammer to make way for the construction of the Roselands shopping complex. 14 176

Redman’s Estate, Canterbury, February, 1884

The Towers, another interesting mansion and one still in existence, stands in Forsythe Street, Belmore. A light cream ‘fortress like’ structure, with its ‘distinctive short tower,’ amongst the oldest of the inhabited homes in the municipality, was originally constructed in 1870 by David Jones, a builder by trade, who was responsible for the erection of St. Albans, the first Anglican Church in that district. ‘The Towers’ was later owned by the Forsythe family who were rope manufacturers. In 1920, the War Services Homes Commission purchased the building, but in 1941, the present owners, A. C. and Mrs. V. Fletcher, descendants of David Jones, bought the building back to the family fold. 15 Canterbury entered the new century with indications of becoming a promised land. The Ashfield Advertiser, could truthfully record: ‘During the last few weeks there have been unmistakable signs that these Western Suburbs are finding great favour in the eyes of persons who desire to secure eligible residential sites with healthy surroundings. ’16 177

Clissold’s Estate, Campsie, 1901

Later the journal wrote that it was pleasing that Canterbury was ‘keeping well to the front.’ . . . The return of prosperity after a decade of economic difficulties stimulated subdivisions. Land sold freely at Belmore a district possessing many ‘beautiful sites’, which commanded ‘excellent views’. There were further subdivisions of the estates such as those of Arther Jeffreys at Fernhill, Francis Bemish, Richland at Kingsgrove, Canterbury Park and Earlwood, the latter estate averaging £26 per acre. 17 Canterbury’s growth between 1901-6 may be noted in the following table: TABLE 13 CANTERBURY STATISTICS 1901-6 Population Dwellings A.A.C. (Rating Basis) Capital Value: Unused lands All property General Rate (collected) Total Revenue (General Fund)

1901

4226 935 13 840

1906

6666 1120 30 130

% of change (nearest)

393 500 670 400 1491 2919

224 600 827 400 1939 3522

-43 23 31 21

58 20 118

Source: Statistical Register, 1901, 1906.

179

The statistics show clearly the stimulating effect of the subdivisions on Canterbury’s growth. The number of dwellings increased by 20 per cent and the population by 58 per cent. As a result the capital value of unoccupied lands fell by 43 per cent. Despite the impact of the large increase in assessed annual value upon rates levied, general council revenue was not so impressive, increasing by only 21 per cent. In view of these developments it is not surprising that the Advertiser could write: ‘The salubrious climate of all the Canterbury district is a great factor in inducing newcomers to settle there, and with increasing railway facilities will shortly become most populous. ’18

THE SPORT OF KINGS Since the colony was established on a horse economy it was natural for precedents set in the mother country to be followed, so that horse racing and hunting became the basis of the early sports. The first organised meeting was held at Hyde Park in 1810. Racing was perhaps the earliest sport in Canterbury. There are references to Moorefields as a popular suburban racecourse and to ‘a finely-kept coursing ground’ at Belmore.19 The flat terrain of the old Johnson grant encouraged competitive horse sports. The first meeting at the ‘attractive enclosure’ on Cook’s River’s northern bank near the village of Canterbury, held in November, 1871, was regarded as ‘an auspicious occasion in the history of Australian horse racing.’

It attracted 300 spectators who thoroughly enjoyed the day’s exciting sport in fine weather. While there were but few of fair sex who braved the ‘tiring journey,’ the meeting attracted many farmers from the district. The organi­ sational efforts of Thomas A. Davis and Frederick Clissold were praiseworthy and the officials ‘were most zealous in their efforts to bring the occasion off with proper dignity.’ John Lucas, the local member, was judge, T. A. Davies, treasurer, George Davidson, starter, George Davis, clerk of course, John Wilton, secretary and Frederick Clissold one of the five stewards.20 The programme provided for six races, the first of which, the Maiden Plate of 1.5 miles, required three laps of the four furlong track. There were four entrants for the £10 purse, McNamara’s unnamed chestnut filly by Kyogle out of the Queen of Hearts winning from Nemo and Alarm. Canterbury’s first protest concerned correct age of Illawarra, the winner of the Canterbury Handicap for five year-olds. J. Driscoll the owner of the second horse, Index, declared the winner to be a six year old. A correspondent of the Sydney Chronicle advised the disputants to resolve the problem ‘straight from the horse’s mouth!’21 The success of the first race day at Canterbury served to encourage further meetings. There are reports of a rather large race meeting in celebrating the 180

Queen’s birthday on 24 May, 1878. Some 3000 persons attended, most travelling to Ashfield by train and then finding their own way to the course.

Others came to Canterbury in special coaches from Sydney.22 The success of this, and no doubt further meetings, prompted a group of sporting men to extend and enlarge the recreational facilities of the original track. A company was formed by Frederick Clissold, W. L. Davis, John Nightingale, C. J. Ford and M. Searle, to lease an area of thirty-six acres of Arthur Jeffrey’s estate and to convert it into a well-accommodated seven furlong racecourse and recreational ground for sporting people and holiday makers. The Herald applauded the sporting-spirited citizens for satisfying a long felt want. Complaints had been made ‘so repeatedly’ about the choking up of the existing avenues for social recreation. 23 The area was fenced and turfed. A grandstand to accommodate 700 people was constructed and later plans included the erection of a pavilion for picnic parties, a billiard room and the laying of a bowling green. Canterbury now had ‘one of the best recreation grounds out of the metropolis.’ By their efforts the promoters had set an example for other suburbs to follow. On the eve of the opening meeting, the Herald forecast that if the committee’s energy was any criterion, the first meeting should be ‘one of the most enjoyable that has been held out of Sydney for some time’.24 The grand opening day, 19 January, 1884, was fine and clear and everything was in ‘apple-pie’ order; the officials were alert and ready for the races. James White, the patron, together with the judge, Richard Hill were reputable men from the Legislative Council, other officials included J. A. Scarr, handicapper, W. Gannon, starter, George Curtis, timekeeper, J. Ashworth, weighter, P. B. Whitfield and W. L. Davis, secretary. Some 3500 persons, who travelled to Canterbury by a variety of means, were present to try their luck on horses, testing the ‘miniature Randwick’ for the first time.

Not all punters were admitted. ‘The energetic exponents of the art of “Monte” and similar games of chance were barred. Perhaps it was feared that the bookmakers would suffer and the course fall into disrepute if these shady gamblers were allowed to operate.25 The first race, the Opening Handicap, of six furlongs, proved disappointing to the eager punters. Five starters faced the barrier for a purse of forty-five sovereigns for first, and fifteen for second. The 7 to 4 favourite, The Slave, finished out of a place and Boniface, the son of John Bull, at 3 to 1, which was never headed, defeated by three lengths similarly placed Bellbird and Uhlan for the £45 prize. The main race of the day the ‘Canterbury Park Handicap’ for 100 sovereigns, attracted six starters, including Boniface. Here the punters’ pockets were severely hit when an outsider, Polestar, won at 10 to 1. Boniface finished a bad fifth.26 It was generally agreed that the first venture was ‘a most decided success in every particular.’ The Unity Fire Brigade Band entertained the spectators 181

Innovations at Canterbury to-day will he races from starting-boxes and “camera finishes" Courtesy of The Sydney Morning Herald 182

with a variety of selections and the grounds were made all the gayer by a number of the fair sex. The only grumbling was heard in the refreshment rooms where the luncheon and the quality of the liquids were considered below standard and perhaps the track top-dressing might have been a little loose in places.27 Perhaps the first meeting’s success could be attributed in no small way to Frederick Clissold’s enthusiasm. He was a steward at the 1871 meeting and was the inspiration behind the formation of the Canterbury Park Race Club of which he was foundation director. Clissold was a racehorse owner of note in the 1880’s and his horses such as Activity and Bonnie Doon were successful competitors at the Canterbury track. He was posthumously honoured by the Club’s holding of an annual event, the Frederick Clissold Handicap, first won

by Gold Rod in 1940.28 Between meetings the racecourse was then, as it is today, supervised by a caretaker who was responsible for the upkeep and attractiveness of the ground. One early caretaker of note was George Monk, a teller of tales and a gardener of supereminence. Robert Parry’s reminiscences refer to the caretaker as ‘old but popular . . . whose assiduity in the discharge of his duties and his skill and enthusiasm in matters horticultural were much appreciated.’

For over seventy years he related tales of his military career ‘each time with a quaint addition.’ Monk possessed of a strong personality, was a keen gardener with a preference for pansies and one who ‘seemed to live, move, and have his being among his flowers, concerning which he was never tired of expatiating.’29 The affairs of the Canterbury Park Race Club ran smoothly until 1888 when a dispute arose with the bookmakers. The Club drafted regulations to restrict betting to the Paddock and the Ledger. The bookmakers found the restrictions rather irksome and some rather amusing episodes were the consequence. ‘Fine weather, and a nicely-arranged racing card’ had attracted ‘a large gathering’ of 3000 racegoers on the second day of the June meeting.

The general setting was excellent, with a ‘capital’ afternoon’s sport provided and there were no complaints about the transport arrangements. While the saddling paddock and grandstand were ‘well filled’ the occupants of the Ledger reserve could be counted on one hand, the result of the outside bookmakers’ refusal to submit to the new regulations. Outsiders went to no end to dodge the regulations. Disguised by false beards and other means, they successfully eluded the gatekeepers.30 Canterbury was a progressive club, concerned with the safety of the competing jockeys and controlling officials. In January, 1890, Dr. James Mann was appointed to be present at race meetings. Mann was a popular resident of George Street, Canterbury noted for both his medical ability and literary pursuits. Unfortunately, for the race club, Mann shortly after his appointment became medical examiner for a life assurance firm, described 183

as among the best of the colonial offices. He was succeeded by Dr. Charles Swanson of Ashfield.31 In 1934, the Sydney Turf Club was constituted and empowered by its act to resume Canterbury and five other suburban racecourses.32 It held its first meeting at Canterbury in January, 1945. Since the war the S.T.C. has effected considerable improvements to the racecourse. It was the setting for most important innovations in Australian horse racing. In December, 1945, the photo-finish camera was used for the first time for an event won by Sonning.

In March, 1946, the box start and mirror reflector were introduced and used for a race won by Anastacia. The box start was not favoured by all jockeys and there were complaints that it prevented the wily from getting ‘the jump.’33 Barrier stalls, another important innovation at Canterbury were first used in July, 1948 in the Canterbury Handicap, won by Homeleigh Dick.34 In recent years further improvements to the course and for spectators have been made. A new course entailing 700 metres of new track and a movable aluminium running rail were first used for racing purposes in 1976. The new parade ring, with its crushed red tile walkway and gardens, not only facilitates the patrons view of the horses but has considerable aesthetic appeal.

The most important feature of the re-development of the Canterbury racecourse was the construction of a new grandstand at a cost of £415 000.

It was officially opened by the premier, Neville Wran in August, 1976, and named the Clyde Kennedy Stand in honour of the S.T.C. chairman. The main features of this ‘magnificent facility’ include seating for 2160 persons on the viewing deck and internally for 1000 patrons to view the races in air-conditioned carpeted comfort. The stand contains such amenities as a restaurant, liquor bars, and closed circuit T.V. monitors.35 The Canterbury racecourse is an important asset to the municipality.

Though not so famous as Randwick it has made Canterbury a name to remember. Moreover it has given the municipality an important industry which has materially assisted in its development.

A FOUL MURDER Perhaps the first vicious crime committed in Canterbury was the murder of Constable William Hird near Prout’s Bridge on 13 August, 1885. Hird’s body was found by two gardeners early the following morning ‘under circumstances that revealed the perpetration of a brutal murder.’ He had been killed by a ‘terrible blow’ possibly from a large stone, completely smashing the right side of his head. A reconstruction of the crime reveals that two young men were involved. They had been employed in scrub clearing operations at Redman’s Bush. An axe had been purchased in Sydney and no doubt after a drinking spree, the suspects returned to Canterbury where they created a disturbance. Hird’s attention was drawn to their activities and ‘a desperate 184

struggle’ ensued, ending with the constable’s murder. After returning to camp, the axe was given to one, Cameron. A police cordon thrown around the district netted Joseph Thompson and Ellis Birch, ‘both lightly built and somewhat intelligent young men’, who, judging from their general appear­ ance, did not appear to belong to the labouring class.

The usual eulogies were made about the victim, Hird, a native of Aberdeen, who joined the colonial police force in 1882 and had served in Canterbury for two years. He was ‘a powerful man’, but by nature, ‘quiet and sober’, and in general, an ‘inoffensive and peaceable man’, devoted to his wife and five young children. The coroner’s inquest, held at the Rising Sun, attended by a large crowd, caused ‘great excitement’, and as a mark of respect, most businesses and homes were partly closed. The two defendants, ‘pale and careworn’, faced the coroner and Thomas Austin Davis, foreman of the jury.

They were found guilty of murder and committed for trial.

The case was heard at the Central Criminal Court before Justice Innes on 31 August. Thomas pleaded guilty and Birch, not guilty, but the jury, much to the surprise and annoyance of Justice Innes, brought in a verdict of manslaughter for both defendants. He chided the jury for returning such a verdict and though he was ‘always reluctant’ to express dissent from a jury’s verdict, he emphasised that it had been returned in the ‘teeth of the evidence.’

There had been ‘a great miscarriage’ of justice for which he was not responsible. He, therefore, passed the ‘severest sentence’ appropriate under the law. Thompson was to be kept in penal servitude for the term of his natural life, the first three years in irons. Birch, when sentenced to fifteen years, strongly protested his innocence, despondently declaring that he had neither justice in the coroner’s court, nor any in the Central Criminal Court.

William Hird, lies buried in the old graveyard of St Paul’s, Canterbury. His headstone is a permanent record of the foul and bloody events of the night of 13 August. 1885.36 Other than the Hird murder, Canterbury crime was limited to petty pilfering. During the late 1880’s there was an outbreak of stealing in nearby Ashfield which soon spread into the Croydon Park and Rosedale districts and requests were repeated by the Council for the appointment of a constable.

One Canterbury victim was none other than the town clerk, Benjamin Taylor.

A bag containing £13, the proceeds from his rate collections, was neatly cut from his horse, leaving the clerk at loss to account for the ‘dastardly crime’.37 Benjamin Taylor may not be remembered for the loss of his purse, but his record in local government stamps his performance as unique. He was elected alderman in 1883, and mayor for 1884—5. Preferring the office of Council servant to that of elected representative, Taylor resigned in 1888 to become town clerk on 24 August on a salary of £100. Six years later Benjamin reversed the roles. Resigning as clerk in 1902, he was re-elected as alderman in 1904, and mayor for 1904—5. He did not seek re-election in 1908.38 His 185

memory has been perpetuated by the naming of Lakemba, after his house, which was located near the present railway station.

A HOME FOR THE COUNCIL From the most primitive times, the people have had a meeting place to conduct their common affairs. Since the birth of the cities, civic life centred on the town hall and market place. The city or town hall became symbolic of the achievement of municipal status, and it was fitting, therefore, for a newly incorporated area to give early consideration to the construction of such a building, Waverley in 1861, built the first town hall in New South Wales. The construction of a similar edifice, figured largely in the early discussions of the Canterbury Council. Lack of suitable premises forced the Council to meet at John Sproule’s home until July. The Mayor was given a ‘hearty’ vote of thanks for his ‘kindness’ in allowing the Council free use of his hall and parlour.39 It has been previously outlined how the council, when only a week old, discussed the erection of a town hall. Specifications were adopted and tenders called but no hall eventuated. Meanwhile the Rev. Carter’s offer of the Anglican schoolroom at an annual rent of £12 was accepted as a temporary expedient for a muncipal chamber.40 It was facetiously dubbed ‘Canterbury State House’. The old school building was ‘about one of the ugliest and inconvenient buildings imaginable’. It was ‘sombre enough for a morgue’ and would serve ‘equally well as a large family vault’. Originally it was used as a church and its use as a municipal chamber was ‘the last one would have thought of adapting it to.’ It was ‘a dull, heavy-looking stone building, consisting of one room only’, where the council conducted its municipal business and held its meetings. The clerk used it for an office, and because the library was housed there, the citizens used it as a reading room.41 In the immediate years which followed saw a repetition of abortive proposals. Eventually in 1887 a site on Canterbury road was purchased from J. Campbell Sharp. The plans and specifications were prepared by W. H. Monckton. The builder A. Allen, erected an edifice of ‘unique design’ for £52 000. It contained a main hall, sixty by forty feet, municipal offices, library and a large tiled lobby and was embellished by a clock tower, sixty five feet high. The building was opened by the premier, Henry Parkes on 11 April, 1889, amid ‘joyous festivities’. The City Band headed a procession in which Canterbury and local schools carrying bannerettes participated. The route was gaily decorated with large artistic arches. Parkes, accompanied by Joseph Carruthers, Minister for Education, and member for Canterbury, mounted the dais, amid the loud cheers of the 1500 spectators. The school children rendered a chorus, ‘Australia Marching Onwards’ and an address of welcome was read by Arthur Grace, a local pupil. Parkes then declared the new town 186

Old Town Hall, Canterbury Road, Canterbury 187

hall open. That evening, a grand ball at 7s 6d double and five shillings single wound up the festivities.42

THE 1890’s DEPRESSION The New South Wales colony had its first experience of an economic crisis in 1843, mainly the result of a collapse in wool prices. The Canterbury settlers, not riding on the sheep’s back and, more or less self-sufficient, do not appear to be affected by it. Perhaps the slow sale of the ‘ancient village’ building blocks may be partly attributed to it. After this short but sharp crisis, the colony did not experience an economic crisis of any magnitude until the 1890’s. The building boom of the 1880’s gave way to a severe depression.

Its effect on Canterbury and other metropolitan municipalities varied con­ siderably. In 1898, the Daily Telegraph published statistics on metropolitan municipal finance, which permit a comparison between Canterbury and other councils. In 1883, Canterbury’s rate revenue was £1105. By 1892, it had risen to £2076. Rate revenue did not exceed this figure until after 1906. During the period 1883—93 rate arrears, a good indication of economic conditions, rose from £483 to £3902, an increase of over 800 per cent. Since arrears amounted to some 2.7 years of revenue, their impact on Canterbury’s finance for municipal services was most serious indeed. The adverse effect of the arrears was further accentuated by a fall in the annual land value on which rates were levied. The depreciation in aggregate rates in Canterbury was 17 per cent, no doubt because over 40 per cent of its area was unimproved land.

Municipalities took advantage of the easy financial conditions in the 1880’s to borrow for local works at high interest rates. These became more difficult to repay as revenues fell and rate arrears increased. Canterbury debt in 1897 was £9817, representing 4.3 years revenue. The interest payable was £450, or 2s 7d per head or one quarter of total revenue. At the same time £350 was paid in administrative costs.43 Comparative details may be seen in Table 14 TABLE 14 FINANCIAL COMPARISON METROPOLITAN COUNCILS 1897 No. Muni- Popn.

Dwellings cipality Largest 28,000 C’Bury 3,500 700 Smallest

5,500 762 145

Total Rev. £

20,778 2,267 247

Rates in £AA V pence 19 15 9

Total Rates £

12,207 1,468 230

Indebted- Interest Cost ness £ £ 68,915 9,817 27

3,984 450 25

Admin.

Cost £ 1,598 348 63

Source: Daily Telegraph 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20 October, 1898; F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., 1906—76, pp.180-191.

188

Little information exists concerning the depression policies adopted by the Council. When the decline in economic activity first manifested itself decisions on the labour force became necessary. In January, 1890, the Council agreed to James McBean’s request that the employees should be kept on full work for the time being. In November, at a special meeting, it decided to increase the labour force rather than to pay higher wages to the existing staff.

It stipulated that the additional men must be married.44 The Council at first did not appear to be unduly perturbed about the adequacy of its total revenue, though it declined from £3559 in 1892 to its lowest point of £1851 in 1896.

In September, 1895, the Council influenced by the absolute necessity for economy, decided to alter the duties of the administrative staff and revise individual salaries. The town clerk, Benjamin Taylor, became overseer, rate collector and valuer, on a reduced salary of £ 15 0 for a forty eight-hour week.

The former overseer, C. Hawkes was made foreman of works, and his salary reduced to £125. The inspector of nuisances, F. Davis, had the duties of librarian and collection of slaughter and inspection fees added to his work load. His salary remained unaltered at £ 150, but he was to devote a full week to the Council’s service.45 During revisions of staff duties and salaries the Council proposed to borrow £9000 to liquidate its first loan of £7000 and to provide additional funds for capital works such as streets. The proposal was put to a public meeting at which there was some opposition on the grounds of economy and living within resources. The opposition expressed its view so vocally that the chairman Mayor Lorking was unable to suppress the frequent interjections.

To him, it was ‘disgraceful’, especially as most of the speakers grossly insulted the Council. Their ‘tirade of abuse’ was ‘painful in the extreme’. Common sense eventually reigned and the meeting approved of the loan, no doubt because the original £7000 had been judiciously expended.46 The loan opposition showed clearly that not all the people were satisfied with the Council’s activities. A particular hot-bed of criticism was located on the Mildura Estate, opened 1892 on a part of old Bramshott, lying between Beamish and Moore Streets and Clissold Parade. The Council was continually criticised for not constructing the estate streets to the liking of the residents.

An eventual outcome was the formation of a Canterbury Ratepayers’ Association, along the lines of those already in existence at Ashfield and Enfield. Early in 1896, a public meeting held for the purpose at the corner of Beamish Street, was ‘stacked’ by Mildura Estate residents. Richard Penfold was the first president, Robert Pert, secretary, and John Greathead, treasurer.

The Association, in common with its kind, was strongly opposed to spending on new schemes. It first made its presence felt at a public meeting in February, 1896 when it successfully opposed a proposal to construct public baths.47 The municipal minutes, and accounts of meeting proceedings in the Ashfield Advertiser show that the Council’s limited budget forced it to confine 189

its attention to routine matters. This was stressed by Lorking, in a mayoral minute covering tne Council’s activities for 1896. Though rate arrears were ‘bothering’, the municipal finances were in ‘a comparative favourable condition,’48 but the Council reacted angrily to the imposition of levies by the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board for non-existent fire protection and refused to pay its 1895 contribution of £48.18s.6d, giving as the excuse it had no money. Despite the warning that the levy must be paid, the Council obstinately refused to pay this ‘most iniquitous’ tax, and eventually ran up a debt of £90.3s.4d. When informed by the board that it faced a fine of £400 the aldermen light-heartedly left the matter to the Finance Committee. Later the Council surrendered and paid its levy.49 While the Council’s pockets felt the impact of the fire levy those of Canterbury landowners received a similar shock. In 1895, the Reid Government introduced a Land Income Tax Assessment Bill which threatened to increase the tax burden at a time when the colony was in the throes of the depression.50 The Council faced with further mounting rate arrears, became thoroughly alarmed by the government’s tax measure which, if passed, must surely adversely affect its revenue and so reduce expenditure on local services.

It immediately requested Varney Parkes to present a protest petition. This he refused to do, understandably, because his political ambitions would have compelled him not to annoy the temperamental premier. His refusal considerably upset the Council which considered that, as a paid representative of the people, he had committed a breach of duty, having not kept to an election statement that the Council should always petition the local member.51 The Canterbury Council generally worked harmoniously, and gestures such as the ‘delightful’ harbour cruise given to the aldermen and staff by George W. Nicoll in celebration of his six years municipal service, promoted and cemented goodwill between the aldermen and the staff. So did the end of the municipal year, celebrations, at which refreshments of ‘the most tempting nature’, were consumed and ‘a very jovial’ evening experienced.52 Nevertheless, there were some altercations. The Canterbury Revision Court was criticised because its proceedings were ‘not of a very creditable nature’.

One alderman’s accusation against another of ‘cooking’ the roll ended in a ‘little pasting match’, during which some difficulty was experienced in separating the combatants. A third alderman threatened ‘to bring in a posse of Chinamen’.53 Fortunately, these episodes were rare, and certainly never real election issues. The number of uncontested wards emphasise that either the people were fully satisfied with their elected representatives or apathetic towards the assumption of aldermanic honours. Five mayors occupied the chair during the 1890’s. Of these Patrick Scahill served three and Sydney Lorking five terms.

190

The last mayor of the century, George Nicoll, was a coastal shipowner and a merchant of considerable renown. He came to Earlwood in 1882, and there built a fine home, Blink Bonnie. His ships traded extensively with the north coast. So successful was he that in an obituary, he was credited as being Australia’s largest shipowner.Unlike other prominent business men who had owned property in Canterbury, Nicoll took an active interest in local politics. He was first elected alderman in 1891 and mayor in February, 1899.

He was also active in the Earlwood Progress Association. Nicoll died in November, 1906 at the age of fifty eight years after a period of ill health.54 During the depression the Council really had few worries. There were little annoyances, particularly when Canterbury was chosen as a place of deposit for other areas’ dead horses, a ‘very objectionable and disgraceful practice’, no doubt, as the Council had to remove the carcases. Apparently, the dead horses were of interest to other persons. Poultry and pig farmers boiled down badly diseased dead horses for animal food. Since the effluvia ‘poisoned the atmosphere of the whole neighbourhood’ thereby endangering the people’s health, the Council successfully had the Public Health Act, 1896, applied to the area so that the owners of these farms were required to be licensed.55 Even at this time garbage disposal was proving a thorny problem which the Council was anxious to solve. It became interested in mechanical destruction and was very impressed with the Pinhoe Destructor Works at North Sydney. The premises were ‘scrupulously’ clean, without any offensive odours and not injurious to health. In fact Pinhoe had the ‘perfect’ system of garbage destruction. Though M. de Montemus offered sites for the plant near Hurlstone Park station the mayor declared them unsuitable. Other objections included the carting of refuse through streets and there the matter rested. This was Canterbury’s first essay into a field in which it has since become foremost in the metropolitan area.56 Early in January, 1895, the Council erected its first memorial, ‘a very handsome fountain’ in memory of James Slocombe, who had died the previous year. James had unselfishly worked in the interests of the Canterbury community, serving as an alderman and twice as Mayor. The fountain, the cost of which was met by public subscription, stood near the railway bridge at the Broughton Street junction with Canterbury Road. It was eventually moved to Canterbury Park during the 1930’s.57 The council was ever mindful of opportunities to promote the economic development of the municipality and offered a site for a new city abattoirs.

The conditions at the Glebe Island abattoirs made the selection of a new isolated site imperative. An ‘influential’ public meeting at Canterbury Town Hall, considered petitioning the City Council to accept a site near the Salt Pan. The location of the abattoirs in Canterbury was advantageous to the municipality. It was expected to have an annual pay-out of £200 000 and employ 700 men which in addition meant that a population between 1000 191

to 1500 would settle in the district. Unfortunately the City Council inspected three other sites and the ‘splendid’ location near Belmore went begging.58 Finally, a Public Works Standing Committee selected the present site at Homebush Bay, no doubt because of its close proximity to the southern railway.59 Canterbury’s citizens do not appear to have been greatly upset by the economic depression. After a day’s work they engaged in a variety of pleasures. There was considerable interest in the Federal Convention of 1897, to draft a bill to be put before a referendum the following year. Candidates for the Convention were invited by prominent citizens to address the people.

Perhaps because of the scattered nature of the population, sporting facilities were slow to develop. While all manner of sporting clubs flourished in nearby Ashfield, there are no references in the local press, the Advertiser, to any particular similar activities in Canterbury. There was a Canterbury Cricket Club which in 1895, played matches against Manly, North Sydney and the University, but it drew its players from the electorate. It appears to have ceased to function after that season.60 Canterbury junior teams such as Canterbury Isis, Belmore Cambridges, Forest Hill and Fern Hill were formed in the early 1900’s and played in the Western Suburbs Junior Association second and third grades. At first they were ‘raw’ beginners, and as such were subject to sardonic comments in the Advertiser column, ‘What Local Cricketers Say’. Canterbury Isis, it said, ‘play fairly well against underarm bowling and bad fielding’. The match between Cambridges and Methodists proved that the former would ‘be able to play egg in the hat all (that) season’, as the team would have plenty of eggs after the match. Cambridges, who began with 3 for 2 (1 wide, 1 bye), had left their brothers at home so ‘they could carry home their own ducks’. In the end Cambridges scored 85 to Methodists 162.61 There does not appear to have been any competitive football teams at least before the Union—League split in 1908. There must have been an Aussie Rules enthusiast at Canterbury Public School. At the tannery paddock the local team defeated Dulwich Hill, 14/16—100 points to nil.

Canterbury race course was used for athletics and general sports. It was the venue for Ashfield Harriers first annual carnival. The teams which attracted six entries, was won by the newly formed St. George Club, but no particular team represented Canterbury. The judges and timekeepers, W. C. & W. T. Kerr are athletics officials still remembered to-day.

Canterbury sports meetings providing a variety of competitions were con­ ducted by bodies such as the Captain Cook Friendly Society. One event, at the Anniversary meeting 1906, the old buffers’ race, was cancelled, simply because there were ‘no old buffers in Canterbury’.62 An event, ‘quite a new feature to Canterbury’ was bicycle racing, staged by the Marrickville club and Cyclists’ Union. At the time there was con­ 192

siderable interest in cycling in nearby Ashfield where a strong club flourished.

The town hall was the finishing point of famous road races such as the Goulburn to Sydney and Bathurst to Sydney. The Australasian road cham­ pion of the day, Tommy Larcombe, later lived in both Campsie and Belmore.

The current interest in cycling was no doubt responsible for the formation of the Campsie Cycling Club in December, 1906. Its first race was from the station to Salt Pan and return. Early stars of the club were C. T. Scharenberg and J. Fraser.

Perhaps Canterbury’s first general sports promoter was Robert Dick who, in 1896, took over Aaron Brown’s St George Hotel at Belmore. He expressed his determination to encourage sports of all kinds, naturally at the hotel. The first of the sports was a quoits competition. 63 The various sports were legitimate, but Canterbury had its clandestine games as well. While some of the residents worshipped at their churches another group including others from distant parts spent a pleasant Sabbath at Wolli Creek enjoying the old English sport of cock fighting. Unfortunately, one Sunday in July, 1906, their pleasures were rudely interrupted by four plain clothed constables. The Advertiser reported that ‘interest in the fight suddenly vanished before the intensely and exciting urgent problem of getting away without any undue publicity’. There were seventeen arrests, including ten ‘fine game birds’, so ‘there was more crowing going on in the presence of the police than . . . previously recorded in history.’64 Until the opening of the new town hall, Canterbury was rather pressed for venues for large social functions. During the 1890’s there appears to have been no end of dances, concerts and socials. These varied from grand, mayoral and fancy dress balls to gipsy and bread and butter dances which were held for purposes such as church funds, charities, Western Suburbs Cottage Hospital, private thanks for favours shown, celebrations, festive occasions and official functions. There were numerous socials not only conducted for charities, but held regularly by clubs. Of the latter, the most prominent was the Canterbury Literary and Debating club, served by presidents such as James Slocombe and Robert Parry. As its title suggests the club served purposes other than the holding of monthly socials. In 1896, the Fitzroy Social Club was revived. It had the mayor S. R. Lorking, as its president, and Aldermen P. J. Scahill and J. Denniss as vice-president and treasurer. 65 Concerts were a common feature of evening entertainment. These were given by visiting entertainers such as the ‘Don’ Variety Troup, the social clubs and Canterbury Public School which sang the cantata ‘ The Rose Queen,, as well as raising prize funds with songsters trained by their principal, Robert Parry. There were moonlight concerts on Walter D’Arrietta’s grounds to raise funds for a new organ for St Saviour’s Church, while others were used for similar purposes to assist the unfortunate victims of fire.

193

In September, 1896, a brass band was established at Canterbury. It had local member, Varney Parkes as its patron, Sydney Lorking as president and Walter D’Arrietta, J. Denniss and P. J. Scahill vice-presidents. The band provided musical entertainment on Saturday evenings in Canterbury Road and on special and public occasions. Its first public appearance was a benefit to the Good Templar, played at the town hall in July, 1897.

The new century experienced an intensification of entertainments. In September, 1905, further impetus was given by the opening of the Kia Ora Hall at Campsie. New clubs such as Albert Social, Canterbury, Past Time and Gymnasium Clubs, came into being. The Campsie Horticultural Society promoted flower and bird shows. The first lodges, both friendly society and masonic were constituted in 1905 and 1906. There were the Captain Cook (No. 62, P.A.F.S. of A.) among whose members was John Quigg and Lodge Belmore (No. 244). The latter was consecrated in March, 1906. The ceremony was held at the town hall with Benjamin Taylor as the first master.

With all these entertainments, one must agree that Canterbury was ‘a very lively place.’66

A RAIL LINK A T LAST Lack of transport facilities was perhaps the greatest drawback to Canter­ bury’s economic and social development. When railways were first proposed for New South Wales, hopes were expressed that the main southern line route to Liverpool would pass through Canterbury. Later, in the 1880’s the construction of a loop line from St Peters to Liverpool proposed by J. H. Legge, and pressure was put upon the government to construct it. Various proposals concerning the route of the loop line where made from time to time, generally dictated by vested interests. One such route, suggested by a deputation to the Secretary for Public Works, Alexander Stuart, ran from St Peters, via Marrickville, Canterbury, Kingsgrove, Moorefield, Belmore, Bankstown and Liverpool. Surveys were made of routes but nothing of practical significance occurred.

In 1889, a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works reported adversely on the Marrickville to Burwood Road Railway and in December, narrowly rejected the proposal largely on the grounds of cost and a preference for cheaper tramways.67 The rejection of the line by one vote caused an outburst of protests from Canterbury residents. Apparently certain witnesses did not oppose the line as such but suggested other routes. The outcome was a gathering of over 400 enthusiastic citizens at Canterbury town hall on 6 January, 1890, to advocate the construction of the line. The people had been lulled into a false sense of security by believing in the promises of politicians.

Canterbury must be rescued from ‘the background into which she had been thrust.’ Three witnesses came in for special comment and the mention of their 194

Lakemba Railway Station, 1909

names brought forth loud groans and hoots. One of particular interest was the criticism of Aaron Brown, a Canterbury alderman, described as ‘not a very strong character’ who had been ‘got at’ by being induced to give evidence when he had no preference for any particular line.68 The criticism of Brown gave rise to an interesting interlude. At the annual election of aldermen in February, 1890, Brown was opposed by Walter D’Arrietta in West Ward, solely because of his railway views. There were the usual recriminations.69 D’Arrietta won by fourteen votes, but Brown, a Mt Pleasant farmer, was not yet beaten. He challenged the result in the Supreme Court by securing a quo warranto, calling on D’Arrietta to show cause why, in view of certain irregularities, he should not be ousted from office. His nomination paper purporting to have been signed by David Lewis, was actually signed by one of his children, William Forbes and Joseph Franklin, had not paid their rates at the time and three women had voted instead of their husbands. Though the Court found D’Arrietta guilty of no fault, he resigned his seat and contested the by-election against Brown. There were 460 ratepayers enrolled, but only 151 votes recorded. Of these Brown received seventy six and since D’Arrietta lost by a vote, it was his turn to protest. One of Brown’s nominators was not on the roll. Nevertheless Brown took his seat amid the cheers of fellow aldermen. He later expressed his gratitude by giving a ‘grand ball’ to celebrate his re-election. His supporters, suitably returned the elated alderman’s generosity.70 195

Fernhill Railway Station, so called until 1911 (afterwards Hurlstone to 1912 and from 1913 Hurlstone Park)

After all the fun and games, Canterbury had not yet a railway line. A deputation from the public meeting of January, 1890, consisting of par­ liamentary representatives and the aldermen met the minister. The Standing Committee narrowly reversed its decision, the Assembly adopted its recom­ mendation by forty two votes to four, and the Canterbury people celebrated by having ‘a high holiday . . . there were general rejoicings. Flags were flying in all the streets and mutual congratulations were the order of the day.’ Of the occasion The Advertiser wrote:— ‘The good people of Canterbury are fully justified in their expressions of joy, for they have fought a long and hard fight, and have contended against many powerful combinations, so that their victory is one that deserves special recognition.'71 The rejoicing proved to be somewhat premature. The Marrickville to Burwood Road Railway Bill, introduced in July, passed quickly through the Assembly, though not without some opposition. Joseph P. Abbott objected because of its piecemeal nature. The line should have been extended to Liverpool to relieve the southern railway traffic; William Suttor queried the cost. The Standing Committee recommended a cost of £90 250 but the bill which provided for £110 000, caused a constitutional problem. Other criticisms were that the railway was a speculators’ line for such estates as 196

Silver Park, Harcourt, Kempsey (Campsie) Park, and the introduction of the bill was the result of log-rolling by land sharks and syndicates.72 Unfortunately, the Legislative Council that ‘irresponsible and unrep­ resented body of the most respectable and respected elderly gentlemen that New South Wales Society can boast of’ strongly raised objections such as the extravagant cost of the land and threw out the bill.73 It was reported that the news came upon Canterbury like a thunderbolt. An enthusiastic meeting at the town hall resolved to petition the Legislative Council. The petition containing 1220 signatures was presented to the Upper House by William Pigott, who, some ten years previously had represented Canterbury in the Assembly. The statements concerning land jobbers and speculators were refuted. It emphasised that owners of land were willing to surrender them free of compensation and told of the value of the time, the existing means of communication being inadequate and inefficient. 74 A new measure was introduced and its sponsor, Bruce Smith, Secretary for Public Works, was determined it should pass. A six to eight hour debate followed and after a ‘strange career’, the act was finally passed and given assent on 20 December, 1890.75 After the preliminary surveys had been completed, Canterbury and Marrickville Councils vied for the site of the turning of the first sod, but the latter won the contest. Weather-wise the day, 1 August, 1892, was most unfavourable, but this did not deter the governor’s wife, the Countess of Jersey, from performing the ceremony. With a presentation silver spade, and ‘amidst great cheering’, she deftly turned the first sod. A ‘grand’ banquet followed. Canterbury, smarting from its defeat for the ceremonial site, rather perversely staged a side-show. The Herald referred to the holding of ‘some kind of celebration’, followed by numerous festivities for which the township was gaily decorated with bunting. There were contests such as ‘catch the greasy pig’ and Thomas Davis gave the school children a real treat, a bullock roasted whole. Eighty guests were entertained at a banquet, presided over by the mayor, Patrick Scahill. It included Canterbury parliamentary representatives, Joseph Carruthers and Cornelius Danahey, and was characterised by the usual eulogies and toasts.76 The actual construction of the line was undertaken by Proudfoot and Company which agreed to complete the 5.4 miles railway within eighteen months. The task was duly completed and 1 February, 1895 was selected as the official opening by the Secretary for Public Works, James Young. The ceremonial train left Sydney at 11.30 a.m., followed by a second crowded with passengers. At each station the platforms were ‘gay with bunting and devices worked in evergreens’. The official train was greeted by cheers and was the signal for numerous festivities. By 12.5 p.m. the iron procession had reached incomplete Canterbury Station. Here, the mayor, Patrick Scahill, heartily welcomed James Young and stressed the virtues of railways. At Belmore, the terminus, the official party was similarly met by Ald. George 197

Nicoll and as a finale, Patrick Scahill presided over a large gathering at a mayoral social at Marrickville.77 When the line was well under construction, the Council wrestled with station names and locations. It suggested Fernhill, Canterbury, Campsie and St George. The latter name created a controversy. It was strongly opposed

by Illawarra councils, but Canterbury stubbornly maintained its desire to honour the dragon slayer. Even Joseph Carruthers’ personal request was refused but eventually the Council settled on the name Belmore and Fernhill later became Hurlstone Park.

Belmore Station was the site of probably the first fatal railway accident to occur in the Canterbury Municipality. In January, 1906, William Chick, a boy of twelve years, was fatally injured when he foolishly attempted to alight from a moving train.78 The dream of those, such as Aaron Brown, who advocated a loop line to Liverpool, was gradually fulfilled. The railway was extended to Bankstown in 1909, and finally linked to the main southern line at Regent’s Park in July, 1928, thus avoiding crossing the Georges River. The second railway, the Tempe-East Hills branch, was completed in 1931, but only one station, Narwee, and about a kilometre of line are actually on Canterbury soil, though most of it runs close to its southern boundary. The final step, electrification, was achieved in 1927.79

THE NEW SYSTEM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1906 The municipal system under which Canterbury was incorporated did little to assist the development of local government in the colony. Though the Municipalities Act, 1867, was passed to reform the original system, it was a miserable failure, because it perpetuated its defects. By 1906, after almost fifty years of local government, the colony had a peak total of 192 munici­ palities which covered less than one percent of its area. The government had learned to its chagrin, that it was useless to let the people decide whether they would set up rating councils. By 1906, it was still providing for the local needs of almost all the colony. The people, especially in the country, were quite content to remain unincorporated. They evaded their municipal responsibi­ lities and avoided rate payments, while, at the same time, they benefited from the superior government expenditure on roads and other services.

Such a situation led the government’s planning of schemes under which the people would be compelled to form themselves into municipal units and bear the expense of local services. The first of these involved the introduction of compulsory incorporation of selected areas. Next came proposals to divide the whole of the non-municipal area into units to which the name ‘shires’ were eventually given. Unfortunately, the bills being too detailed and providing for the reform of the existing municipal units as well prejudiced their passing.

198

Joseph Carruthers, in his wisdom, saw that the provision of new units and reform of those already in existence were distinct, rendering the passing separate bills necessary. The new units were created by the Local Government (Shires) Extension Act, 1905, and the reform of the existing system achieved by the Local Government Extension Act, 1906. The two were conjoined to form the Local Government Act, 1906.

The new 1906 Act made important changes. Canterbury, at first a municipal district, now officially became a municipality, in common with all those incorporated before 1906. Its area was increased by two square miles by the addition of unincorporated land at the western extremity.80 The new boundary now followed Salt Pan Creek and ran through the centre of the Pan itself. The 1906 Act provided for municipalities to be proclaimed cities but Canterbury had no hope of fulfilling any of three requirements of revenue, population and independence of area. In fact, under the conditions set by the Local Government Act, 1919, it would not even have been a municipality.

Because of its large area, it became a necessity to increase the wards to three. The Council sensibly petitioned the governor to make a further division. The new wards were proclaimed in 1887. 81 Since representation had to be in multiple of three, Canterbury now had nine aldermen. In 1906, the system of annual elections was replaced by simultaneous retirement, so that all aldermen faced the electors together. The general experience was that the Canterbury people found annual elections a source of annoyance, and there were few challengers to the sitting aldermen. Now the elections assumed greater importance, generating more local interest in them.

Other important changes made in 1906 include the change of the general rating basis to the unimproved capital value which naturally allowed the Council to collect rates on its unoccupied alienated lands. Canterbury had extinguished its right to government endowment by 1895, so otherwise benefited little from the new system. Loans were subject to a poll of ratepayers and this acted as a brake on any grandiose schemes. Until 1906, no legal qualifications were required for the council servants. The act now set down certain qualifications to be possessed by town clerks and engineers, but surprisingly, despite the importance of public health supervision, not for sanitary inspectors.82 The last annual elections held in February, 1906, gained some notoriety through John Quigg’s stubborn determination to remain an alderman for West Ward. Quigg had experienced little difficulty holding his seat ever since his first election in 1885. His support for the erection of the proposed new Sydney abattoirs at Belmore Station developed into the ‘burning question’ of the day. The residents in the vicinity became so ‘sore’ that they became determined to challenge Quigg’s seat. Their champion was the secretary of the Belmore Progress Association, Arthur L. Young, described as ‘a strong, energetic and enthusiastic supporter of Canterbury’s progress’. John Quigg’s 199

critics were urged to 'turn back for thirty five years the pages of a public man’s life5 which had been of ‘untold strength’ to the Canterbury Municipality.

Quigg’s ‘ability, position and stamina’ would return him to the head of the poll. On the other hand the Belmore Progress Association campaigned solidly and successfully for its secretary, who won the election by the narrow margin of two votes. Quigg soon found irregularities— certain women had voted for their husbands, and four ratepayers had voted twice, and the Full Court ousted Young. The two rivals then fought out a by-election, which was certainly ‘a close affair’, Young winning by one vote. N ot to be denied Quigg appealed to the Supreme Court, encouraged by his 106 votes to Young’s 68 at Belmore, the centre of the abattoir controversy. Again Young was ousted and the contest repeated for the third time. A disconsolate John Quigg was forced to surrender on being beaten by 200 votes to 179, though he was back in office in 1908.83 TABLE 15

CANTERBURY STATISTICS 1892-1906 Year

Area (Acres)

Dwellings

Population

1892 1896 1897 1901 1906

7,155 7,155 7,104 7,104 7,104

527 714 762 935 1120

2390 3350 3500 4226 6660

Source:

Assessed Annual value— £ 18,953 19,540 20,200 13,840 30,130

N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1892-1906

TABLE 16

FINANCIAL STATISTICS 1892-1906 Year Gen Rates Lighting Govt. Aid Collected Rates 1892 1896 1897 1901 1906

200

£ 2,076 1,031 1,248 1,491 1,939

£ 254 166 220 357 475

£ 1058 441 400 396 285

REVENUE Total Revenue (All sources) £ 3559 1851 2267 2919 3522

Total Rates Levied £ 2,062 1,676 1,620 1,674 2,675

Year Salaries Office Exp. £

EXPENDITURE Public Lighting Misc. Interest Total All Sources Works £££ ££ 2746 268 495 420 4237

1892 308 202 486 1896 262 932 299 511 450 1893 251 1897 348 459 452 1160 313 1901 416 1474 283 543 381 1906 270 Note: Government Endowment ceased after 1894 Total Revenue, Expenditures are for all sources Source: N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1892-1906

2447 3456 3010 3263

TABLE 17 MUNICIPALITY OF CANTERBURY HALF YEARLY ABSTRACT OF ACCOUNTS— -FEBRUARY-AUGUST, 1906 EXPENDITURE

RECEIPTS £ (nearest) Bank balance (5/2/06) Cash (5/2/06) General rates Other rates Government grant—roads Private subscriptions Miscellaneous Nuisances prevention

387 19 926 294 283 22 91 309

£ (nearest) General Lighting Nuisances prevention Fire brigade levies Trust roads Loan repayments Cash (6/8/06) Bank balance (6/8/06)

2,331

929 189 335 50 277 50 13 488 2,331

Source: N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1906, Vol 4, p. 6202.

201

1. For an example see R. G. Lloyd, Subdivision— Large Grants to Small Lots. Canterbury Historical Society 2. A. Birch, D. S. Macmillan, The Sydney Scene, 1788-1960, p. 195; Canterbury Historical Society, Journal, Series 2 No. 5 pp. 18-20 3. Sydney Morning Herald, 10 January, 1884 4. A. J. Brown, H. M. Sherrard, Town and Country Planning, pp. 280—4 5. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 4, pp. 72; N. K. Peek, Stoneless Bay and Harcourt, Canterbury Historical Society Journal, Series 2, No. 8, p. 8 6. Sydney Morning Herald, 1 October, 1888 7. N. K. Peek, Stoneless Bay and Harcourt, Canterbury Historical Society Journal, Series 2, No. 8, p. 8 8. J. Green, Model Suburb; Harcourt, Burwood, Centennial Magazine, 1889-90, Vol. 2, pp. 150-4 9. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 5, p. 89 10. N. K. Peek, Stoneless Bay and Harcourt, Canterbury Historical Society Journal, Series 2, No. 8, pp. 10-13 11. Ibid, pp. 8, 12-13 12. Canterbury Municipal Library, newspaper cutting 13. Ibid 14. N. K. Peek, The Fenwick Family, Canterbury Historical Society Journal, Series 2 No. 4, pp. 4-9 15. I. E. Currey, The Towers, Ibid, Series 2 No. 2 p. 9, The year, 1870, is stamped on the Munz metal 16. Advertiser, 14, 21 October, 1905 17. Ibid, 30 September, 7 October, 1905, 6, 13 January, 1906 18. Ibid, 3 February, 1906 19. Evening News, 24 September, 1904 20. Sydney Chronicle Reprint Supplement to the Daily Mirror 8 November, 1971 21. Ibid 22. J. Jervis, The History of Canterbury Municipality, p. 74 23. Sydney Morning Herald, 10 January, 1884 24. Ibid, 19 January, 1884 25. Ibid 21 January, 1884 26. Ibid 27. Ibid 28. Sydney Turf Club—Details of Major Canterbury Races 29. Evening News, 21 November, 1908 30. Sydney Morning Herald, 2 July, 1888 31. Advertiser, 18 January, 22 February, 1890 32. Sydney Turf Club Act—No. 22, 1943, Second Schedule 33. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 December, 1945, 16, 18 March, 1946, Information from 5.T.C. 34. Information prepared by the Sydney Turf Club 35. Sydney Turf Club, Annual Report, 1976, pp. 5—7 36. I. E. Currey, Prout’s Bridge Murder, Canterbury Historical Society Journal, Series 2, No. 4, pp. 17-18. Sydney Morning Herald, 14, 15, 20, 22, August, 1, 2, 4 September, 1885 37. Advertiser, 19 April, 1890 38. N.S.W. Government Gazette, Vol. 1, 1883—6, 1904—5.

39. Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, Vol. 1, p. 8 40. Ibid, pp. 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12

202

41. Canterbury Municipal Library—Newspaper cuttings 42. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 April, 1889. J. Jervis, History of the Municipality of Canterbury pp. 81-2 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 4, p. 77, 145 43. Dailly T elegraph 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20 October, 1898 44. Advertiser 18 January, 6 December, 1890. Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes Vol. 4, 1890, pp. 246, 320 45. Ibid. 21 September, 1895 46. Advertiser, 28 September, 1895—see also Leader, 5 October, 1895 47. Ibid, 29 February, 1896 48. Advertiser, 13 February, 1897 49. Ibid, 19 January, 23 February, 1895, 28 November, 1896 50. Act No. 15, 1895 51. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 6 p. 251 52. Advertiser, 25 January, 1896. Ibid 8 February, 1890. Ibid, 10 November, 1906 53. Advertiser, 8 February, 1890 54. T. M. Roberts, George Wallace Nicoll, Canterbury Historical Society Journal, Series 2 No. 7 pp. 1-7 55. Ibid, 10 October, 1896 56. Ibid, 4, 18 May, 1895 57. Ibid, 5 January 1895, J. Jervis, The History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 25 58. Advertiser, 23 May, 14 November, 1896 59. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report Homebush Saleyards, pp. 1911-12, Vol. l,p. 359 60. Advertiser, 19 January, 1895 61. Ibid, 2 December, 1905, 13, 20, 27 January, 1906 62. Ibid, 25 July, 1896, 28 January, 1905 63. Ibid, 1st August, 1896, 1, 15 December, 1906 64. Ibid, 20 July, 1907 65. Ibid, 15 February, 1890 66. Ibid, 29 March, 1890, 9 September, 1896, 10 July, 1897, 30 September, 28 October, 4 November, 9 December, 1905, 6 January, 24 March, 1906 67. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Report, Marrickville to Burwood Road Railway, Journal of Legislative Council, 1890, Vol. 3 pp. 507-8. The Advertiser, Ashfield, 4 January, 1890 68. The Advertiser, 11 January, 1890 69. Ibid, 8 February, 1890 70. Ibid, 29 March, 24 May, 21 June, 12 July, 1890 71. Ibid, 14 June, 1890 72. Hansard, 1890, Vol. 46, pp. 2192-3, 2723, Vol. 47, pp. 2867-71 73. The Advertiser, 30 August, 1890 74. Journal of the Legislative Council, 1890, Vol. 3, p. 103 75. Hansard, 1890, Vol., 49, pp. 4985-6, 5153-4, Act 54, Vic. No. 27 76. Sydney Morning Herald, 2 August, 1892 77. Sydney Morning Herald, 1, 2 February, 1895 78. Advertiser, 13 January, 1906 79. J. Jervis, History of the Municipality of Canterbury, pp. 32—5, Information—Public Transport Commission 80. N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1906, Vol. 1, p. 1342; Act No. 33, 1905, Sec. 5(2) 81. Ibid, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 2899 82. F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W. 1858-1906 pp. 97-9 83. Advertiser, 6 January, 10, 17 February, 10 March, 7 April, 26 May, 2 June, 1906

203

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENTS

T

he new system of local government introduced by the 1906 Act com­ menced to operate from January, 1908. In May, 1907, the municipality was revalued on the unimproved capital basis as follows:1 TABLE 18 CANTERB URY MUNICIPALITY—RATING ASSESSMENT, 1907 Ward U.C.V. (£) A.A.V. (£) Rate Potential (£)

North East West Total

62,365 70,653 108,704 241,723

11,762 11,553 16,178 39,493

733 758 1,053 2,544

The elections for the first triennial term, held in February, 1908. Of the 3709 electors only 1087 or 29.3 per cent voted. The results were as follows:2 TABLE 19 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, 1908 North Ward *Draper, J. E. *Barnes, W. *Marsh, E. A. Tomkins, G.

202 180 153* 89

East Ward

*Barnes, A. E. *McCulloch, J. Sharp, V. C. Meredith,F. Hillard, W

*Elected Source. Advertiser 8 February, 1908.

199 197 186 164 163

West ward

* Scahill, P. *Taylor, B. *Quigg, J Chapman, W. E. Russell, W. J. Ifield, J. J.

338 320 282 215 214 188

The main upset was the defeat of a sitting alderman Frederick Meredith.

The tenacious John Quigg was returned and John Draper was elected mayor.

Councils generally appeared to be satisfied with the 1906 reforms, though there were rumblings of discontent with the new act which despite its ‘promised freedom of action’ was ‘fast becoming one of the most bureau­ cratically controlled measures in existence’.3 For most councils rating upon unimproved values meant increased revenue and this aspect pleased Can­ terbury. On other aspects the council was not so happy. Its area was increased by the addition of 1280 acres of previously unincorporated land at the western extremity. The government forced the Council to rate the original municipality to pay for improvements in the new territory, a considerable injustice so it thought.4 206

The Council’s increasing properties added further to its expenses. John Wiley, a resident of Belmore, willed twenty acres to the Council for a park.

Its acceptance was strongly opposed by the residents of Fern Hill, Campsie and Rosedale at public meetings where ‘party feeling ran high’. The objec­ tions were mainly on the grounds of the cost of the upkeep and the park’s restricted use. The meeting rejected the offer by one vote, particularly after the will’s executor, William Pring, stressed that Wiley’s action was ‘very unnatural’, in not leaving the land to his nephews. The Council was, at first, disposed to accept the meeting decision, but was soon swayed by Benjamin Taylor’s strong point that public meetings should not dictate policy.5 Though the Council asserted its independence, progress association pres­ sures kept it on its toes. To those of Belmore, Campsie and Forest Hill was added a fourth, Wanstead, to pester the Council for improvements from Fern Hill to Tempe. The new association used rather a novel method to air its views. It employed the poet, ‘One of Them’ to write in verse of Wanstead’s needs and the Council’s failure to comply. The poem, Wanstead’s Out to Win, drew an immediate reply similarly couched in verse, headed Wanstead an Unhappy Family, written by Cacoethes Scribendi, a poet with ‘an itch to write,’ urging a ‘get tough’ policy: ‘ Wanstead, relent, relent, your poet is not severe enough, his lash has no sting, He shows his hand too cleanly, he’s too truthful to be a scribe . . .

But for heaven’s sake, my potential friend, do not stir Cook’s River up again, Let it lay a litle longer, a thing of beauty and a channel for the tide To eddy, bubble, and swirl along past Wanstead alone Strikes me Wanstead you had better keep your kitten tethered to your brow.

Inspire it with the strength of a Canterbury cat, and make it sleek and alert.'

‘One of Them’, in a rejoinder, described the advice as a ‘feeble effort’ which brought ‘discredit to Latin’. He declared: 'Council and aldermen—two or three, comprehended that Wanstead was barking up the right tree. (Aldermen) have smelt a cat. And are afraid the Wanstead kitten is going to be the Canterbury Cat. ’6

CANTERBURY AND GREATER SYDNEY There is no more interesting movement and one more barren of results than that for a Greater Sydney. In their essence, proposed Greater Sydney schemes aimed to create a metropolitan authority to undertake functions such as water supply, sewerage and planning which required areas of efficient operation larger than those of the numerous suburban municipalities. The need for such an authority became obvious during the late 1880’s, by which time the local government of the Sydney metropolitan area was being administered by a complexity of bodies. Simplification was to be made possible by two methods, 207

the abolition of the suburban municipalities and their replacement by a Greater Sydney authority, or the retention of local areas with a Greater Sydney Council undertaking major functions of common concern. The first, a scheme of unification, threatened Canterbury’s existence as a separate unit.

It was first advanced by Alderman John Griffin, of Hurstville Council in 1898, who incidentally, had property interest in Canterbury. He proposed a conference of suburban municipalities to draft a scheme for ‘economic unification.’

In October, Canterbury received a letter, requesting the attendance of two representatives at a Greater Sydney conference. The Council thereupon appointed Mayor Lorking and Patrick Scahill as its delegates.7 The confer­ ence, held late in 1898, appointed an investigating committee which recommended the amalgamation of the city with Canterbury and forty other suburban municipalities. Not to be outdone, the City Council produced an almost identical scheme and in July, 1899, invited Canterbury aldermen to another conference at the Town Hall. The Council merely ‘received’ this invitation but later willingly co-operated with Glebe by attending a suburban conference.8 Eventually in May, 1900 the rival groups compromised and the scheme if implemented would have meant the annihilation of the Canterbury Municipality with its residents becoming citizens of Greater Sydney City. At this stage the rumblings of discontent began to echo through the suburbs as the aldermen became more apprehensive about the loss of their status and colour as leading citizens. A consequence was the drafting of a federal plan, covering the same area but leaving all the municipalities intact and having a Greater Sydney Council to undertake matters of general concern. This plan was more to Canterbury’s liking and one of its keenest supporters, I. Reginald Cohen was invited to explain to the Council the aims and objectives of the federal scheme. By this time the Canterbury aldermen had become antago­ nistic to a Greater Sydney. Only George Nicoll professed a deep interest in the concept and was pleased that the City Council supported unification. 9 The ensuing deadlock forced the government to become interested and in June, 1902, a Select Committee was appointed to investigate a scheme for metropolitan government. Canterbury, while affirming its total opposition to a Greater Sydney, was willing to have John Quigg and Rodmond Summerfield give evidence. 10 After seventeen witnesses had been examined parliament was prorogued on 20 December. The ‘downing of tools’ put an end to the select committee before Quigg and Summerfield could give evidence. 11 In 1913, a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate and recom­ mend a scheme. In May, the Council was requested to express its views on nine aspects for submission to the Commission and a special meeting was called for the purpose. Except for Mayor Hocking, the Council was adamant that no part of its area should be included in a Greater Sydney. Though this 208

Anzac Day Procession, 1919, Haldon Street, Lakemba

view was clearly expressed, the aldermen forgot to discuss what areas should be included. Nevertheless they took part in an academic exercise on the structure of the proposed authority, its powers and functions, and method of levying rates. An opinion was expressed that a Greater Sydney Council should be composed of two representatives from each municipality within its area. Its powers and functions should be the ‘fullest . . . that can be conceived5, and it be empowered to resume from the Crown and various private and public authorities any functions considered to be ‘most expe­ dient’. The only safeguard was that the government should possess the right to resume any powers. No changes were recommended in the method of levying rates. 12 The indefiniteness of the Council’s scheme and the lack of agreement among the aldermen on what form a Greater Sydney should take were typical of most suburban municipalities. Each council was generally convinced that there should be a scheme but was fully convinced that its area should not be included. Canterbury’s views were more definitely expressed by George Hocking, who gave evidence before the Commission. He spoke of the councils being ‘pretty equally divided’ on the principle of a Greater Sydney, but against inclusion in such a scheme, on the grounds that Canterbury differed from adjoining muncipalities. It had a population density of less than three persons per acre occupying a large area which required more super­ vision than could be given by a greater council. Such a scheme would prove to be too large and unwieldy to provide for the needs of a scattered 209

population. Hocking was more progressive and enlightened than his fellow aldermen. He correctly believed that a Greater Sydney would prove beneficial for the more settled parts of the metropolitan area and was not opposed to at least part of Canterbury being included in the scheme, perhaps with Cook’s River as its boundary. 13 The Commission recommended a two-zone scheme—a unified inner zone containing twenty-three municipalities and an outer zone with the existing municipalities and shires remaining intact. Canterbury was placed in the outer zone, but when the necessary legislation, the Greater Sydney Bill was drafted, the Municipality was included in the inner zone and therefore marked for extinction. News of the impending legislation aroused suburban councils who demanded a ratepayers’ referendum. Glebe sought Canter­ bury’s co-operation to petition parliament but the Council merely received the letter. The threatened areas were saved by extraneous circumstances—the seriousness of the war situation and the split in the Labor ranks—which put an end to the Greater Sydney Bill and it was not until 1931 that new legislation was drafted.

The McKell Greater Sydney Bill, 1931, provided for a federal system covering the County of Cumberland, but the sixty-nine local units in the County of Cumberland were to be reduced to twenty-eight by a series of amalgamations. These were to retain most of their powers, with a Greater Sydney Council undertaking those of general import for the whole County.

Here Canterbury’s size saved it from any amalgamation with neighbouring units. It would have remained as one of the twenty-eight ‘states’ with much the same functions. The residents would have been given a say in the election of one of the twenty-three greater councillors. Once again extraneous circumstances—the depression and the dismissal of the Lang Government in 1932—put an end to any hopes for a Greater Sydney and no further attempt to introduce a system of metropolitan government has since been made.

YEARS OF BOOM From 1911 wages and costs began to rise and this trend is reflected in municipal finance. From 1907 to 1914 the population of municipalities increased by 19.6 per cent and total rate revenue, 117.4 per cent while total net expenditure rose by 120.7 per cent. This period saw a growth acceleration in Canterbury much greater than the above general average. The population increased by 153.3 per cent from 8850 (1908) to 22 420. Rate revenue for this period rose from £5716 to £18 316 (220.4%) while net expenditure rose from £6413 to £29 526 (117.2%). At the outbreak of war Canterbury was enjoying a financially sound position. Just prior to the opening of hostilities in the first world war, Canterbury benefited considerably from two new amenities—an extension of the tramways to its boundaries and the intro210

Tram leaving Earlwood Terminus for the City

duction of electricity. The two services combined to make the Municipality more accessible and comfortable and hence more attractive to home seekers.

In its earliest phases the movement for a tram link with Canterbury was associated with that for a railway, generally as an alternative. In August, 1881 a public meeting resolved that a deputation meet John Lackey, Minister for Public Works, to urge the construction of a tramway to Kingsgrove, St. George and Canterbury. Council agreed that, as a follow-up to the meeting and deputation, an exhaustive letter be forwarded to the government stressing the district’s agricultural and building advantages and the ‘salubrity’ of its climate. Unfortunately, neither the deputation nor the letter made any great impression on the government, though the local member, William Pigott, informed the Council that a tram line had been explored and would receive early attention. No constructional efforts were made probably because investigations and other experiences had shown that tramways to outlying areas were not an economic means of transport. In fact this point was made in 1883 to a deputation to the Minister for Public Works, Henry Copeland. 15 Evidence given before the Parliamentary Standing Committee, examining the feasibility of the Marrickville-Burwood Road railway, shows that some witnesses preferred tram links from the city because of their lower con­ structional cost—£5000 per mile of single track compared with £19 000 for the railway. The construction of the latter reduced the pressure temporarily for trams, but the development of residential areas some distance from 211

railway stations led to further demands. The first tram contact with the municipality was made in 1902 when a branch line from Marrickville to Undercliffe was opened. The tram terminus at Dulwich Hill offered a convenient point from which to extend lines into Ashfield and Canterbury Municipalities. Their councils wanted the tramway to provide the most convenient service for their areas and so the route became a contentious issue between them. Ashfield preferred the line to run from Dulwich Hill via Constitutional and Old Canterbury Roads. Marrickville, Petersham and Canterbury supported a line via New and Old Canterbury Roads, because of the large population at Fern Hill. A deputation from Canterbury, Peter­ sham and Ashfield then found that the Commissioner did not agree with either route. He considered that the best and most desired was that which ran via New Canterbury Road, Victoria Street and Liverpool Road to Ashfield.

This was, of course, of little value to Canterbury and Fern Hill. Eventually the Council won the day and in June, 1913, a tramway was extended from Dulwich Hill to the junction of Old and New Canterbury Roads, then known as Wattle Hill. The line to Summerhill was completed in 1915 and to Canterbury Station in 1921. Finally in 1924, Undercliffe was connected with Earlwood. Not all the local people were satisfied that the extension was adequate for Earlwood’s needs. The residents in the vicinity of William Street formed a progress association to work for the area’s general improvement and a further extension of the tramway. In November, 1925, ‘Clemton Park’ was substituted for ‘William Street’ in the Association’s name, but the proposed tramway extension did not eventuate. The name ‘Clemton Park’, has remained the name of the area west of Bexley Road, between William and Homer Streets. Research by Brian Madden reveals that this name was devised

by E. A. Moncur, secretary of the William Street Progress Association and Tramway Extension League, from that of Frederick Moore Clements, famous for the production of Clement’s Tonic, who, until his death in 1920, was the owner of forty two acres, roughly between William Street and Cup and Saucer Creek. 16 Costs always rise in times of war and local councils counter them by increasing rates. Though Canterbury kept its general rate at 4d. during the war years, the revenue derived from it rose from £18 316 to £26 192 or 43 per cent compared with the general municipal average of 21 per cent. This rise was the result of increasing unimproved capital values upon which the general rate was levied. Over the period 1915—18, 2148 new buildings were erected at a total value of £938 701. The demand for building sites forced up land prices which were reflected in the rise in the U.C.V. of 47 per cent from £1 036 675 in 1914 to £1 523 723 in 1918. While total income rose by only 3.5 per cent increased costs caused expenditure to rise by 49%. In 1918 an income of £30 563 could not match an expenditure of £37 733, so further borrowing became necessary, but only a modest increase in loan liabilities 212

Campsie Station, 1919. Believed to be a welcome to returning Servicemen.

of £1071 occurred during the war. This was the general trend in most municipalities where revenue rose at a slower rate, causing liabilities to increase.

The ‘war to end all wars’ having been won, Canterbury’s residents first turned to find ways and means of expressing their gratitude to those of its men who had assisted to bring victory to the allies. Monuments came very much to mind even well before the end of the war. Perhaps the first of these erected by the Independent Order of Rechabites, and dedicated to Canterbury’s ‘Fallen Heroes,’ was unveiled on 2 October, 1915. After the war various districts within the municipality erected suitable monuments to the local men who served, an example being the Hurlstone Park Memorial at the railway station, the foundation stone for which was laid in September, 1920. For its part the Council erected an honour roll at the town hall, listing the names of 608 residents of Canterbury Municipality who served their country. Of these, eighty-six paid the supreme sacrifice. 17 Perhaps the most important means of perpetuating the comradeship of the ‘diggers’ and the memory of those who gave their lives was the formation of branches of the R.S.&S.I.L.A. at the various district centres. The first Charter of Membership in the Canterbury Municipality was granted to Campsie Sub-Branch in September, 1928. Since then charters have been granted to Belmore, 1928, Canterbury-Hurlstone Park, 1933, Belfield, 1938, Earlwood 1945 and Punchbowl 1947.

Anglo Square

The Campsie Sub-Branch was the result of an ‘aftermath of many years’ work by a devoted band. The first branch meeting, held at William Brice’s barber shop, elected W. Stanford president, J. Shieles, and F. Rigg, secretary.

For some fifteen years the Sub-Branch met at various locations—R. W. Millers’ milk bar, the Empire Dispensary and Palm Court Halls. At the latter in August, 1943, a meeting on the motion of Dave Smith and Harry Ames decided that £50 be banked as the nucleus of a Club Building Fund. A committee set about raising the necessary funds. An ‘intense activity’ by the ‘faithful few’ resulted in the purchase of a site in Anglo Road for £1250. A new Building Committee under the chairmanship of Cliff Stremple, pur­ chased an army hut for £350. It was re-erected at a cost of £2500 and opened in April, 1950 as a memorial hall and club rooms. Further extensions were made, especially those in 1959 at a cost of £48 000 and 1963 for £67 000 . 18 In February, 1966, it was decided to re-plan the whole complex to add further facilities. The new club re-built at a cost of £376 813 was opened in December, 1969. Among the outstanding workers for the branch and Club were Lindy and Millie Whiteman, Cliff Stremple, foundation chairman of the Club Committee, Bill Egan, president, Bill Allen, secretary manager, Tom Green of the Campsie Hotel and Tom E. Davies, an official for twenty-seven years, holding offices such as Sub-Branch Secretary and Treasurer of the Club. 19 214

Three weeks later, in October, 1928, a charter was granted to Belmore.

Here a ‘small band of stalwarts’ held their first meetings at Station House in Bridge Road, a property later demolished to make way for Canterbury Leagues Club. Little is known of the early years, but numbered amongst the ‘stalwarts’ were Bill Hamilton, Lt. Ernie Brand, Lt. Arnold Markey, Military Medal, and Syd. Brand. Bob Roberts, first life member and Stan Parry, former member, Mayor of Canterbury. An influx of new members after World War II necessitated a separate club house. The premises were built mainly by volunteer labour by members, in Burwood Road, now known as Clarence House, the headquarters of the R.S.L. Youth Club. General H. Gordon Bennett laid the foundation stone in 1952. At the time the club membership was only eighty-two. Further expansion of membership made larger premises a necessity and as a result the present imposing complex was opened in March, 1959. Lt. General Pollard in his opening address praised the pre­ sident, Ned Ayr and manager, Ron Pearson for the efforts which resulted in such a splendid club. Belmore’s members served their country valiantly.

Bravery awards were Col. Des McDowell, D.S.O. & Bar, Dudley Myles D.S.M. & Bar, Phil Baxter, the Military Medal (Vietnam) and F.Lt. Geoff Norton, the D.F.C. Likewise the officials have given unselfish service to further the R.S.L. Club and among these may be mentioned Ron Pearson, President R.S.L., 1953-9 and its President 1960-70. Ron has been the Club’s Secretary-Manager since 1955. Aub Brown, Treasurer 1953-6, was the Club’s first life member and Bill Knight its President since 1966. Finally considerable credit must go to a life member, George Park for his editorship of the monthly journal, The Bell.

The Canterbury-Hurlstone Park, the third of the R.S.L. Sub-Branches, was first formed in 1927 at a meeting, held in the old Boy Scout’s Hall in Charles Street, convened by Warwick Carruthers, Bert Crook and Bert Tout. Sub­ sequent meetings were in the town and other halls, and even in Ern Morrison’s home. The Sub-Branch received its charter on 28 August, 1930.

A Women’s Auxiliary was constituted in 1939 and assisted materially in raising sufficient fund through a carnival at Yeo Park to purchase a site in Canterbury Road and erect a club from two army huts. Until 1978 twenty-one Sub-Branch members have been awarded life membership. Of these, Bert Crook, Frank Maloney, Ern Morrison, Joe Shaw and Bill Davis were foundation members who served on the first committee.

The R.S.L. Club opened in 1947 with Bert Crook as Secretary-Manager and a staff of only two persons. As the Club grew in membership and importance further extensions were made. In 1954 Sir John Northcott opened a memorial chapel and club extension. The present attractive premises were opened by the State President, F. Maher. The Club auditorium seats 800, and other facilities a mixed and observation lounge, dining room, men’s games room, and youth club hall. A car park for 327 vehicles was 215

opened in 1977. The Club therefore, provides considerable opportunitites for the enjoyment and entertainment of its patrons, such indoor games as, billiards, table tennis, darts, bowls and squash. Field sports include bowls, cricket, soccer, fishing, golf. John Brown, a life member of the Sub-Branch, the Secretary-Manager since 1976, required a staff of 100 employees in 1978 to serve the 8400 members, of whom, 2400 were ladies. A Youth Club, which was begun unofficially in 1956, by Norma Tate, with children’s tennis and elocution catered for 350 members in 1978 interested in tap and ballet dancing, gymnasitcs, tennis, swimming and netball.20 Canterbury’s main concern was to return to ‘normalcy’ by shedding the restrictive disciplines imposed by war, but not a return to the quiet life and slow tempo of pre-war days. Science intruded to change the economic and social institutions, which Canterbury had known for over a century. There were three main instruments causing the post-war changes—the motor car, the cinema and the radio. The Herald on 14 April, 1900, classed the first Australian car a Thompson, as a ‘novel’ and ‘startling innovation.’ 21 The automobile spread slowly through the state until the 1920’s when cheaper prices gave people the opportunity to purchase Henry Ford’s T-Model, affectionately dubbed ‘Tin Lizzie.’ Towards the end of the 1920’s motorists had the choice of several four cylinder models, the first geared Ford, Chevrolet and Chrysler, purchasable for £250-£300. For young men, motorcycles such as the Norton, Douglas and B.S.A. cost£60-£80. More expensive and heavier models, Indian Scouts and Harley Davidsons, had side-car facilities for young ladies. The motor vehicle ‘streamlined daily life, adding to its speed, hazards, and happiness,’ to the ‘faster and more mobile’ transport, ‘the loneliness of the bush shrank.’22 Together with rail and tram facilities, the motor vehicles annihilated Canterbury’s seclusion, causing revolutionary changes in the citizens’ leisure hours, and widening their horizons.

Until the war years, Canterbury residents relied upon ‘live’ shows-concerts, socials and dancing for their entertainment. Then came the moving pictures.

The first film theatre, the Salon Lumiere, opened its doors in Pitt Street in 1895. Other theatres followed, mostly open-air, operating under very uncomfortable conditions. Canterbury’s first theatre was of this variety. In April, 1910, Slater’s Campsie Picture Palace Saloon was erected at the corner of Beamish and Evaline Streets. For protection from rival shows, the proprietors requested the Council to refuse permission for other theatres within two miles of the railway station. For this favour they guaranteed to devote five per cent of the first month’s gross takings to charity as well as the proceeds from four benefit shows annually. Others to apply to the Councilincluded A. W. McLeod in Beamish Street, J. R. McMahon, Drummond Street, Belmore, in 1911. The former with two other partners, opened the Royal Theatre, an open-air show situated on the present site of the Council Chambers. Campsie’s first footwear shop, Tant’s Boot and Show Emporium, 216

was next door to the Royal. Tant’s son Wal, sold the patrons peanuts at Id and 3d bag, and its awning provided a shelter for the theatre patrons when it rained.23 In 1915, M. Smith erected an ‘up-to-date’ theatre near Lakemba Railway Station and approval was given to S. Quigg in Canterbury Road. In the 1920’s modern theatres were erected at Campsie and Punchbowl.

The old picture show was a wonderful source of entertainment, both social and educational when compared with those of the nineteenth century. Who of the older residents will forget the great roar as the musicians took their places and the lights went out? Canterbury audiences gazed with awe and wonder at films such as The Lost World, were filled with pride and patriotism by the various stories based on war incidents, experienced tremendous thrills from the ‘westerns’ and the exploits of Tom Mix and William S. Hart; had heart throbs from the love stories which featured great lovers such as Rudolph Valentino as The Sheik, laughed heartily at the antics of Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin, Fatty Arbuckle and other comedians of the ‘two-reelers’ and could not get to the theatre fast enough on the following Saturday to see what happened to heroes and heroines in weekly serials such as Art Accord in Winners of the West. Then wonder of wonders, the ‘talkies’ which began in 1928, with A1 Jolson in the Jazz Singer, gave a ‘new dimension to the screen,’ empowering ‘the cinema ... to complete and supersede the living theatre.’24 The third of the entertainment forces, the radio ‘at first a cat whisker novelty,’ brought a new way of enjoying the pre-war evening dullness of the work-day week. The first regular broadcasts were begun in 1923, by stations 2SB (later 2BL) and 2FC.25 Apart from the old crystal sets, a wireless or radio was at first an expensive luxury, but slowly and surely, Canterbury’s skyline became an open forest of aerial masts. The radio was a new form of communication which brought events such as the opening of the Federal Parliament at Canberra in 1927, right into Canterbury homes. Musically it took the place of the old phonograph while the nightly serials gave plenty of entertainment as did the faked cricket tests in which Don Bradman starred.

When the war ended Canterbury’s women dressed much as before. They maintained long tresses, rolled up in the traditional ‘bun.’ Dresses were long; a few inches from the ground and their ruffles were prominent. Men wore traditional suits, tight trousers, stiff collars, vest with visible chain—watch in one pocket, sovereign case in another. Hats consisted of straw ‘boaters,’ bowlers and top hats on ceremonial occasions. After the war American influences began to permeate the Australian society. Canterbury’s citizens were no less affected. The younger women joined in the break from conser­ vatism by wearing knee-length dresses, shingling their hair, rouging their cheeks and using lip-sticks. For young men, the traditional suit remained, but trouser bottoms widened to the ‘Oxford bags’ style, coats became shorter with variations such as banana pockets, soft detachable collars replaced the 217

old celluloid, while soft felt hats with snap brims became the order of the day.

The jazz age dawned and the varsity drag, blackbottom and charleston replaced the more stately waltz and group square dancing. The pursuit of pleasure gripped both sexes alike and ‘on the beaches, on tennis courts and sports areas, the physical pleasures out of doors were enjoyed by a generation with a new liberty—to expose their bodies to the sun and air.’26 A similar freedom dominated the economic scene. Firmly believing that the ‘war to end all wars’ had now ushered in a golden millennium, a splurge of free spending occurred. Authorities at all levels of government borrowed and spent lavishly upon a variety of services and local councils were no exception.

The latter boarded the bandwaggon, borrowed large amounts which they almost exclusively used on beautification and other improvements. Because of this property values soared, U.C.V. increased by over 80 per cent and council revenue more than doubled. Gross loan debt similarly increased by 360 per cent, the greater proportion of which was incurred by metropolitan councils. In Canterbury, U.C.V. increased by almost four times. Though the general rate levy only increased by 0.4 pence or ten per cent, the receipts rose from £26 192 to £149 349, almost five times. Typical of suburban municipalities generally, expenditure (£281 580) exceeded income (£208 919) by over £72 000. Consequently over the ‘ballyhoo’ years, loans outstanding rose from £14 071 to £272 032.27 Suburbs vied with each other for the most progressive. In 1921, North Sydney laid claim with a U.C.V. of £3 391 257; Randwick countered with £3 527 163, but Canterbury with £2 163 382 was well behind.28

CANTERBUR Y DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Until 1929, Canterbury’s residents obtained their hospital services from cottage hospitals established at Marrickville in 1895 and at Ashfield (Western Suburbs) 1894. These hospitals considerably benefited from the various fund raising projects conducted in the Municipality on their behalf. The question of district hospitals was raised as early as 1910. Four years later the government intimated that it intended to establish district hospitals in selected areas one of which was the western suburbs. The Health Department had inspected a site in the vicinity of Canterbury Park, but the mayor, James Wilson, submitted a minute in July offering to exchange the park, an ‘admirably suited’ hospital site, for an equivalent, but more convenient area for public use. Further inspections were made in 1915 but the project was deferred through lack of funds.29 Perhaps more important was the deadlock resulting from a conflict of interests between Bankstown and Canterbury where a more favourable selection resulted from the raising of a considerable sum by a local committee but the proposal was delayed by the lack of a suitable site. In May 1920, an aviation demonstration for fund raising stirred 218

the government to make further inspections, culminating with the purchase of a site. A committee was formed to promote the hospital, and the mayor, Norman Rydge, in August, 1926, agreed with its request to convene a meeting for the constitution of fund raising sub-committees.30 A Mr Burnett of Campsie convened the first meeting to discuss the hospital’s erection. Among the committee’s most enthusiastic workers were Mesdames Forbes, Foote, Clem Mills, George Davidson and G. Palmer, who served on the hospital board continuously for over twenty years, including a term as president, 1941-3.

The purchase of additional land now assured the construction of a hospital to serve a population between 60 000 and 70 000. A price of £31 273 was submitted for the construction of two wards and the necessary administrative and related adjuncts. It was estimated patient treatment costs on the basis of twenty eight beds would mean an outlay of £5000 yearly, of which a government subsidy would provide half. W. Nicholls, treasurer of the hospital movement from its inception moved for a public subscription list.

Alderman George Bramston was certain that the people would respond ‘in a noble manner’. An ‘unselfish body’ of people had ‘by valiant labours’ made the hospital a certainty. The foundation stone was laid by the Health Minister, Robert Stuart-Robertson on 1 October, 1927, in the presence of 1000 people included in whom were many pioneers of the hospital move­ ment. The ceremony was followed by a ‘convivial’ gathering at which numerous toasts were proposed and subscriptions gathered.31 The Canterbury District Memorial Hospital was officially opened on 26 October, 1929, by the Secretary of Public Works, Ernest Buttenshaw. The use of the word ‘Memorial’ poses the interesting question, memorial of what?

The only reason as yet advanced is that, as no sales tax was levied on memorials, the hospital on the grounds of expediency was declared to be such. The word, memorial, is therefore, left to the imagination.

The first hospital board of twenty four members included the president, M. B. McCreadie, the mayor George Bramston and his deputy, Stan Parry.

The first secretary was N. R. Digby. The original hospital provided for twenty beds, but utilising verandahs the number was extended to provide in all for sixty three patients, the first of whom was a Lakemba resident, admitted on Armistice Day, 1929. The first medical superintendent was Dr Lucy McMahon, and the matron Ms Pritchard. By the end of 1931, the number of patients exceeded 1000 annually. These came from various districts within the Municipality and Bankstown. In addition 2355 received treatment in the out-patients and casualty departments. During the 1930’s and 1940’s the hospital capacity was increased by additions to the original buildings and medical services. A new wing, Thorncraft House, recognised the tireless services by Alderman Herbert Thorncraft over eleven years president of the Board of Directors, and patron until his death in 1976. During the 1950’s new 219

maternity and outpatient’s blocks increased the hospital capacity to 199 beds.

This expansion of the hospital in buildings, services, amenities and refur­ bishing continued through the 1960’s and 1970’s. In 1971 Canterbury became the centre for the Sydney Home Nursing Service and the following year the official name became ‘Canterbury Hospital’.

The most significant events in the hospital’s recent history have been the effects of community health services and their integration with those of the hospital. A feasibility study, planned for the immediate future will consider the development of several areas in the hospital, namely the maternity unit, which has been housed in temporary accommodation for over twenty years, the operating theatre, and intensive care unit.

The Board of Directors, since its inception in 1929, has had eleven chairmen. Of these Kevin Stewart deserves special mention for his enthu­ siastic work for hospital improvements and his record service of twenty two years as board chairman, 1955-1976. He was elected to represent Canterbury state electorate in March, 1962 and when the Wran Government was returned in 1976, he achieved cabinet rank as Minister for Public Health, a post well-suited to his bent for hospital work and improvements. After his ministerial appointment he reluctantly gave up his chairmanship, but retained a vital interest in Canterbury Hospital as co-patron with F. J. O’Brien of Campsie. Local parliamentary interest is still maintained in the Board of Directors by membership of Vincent Durick, member for Lakemba. In 1978, Ron Tindale, Chief Executive Officer, with Brian Johnston, his deputy, were in charge of general hospital business administration; Dr Kivie Lie was responsible for medical services, Matron Claire Airey, nursing administration and Keith A. Bagley, chairman of the Board of Directors.32

DEPRESSION AND WAR Councils had little cause for financial concern while the buoyant conditions of the 1920’s continued. Unfortunately, Australia’s main export earnings suffered from a fall in wool and wheat prices, and unemployment began to increase. Then with dramatic suddenness came the Wall Street crash in 1929.

Overseas loans were recalled and the nation floundered economically.

Councils countered by following a deflation policy and strove to balance the budget. In general this involved retrenchment or rationing of staffs. Councils, being public authorities, were mostly reluctant to dismiss staff, preferring rationing and standing down outdoor employees, while the administrative officers suffered salary cuts.

Canterbury was a little more callous in this regard. Ashbury A.L.P. Branch and Dulwich Hill Electorate Council were quick to protest against the dismissal of male council employees, and their replacement by women, as well as the employment of outside labour by contractors undertaking local 220

municipal works. The Council was equally quick to reply to the allegations.

It did not deny that employees were dismissed, but that no women replaced them. Of the seventy eight men employed, only ten were non-residents, a proportion well above the 75 per cent stipulated by the contracts.33 The remaining employees either received salary cuts or were rationed. The deputy clerk, and health inspectors, then being paid over award rates received a 10 per cent salary reduction. The engineer on award rates was unaffected.

In 1930, the government passed the Public Service Salaries Reduction Act which reduced the salaries of its officers by 8-J- per cent. The Council took advantage of the provision to empower the governor to add staffs of any other public authorities which applied for inclusion under the Act, so that all Canterbury officers not rationed had their salaries cut by 8^ per cent. A more drastic step was taken in June, 1931, when the works staff was reduced to a mere ‘skeleton’, capable of handling only minor tasks.34 Staff salaries paid in 1932 are given in Table 20 below: TABLE 20 CANTERBURY COUNCIL STAFF SALARIES—1932 OFFICER Town Clerk Engineer Deputy Town Clerk Senior Health Inspector Senior Building Inspector Accountant Legal Officer Foreman

Salary 1932 £ 850 718 598 552 417 332 332 282

OFFICER

General Rates Clerk Draftsman Works Clerk Counter Clerk Wages Clerk Typistes General Clerks Junior Typiste

Salary

1932 £ 279 279 279 253 227 210-119 197 104

Source: Canterbury Council Minutes, 1932 pp. 662f.

The dismissed employees were left only the food dole, which was roundly condemned by the Local Government Association as ‘damnable’, threatening to sap the workers’ lives. From this stemmed the suggestion that funds spent on food relief be given to councils for distribution as wages for local employment. The government, unfortunately preferred the dole and councils received only mere pittances from the Unemployment Relief Council set up to organise various works. Though councils were required to co-operate, they were denied the right to allocate the works. These were at first generally unproductive jobs, such as shifting sand from one spot to another and chipping weeds from footpaths.

On the grounds that ‘no other municipality in the metropolitan area had progressed so much as Canterbury ... in the last decade . . . (its) needs for the construction of roads (and) bridges were (therefore) greater’, the Council in August, 1930, unsuccessfully applied for a relief work grant of £82 000.

221

Treleaven’s Warehouse and removal van, South Parade, Campsie, 1921

It became most critical of the Relief Council’s distribution of funds which were derived from a wages tax of 3 d. in £ 1, subsequently raised to one shilling

by Jack Lang. In a press statement, the mayor, George Bramston, claimed that the Council had received no money at all. The minister, Michael Bruxner, countered by claiming that Canterbury’s allocation was £40 106. The mayor maintained the correctness of his statement by explaining that the supposed allocation for relief works was for school buildings, a state responsibility, and not a project to be financed out of relief moneys. An outcome was a grant of £5943 for sewerage.35 From 1931 increased amounts were paid to councils for unemployment relief and these permitted the provision of more useful works. The Stevens Government introduced a new emergency scheme in 1932 providing for the payment of men engaged on approved useful works plus 10 per cent bonus.

Councils provided the materials and supervised the jobs which were directed by a government paid ganger. From 1932, to 1935 the sum of £14 528 864 was given as relief grants. In Canterbury these grants were devoted largely to drainage, roads, kerbing, guttering, Cook’s River improvement, con­ struction of Blick Oval, Wiley Park cycling track, grandstand in BelmoreCampsie Park and a variety of park improvements.

222

The depression brought various voluntary relief bodies into existence to assist the unemployed. In Canterbury there were several of these, for example, Punchbowl and Croydon Park Relief Committees, Canterbury andLakemba Unemployed Workers Movements and other small organisations. Their energies were largely devoted to charity work for the relief of distress generally. Cash donations were canvassed, even from the Council which replied with a polite ‘NO’. The Council permitted the Croydon Park Committee to make house to house collections of clothes for distribution to needy families and the Punchbowl Rugby League Club held a gala day for the local Relief Committee. The Rev. W. W. Roger of the Campsie Ministers’ Fraternal sought the Council’s co-operation to obtain money and goods for the relief of the poor. The mayor, George Bramston, organised the drive, ably conducted by the Council’s Health Department Staff, seventy unemployed persons and thirty ratepayers who provided cars. About £117 in cash and a considerable quantity of groceries, vegetables and clothing were collected. As a result some 1000 parcels were distributed to needy persons. In common with most municipalities a Lady Mayoress Fund was established.36 Other well-established organisations, such as the Benevolent Society sought Council donations. Some such as the Campsie and Earlwood ExServicemen’s Clubs addressed the Council to draw attention to the continued unemployment of members of the Municipality’s returned soldier’s organi­ sations. The Council was requested to do its utmost to give these men work and not employ outsiders. Ald. Walter S. Tasker explained to the deputation that the work was not a satisfactory type for most ex-servicemen. He hoped for ‘brighter days’ for at the moment ‘the financial wave of the depression’ was adversely affecting the Municipality to ‘a marked degree’. The Council was motivated by the benevolent spirit of Christmas to give special relief work and over three days prior to the festive season gave a day’s work to 395 men, nominated by the various voluntary organisations such as the Canterbury and Lakemba Movement. Likewise the Local Government Association gave £2500 on condition that 80 per cent was paid as wages, at award rates for fifty men.37 In common with other levels of government, the main impact of the depression upon councils was financial. At the peak boom year, 1929, Canterbury’s general rate levy was 4.4d. in £ U.C.V. The onset of the depression was met by a lifting of the levy to six pence which yielded £153 357, the largest general rate revenue of the suburban municipalities. It will be noted from Table 21 that in concord with the economic conditions, the Council reduced its rate until 1932, generally regarded as the trough or worst year of the depression. Thereafter the annual levies were between six and 6.5 pence. The rate revenue fell annually and the 1930 collection was not exceeded until the 1940’s.

223

TABLE 21

CANTERBURY GENERAL RATE STATISTICS, 1930-8 YEAR U.C.V. (£0,000) General Rate (d in £ U.C.V.) Revenue (£) Source:

1930 6,150.1 6

1931

1932

1933

1934

5|

5-J

6

6

1 5 3 ,3 57

146,913

129,303

1 2 4 ,83 9

124,144

1935 1936 4 4 5 6 .9 6} 6} 119,2 73

119,1 42

1 937

1938

6-7/1 6

64

119,220

1 18 ,3 84

N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1930-8

Three main factors explain the slow recovery of the Canterbury general rate revenue. The fall in land prices adversely affected its value causing a fall in U.C.V. upon which the general rate is levied. By 1930 Canterbury’s U.C.V. had risen to £ 6 150 118, four times that at the end of the war, and only exceeded by three metropolitan municipalities— Randwick, W oollahra and Waverley. By theend of the depression (1938) Canterbury’s U.C.V. had fallen by 72.5 per cent to £ 4 4 5 6 932 and was now fifth largest. The U.C.V. had not returned to the 1930 level until after the war.

The second and third factors were government created. The depression’s adverse affect upon state revenues and the persistent demands by councils for more assistance sent the government scampering in search for economies. It found two at the expense of councils. They were required to meet the full cost of health inspectors’ salaries which had been equally shared with the government since 1896. M ore important was the loss of revenue arising from the Rating Exemption Act, 1931, which completely absolved the government from paying rates on its extensive non-industrial properties as well as other authorities owning church and school lands previously legally rateable. 38 Canterbury’s expenditure on public health services in 1918 was only £ 1 3 6 7 . By 1930 these services were costing the Council £22 3 6 3 , an amount which averaged £ 3 0 00 0 to 1934 rising to £ 3 7 167 in 1938, but the payment of full salaries for the health inspectors would not have had any marked effect on escalating health costs. The effect of the Rating Exemption Act is more difficult to ascertain. The M unicipality’s U.C.V. was revalued for 1933 at £5 041 08 5 , but the Council struck its rate on £4 995 099. The reduction of almost £ 4 6 00 0 would have been the result of the exemptions and council properties— a loss of about £ 1 1 5 0 in rates for 1933.39 Government grants for relief grew as unemployment increased, particu­ larly after 1 932, and more so after 1 935, when the emphasis was on useful, larger public works. Councils found this extensive aid not only a beneficial source of revenue but also a means to keep down rates and so provide a surplus for debt liquidation. Between 1930-4, Canterbury received govern­ ment grants totalling £61 920 for main roads, unemployment relief and other purposes. A breakdown shows that emergency relief grants were £ 29 178 (1935), £45 846(1936) and £ 1 2 8 9 4 (1 9 3 7 ) when these grants ceased.40 The importance of these grants, together with the encouragement given to borrow 224

under the Unemployment Relief W orks plan, aided materially to keep plenty of funds in the Council’s coffers. These effects may be noted from Table 22 where the average 1930-8 fairly represents the situation for metropolitan municipalities generally.

TABLE 22

CANTERBURY MUNICIPALITY, FINANCIAL STATISTICS 1930-8 Item General Rate Total Income Total Expenditure Govt. Grants Loans Outstanding Liabilities Assets Excess L/A

1930

1932

1934

1935

1936

1938

Av. 1930-8 £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 153,357 129,303 124,144 119,273 119,142 118,384* 128,286 210,821 177,212 167,447* 189,641 204,857 219,817 199,137 263,952 158,393*11164,447 180,097 196,118 255,987 209,595 7,929* 14,229 9,236 36,105 50,766 40,579 28,876 318,431* 336,107 328,161 322,867 339,772 479,582 361,014 414,745*468,667 466,393 458,910 452,709 590,356 385,938 119,028*253,403 265,000 267,061 269,599 330,779 262,738 295,717 215,264 201,393 191,849 183,110*259,617 223,200

* Lowest total for each item.

Source: N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1930-8.

The depression adversely affected the ratepayers’ capacity to meet rate levies and consequently the Council’s income suffered. Rate arrears at Canterbury increased sharply with the onset of the depression. By the end of 1930 accumulated unpaid rates and sanitary fees amounted to £71 615 and subsequently arrears continued to mount, reaching £15 8 616 or 9 0 per cent of the year’s revenue by 1933. The Council naturally found the arrears drag on its revenue most irksome. Serious endeavours were made to reduce them by collection and court action. Eventually convinced of the impossibility of extracting funds, especially from ratepayer’s ‘mortgaged up to the hilt,’ the Council was forced to agree to requests to allow ratepayers to work off their arrears. M ayor Bramston pointed out it would cost £ 2 0 000 to absorb the 700 0 odd unemployed to gain £1 0 00 0 in rates. He did suggest that work could be given to thirty ratepayers, cleaning some of the insanitary open drains. A relay system was recommended providing for a replacement as soon as each ratepayer wiped out arrears. Eventually the scheme involved fifty ratepayers, to be employed at union rates and conditions, the Council to retain wages for payment of arrears and no rations to be cut. Each alderman was to nominate three persons, the remainder to be at the mayor’s discretion.41 The rate arrears increased the Council’s difficulties in meeting loan repayments. By 1933 outstanding loans had accrued to £331 0 0 0 and the Council found itself unable to make principal repayments. The lenders, the State Superannuation Board and Commonwealth Bank were informed that 225

the Council had resolved to pay interest only. Borowing was still necessary so the accumulated debt reached £480 000 by 1938.

Having weathered the depression, the Council was called upon to face an even greater crisis, the second world war. The threat to Australia was much greater than that of the previous conflict, especially the use of more devas­ tating weapons and the Japanese entry. In general this enforced a better organisation of home resources, and the state government immediately established a system of national emergency services. The Council was required to appoint a chief warden and deputy wardens. Stanley Parry was appointed as Canterbury’s Director of Civilian War Emergency Social Services and his duties mainly involved the organisation of temporary communal feeding and housing and the provision of clothing and shelters of victims of bombing raids. Parry stressed that he was taking ‘vigorous action to provide the essential requirements’ and it was ‘only with closest co-oper­ ation and assistance of the various churches’ that the scheme could be speedily introduced. Requests were made for halls as temporary shelters for people whose homes were destroyed in air raids.42 Canterbury’s emergency services, though well organised, were fortunately never put to the test. As the danger of bombing raids receded, corresponding reductions were made in N.E.S. TABLE 23 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL—ACCUMULATED RATE ARREARS 1930-8 Year 1930 1931 1932 1933 1938 Source:

Accumulated Arrears £ 71,616 130,227 150,386 158,616 134,043

Annual Income £

210,821 198,910 177,212 176,279 219,817

Arrears 0/

/o

Income 34.0 65.5 84.9 90.0 61.0

Canterbury Council Minutes, 1930-4.

The second world war had an effect upon the Council opposite to that of the depression. Firstly, its staff was reduced by enlistments and the scarcity of manpower greatly restricted replacements. Immediately on the outbreak of war, the Council adopted the policy to grant leave of absence of two weeks to employees for voluntary training service in the armed forces. Those who had at least six months employment with the Council and voluntarily enlisted for active service were to receive full pay.

Secondly, financial power became more concentrated at Canberra, when the uniform tax system was created in 1942. The growing scarcity of manpower and other resources exerted a strong inflationary pressure on costs 226

and prices. Rates, being a price, rose steadily in order to meet costs and wage increases. Canterbury’s general rate was lifted sharply from 4d in 1939 to 7d in 1940, and remained at least that levy during the war. It is interesting to note that although Canterbury levied the highest rate of all the metropolitan municipalities, the total yield only increased by 7.2 per cent, from £150 293 in 1939 to £161 168 in 1945. Over the war period, total income fell from £240 260 to £192 617 and total expenditure from £219 748 to £137 850, a result of war exigencies which restricted municipal services to bare necessities, for example spending on public works which fell from £130 598 (1939) to £48 356 (1945).

TABLE 24 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL STATISTICS 1908-1945

u.c.v.

YEAR

£

1908 1914 % Change 1918 % Change 1929 % Change 1932 % Change 1939 % Change 1945 % Change

438,199 1,036,675 136.6 1,523,723 47.0 6,000,117 293.8 5,674,831 - 5.4 4,511,520 - 20.4 5,157,357 14.3

General Rate d in £

3 4 13.3 4 0.0 4.4 10.0 5.5 25.0 4 - 27.3 7.5 87,5

Total Levy £

5,716 18,316 220.4 26,192 43.0 149,349 470.2 129,303 - 13.4 150,293 16.2 161,168 7.2

Total Total Loans Population Income Expenditure Outstanding £ £ £ 6,413 29,526 360.4 30,563 3.5 208,919 583.6 177,212 - 15.2 240,260 35.6 192,617 - 19.8

6,544 25,327 287.0 37,733 49.0 281,580 646.2 158,393 - 43.7 219,748 38.7 137,850 - 37.3

1,300 14,071 8.2 272,032 1833.3 336,107 23.6 473,946 41.0 150,652 - 67.4

8,850 22,420 153.3 28,280 26.1 72,300 153.7 79,058 9.3 84,230 6.5 99,396 18.0

Source: N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1908-1945 (Local Government)

TABLE 25 INCOME AND EXPENDITURE—MAIN ITEMS 1908-194S Year 1908 1914 1918 1929 1932 1939 1945 Source:

INCOME All Rates & Public Health Charges £ £ 5,372 18,357 25,693 113,281 136,036 156,351 163,869

671 5,989 —

21,171 20,601 14,933 12,069

Admin. £

1,176 1,724 2,736 9,430 8,714 11,328 12,838

EXPENDITURE Public Public Street Excess Works Health Lighting Income £ £ 3,742 59 626 -131

12,580 29,315 190,978 71,797 130,598 48,356

894 1,367 39,190 30,658 31,357 37,231

1,734 2,764 —

8,485 7,987 11,534

4,199 -7,170 -72,661 18,819 20,512 54,767

Ibid.

227

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

228

Advertiser, 4 May, 1907, N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1908 Advertiser, 8 February, 1908

Ibid, 10 May, 1907 Ibid, 20 April, 1907 Ibid 4, 25 August, 1906 Advertiser, 28 September, 5, 19 October, 1907 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 7, p. 346 Ibid, Vol. 8, pp. 68, 71 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 8, p. 71; Vol. 9, pp. 131, 163, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 July, 1899 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 9, pp. 152, 163 P.V. &: P. 1911-12, Vol. 3, pp. 88 Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, 1913, pp. 89-90 Royal Commission (Greater Sydney), Report, P.P. 1913 (2), Vol. 2, pp. 214-6.

Canterbury Municipal Minutes, 1914, p. 190 N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1914, p. 590 J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 38. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1, pp. 161-2, 235 Advertiser, 6 April, 1907, J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury-, Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, 1925, pp. 326, 388, 427; B. J. Madden. The Origin of the Name Clemton Park (Historical Monograph), p. 2 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, 1915, p. 310, 1920, p. 204 Municipal Honour Roll R.S.L.—State office (D. Morrison). Souvenir Programme (Official Opening of Extensions, 1969). T. E. Davies, reminiscences, 28 February, 1978 Ibid and information, T. E. Davies, 14 March, 1978 Information, G. B. Park, Editor, The Bell. Information, John Brown, Canterbury-Hurlstone Park R.S.L. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 April, 1900 M. Barnard, A History of Australia, p. 635 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 13, p. 283. A. Birch, D. S. Macmillan, The Sydney Scene, 1788-1960, p. 245. Reminiscences, W. Tant A. Birch, D. S. Macmillan, The Sydney Scene, 1788-1960, p. 245 Ibid, p. 244-6 Ibid, p. 246 See Table, p. 227 W. B. Lynch, F. A. Larcombe, Randwick, 1859-1959, p. 178 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, 1920, p. 307, 1926, p. 423 Alert, 7 October, 1927 Ibid J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, pp. 71-2, revised and up-dated

by R. Tindale (C.D.H.) Canterbury District Hospital history notes Canterbury Municipal Minutes, 1930, pp. 448, 450 Ibid, 1930, pp. 607, 619, 1931, p. 344; 1932, p. 257 Ibid, pp. 567-8, 592-3, 568, 723 J. J. Jervis. A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 63. Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, 1930, pp. 536-7, 571 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, 1930, pp. 532, 782 Local Govt. Dept., Report, 1932, pp. 1932, Vol. 1, pp. 454-5 N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1930-8, Canterbury Municipal Minutes, 1933, p. 66 N.S.W. Statistical Register, 1935-8

41. Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, 1930, p. 655; 1931, pp. 381, 400 42. Canterbury Municipal Council, Circular, 17 March, 1942

229

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASPECTS SINCE 1945

T

he war had ended but the inflationary trend still continued upward causing the operative and wage costs of Council to rise sharply, necessi­ tating increased rates. The statutory limits on rating and borrowing had to be waived to permit sufficient revenue to be raised. By 1965, the aggregate general rate levied by all councils was ten times above that of 1945, and four times that of 1965. In fact an amount almost equal to the 1945 general rate aggregate was added annually 1945-65. This escalation may be noted from Canterbury statistics for that period (Table 26).

TABLE 26 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL FINANCE 1945-65 Items

Population U.C.V. General Rate Total Rate Levy Total Income Total Expenditure Loans Outstanding

1945

1949

1955

1961

99,396 £ 5,157,357 7.5d

108,550 £ 6,197,291 9d

111,400 £ 16,259,871 8.5d

113,820 £ 36,627,513 6.0d

£ 161,168

£ 232,398

£ 575,870

£ 915,980

192,617

284,063

753,612

137,850

277,861

756,858

154,652

310,872

640,704

1965 1945-65 115,300 16.0 $ $ 141,425,000 1271.0 1.88 cents $ 2,552,788

$ 692.0

1,216,849

3,142,652

715.8

1,170,246

2,928,896

962.3

1,889,964

511.0

694,106

Note: Percentages 1945-65 are adjusted for currency changes (£ to $) Source: N.S.W. Statistical Register—Local Government, 1945-6, 1950-1, 1955-64, 1965-69, 1971.

Ratepayer protests, press comments and efforts made by the Local Government Association in August, 1965, led to the appointment of the Royal Commission on Rating Valuation and Local Government Finance with Justice R. Else-Mitchell as chairman. Voluminous evidence was given by 183 witnesses, supplemented by 768 submissions from councils and other sources. Canterbury Council decided that, as the Local Government Asso­ ciation was stating a general case for municipal authorities, no good purpose would be served in answering the sixteen questions which required a detailed investigation. Two brief submissions were made, mainly to assist the Com­ mission to compile statistical information.1 232

The Commission’s report, issued in 1967, made recommendations for improved financial bases, including new sources of revenue. These unprecedented changes shocked the government, though the recommenda­ tions were welcomed by the councils. Apart from a Local Government Grants Commission no further action was taken on its recommendations, and the upsurge of rates continued unchecked. Canterbury statistics, 1965-78, reveal these trends (Table 27): TABLE 27 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL FINANCE 1965-78 %

Items Population U.C.V. ($) General Rate Total Rate Levy ($) Total Income ($) (Ordinary Services) Total Expenditure ($) (Ordinary Services) Loans Outstanding ($)

1965

1972

1978

1965-78

115,300 141,425,000 1.88c 2,552,788 3,142,652

132,940 250,082,000 1.7c 4,085,000 5,197,000

128,703 658,066,089 1.2c 7,870,000 13,759,000

4- 11% + 365% - 36% + 208% + 337%

2,928,896

5,068,000

14,259,000

+ 386%

1,889,964

2,368,000

5,102,562

+ 169%

Source: N.S.W. Statistic Register—Local Government 1965-1972 Canterbury Municipal Council—A. S. Ford, Treasurer.

Several structural changes were made after the war, the most interesting of which was the introduction of compulsory voting in 1947 to increase citizen interest. Voting which at prior elections seldom attracted more than one third of the electors, now reached over 70 per cent. The Askin Govern­ ment restored the voluntary system in 1968 and the percentage again dropped to the former levels. When compulsion was restored by the Wran Govern­ ment, voting at the 1977 elections failed to exceed 70 per cent. Canterbury voting statistics are set out in Table 28.

TABLE 28 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL ELECTION STATISTICS, 1965-77 Year

No. Electors

No. Voted

Canterbury %

Metropolitan %

N.S.W. %

1965 1968 1971 1974 1977

74,862 79,570 81,586 66,077* 99,114

58,378 19,157 22,555 12,926 65,207

77.9 24.1 27.6 19.6 65.8

74.4 28.6 29.8 25.0 65.2

7 3.6 31.3 32.9 28.1 67.5

* Contested words only—1974 total electors 95,671 Source: N.S.W. Statistical Register and Canterbury Municipal Council.

233

Other structural changes have had some effect on Canterbury. In 1953, a system of proportional representation was introduced and provision for the election of the mayor by the people, should the council so resolve. Canterbury did not take this step at first. The Askin Government, which came to power in 1965, repealed the 1953 act and the Wran Government in 1976 restored election of mayor by the citizens. The Council resolved to adopt this principle and at the 1977 local elections the people overwhelmingly voted for John G. Mountford who secured 30 738 out of the 60 170 valid votes.

STAR GAZERS AND U.F.O’S During the 1950’s a branch of the Astronomical Society of N.S.W. was founded at Belfield by Gordon Patston, Secretary of the U.F.O. Investigation Centre. The branch, now called the Belfield Star Gazers, met bi-monthly, later transferring to monthly meetings at Belmore North Public School. An early secretary, William E. Moser, a keen astronomer, was well suited for the post.

He was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a former president of the Sydney Observatory. His interest in astronomy stemmed from having seen Hailey’s Comet in 1910, due to appear again in 1986.

William Moser strongly believes that the earth is visited by beings from outer space. It did appear that an unidentified flying object a ‘weird saucer’ visited Canterbury in March, 1967. It was first sighted by D. Manhood, the wife of the Canterbury Bowls Club greenkeeper, from her verandah in Wairoa Street, where her sister and she observed its flight for ten minutes. The flying saucer was described as ‘a strange round thing’ with ‘a weird humming sound’, which flew at tree top level less than a hundred feet from where the observers stood.2 William Moser does not believe that the Canterbury episode was an U.F.O. sighting but possibly a descending radar balloon.

Nevertheless he is convinced his son, William, a Canberra University lecturer, actually saw such an object at his home in Hurlstone Avenue, in June, 1969.

Perhaps Canterbury may be honoured by outer space visitors for its centenary.3

THE AMALGAMATION PROBLEM The appropriate size for a governmental unit is really an ancient problem. In N.S.W. the early boundaries of municipal units were haphazardly drawn and the wide variations in their sizes have brought about the various amalga­ mation movements, particularly since the constitution of the Boundaries Commission in 1963. This, in turn, led to the appointment of the Barnett Committee in 1971 to report upon local government areas and their administration. The Committee’s main recommendation, that the existing municipalities and shires be reduced to ninety seven ‘districts’ brought forth 234

considerable comment and especially opposition from councils of areas threatened with amalgamation. Canterbury and seventeen other metropoli­ tan councils made no submission of their views. The Canterbury area spoke for itself. Most would agree with the Council that, with an area of fourteen square miles and a population of 133 000 the Municipality was sufficiently large enough to operate as a separate unit and no further comment was necessary.

The Barnett Committee had other views and recommended the amalga­ mation of Canterbury and Bankstown as the 94th ‘district’ having the status of a city. The proposed ‘district’ had an area of forty three square miles and a population of almost 300 000.4 The Council correctly rejected the Com­ mittee’s proposal. The amalgamation of two viable units is a questionable practice, unless wider powers than those at present and devolved upon the council concerned.

The issue of the Barnett Report raised such a furore among councils that the government hesitated to implement it. Instead it employed a ‘backdoor’ but softer approach through the Minister’s power to refer any matters relating to area alterations to the Local Government Boundaries Commission for report. The Minister then had the power to accept the Boundary Commission’s recommendations. Numerous investigations have been made, sometimes at the request of the relevant councils, so that by June 1979, the 223 local government units had been reduced to 202 by this method. The Boundaries Commission interest in the metropolitan area has continued to stir up much antagonism to any amalgamation of existing units. Canterbury Council is not opposed to minor boundary adjustments nor to amalgama­ tions as such, having the view that there is scope for a rationalisation in certain areas, but the Municipality is already sufficiently large to continue to exist as a separate entity.

THE COUNCIL’S NEW HOME The old town hall had served over seventy years, but as the Canterbury Council business increased greater demands were being made for office space.

In 1942, the old hall was converted into offices and when these became insufficient a weatherboard room was added and occupied by the Engineering and Town Planning Department. By the 1960’s it had become evident that new premises must be erected. Ald. Ron Pate was mainly responsible for the decision in 1962 to construct a new civic centre on Council land adjacent to the library and baby health centre.

The last Council meeting at the old town hall was held on 22nd August 1963, the ‘breakup’ ceremony being watched by a packed gallery despite a cold unpleasant evening. The building was eventually sold to oil interests and unceremoniously demolished to make way for blocks of flats and a service 235

station. The new civic centre, erected at a cost of £163 000, was officially opened on 21st September, 1963 by the mayor, Ald. James S. Scott.

Canterbury had now entered a ‘new chapter on its history, . . . with bright hopes for the future’ though there was ‘regret at the passing of a historical monument’. The new administrative centre is now beginning to feel the pressure of space. The business of administering to Canterbury’s municipal needs continues to increase and in the near future the present office accom­ modation will ‘burst at the seams’, but alleviation is in sight.

A surprising fact about Canterbury, is that the Municipality has no public buildings capable of providing for functions attended by more than 200 people. Neither is there any large multi-purpose community complex.

Because of these limitations, the Council plans to erect a $3 250 000 community centre as an extension to the existing Campsie administrative buildings. Its main features will be a multi-purpose hall, capable of seating 700 or accommodating 1300 people in a concert-type configuration; a theatre restaurant convertible to a ligitimate theatre or conference hall with a 350 persons capacity; a series of function rooms and a major kitchen to serve all areas. The present administrative buildings will be modified to increase office accommodation and provide access to the new community centre.5

WASTE DISPOSAL The Council has always been cognisant of the need for an efficient garbage collection and disposal. The problem intensified with the increasing density of the local population. This was not so much one of collection but of disposal. As the sites became scarce some municipalities saw the incinerator as a solution, but after the war, destruction costs rose sharply and rendered the operations uneconomical, so the plants were closed. Canterbury, not perturbed by these failures, in June 1954, opened a sophisticated bacteriol­ ogical plant, hoping to cover some of the cost of disposal by operating a resource recovery unit to extract by-products. Unfortunately, the extraction of glass from the compost provided an insurmountable obstacle and this together with storage problems and the failure to sell by-products at economic prices, caused operations to cease two years later.

Eventually, it was realised that a better method was to establish a joint authority, since the resources and conditions in individual municipalities varied considerably. A county council appeared the logical solution. Can­ terbury made a determined bid to establish such an authority in 1965 and the prime-movers were the mayor, James Scott and the chief health inspector, David Watkins, who provided the technical details for a land fill scheme. The mayor justified Canterbury’s support for a joint authority on the grounds that a long-term solution was required and it was only by grouping that councils 236

would be able to meet the cost of a waste disposal project which might run into hundred of thousands of pounds.6 An outcome was the setting up of a Municipal Refuse Disposal Committee with James Scott as chairman representative of Canterbury and seven contiguous municipalities an area lying between the Parramatta and Georges Rivers. The Committee proposed to undertake landfill operations and ‘to open new fields of land reclamation and, in fact, completely revolutionise existing methods of household refuse disposal’. The formation of a joint committee was commended by the under secretary of the Public Health Department, J. D. Rimes, as a ‘forward step in dealing with the problem of garbage’. The minister, Arnold Jago too, expressed considerable interest, but Pat Morton was much less enthusiastic. Late events show why a board had been contemplated. In November 1970, Morton introduced the Waste Disposal Act setting up the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority to undertake the rationalisation of disposable waste within the Cumberland County. 7 The creation of another specialistic authority did not deter Canterbury Council from establishing a second sophisticated disposal plant, a refuse shredder. The resolution to purchase such a plant originated from an English journal advertisement and an overseas investigation by the town clerk, Jack Wheeler and the health surveyor, George Hitchell, the outcome of which was a recommendation to install a shredder. The Mayor, Colin Williams explained the reason for the Council’s initiative:— ‘The decision to install this plant was the culmination of a number of years of research into the waste disposal problems in the Municipality of Canterbury which indicated the serious economic factors associated with the tipping facilities and the costly alternatives including the transport of household waste out of the Municipality. ’8

The shredder was erected at a total cost of $1 000 000 and is capable of dealing with about forty tonnes of refuse hourly, and of treating practically all the Municipality’s domestic and industrial waste without prior sorting.

The Steel Can Group, a consortium, including large enterprises such as B.H.P. met the cost of modifications. A magnetic separator was installed to extract ferrous metals from the garbage.

The Group was given the right to such metal reclaimed for two years after which the returns from its sale revert to the Council. The shredder and the ancillary equipment, therefore salvage a wide variety of materials and goods containers. Colin Williams is correct in recommending other councils to adopt such systems because state governments are only too prone to centralize local powers. The shredder’s financial aspects may be noted from Table 29.

The Canterbury Council Health Department has entered into an agreement with the Institute of Technology for John Barnes of the chemical engineering 237

division to carry out experimental work to discover means of achieving a total reduction of garbage and the recovery of aluminium. After the recovery of aluminium there remains 25-30 per cent of coarser materials, plastics and pieces of timber which are sieved for burning in an incinerator. The remainder a potting mixture, has no odour and cannot be leached.

Not all residents agree that the Council has solved its waste disposal problem efficiently. ‘When the wind starts gusting in the less salubrious parts of Punchbowl and Riverwood,’ so it was said ‘housewives come to tears. It’s a sure sign that their homes will soon be filled with evil-smelling smoke from an underground fire. Windows come down and doors are slammed shut, but there is no escaping the malodorous fallout from Canterbury Council’s rubbish tip.’ Furthermore, the tip was a breeding area for rats ‘as big as cats’ which had ‘absolutely no fear of humans.’9 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL Operation Pulveriser

TABLE 29 COUNCIL - REFUSE DISPOSAL 1977-78

COSTS

1977 $

1978* $

Prime costs—wages, maintenance Other Costs

257,968 158,341

323,400 168,661

Total Costs Pulveriser Disposal Costs

416,309 201,499

492,061 218,800

Total Cost Total Income

617,808 71,477

710,861 48,000

546,331

662,861

Net Cost •Preliminary Estimate.

Source: Canterbury Municipal Council.

RECREATIONAL AND WELFARE DEVELOPMENT The Council, from its inception has always been keen to provide recreational facilities. Cook’s River was a source of recreation well before the incorpor­ ation of the Municipality. It offered good bathing facilities until pollution ruined the river. The availability of good swimming was somewhat restricted by legislation consolidated as the Police Offences Act, 1901, which prohibited bathing between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 8.00 p.m. First mention of bathing in the Council minutes was a letter from J. Hobbs in January, 1881 concerning swimming at Croydon Park Bridge during the prohibited hours.

The matter was referred to the Ashfield Police Officer. That month, the first attempt to obtain a bathing site was made, when a deputation was arranged to meet John Campbell to request the donation of the required land.10 The 238

Campbells were not civic minded and refused even to sell a site. The Council then invited neighbouring Municipalities, Ashfield, Petersham and Mar­ rickville to join in the provision of baths, without success. Surveys of suitable sites were made and complaints continued about illegal bathing at the Rosedale Estate. 11 Councils were empowered to construct public baths by the Municipalities Acts, 1858, 1867 but the extension of this control over river and sea waters caused a problem. It was discovered that the actual bathing area was not within municipal boundaries and therefore councils had no legal title to them. This was rectified by the Municipal Baths Act, 1896 which empowered councils to extend their control beyond the highwater mark on sea and river frontages. Baths were very slowly established in these areas because the river and sea offered facilities at very little cost, merely the erection of dressing sheds. Some of these were privately controlled. The Undercliffe Bathing Amusement Company, formed shortly after the outbreak of the 1914-1918 war, was granted permission to erect a brick bathing shed and a boat house at Homer Street. 12 In 1906, the powers of councils to make by-laws for their areas were revoked and replaced by ordinances made by the Governor, which with some exceptions, apply to the state generally. An ordinance, 52, regulated public bathing, requiring a ‘proper’ costume, separation of the sexes and adequate dressing facilities. 13 Consequently, swimming continued at favoured river holes such as Sandy’s at Canterbury Bridge where a swimmer, could experience the added thrill of prawns clinging to his costume.

Probably the first attempt to establish fresh water baths away from Cook’s River was made in 1928 when a sum of £10 000 was placed in the loan estimates to construct an up-to-date baths. Later, in 1931 a sketch plan and specifications were prepared for baths at Wiley Park. Other abortive moves were made during the depression, but in some municipalities, Enfield, Bankstown and North Sydney, the Councils constructed standard Olympic pools. During the post war period, the swimming boom arising from Australian Olympic successes exerted a pressure on municipalities for improved facilities. Canterbury constructed two Olympic pools with the necessary adjuncts. The Tasker Park pool was constructed in 1959 at a cost of $375 000. The Olympic diving, teaching and wading pools have a total capacity of 540 000 gallons. The water is treated by a filter plant with a capacity of 80 000 gallons annually. The amenities block contains dressing rooms, offices, stores and ambulance rooms. The tiered seating accommo­ dates 2000 spectators. The swimming centre is attractively set in 2.5 acres of parkland. Some 136 000 patrons attended the baths during the 1976-77 season. Roselands, completed in November, 1967, at a cost of $350 000 has a similar setting. A further $300 000 was spent in 1978 for an enclosed heated pool.

239

Before the 1850’s the government set aside lands for public recreation and saw generally to their upkeep. This eventually became too onerous a task so that in 1854 a Public Parks Act, was passed to transfer these duties to trustees appointed by the governor. When municipalities were incorporated, they became recognised as the most appropriate authorities to control areas for public recreation. It was not until the incorporation that the first public park was dedicated in Canterbury. The first steps were taken early. In November, 1880, a Mr Greaves made an appointment with Mayor Campbell Sharp to investigate certain properties for conversion to public parks. The mayor stated that he ‘had not lost sight of the necessity for a public park for the district.’ By June, 1881, the Government assurance was given that Canter­ bury would have a park in the vicinity of the racecourse. The first offer of private land was made by W. J. Hobbs in 1882 who dedicated the area at Croydon Park five years later.14 During the century of its existence, the Council strove to acquire rec­ reational areas and no opportunity was lost to accept or purchase appropriate parklands, particularly along Cook’s River. In 1978, the Municipality contained fifty-six parks and reserves, including a golf course, zoned for public recreation, having a total area of 580 acres. A consistent policy has always been followed to make these lands attractive by laying out gardens, planting trees and providing numerous sports facilities and playgrounds. In addition, 101 acres are used for private recreation including bowling greens, the racecourse and Wills Oval. A further ninety-four acres termed ‘County Open Space’ purchased by the Government under the Cumberland County planning scheme will eventually be transferred to the Council’s control.

Sporting bodies agree that Canterbury Council has considerably contri­ buted to player and spectator enjoyment by not only providing well-kept standard playing fields, with dressing rooms but wherever possible, adequate spectator facilities. A nine-hole public golf course has been laid on an area south of Moorefields Road, on land originally acquired by the Cumberland County Council. Its facilities are available for all players. The former Belmore Oval, now Belmore Sports Ground, is the Council’s premier ground and ovals such as Punchbowl are being developed into first-rate arenas. Four Municipal tennis courts have been constructed at Beaman Park on Cook’s River. The Canterbury Bankstown Tennis Association has been given a lease of land at the Salt Pan on which it has constructed six tennis courts, eventually to be increased by another twenty. An important point to be emphasised is that the use of Canterbury’s sporting facilities is also being enjoyed by the inhabitants of adjoining areas, particularly those of Ashfield and Marrickville.

From a cursory glance at a map showing the extent of Canterbury’s 775 acres of open space one may conclude that the Municipality is well endowed but according to recognised town planning standards, it is actually deficient.

The standard, seven acres for 1000 of population, requires Canterbury to 240

have a minimum of 910 acres of open space, excluding the golf links and racecourse. The Council has been pursuing a consistent policy to make up the deficiency by purchasing properties for conversion into open space. 15 Libraries provide for mental recreation and the acquisition of knowledge and these services were first provided by mechanics institutes and schools of art. The first powers for councils to establish libraries were granted in 1858 but little interest was shown until the passage of the Municipalities Act, 1867 under which Canterbury was incorporated. If a municipal library had at least 300 readers, it received a government subsidy of £100; and if 1000, £200 to be spent on the purchase of books. Newtown established the first of such libraries in 1869. In March, 1883, local residents such as John Wren and other ratepayers petitioned Canterbury Council to establish a library. In April, the Council resolved to take the necessary steps and draft by-laws. A list of books was submitted to the government, a grant of £200 was received the following year and the library was opened in the Council Chambers. By 1906, Canterbury had been one of sixty-seven Councils which established libraries. No mention was made of Canterbury in the list of twenty-nine councils published in the Statistical Register 1915-16. It must be concluded that the library ceased to function sometime between 1907 and that year. The municipal libraries being mainly for reference, could not compete with the lending facilities of the institutes and the majority ceased to function. In such instances, it was usual to transfer the books to local schools of arts, mechanics institutes and sometimes to schools. 16 This process was reversed after the first world war, particularly during the depression. Because of the inadequate financial resources of literary institutes, councils were forced either to pay subsidies or take over their libraries.

During the 1930’s a positive move for free library services developed, culminating in the Library Act, 1939, but the outbreak of war postponed its proclamation until 1944. Councils which adopted the act were required to provide free library services. Canterbury took the necessary steps on 21 November, 1945 and on 16th December, 1946, became the sixteenth council to operate such a service. The library first occupied a building at 157 Beamish Street, Campsie, formerly a printery and a storehouse. Nancy Wood the first Chief Librarian described the first decade: ‘When the Campsie Library was opened. . . there was no fanfare of trumpets no speechmaking. The initial collection of about 1200 books was too small advertise amongst 100 000 people. From the beginning, the library was patronised, and for the first few years, the staff was kept in a turmoil, building the book-stock and opening new Branches. ... ’17

and to well up

The pressure of such a large population and municipal area immediately led to the need for district libraries. In 1947, temporary branches were opened at Canterbury in a small lock-up shop and at a garage in Earl wood shopping 241

Central Library, Campsie, 1958

centre. That year, too, the first library building was erected in Lakemba, and in 1952, the Canterbury and Earlwood makeshifts were replaced-by permanent buildings. Six years later, the old Campsie shop premises, at 157 Beamish Street were replaced by a new central Library, erected and furnished at a cost of £35 000. Subsequently, new branches were opened at Punchbowl, 1960, Belmore 1961 and Riverwood, 1971.

The progressive library policy undertaken by the Council and its wholehearted co-operation offset ‘the worries and discomforts of the young library’s growing pains,’ so that ‘the story of the library service during the past thirty years has been one of continuous growth.’ The library began with a staff of four, which by 1978 had increased to thirty-five, including specialists in children’s work, cataloguing, reference and information work. The Chief Librarian, Judith Rooke, who succeeded Thurles Thomas in February, 1959, is responsible to the Council for policy and to the Town Clerk for administration. Ursula M. Hitchin, her deputy, has control of the reference library.

The book stock has shown a ‘massive’ increase from 1200 to 169 050 in 1977, with 54 177 registered borrowers. A branch library is within two miles of every municipal resident. As Chief Librarian, Judith Rooke has continued to fulfil a ‘very valuable function in the community in making informational books available to people engaged locally in industry, in business and in the 242

professions, and to young people training for business, professional and technical positions. At the same time, her aim has always been to improve the quality and variety of services. Besides the conventional books, the library now provides large-print books for the partially blind, recreational reading in several foreign languages, toys for pre-school children and cassette recordings of music and spoken books. The library is a founder member of the Sydney Children’s Libraries’ Film Circuit which supplies Sydney films for showing to children at branch libraries for their story hour. Adults have an improved service, because Canterbury is an active member of the Sydney Subject Specialization Scheme, and borrows and lends material through this co-operative, even from interstate and overseas. Local interests are well supplied from a local history collection. All these innovations show that the library continues to grow. Yet all this is achieved without a ‘fanfare of trumpets and speech making,’ because the staff motto ‘Do the job without talking about it,’ has been maintained since 1946.18 The Council has assisted to provide six Baby Health Centres, the first at Punchbowl, was erected in 1947, Earlwood 1950-51, Belmore 1951, Campsie 1954, Lakemba, 1947 and Hurlstone Park 1952. The buildings were erected by the Department of Public Health. The Health Commission staffs the centres and the Council provides the sites and undertakes their mainte­ nance. The costs are met by the Commission and Council in the proportion of $2 to $ 1. The main function of the centre is to provide advice for mothers.

At the other end of the scale the council has established five senior citizen’s centres—Belmore, 1968, Earlwood, 1973, Lakemba, 1974, Punchbowl, 1972 and Riverwood, 1978. The Council meets the cleaning and maintenance costs. The centres which are operated by independent clubs, membership of which is open to all eligible senior citizens, provide a meeting place for various social functions.

Other welfare services include the provision of two women rest centres at Campsie, 1963 and Lakemba, 1966. A Family Day Care Scheme operates from premises in Shakespeare Street, Campsie. The Co-ordinators in 1978 were Betty Cook and Marie Hanley. The objects of the scheme to provide pre-school children to be cared for in private homes, whilst the parents work. 19 The Council has become mindful of the need to preserve old buildings. It has acquired Beulah Vista, the former Canterbury home of George Tomkins an early stonemason and builder. The home will be devoted to an art centre and museum.

THE CANTERBURY COUNCIL AND ITS STAFF Over the century the main groups of citizens responsible for Canterbury’s civic development have been the many aldermen who have worked to give 243

that measure of service, which stimulates the interests of citizens in local affairs. In 1979 Canterbury was governed by a council of twelve aldermen, three from each of four wards—North, South, East and West, into which the Municipality is divided. Representatives are as follows:— NORTH WARD H. M. Bull J. H. Mayo H. C. Birkinshaw EAST WARD J. F. Gorrie K. J. Moss H. M. Wilton

SOUTH WARD J. R- Beaman (Mrs.) J. A. Mahon J. H. Pearce WEST WARD G. A. E. Cayley (Deputy Mayor) J. G. Mountford (Mayor) C. G. Williams

Of the aldermen James Beaman has held office continuously since 1956, a period of twenty-two years, the greatest length of service since the establishment of the Municipality by any of the 174 aldermen elected to the Council since 1879.

The Council contains a lady alderman, Judith Mahon, one of the three ladies to have been elected. The first was Joanna Thompson, 1965-68 and the second, Marcia Warton, who served simultaneously with her husband, Ken, 1974-7, a rather unique experience.

The aldermen hold office for three years and retire simultaneously at the end of the term. Generally the aldermen render honorary service but are allowed up to $500 annually for expenses. Of special significance is the Mayor of Canterbury. In all forty aldermen have held the office of first citizen.

It is interesting to note that Ron Pate, mayor 1962, preceded his uncle Alfred Pate, mayor, 1966.

Stanley E. Parry’s sixteen consecutive terms, 1932-47 is the longest period served by a Canterbury mayor. All mayors were chosen annually from and by the aldermen until 1977, when John Mountford was elected by the people both as the mayor and as an alderman.

In addition to numerous ceremonial duties, the Mayor of Canterbury is the chairman at Council meetings. The mayor is really the chief executive who must undertake duties imposed by legislation or Council resolution. At meetings with tied votes, the mayor may give a casting vote to break deadlocks. Ald. Mountford therefore has two votes, one as an alderman, and if need be, a casting vote.

While most citizens may think that the main function of an alderman is to attend the general Council meeting, held every three weeks, they are not aware of arduous work undertaken behind the scenes. Firstly, there are the normal ward duties which involve the investigation of complaints, attending to constituent requests. Secondly and more importantly it involves attendance at the numerous committee meetings which thoroughly discuss the many municipal matters and make recommendations to the Council for acceptance 244

or rejection. The Canterbury Council in 1978, appointed sixteen committees.

Of these two—Finance and Works—must be appointed. Together with Plans and Specifications, they are the standing committees which include all Council members. The Finance Committee is the Council’s watchdog over the collection and expenditure of its revenue and seeing that both ends meet.

The Works Committee reports and makes estimates for proposed public works and considers their viability. The Plans and Specifications deals with all building and development applications. The other committees are com­ posed of a portion of the Council. The Traffic Committee acts in conjunction with the Department of Main Roads and determines such matters as traffic signs and lights. Other general committees include those dealing with the library, plant, golf course and swimming pools. Centenary Celebrations is a special committee appointed for the particular purpose of planning for the various functions and events for 1979.

The Council determines the policy for the local government of the Municipality and its staff of 564 men and women, undertakes the execution of it. (See Table 30) TABLE 30 CANTERBURY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF, 1978 Department

NO. 110 38 209 88 19 100

Total

564

Administration Library Public Works Parks, Gardens Swimming Pools Health Services

For efficiency of administration, the execution of policy is divided among three major departments, Administration, Engineering-Town Planning and Health. At the head of each department is an expert, qualified officer, who with his staff is responsible for the execution of the Council’s policy.

Administration is under the direction of the town clerk, Jack E. Whitmarsh, who is also the Chief Administrative Officer, with overall control of the whole Canterbury staff. He commenced his career on local government in 1938 as a junior clerk at Sutherland. He came to Canterbury in 1957 as chief clerk and accountant, having previously served in that position in the Bankstown Council electricity department. In 1965, he was promoted to deputy town clerk and in May, 1973, succeeded Jack Wheeler as town clerk. He is ably assisted by his deputy, William H. Howell. Ian Evans, appointed as the first publicity officer, informs residents of Council activities and services by press releases and printed literature.

245

The branches of administration are the Treasury and Rates Departments.

Arthur S. Ford is head of the Treasury Department with N. Rudgley as accountant. The main activities of the Department are the onerous tasks of keeping the accountancy records, exercising financial controls and the preparation of the annual budget estimates for submission to Council. A budget review is also undertaken quarterly. The Treasury is further responsible for the investment of Council funds.

The Rates Department is headed by the Rates Clerk, Ronald A. Forsdike, with Ronald F. Leonard as his deputy. Immediately the Council sets its rate, for example, $1.20 for 1978, the rates staff set about the issue of 39 000 rate assessment notices a tedious task and because of its implications, an unpo足 pular action by the Council. Ratepayers may elect to pay in four instalments, and about 9000 took this step in 1978, and in so doing agreed to pay on due dates or forfeit the right. The Council granted rebates to pensioners and some 7000 applications were made in 1978. After ten years a pensioner is given an additional rebate up to a maximum of $135. The government subsidises half the levy up to $120. Not all ratepayers are prompt to settle their accounts, so follow-up reminder and final notices are then issued. The Rates Depart足 ment initiates all recovery actions including prosecution and judgments and in extreme cases, prepares lists of defaulting ratepayers more than five years in arrears, and takes the necessary action to sell the properties to recoup costs, rates and extra charges such as interest on money owed. In 1978 there was $508 039 owing on the books. The Housing Commission of N.S.W. is the largest ratepayer, with a levy in 1978 of $330 000. Grace Bros., Roselands is the largest single ratepayer with a rate levy in 1978 of $48 000. The issue of dog registration notices is also a function of the Rates Department.

Included in the rates staff is the Rolls Clerk, Frank G. Sprague, who prepares and keeps the electoral rolls up to date. The 1977 lists show an enrolment of 99 114 electors.

The Engineering-Town Planning Department is headed by the chief engineer and town planner, Don H. Sheffield, with Graham W. Baillie as his deputy. The main functions of the department include the advising of the Council on all engineering and town planning projects and matters, the responsibility for the construction of projects set out in the works programme and in connection with main roads, may undertake constructions on behalf of the Main Roads Department. Other areas include the construction and operation of swimming pools, control of parks, golf course, tennis courts and other lands zoned for public recreation.

The Health Department is under the direction of Keith Hackshall, chief municipal health surveyor and principal building inspector. Robert Lynch is his deputy while the senior inspection panel is comprised of John Beasley, Robert Meek and Alan Keys. The duties of the Health Department which are numerous and varied, include street and gutter cleaning, clean-up campaigns 246

and trade refuse collection from shops and factories, supervision of house­ hold garbage collection and its disposal, particularly by the shredder. Food inspection is undertaken in shops and factories. Building inspection is an important function made onerous by the ordinance requirements. During 1977, eighty five applications for new buildings worth $4 533 468 were approved, and there were 1516 new additions worth $7 880 487. The Health Department supervises the five play centres during school holidays, six baby health centres, day and evening immunizations clinics for communicable diseases such as whooping cough, measles, diptheria, tetanus and polio.

During 1977, 14 160 children were given the relevant needles.

Other necessary functions include the control of noise and pollution, particularly in waterways. The Council employs two dog catchers who in 1977 impounded 700 dogs, 300 cats and miscellaneous goats, rabbits and even a sheep, a fox and two pigs. A new depot equipped with modern facilities costing $750 000 was opened in June, 1978.

On 9 February, 1978, Ald. J. Mountford launched a scheme previously approved by Council for the formation of a Staff Participation Committee.

He stressed that the scheme was the first of its kind in New South Wales and probably in Australia. The Committee, which comprises the mayor as a non-voting chairman and eight members elected by the staff, will meet at six weekly intervals to discuss any matters, except those of staff appointments, salary adjustments and union affairs.

The mayor stated in a press release: I am firmly convinced that the employees of the council will obtain greater satisfaction and enrichment from their work situation if they are able to have a say in the decision making processes. The formation of the Committee is seen as extending democracy in the workplace' 20 The Canterbury Municipality has greatly progressed through the century of its existence. Its first settlers, predominantly of British stock, had to carve out their holdings from the thickly forested lands. Today the trees have been replaced by an equally dense ‘forest’ of houses and variety of other buildings.

The post-war immigration schemes have brought to Canterbury an entirely different composition of new settlers, who have introduced, by contrast, a variety of cultures, giving Canterbury a cosmopolitan atmosphere. Where English was universally spoken, one may now hear several other tongues. The extent of migration may be noted from a breakdown of the population in 1976: Of the population of 128 703, 85 223 (66.22%) were Australian, 7 952 (6.18%) were from the United Kingdom andEire and30 430(23.64%) were from other countries. The proportion of migrants, then, is roughly, one third of Canterbury’s population. 21

247

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

248

Canterbury Municipal Council, File No. 65/5050 Sun Herald, 12 March, 1967 Interview, W. E. Moser, 18 April, 1978 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Areas and Administration (Barnett), p. 72 Canterbury Municipal Council, Souvenir of the Official Opening of the Canterbury Municipal Administrative Building; Campsie News & Lakemba Advance 28 August, 1963; J. G. Mountford, Speech Notes on Canterbury Community Centre, 18 March 1979 Sydney Morning Herald, 10 September, 1965 Canterbury Municipal Council, File 64, 5015, M65/642 Act No. 97, 1970 Canterbury Municipal Council, Souvenir of the Opening of the Refuse Shredding Plant, 21 February, 1975 Sun-Herald, 24 July, 1977. For further information on waste disposal see F. A. Larcombe, The Advancement of Local Government in N.S.W. 1906-1978, PP.357-62 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, vol. 1, pp. 93, 98 Ibid, pp.194, 240, 271-2 J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 90 Ordinances under Local Government Act, 1919, Ordinance 52, pp. 2-8 See F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S. W. pp. 215—18. Canterbury Municipal Council. D. H. Sheffield (Chief Engineer—Town Planner) Canterbury Municipal Council Minutes, Vol. 1, pp. 82, 131, 152 Canterbury Municipal Council, D. H. Sheffield, Chief Engineer-Town Planner J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 92; F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., pp. 192-9; N.S.W. Statistical Register 1870-1906, 1915-16, pp. 172-8, Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 2, pp. 28,38 F. A. Larcombe, The Advancement of Local Government in N.S.W., pp. 425-7 Campsie News & Lakemba Advance, 6 December, 1956 Canterbury Municipal Council, J. M. Rooke, Chief Librarian, U. M. Hitchin, Deputy Librarian, 13 June, 1978, Campsie News & Lakemba Advance 6 December, 1966 Canterbury Municipal Council, General Information for the Assistance and Guidance to Ratepayers, 1978 and staff Canterbury Municipal Council File No. 77/4918 Canterbury Municipal Council, Officers of the respective Departments

LAW AND ORDER

T

he New South Wales Police Force originated from Governor Phillip’s appointment of a military controlled night watch composed of the ‘best behaved’ convicts. On his arrival in the colony in 1810, Macquarie ‘found the police of the town of Sydney very defective and totally inadequate’ for a ‘populous and extensive town’.1 The following year the force was com­ pletely reorganised, with D’Arcy Wentworth as the first superintendent of semi-civilian constables. For administrative and control purposes, Sydney was sub-divided into five police districts, to each of which seven constables were appointed. From 1833 legislation was passed to improve the colonial police forces. Under the Acts, 1833 and 1838 local benches of magistrates were empowered to undertake rudimentary local government functions as well as police management. In 1850, the force was placed under the control of an inspector-general and the Police Regulations Act, 1862 set the basic organisation under which the present police force is administered. 2 When police protection was extended into the suburbs further police districts were created. Botany Bay, which lay between the Cook’s and George’s Rivers and extended inland to Liverpool Road, contained the bulk of the present Municipality. In 1823, William Pithers received a grant of land in the Moorefields area and in 1826 he was appointed as constable for the Botany Bay district, and therefore was Canterbury’s first settler to become a policeman. From the 1850’s Canterbury had but one constable to maintain order, apparently quite an easy task in view of the absence of very serious crimes. When required, additional police were sent from Sydney to assist the local constable as for example, when John Chard was arrested for wilfully destroying Prout’s toll gates.

The need for greater police protection arose with the development of the Municipality and this in turn, required greater mobility than ‘foot-slogging’.

The Council took up the latter question in July, 1882, in response to a resident’s petition to impress upon the Inspector-General of Police the urgent necessity for the provision of a horse for the constable. The Inspector unfortunately could not see the need for a ‘mountie’.3 In 1889, an additional officer, Constable Emmett, took up residence in Croydon Park. These early constables had a wide range of duties included in which were the duties of fireman.

At Canterbury police headquarters were located at the constable’s residence in Church Street. The next requirement therefore, was a police station directly connected by telephone. Another ‘necessary’ adjunct was the

254

provision of a lock-up. A deputation in 1902 made these requests even for two portable cells. Additional police were appointed but it was not until 1910 that a station was erected in Canterbury Road. The Canterbury Station was taken over in 1976 by the Highway Patrol Section, consisting of Sergeant M. R. Keen, and twenty two constables.4 After some agitation a one-man police station was established in rented premises in Beamish Street, Campsie in 1904. Reginald Rudd was the resident constable. The present brick station in Campsie Street was erected in 1929 at a cost of £5700. The property contained police-quarters, later converted to offices, charge-room, four cells and two exercise yards. In January, 1978, the Campsie Station strength consisted of the Officer in Charge, Inspector Keith Barton, two inspectors, fifteen sergeants and forty three constables, who are involved in general police work, licensing, traffic, detective and scientific duties and the activities of Police-Citizens Boys’ Clubs.

A one-man police station was established at Belmore about 1885 and remained so until 1907, when a second constable was appointed. The location of the first station is not as yet known, but between 1916 and 1934, a rented brick house in Anderson Street served as an office and residence. A portable government cell was installed in 1918, when the station was closed, a weatherboard call-box was substituted and now serves as a Council tool shed. No station has been erected although a site in Reginald Avenue, purchased in 1923, was later sold.5 A police station was first established at Punchbowl in 1919 in rented brick premises in Dudley Street, subsequently moved to residences in Broadway and Matthew Street. In January, 1934, the station was replaced by a call box located on railway land facing The Boulevarde. In May, 1970, a weather­ board auxiliary station was erected in Punchbowl Road. In January, 1978, the station’s strength consisted of Sergeant Francis Lonergan and five constables.

A rented brick house in Taylor Street was Lakemba’s first station, estab­ lished in 1923. In common with Belmore and Punchbowl, this station was replaced with a weatherboard call box, erected on railway land at 56 Haldon Street in 1933. The present brick police station erected at the corner of Gillies and Quigg Streets, was occupied in February, 1975. In January, 1978 it was manned by Sergeant Leslie Waters, three other sergeants and eighteen constables. 6 Earl wood’s first police station was established in 1927. It was a rented brick cottage in View Street which was closed in 1936 and replaced by a weatherboard call box erected at 60 Earlwood Avenue. A new brick station was erected on this site and occupied in August, 1975. Its strength in January, 1978, was Sergeant T. R. Hinchey, three other sergeants and eighteen constables.7 The last of the Canterbury Municipality police stations was established in 255

1948 at Herne Bay (renamed Riverwood, 1958). Converted army huts served as quarters, office and garage. In 1966, a call box containing an office, was erected in Belmore Road.

In 1974, the police administrative divisions in the metropolitan area were re-organised. Lakemba, Punchbowl and Earlwood became part of No. 13 Division, with Campsie as the head station and Riverwood part of No. 31 Division, centered on Hurstville.8

THE POST OFFICE Before 1810, the New South Wales colony had no regular post offices and ‘only the most imperfect means of postal communication’. Governor Mac­ quarie established the first regular services in 1810, with an ex-convict, Isaac Nichols, as the first post master. By 1820, post offices had been established in Sydney and seven country centres.9 Canterbury’s isolation until the 1850’s was emphasised by its distance from a post office, the nearest of which were Sydney and Liverpool.

In October, 1855, thirty three persons at Ashfield petitioned for a post office.io The Ashfield petition, no doubt, prompted a number of Canterbury’s inhabitants and landowners to take a similar step in December. This petition was refused but Ashfield was immediately successful, a post office opening there on 1 January, 1856.11 Canterbury was now only 1.5 miles from a post office.10 In 1856, Barnabas Hartshorne, Canterbury’s first shopkeeper, writing in support of a post office, stressed the difficulties faced by the local inhabitants. Ashfield was accessible only by a rough bush track. The local baker, who could neither read nor write, assumed the responsibility for the delivery of the mail to Canterbury.12 Further requests were made by letter and petition, eventually drawing from the Postmaster-General the explanation that their rejection was caused by a proliferation of post offices in the metropolitan area which considerably embarrassed the G.P.O. postal business. The residents gained one concession, that of having a separate bag for Canterbury to be collected at Ashfield by William Slocombe a person nominated by the inhabitants. This system was not entirely satisfactory. Slocombe, for example, complained that some Canterbury mail was being sent from Sydney to Enfield, there to be collected by a baker who added a penny surcharge per letter.

William Woolcott, of The Hermitage, complained of delays caused by the arrival of the Canterbury bag at Ashfield after the Sydney mail had left. He wrote in protest ‘Surely our district is of sufficient importance to entitle it to regular postal communication, say at least once or twice a week’. Woolcott concluded his letter pointedly and most astutely, by trading votes for a post office. ‘No doubt you are aware’, he wrote, ‘that (Canterbury) is already honoured with a Polling Place and at the last (colonial) elections (March/ 256

April, 1856) about 120 votes were polled here. I think that in the village and its vicinity there are at least 500 inhabitants.’ 13 The timing of Woolcott’s letter was most opportune. The introduction of responsible government was characterised by a quick succession of ministries and the party leaders were eager for support. In view of these circumstances, it is not surprising that the Cowper Government quickly acquiesced. On 1 April, 1858, a gazettal notice confirmed the establishment of a post office at Canterbury and requested that residents advise their correspondents to address their mail accordingly to ensure speedy delivery. 14 William Slocombe was appointed as the first post master at an annual salary of £12. The postal business was conducted at his store and mails were carried daily to and from Ashfield. Slocombe was succeeded by Thomas Davis, who purchased his business in August, 1863. Four years later, Slocombe re-occupied his old premises and resumed his duties as postmaster. At the time there was a weekly posting of only forty two letters or about 2200 articles annually. The management of the post office became a family affair, when in 1881, William’s son, James assumed the duties of postmaster. 15 Possession of a municipal council gave greater power to Canterbury to voice its claims for improved public services. A petition in May, 1880, requested a twice daily service from Sydney, though only thirty three letters were being delivered to Canterbury. The granting of the service in October caused the mayor, John Sharp to comment that, ‘while feeling grateful for the boon conferred ... it scarcely met the requirements of the district.’16 The Canterbury postal service grew naturally with the district’s develop­ ment and with introduction of new inventions such as the telephone, personal communication was greatly improved. New services such as money orders, introduced 1885, telegrams and saving bank facilities in 1888, further helped to break down the barriers of isolation. In 1887, the first of Canterbury’s ‘posties’, Arthur Davis, commenced home deliveries. The service was evidently very successful because, within two years, demands were made for its extension to all the Municipality.17 Davis was succeeded by a host of ‘posties’ who have trudged, ridden horses, and pushed bikes along Canter­ bury’s streets for almost a century. The hard lot of the early postmen was well emphasised by Charles Cannon, a Canterbury letter carrier, when he wrote for assistance for his ‘run’ to Campsie:

‘Of late I have been compelled to walk on my letter delivery, “Campsie”, through wet weather, as during such time and for days after a bicycle is absolutely useless.

As the whole of the streets on my beat being grass, clay or gravel and after heavy rain it would be impossible to ride a bike from one side to the other. I may also state in fine weather the bicycle is often out of order through no fault of my own and to do it on foot, I have a mile to walk, before I reach the first place on my beat, which takes in the whole of Campsie on the north side of the railway extending to Margaret Street. ’18 257

It was only to be expected that as district centres were expanded by housing developments there would be demands for an extension of postal services to those areas. In 1879, an office named Belmore, was opened. It experienced a somewhat transitory existence, but was firmly established in 1899. A second Belmore office was opened in August, 1907, with Helen Tritton as postmis­ tress at a newsagency conducted by her husband William, in Burwood Road. 19 A confusion of names led to a change in the original office’s name to South Belmore. At the time the post master was A. G. Davey, who conducted a local store. The similarity of the two post office names tended to maintain the confusion and as the South Belmore office was opposite Lakemba Railway Station it was renamed Lakemba on 1 January, 1910. As successive store owners became post masters, the Lakemba office was moved from place to place, and from time to time new services were added.20 In November, 1899, a petition containing 114 signatures requesting a local office at Croydon Park or Campsie, was successful and the following year facilities for sale of stamps and postal notes, and for mail registration, were provided at G. M. Fitzpatrick’s stationery store, at the junction of Brighton Avenue and Browning Street. Letters posted there, some six daily, were collected by the Canterbury carrier. There was some dissatisfaction with the office location. In September, 1905 a petition for a more central site was presented by sixty four residents of the Redman and Harcourt Estates where over 180 houses had been constructed. Their request brought forth an overwhelming protest by 400 persons, about half of whom were unknown to the letter carrier. The counter petition was disregarded and in July, 1906, the post office was removed to Joseph Wright’s general store in Ninth Avenue.

Henry Hook, president of the Campsie Shopkeepers’ Association, emphas­ ised the primitive conditions under which postal services were conducted. He referred to ‘the shanty that does duty . . . for conducting postal business’. It had but ‘one room neither ceiled, lined or painted’ which served as a post office, a paint store and a barber’s shop.21 Popular pressure for improvements, particularly from householders in new estates led to twice-daily letters deliveries and a continuous telephone service.

Further requests for improvements were made by Bruce Smith, Canterbury’s representative in the Commonwealth Parliament, because from 1901, the administration of postal services was assumed by the Federal Government.

The Postmaster’s Department described Campsie as ‘a comparatively unimportant non-official office’ which, from all services in 1907, returned a meagre revenue of £88. Strong, well-founded criticism of White’s premises led to the transfer of the post office to a newsagency business conducted by F. J. Clatworthy in Beamish Street.22 The earliest postal facility at Punchbowl was a letter box outside a store near the railway station. Early in January, 1913, a petition was prepared in support of the establishment of a post office. In August, an office was opened 258

for business at a local store with Grace Jones as postmistress at £12 per annum. This post office was moved from place to place as the position of postmaster changed hands, until the construction of an official building in 1933.23 The residents of Croydon Park first petitioned for a post office in October, 1914, the leading signatory being Frederick Lyons. The petition stated that there were five shops and a further six nearing completion in Croydon Park which was ‘a large and growing centre’, but the nearest post office at Enfield was over a mile distance. A letter box at the corner of Brighton Avenue and George’s River Road was serviced twice daily from Croydon. The petition was successful and on 1 March, 1915, the proprietress of a confectionery and stationery business at the corner of Seymour Street and George’s River Road, Harriet Parker, was appointed first postmistress. This non-official office was just outside the Municipality, but after a succession of moves from shop to shop, it ran out of postmasters and was closed in December, 1919.

Requests for an official post office were refused, but a willing postmaster, J. W. Murphy, was discovered and a new office opened at the corner of Balmoral Avenue and George’s River Road in September, 1920. This site brought the post office just inside the Canterbury Municipality where it remained despite transfers to other shops in George’s River Road, and finally to a confectionery and mixed business owned by William Punshon. There it remained through a succession of postmasters. Meanwhile the post office business increased to an extent to require additional staff. In July, 1942, the office was advanced to ‘full time service’ status with a full time assistant.

Later, additional part-time personnel were appointed.

The growth of postal business renewed the demands for ‘official’ status.

This was not achieved until March, 1952, when a new building, a prefabri­ cated aluminium structure, was erected at a cost of £19 504, at the corner of Dunmore Street and George’s River Road, acquired in 1927. The first official postmaster was K. C. Wild. From 1952, letters were delivered from Croydon Park Post Office.24 The Earlwood Post Office originated from demands for a receiving office by the local Progress Association. From January, 1916, the secretary, S. D. Cameron, the owner of a general store in William Street, voiced the district’s claims. A report on the question stated that about 120 residents would benefit from the service. At the time twice-daily deliveries were made to most of the district and once to the remainder. The Department, considered that this service was adequate, refused the Association’s request. Further representa­ tions met with a similar fate until 1920, when a receiving office ‘Earlwood’, was established in a business, the first receiving keeper being C. O. Hudson.

Earlwood followed the experiences of the other offices by having a succession of receiving offices, and making demands for full services. After representations by the Earlwood Progress Association, approval was given 259

in August, 1925, for a non-official post office, with T. Ryan as postmaster.

Official status was granted in 1941 with M. Rogers as postmaster.25 At December, 1977, there were eight official and ten non-official post offices.

LIGHTING The use of gas as a street illuminant had become well established in Sydney before the incorporation of Canterbury. The Australian Gas Light Company, established in 1837, lit city streets and in 1858 was empowered to extend its mains into the suburbs. The extensions were only made into economically viable areas and therefore proceeded slowly. It was not until the 1880’s and 1890’s that gas lighting of streets reached inner areas such as Randwick and Botany. The Gas Company’s monopoly and the quantity, quality and high cost of the supply created dissatisfaction. This led to deputations to seek powers for councils to establish gasworks. Mark Hammond, Mayor of Ashfield, a keen advocate for municipal works, was elected member for Canterbury in 1884 and mainly through his efforts, the Municipal Gas Act was passed. Councils were empowered to establish undertakings either individually or jointly.26 There were several endeavours to form gas unions.

In Canterbury Ald. E. A. Marsh suggested that Ashfield, Enfield, Marrickville and Petersham should consider the installation of gas or electricity works.

The idea was considered a ‘bold one’ but ‘hardly likely to blossom into an accomplishment’.27 This proved to be a true judgment, not only for Ashfield and its neighbours, but for all other municipal groups such as those in the eastern suburbs and St George. It was not until 195 8, with the creation of the Aberdare County Council, that first and only joint municipal gasworks were established.28 Before 1879 there was no authority in Canterbury to light the roughly made streets. Establishments such as shops and hotels, provided the only street lighting. External oil lamps were used, more for the attraction of customers than for the convenience of pedestrians. In 1879, the Council became responsible for street lighting and under the Municipalities Lighting Act, 1873, it could levy a special rate for the purpose.29 Its first concern with lighting was the council chambers, an arrangement for the purpose being made with a Mrs Postle. First mention of street lighting was made in August, 1879, when Ald. Sayers sought consideration of the ‘advisability of placing a lamp on the bridge near George Street,’ but the Council was more concerned with the repair and alignment of streets than their lighting. Three years passed before John Sharp again raised the question of a bridge lamp and added that the district would benefit from installing a ‘few’ lamps in the main street. The Gas Company was asked to submit a price for six lamps.30 This procedure set the pattern for later Council negotiations. The Gas Company rejected the requests until it could scent a sufficient return. Eventually in 1886, gas made its entry into the Canterbury Municipality, when twelve street lamps were erected.31 260

TABLE 31 MUNICIPALITY OF CANTERBURY OFFICIAL POST OFFICES 1977 HOUSEHOLDER AND BUSINESS DELIVERY SERVICES HOUSEHOLDERS

BUSINESSES

POST OFFICE

P.O. Code

Postman Deliveries

Private Boxes Bags

* Belfield * Belmore * Campsie * Canterbury Ashbury * Hurlstone Park * Croydon Park * Earlwood Clemton * Lakemba Roselands Wiley Park * Punchbowl

2191 2192 2194 2193 2193 2193 2133 2206 2206 2195 2195 2195 2196

1,765 4,614 6,784 4,775

8 81 126 68

1,773 4,695 6,910 4,843

63 241 327 214

16 65 78 53

79 306 405 267

1,852 5,001 7,315 5,110

3,592 6,062

37 45

3,629 6,107

97 228

75 71

172 299

3,801 6,406

8,794

210 31

9,004 31

330 83

97 27

427 110

9,431 141

8,019

206

8,225

336

68

404

8,629

44,405

812

45,217

1,919

550

2,649

47,686

TOTAL

Householders Total

Postman Deliveries

Private Boxes Bags

Business Total

Grand Total

*Official Post Offices—responsible for a postal district—others are non official post offices.

NOTE: The above delivery points are not restricted to the Canterbury Municipality but to the postal district served by each official post office. Hence Belfield services extend into Strathfield Municipality and Punchbowl into Bankstown. On the other hand, Riverwood, Beverly Hills and southern fringe post offices district extend well into Canterbury Municipality.

Sources: Australia Post, Householder Mail Delivery Service, 1 August, 1977

261

262

TABLE 32 MUNICIPALITY OF CANTERBURY—MAIL POSTING STATISTICS FINANCIAL YEAR, 1976-77 (1) OFFICIAL OFFICES

OFFICE NAME Mail

First Official Postmaster

Letters

Opened Status BELMORE CAMPSIE CANTERBURY CROYDON PARK EARLWOOD LAKEMBA PUNCHBOWL

BELFIELD BELMORE SOUTH HURLSTONE PARK HURLSTONE TERMINUS

ASHBURY CLEMTON PARK EARLWOOD WEST McCALLUMS HILL PUNCHBOWL STH WILEY PARK

Mail Posted (b)

Received 1907 1900 1858 1915 1920 1879 1913

1926 1912 1895 1952 1941 1924 1933

(b) Other Parcels Letters Other Parcels

J. McCormack S. Slattery M. Herrington R. Young R. McLelland L. Cooper J. Shelley

939614 1311564 362063 224750 642245 1293266

579156

486396 82635 100067 40651 177905 50615 68978

9964 8314 3081 2112 8106 7598 19961

1936 1948 1914 1923

(2) NON OFFICIAL OFFICES—SELF CONTAINED T. Tarrant 11921 6012 1599 4114 1592 A. Vanderloos 8645 R. Byatt 14943 6149 1144 (d) M. Gleeson 3698 1547 273

1926 1933 1949 1942 1954 1940

(3) NON OFFICIAL OFFICES (In conjunction with Business) M. Gregory 390 897 136 M. Williams 1456 1176 409 K. Pappoulis 279 91 52 A. Milnes 5603 1339 169 L. Portrate 1254 1469 481 C. Forrest 1592 1300 442

(a) As at January, 1978 (b) Fianancial year 1976/77 (c) Delivery from postal Depot (d) Prior to 1917 Source: Australia Post, E. Osmond, Field Officer, Burwood, 20 January, 1978

1249274 1769509 1193177 853112 1563976 2284986 2688398

223847 336785 230758 146441 416986 419807 356555

20819 14970 13591 6734 13663 19318 28067

(c)516858 64915 2522 Delivery from Belmore Delivery from Canterbury Delivery from Canterbury

Delivery from Canterbury Delivery from Earlwood Delivery from Earlwood Delivery from Lakemba Delivery from Punchbowl Delivery from Lakemba

A lighting rate at 3d. in £ first collected in 1887, yielded £121 against an expenditure of £147. As the municipality progressed further extensions of mains occurred and proceeds from the lighting rate naturally increased too.

By 1906, the rate was yielding £475 (See Table 16). Householders and business firms benefited considerably from the new lighting and heating source, particularly following the introduction of the incandescent mantles in 1897. Most of the gas developments occurred in North Ward and extension to the other wards could not advance while the remainder of the Municipality contained separated settlements. Thus Mayor Denniss could write in his annual report for 1907 that there was no ‘possible chance of seeing lighting in the bulk of East and West Wards for years to come.’32 Gas was Canterbury’s street illuminant until 31 December, 1913, when it was superseded by electricity. Nevertheless gas has continued as a household utility, and in businesses, as a source of power. Its presence in the municipality was dramatically brought home to residents of Kingsgrove Road, in the vicinity of the gasometer. At 6 a.m. on 15 February, 1956, as one resident, Don Hayes, picked up his daily paper, the serenity of the early morning was shattered by ‘a muffled roar’, a ‘great flame shot across the road’, and his ‘paper cracked into ash’. Other residents, thrown out of bed, thought an atomic bomb had exploded in their midst. The Gas Company discounted the description of the event as an explosion. The ‘muffled’ sound was the roar of flaming gas escaping from a major leak at the top to the 2 000 000 cubic feet container fortunately causing the level to fall quickly. The casualities were four residents treated for superficial burns. A Telegraph cartoonist made effective use of the event by likening the ‘muffled’ sound and ‘great flame’ to the talk and hot air arising from the heated campaign being fought between the party leaders Joe Cahill (Labor) and Pat Morton (Liberal) prior to the state elections of 3 March. 33 (See cartoon p. 264.)

As with other utilities its expansion has kept pace with that of the municipality. By December, 1977, only a dwindling proportion remained.

Canterbury has about 365 700 metres of mains, serving about 19 500 customers. Some of these are large industrial undertakings which produce electrical and clay goods, fabricate metals, and manufacture motor vehicle parts and food. Gas for household and industrial uses was originally coal based. From 1972—76 the gas came from Naphtha—and in August, 1977, a portion of the municipality was supplied with processed natural gas. This is reticulated at high pressure through special steel mains, an extension of which will occur during 1978.

In 1923, the A.G.L. established the Campsie Gas Centre to assist con­ sumers by giving advice on a range of appliances most appropriate to their needs for warmth, hot water, barbeques and lighting. The Centre provides facilities for the payment of accounts and general inquiries as well as services indirectly related to gas such as home insulation to conserve energy and 263

Courtesy of Daily Telegraph

increase comfort, and a wide range of modern, functional kitchen designs for which supply and installation can be arranged.34 Electricity made its debut in New South Wales as an interesting novelty, displayed on festive occasions. The electric arc lamp when first exhibited created the ‘most surprise and admiration’ for its rays ‘completely eclipsed all the illuminations.’ 35 The sales activities of one H. H. Kingsbury, in the field of electricity plans soon proved that gas was facing a serious competitor.

Attempts were made to interest certain metropolitan councils in the purchase of plants. Canterbury, for example in March, 1891, rejected an offer from Woods Brothers to provide street electricity in West Ward at £5105 per lamp.36 While metropolitan councils remained sceptical of the new illuminant, the country centres led by Tamworth in 1888, began to install plants to light streets with electricity, but progress in this field was severely retarded because there was no legal provision for sales to consumers. The few schemes in operation proved the superiority of electricity over gas as a street illuminant. It did away with the need for gaslighters who, ladder burdened, trudged the streets twice daily turning on and off each lamp. The scent of high profits stampeded private firms, the A.G.L. and even the Sydney City Council into having legislation drafted to set up monopolies in the sale of electricity to metropolitan consumers.37 The government awarded the race to the City Council, which under the 264

Municipal Council of Sydney Electric Lighting Act, 1896 was empowered to light city streets, public and private places and to extend the supply to the suburbs. The city scheme commenced to operate in 1904, the year in which other local councils were given the right to supply private consumers under the Municipalities Electric Light Act. The City Council began the extension of its supply to the suburbs, with Paddington. By 1908, there were three electricity supply sources in the metropolitan area. One of these, the Electric Light and Power Supply Corporation, originally granted a franchise to supply the Balmain Municipality, began extending its services south towards Can­ terbury, eventually reaching Petersham in 1911, and Ashfield in 1913.38 The extension of the city and Balmain services was of particular importance to Canterbury. In October, 1911, the Council resolved to request the City Council and the Balmain Company to state what parts of the Municipality they were prepared to supply electricity and their price per lamp. The following year the Council agreed to consider definite proposals, finally accepting those of the City Council. The A.G.L. was given a year’s notice to discontinue its services and lighting with electricity commenced 1 January, 1914 .39 Thereafter the extension of the service kept pace with housing and industrial development. Nowadays electricity is available to all Canterbury’s population.

The City Council’s electricity scheme experienced a remarkable growth.

During the thirty years 1904—34 the number of consumers increased from eighty six to 217 392, involving a capital expenditure from £151 895 to £18 141 798. By 1934 Council had extended its supply to thirty two municipalities and shires. From 1921 bulk supplies were sold to areas as far afield as Blacktown, Penrith and Colo Shire. Nevertheless the undertaking’s future was precarious. Extensions had occurred under terminable contracts, and during the depression suburban councils became very restive threatening to set up their own schemes.40 To prevent a complete break up of the city undertaking the government, in 1935, constituted the Sydney County District comprising thirty two municipalities and shires. For the election of two county councillors, Canterbury was placed in the second constituency, that is one of the twenty five municipalities south of the harbour. Of the ten candidates, Canterbury’s mayor Stanley Parry secured the second highest vote, but was not elected. Later, in 193 8, he won a seat, and served four terms as chairman, 1939—1941,1943—4 and twice as deputy chairman, 1940,1942.

In 1977, there were approximately 50 767 consumers of electricity in Canterbury. These range from ordinary householders to large businesses such as the Sunbeam Corporation. Street lighting by electricity for which the Council paid a paltry £1734 when first adopted in 1914, in 1977 cost $289 205. In August 1938 the Sydney County Council established a branch office in Campsie for the promotion of electricity by appliance sales, general advice to consumers and as a means of facilitating account payments.41 265

WATER SUPPLY, SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE Sydney’s first sources of water supply, the Tank Stream, Lachlan Swamps and Botany, were most unsatisfactorily located and possessed too insignificant a future potential to supply a growing city. Of these schemes, only the latter was capable of limited extension to the suburbs. By the 1860’s a new and much more adequate source became an urgent necessity, and the Upper Nepean scheme was the outcome. A water famine, which occurred before its completion, forced the City Council into the construction of a temporary scheme. A pipeline which ran from Potts Hill to Botany, followed the course of Cook’s River, and in parts traversed the Municipality.42 The Council apparently cared little for the water starved city, for when the contractors, Hudson Brothers, applied in September, 1885, for permission to lay pipes through in certain streets, it felt that an infringement of its sovereignty should be at a price and imposed certain conditions, one of which was the erection of a stand pipe for local use. The contractors emphasised their lack of power to comply with the Council’s conditions, but promised to leave footpaths in good condition. Thereupon permission was refused and the contractors threatened with an action for trespass.43 Hudson Brothers ignored the Council and completed the temporary scheme in January, 1886.44 The permanent pipe line, completed in 1888, ran to the city in close proximity to Canterbury and supplied a reservoir at Petersham. It was very conveniently located on high ground and therefore capable of easy extension to lower areas of the Municipality.45 The inauguration of the Upper Nepean Scheme brought a change in the administration of the Sydney water supply.

The Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, constituted 1880, took over control from the City Council on completion of the Upper Nepean scheme in 1888.46 For almost a century Canterbury’s settlers had been forced to rely on their individual provision of tanks and wells for water. No doubt, they were not unduly perturbed about its adequacy because they considered that Cook’s River was an ‘inexhaustible’ source, and when tanks ran dry supplies were carted from it. To assist water drawers, the Council, in March, 1884, voted £10 for the installation of a pump and trough near Canterbury Bridge. The pump rendered yeoman service for four years, eventually being replaced with a larger and more efficient model, costing £15.47 At the time, reticulation from the Upper Nepean pipeline was being extended into Ashfield and in July, 1888, Canterbury ratepayers successfully petitioned the Council to apply for an extension of the water supply to Canterbury village. The Board promised to lay mains when pipes were available. Towards the end of 1888, the Mayor, Thomas Davis made further requests for an extension to Canterbury. Investigations were made and when an assessment of revenue revealed only 2 per cent on the outlay, the Board 266

refused to budge. Later in May 1889 it notified the Council of its intention to lay mains from Goodlet Street to the race course.48 The pipes, mostly six inch were laid in Milton and King Streets. By the end of the year, 1209 yards of main had been laid and six properties became liable for water rates, amounting to £24.2s.9d. During 1890 the mains were increased to 5.5 miles and from the 199 rateable properties, the board derived a revenue of £161.9s.4d, a return of 4.2 per cent on the capital outlay of £3841. The following year, when no additional mains were laid the 215 properties yielded £323, a return of 8.4 per cent. Subsequently annual extensions were made in light of housing and other building developments, until to-day, the Municipality is fully served with a water supply.49 Three service reservoirs have been constructed in Canterbury in order to cope with local demand variations and to ensure a continuous supply, namely Ashfield No. 2, Canary Road and Earlwood.

The city and metroplitan area had no sewerage systems before the 1850’s.

Though the provision of such a service was well beyond the City Council’s purse, it was roundly condemned for its inaction, and because it was regarded as an impediment to the city’s improvement, it was replaced by a Commission in 1854. The Commissioners constructed five outfall sewers all of which emptied into the harbour, creating serious health hazards and silting prob­ lems. In 1875, a Board of Sewage and Health recommended the Ben Buckler outfall system. When the Water Board assumed control of the city sewerage system in December, 1889, there were about seventy miles of main and subsidiary sewers, serving about 18 000 houses.50 Unlike the water supply, the city sewerage system had not been extended to nearby suburbs. At the time the Board assumed control only two metropolitan councils, Randwick and Manly had attempted to construct their own sewers.51 Following the Board’s resumption, sewerage services were gradually extended to the southern and western suburbs, and as Canterbury housing developments warranted, connections were made to mains from these sewers.52 Canterbury’s citizens made their own lavatory arrangements for over a century. It was common practice to construct a cess pit at some distance from the house. Periodically, these pits were emptied and dumped in unsettled areas of the Municipality, not only by its own residents by those of other areas as well. In market garden areas such as Canterbury the pit contents assumed an economic significance. In Sydney, for example, a lucrative trade in kind developed with Chinese market gardeners at Botany. Cesspit cleaners took the contents to the gardens and returned with the same carts laden with vegetables which were immediately sold to city residents.53 Nightsoil was used by Canterbury gardeners but no controls were imposed until after the incorporation. Previous pages have shown how orchardists and farmers were roundly criticised by long suffering residents for using night soil in a crude 267

268

TABLE 33 CANTERBUR Y RESER VOIRS Reservoir Ashfield (2) Canary Road Earlwood

Type

Year Erected

Height above sea level

Water depth feet

Capacity 000 gallons

Steel Concrete Concrete

1912 1929 1950

260 271.5 170

39.16 30.75 25.0

1,000 1,027 2,000

Source: W. V. Aird, The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney pp. 64—6

TABLE 34 CANTERBURY WATER SUPPLY, SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE STATISTICS 1920-77 WATER SUPPLY Population Year Buildings ; Land Blocks Water Rates Buildings No No £ No 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

7,802 19,388 21,605 25,418 30,662

4,439 4,408 3,603 3,897 553

1970 127,200 1977

34,340 38,639

264 253

10,613 58,774 60,000 112,866 304,890 1,329,331 3,146,921

SEWERAGE DRAINAGE Land Blocks Water Rates Properties Drainage No £ No Rates £

1034 7168 14783 19286 79583

76 588 765 1105 415

34248 38536

239 237

Source: Metropolitan W. S. Sc D. Board, Annual Reports, 1920—77 * No statistics available

1,990 20,000 34,463 71,060 0 233,183 1,450,306 4,599,974

11 * * ♦

* * *

23,637

20,433

26,358 30,521

175,409 295,688

TOTAL Rate Revenue £ 12,603 78,774 94,463 183,926 558,506 2,955,046 8,042,583

state and how frequent applications were made for Council permission. A system of emptying cesspits was established. Eventually in June, 1886, the Council made a by-law to prohibit the digging of new cesspits, without permission and imposed a penalty of £2—£5 on offenders.54 The Council employed a sanitary contractor who emptied cesspits and ran a pan service for those who applied and did not make use of the night soil.

The numerous complaints of nightsoil dumping led to the Council’s offering a £5 reward for information leading to convictions for illegal deposits.55 A mayoral minute emphasised the concern arising from dumping by other areas:—

‘The question of allowing or not nightsoil to be brought into our new healthy district (which) will come before (the council, is) of grave import, fraught. . . with so much danger ... to the health of the people . . . Nightsoil is the worst if not the only vehicle, that carries around the germs of a fever as malignant as typhoid, it therefore behoves us to consider well the possible consequences to the many before granting the permission (which) would. . . make our district a positive fever bed’,56 The Council, in 1888, ineffectually granted a petition not to permit nightsoil dumping and protest meetings continued. In one instance opposi­ tion speakers were treated most disdainfully by the dumpers who left piles of the‘noisome stuff’ at their front entrances.57 Eventually, in July, 1907 steps were taken to introduce a pan system, subsequently extended to the whole Municipality in 1911. At first the service was by private contract, but the following year the Health Committee recommended that the Council operate the service. It proposed the raising of a loan of £5000, £3400 of which was to purchase, as a deposition site, a portion of P. Stanley’s estate, Glendalough, at Moorefield’s Road, Belmore, considered the best of the six areas examined.

At the time, F. Foord was the sanitary contractor, and a hitch occurred when he refused the Council’s offer of £ 1000 to terminate his contract. The carrying of a motion to spend up to £2000 on sanitary plant soon caused Foord to change his mind. The Council assumed control of nightsoil collection on 5 January, 1914, and arranged with the representatives of the S.P.R. Process to destroy it at 2.5 pence per pan.58 Pan services still operate, being used mainly for buildings and public utility constructions and in small areas of the Municipality where technical problems restrict the construction of sewers.

The Upper Nepean scheme facilitated the extension of the city sewerage services. It led to considerable agitation in the western suburbs through which the pipeline passed to the city. Conferences were held, petitions forwarded and deputations met the Minister for Public Works. The Water Board prepared plans, but these were held in abeyance pending an adequate return on the capital outlay. It was not until 1905 that about 1500 yards of sewer pipes were laid in Canterbury in the vicinity of Hurlstone Park Station. By the end of the year, forty properties had become liable for £34 in rates. The 269

first main sewer branch was laid in Canterbury in 1910.59 Commencing in Enfield, it paralleled the northern bank of Cook’s River to meet the main western branch at Wardell Road.

Prior to its construction, house connections had proceeded slowly. During the five years the number of sewered properties increased by only seventy one and the total rate yielded only £109.60 In 1915, Canterbury with 689 new houses, headed the list for the suburban municipalities. The Board outlayed over £21 000 on sewer construction to serve Fern Hill, Canterbury, Campsie and Belmore, and as a result connected properties increased to 576, yielding £657 in rates. In 1920, there were 1034 sewered buildings yielding £1990.61 A second main branch, completed in 1928, runs from Chullora to the western branch at Undercliffe. Together with its submains, Wolli Creek, Cup and Saucer Creek and Belmore, it provides for the reticulation of the Cook’s River valley, thus serving the main portions of Canterbury.62 To-day Can­ terbury’s sewers serve 38 536 buildings returning $4 599 974 in rates (see Table 34). It is interesting to note that 38 639 buildings return $3 146 921 in water rates, so that Canterbury’s citizens pay 46.2 per cent more to get rid of waste water than to obtain a pure supply.63

FIRE PREVENTION Spasmodic attempts to prevent fires were made during the early years of the colony, but it was not until the 1850’s that an organised system came into being. In 1850, four insurance companies combined to provide a fire fighting service, but only for properties insured by them. The lack of protection for other properties was responsible for the introduction of volunteer brigades in the city and suburbs. When Canterbury was incorporated it had no fire protection and had to rely upon the volunteer brigades in Ashfield, Marrickville and even Newtown. The relationship between the volunteer and insurance brigade was far from amicable and to provide for better co-ordi­ nation between them a Fire Brigades Act, passed in 1884, set up the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board.64 The need for fire prevention for Canterbury’s buildings was emphasised by outbreaks which occurred from time to time. In January, 1890, for example, George Shearer, a resident of Woodlands Street, lost his two cottages in a fire caused by an exploding kerosene lamp. Though four brigades attended, they were unable to save the property, and Constable Emmett suffered burns in the process.65 Despite the seriousness of such fires, the Council remained complacent, until the Metropolitan Board forced its hand. The Fire Brigades Act provided for its extension to any municipality within the metropolitan area. In February, 1894, Canterbury was compulsorily brought under the Board’s jurisdiction, and its inclusion meant that the Council became liable for a 270

Official opening of Campsie Fire Station, 1907

Campsie Fire Station and Reel, 1907

271

contribution towards fire prevention costs.66 The Board ‘generously’ forwent the contribution for that year, but for 1895, on an assessment of £43 487, Canterbury was levied for £48, 18s. 6d. as its contribution. Notification really incensed the Council. To John Quigg the levy was a ‘very heavy tax’, and Jeffrey Denniss, it was ‘most iniquitous’, He added further that the protection of the Board was ‘valueless’ since many streets had no reticulated water supply. The upshot was the Council’s refusal to pay the levy.67 While the Council was deliberating upon granting £100 to aid the formation of a Canterbury brigade, and the people were expressing ‘a great dissatisfaction’ with the Board’s levy, fatalities in Cook Street, Rosedale, pointedly drove home the urgent need for protection from the ravages of fire.

It was the old story of parents leaving young children to their own devices.

On 21 March, a fire, originating from the upsetting of a lamp or candle in John Hoare’s cottage, burnt two of his children to death, leaving only their charred remains. A public meeting to establish a fire brigade followed. Varney Parkes stressed that the government would bear ‘nearly all’ the expense, but John Quigg, still smouldering over the Board levy, secured an adjournment to permit a sub-committee to investigate.68 At a further public meeting in May the discussion centred on the selection of a fire station site. Two were suggested, either in close proximity to the railway station or the town hall. The Board preferred the latter and the Council agreed, despite an endeavour by James Stone to have the station at Campsie, and C. J. Turner’s offer of another site.69 The erection of a station and the formation of a brigade were driven into the background by the Council’s obstinate determination to secure exemption from the fire levy.

Varney Parkes presented a petition; The Board requested immediate payment to which the Council smugly replied, ‘no money’. Further Board requests pressed the Council to meet the Colonial Secretary, James Brunker, since it had no desire to pay levies for vacant paddocks, it demanded exemption from the Fire Brigades Act. Meanwhile the fines of £50 quarterly, which the act empowered the Board to impose, had accumulated to £400. The Board’s letter to this effect was treated nonchalantly by the Council.70 Ten years passed after the selection of the fire station site, but Canterbury still had no brigade. Spasmodic fires continued, for example, cottages owned

by T. Hillard and John Fitzgerald at Belmore. Early in 1906 the Board promised to erect a fire station. The municipal representative on the Board, W. Taylor confirmed that ‘sufficient’ sum had been allocated to purchase a site and erect a ‘portion’ of a permanent fire station. At the time the fire fighting control was re-organised into five districts, Canterbury was included in the Mid-Western district with its centre at Strathfield, where surprisingly, there was no fire station. A cottage was rented as headquarters for the district officer and two firemen, who were at attend the telephone and all fires, using a buggy as a means of transport.71 272

Crew of Canterbury Fire Brigade, 1912

Though a fire station was ‘badly wanted’, weeks went by with the Board always promising to erect it and a year passed before plans had actually been prepared. Meanwhile odd fires which destroyed cottages and even threatened the Council’s own library, served as a continuous reminder of the lack of an efficient brigade. Eventually the Board got round to drawing plans, building a fire station at Campsie and providing all the necessary appurtenances. The station was officially opened on 23rd November, 1907.72 The Campsie brigade was manned by partially paid volunteers under the captaincy of Arthur Crockford. It had an original strength of eight men and at first had 600 feet of hose but no fire engine. A second station was erected at a cost of £490 at the corner of Canterbury Road and Church Street in 1908, and manned by eight volunteers under the captaincy of F. Lane. It was described as ‘a conveniently built structure’ containing ‘a useful engine and a fine pair of horses’, and was ‘a great improvement to the district.’72 A comparison of the two brigades in 1908 is given in Table 35.

After the first world war fire protection was made more effective with the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles and steam and manual pumping with motor engines, the linking of stations by telephones and the automatic alarm systems. A review of fire protection in the Municipality in 1918 led to the erection of a third station at Lakemba, officially opened in 1921 by the Board’s president, Farrar. The Lakemba Brigade began as a fully motorised unit consisting of two permanent and six volunteer firemen—J. S. Hodge, J. 273

and J. H . Jones, E. D. Spears, F. Frendt and S. Wasson. A motor fire engine was not installed at Canterbury until 1924.73 TABLE 35

CANTERBURY MUNICIPALITY—STRENGTH OF FIRE BRIGADES 1908 Station Canterbury Campsie Source:

Strength 8 men

Engines 1 manual

8 men

—

Pumps 1 hand pump 9 suction 1 hand pump

H ose 1500 ft.

Ladders Other 4 1 telephone alarm 1000 ft.

2 —

Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board, Reports, P.P. 1908(2), Vol. 3, p. 793, 1909, Vol. 5, pp. 234-5

Canterbury District Ambulance Corps, 1914

274

,

The Canterbury station was closed in 1945 following a rationalisation of the metropolitan fire fighting services to eradicate the overlapping of brigade areas which had developed over the years. The remaining brigades were organised in 1977 on a roster basis. At Campsie the four station officers and twelve firemen are rostered into four shifts. One officer and three firemen to give a 24-hour fire protection. At Lakemba, each of these shifts consists of two station officers and two firemen. In 1977, excluding support for other brigades the Campsie station answered 559 first calls and Lakemba 258.

Canterbury has been relatively free from large conflagrations but from time to time there have been serious fires. Perhaps the most spectacular blaze occurred at Roselands in 1969. Some outbreaks have been attended by brigades as far away as Headquarters in Sydney. A fire at a joinery factory in May, 1975 and in September, 1976 at Sunbeam Corporation in Troy Street, Campsie were attended by nine and ten brigades respectively.74

275

1. Historical Records of Australia Series 1, Vol. 7 (1809-13), p. 385 2. Australian Encyclopaedia, Vol. 7, pp. 159-60; F. A. Larcombe The Origin of Local Government in N.S.W., pp. 247—8 3. Canterbury Municipal Council, Minutes, Vol. 1, pp. 237, 242 4. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 62, Police Department, Public Relations branch, Research Officer, 13 January, 1978 5. Ibid, 23 January, 1978 6. Ibid, 13 January, 1978 7. Ibid, 23 January, 1978 8. Ibid, 13, 23 January, 1978 9. Australian Encyclopaedia, Vol. 7, p. 238 10. N.S.W. Legislative Council, Votes and Proceedings, 1855, Vol. 1 General Summary of Weekly Abstract of Petitions, p. 4 11. N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1856, Vol. 1, p. 61 12. Australia Post, Public Relations Office, Canterbury Post Office History (Typescript) p. 1 13. Australia Post, Canterbury Post Office History, p. 2 14. N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1858, Vol. 2, p. 1785 15. Australia Post, Canterbury Post Office History, pp. 3-4, J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 58 16. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1, pp. 51, 79 17. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 58 18. Australia Post, Campsie Post Office History, p. 4 19. Advertiser, 27 July, 1907 Australia Post, Belmore (Post Office) pp. 1 & 2 20. Australia Post, A Post Office History, Lakemba, pp. 1-3 21. Ibid, pp. 2, 3, 5 22. Ibid, pp. 6, 8, 10 23. Australia Post, Historical Branch, Punchbowl, pp. 1-4 24. Ibid, Croydon Park, pp. 1-4 25. Ibid, Earlwood, pp. 1-2 26. Ashfield Municipal Council, Ashfield, 1871-1971, pp. 77-8 27. Advertiser, 25 July, 1908, Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 12, p. 145 28. F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., pp. 199-202 29. Act No. 26, 1873 30. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 1, pp. 7, 40, 243 31. Ibid, Vol. 3, pp. 32, 76, 190, 339, 369 32. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 12, p. 285 33. Daily Telegraph 16 February, 1956 34. A.G.L. Marketing Support, Communication (J. Dummett) 1,12 December, 1977 35. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June, 1863 36. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 55, Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 5, p. 21 37. F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., pp. 66-8, 203-4.

See also G. F. Anderson, Fifty Years of Electricity Supply, chapters 3,4.

38. Ashfield Municipal Council, Ashfield, 1871-1971, p. 79 A. M. Shepherd, The Story of Petersham, 1793-1948, p. 73 39. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 55 Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 14, pp. 12, 127, 142, 230, 339, 1913, pp. 251, 278

276

40. For details of this interesting development see: G. F. Anderson, Fifty years of Electricity Supply, pp. 130-42, F. A. Larcombe, The Advancement of Local Government in N.S.W. 1906-1976 pp 258-64 41. Sydney County Council, Consumer Affairs Branch, Communication 27 January, 1978.

42. W. V. Aird, The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney, Map facing p. 7.

43. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 3, pp. 243, 248 44. W. V. Aird, The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney, pp. 18-19 45. Ibid, see map facing p. 7 46. Act 43, Vic. No. 32 47. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 3, pp. 64, 69, 109-10 Sydney Morning Herald 1 February, 1886 48. Canterbury Municipal Minutes Vol. 4, pp. 95-6, 102, 109—10, 139, 154, 182 49. Metropolitan W. S. Board Reports, 1889—91. Journal of Legislative Council, 1890, Vol. 1, p. 1110; 1891-2, Vol. 5, pp. 332-6; N.S.W. P.V. &C P. 1892-3, Vol. 6, pp. 611-12, 619 50. W. V. Aird, The Water Supply and Sewerage of Sydney, pp. 128-9 51. Ibid, pp. 170-4; W. B. Lynch, F. A. Larcombe, Randwick 1859-1959 (1st ed.) pp. 223—4 52. See W. V. Aird, Ibid, map facing p. 150 53. F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W., p. 125 54. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 3, p. 340, N.S.W. Government Gazette 1886, Vol. 3, pp. 6539-40 55. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 3, p. 423, Vol. 4, p. 38 56. Ibid, Vol. 4, p. 166 57. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 56 58. Canterbury Municipal Minutes, 1913, pp. 83, 88-90, 259, 262, 270, 276, 279, 1914, pp. 1-2

59. Metropolitan W. S. Board Report, 1905, PP. 1906, Vol. 5, pp. 28, 34, 65 60. Metropolitan W. S. &: D. Board Report PP. 1910 (2) Vol. 2 (p. 573) Report, pp. 35, 39,41,81 61. Ibid, pp. 1915-16, Vol. 7, (p. 1), pp. 5, 32, 42 62. F.J.J. Henry, The Water Supply and Sewerage of Sydney, pp. 179-80 63. Ibid, Report, 1977, Public Relations Branch 64. F. A. Larcombe, The Stabilization of Local Government in N.S.W. pp. 104-12 65. Advertiser, 4 January, 1890 66. N.S.W. Government Gazette, 1894, Vol. 1, p. 709 67. Advertiser, 19 January, 23 February, 9 March, 1895, Sydney Morning Herald 12 August, 1899.

68. Advertiser, 9, 23, 30 March, 6 April, 1895.

69. Ibid, 18 May, 13 July, 7 September, 1895, Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 6, p. 250 70. Act 47 Vic. No. 3, s. 18, Canterbury Municipal Minutes, Vol. 7, p. 148 71. Advertiser, 11 November, 1905, 13, 27 January, 1906 72. Ibid, 24 February, 5, 12 May, 1906; 13 April, 27 July, 1907, 2, 30 November, 1907, 16 May, 1908 73. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 61; Board of Fire Commissioners, Public Relations Branch, (P. Dunstan) 74. Information, W. Baker, Campsie Fire Station, 31 January, 1978

277

PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS

T

he hybrid system of public instruction controlled by the Board of National Education before 1866 was most unprogressive. Besides the wastage of funds through overlapping there was an endless rivalry between the deno­ minational and public schools for a bigger share of government grants.

Furthermore about two thirds of school age children received no education at all. The Public Schools Act, 1866, abolished the competing authorities and transferred control to the Council of Education. A further measure, the Public Instruction Act, 1880, made attendance at school up to fourteen years compulsory and replaced the Council of Education by setting up the Department of Public Instruction.l The national schools, those which provided a basic elementary education before 1867, were renamed public schools. Some of the national schools were ‘non-vested’, that is they were of a private nature. One such school was Moorfields, established in 1861, with W. H. Miller as the first teacher, has been described in a previous chapter. In 1861, an application was granted by the Council of Education for provisional status, which entitled the school to some state aid. Ten years later Moorfields became the first public school proclaimed in Canterbury. J. T. Birrell offered a two-acre site at £20 opposite the old school, where a new building was constructed in 1879 by Thomas Birk at a cost of £1037. The first principal was William Bernard whose residence and the school were under the one roof. In 1917, a new building, costing £7000 was erected on the south side of Canterbury Road opposite Burwood Road. The change in location brought a change in name to Belmore South.2 In the 1860’s Belmore, reputably named in honour of the governor, the Earl of Belmore, was roughly the area in the vicinity of Canterbury Road about Rossmore Avenue to Wiley Park, so that the forerunners of the present Punchbowl and Lakemba Public Schools were those of Belmore and Essex Hill. In January, 1869, a local committee applied for a public school at Belmore, to be conducted in a new building erected by local Church of England residents as a place of worship on Canterbury Road, not far from the site of the present Punchbowl Public School. An inspector’s report on the application gave the population in the vicinity of the proposed school as 350 persons and it was expected that the initial enrolment would exceed seventy children. As the local populace, mostly farmers and gardeners, was in poor circumstances and the nearest school required the children to travel over three miles, the request was granted and in April, 1869, the first Belmore School was opened with Alfred Page in charge.

Page was not a very conscientious teacher, and as a result the average attendance declined by nearly half. Thomas Taylor, a trained teacher, was 280

appointed in 1872, and in order to retain his services, the Education Council was requested that the school operate half time. At the time a new school was being erected at Essex Hill, the site and a building being donated by the Miller family. In May, the local committee had unsuccessfully sought government assistance to establish a provisional school on the old Punchbowl Road, but in October, it was commenced as half time with Belmore. Full public school status was granted to the latter in 1878, and a new building, costing £960 10s was erected on a site given by Dr G. A. Tucker, of Bayview Mental Hospital, St Peters and owner of a Belmore farm, Forest Grove. It was situated on the southern side of Canterbury Road, where King George’s Road now crosses.

Douglas Thomas was the first principal and the local board contained as members, John Wiley, James Chisholm, Henry Berghofer, F. C. Popje and Peter Brandt. At commencement of a public school, Belmore (1) averaged forty three pupils. In 1907, this school was renamed Belmore South (1) and in June 1910, it was given its present name, Lakemba. Three years later a new building costing £5056, was erected. Meanwhile, in 1899, the Essex Hill building had been transported to the Congregational land in Lakemba Street.

From 1944 to 1956 Lakemba was classed as a central school, offering some secondary courses to the intermediate standard. When a series of new high schools was erected, for example Punchbowl, the secondary classes were discontinued and Lakemba reverted to public school status.

Previous pages have outlined how the early Canterbury schools were associated with church developments. In June, 1877, the Council of Educa­ tion was requested to establish a public school at Canterbury. When it was emphasised that there were 161 prospective pupils, the application was approved. Canterbury Public School opened in March, 1878, in the Church of England school house, with George Wenholz temporarily in charge, assisted by Master Pymon, a pupil teacher, a classification given to mere lads who often came as much under the principal’s care both as a pupil as well as a teacher. The first school board, appointed August, 1878, was comprised of John C. Sharp, Thomas Perrott and Alfred Miller.

A site of two acres in Church and Minter Streets was purchased from Thomas Perrott for £360, and on it a ‘substantial stone structure’ comprising a school room and a class room, was erected by the firm of Bignell and Clarke at a cost of £2558.

Parents and citizens were anxious to have Wenholz permanently appointed but the Education Council refused on the grounds that he had no country service. For a time Wenholz refused to budge but in September, 1882 he surrendered ‘only under duress’ to the new principal, Robert Parry, and was transferred to Parkes.3 The school naturally progressed with the district and enrolments grew. By 1885 there were 247 pupils and by the end of the century the staff had increased to ten of whom three were pupil teachers. Robert Parry, an eloquent 281

and efficient principal, transferred in 1905 to Granville North and was succeeded by George Dart.4 The school played a prominent role in the social life of the Canterbury community. Besides the periodical concerts and prize-giving, there were celebrations of Empire and Arbor Day and special displays to mark days of moment in the development of the Municipality. These were related by a pupil, Leopold Carr, in an essay for which he won the prize donated by Henniker Heaton, the member for Canterbury in the English House of Commons, who visited the Municipality in September, 1907. The school was prominent in sport too, and must have had an ‘Aussie’ Rules enthusiast on the staff. Canterbury won the medals in 1906, and its strength in the code can be adjudged by its 100 to nil win over Dulwich Hill at the home ground on the tannery paddock.5 In October 1890, Canterbury was raised to the status of a ‘superior’ public school, that is a school providing the normal primary education, as well as some secondary courses, for example mathematics, languages, commercial, technical and domestic science subjects. Gradually, the secondary classes became separate schools and in 1930, Canterbury reverted to a normal primary school. The emphasis on the introduction of a variety of new courses, in common with to-day, gave rise to apprehension concerning the ‘trendy’ nature of the new education and its tendency to depart from the ‘three-R’s' This was admirably illustrated in a poem entitled The New Education, written by an anonymous author published in the Ashfield Advertiser in 1908.6 They taught him how to hemstitch and they taught him how to sew, And make a basket out of variegated string you know, To cut their cardboard so he wouldn’t amputate his thumb, They taught a lot to Johnny, but he could not do a sum.

They taught him how to mould the heads of wobbegongs in clay, And how to tell the difference ’twixt the jackass and the jay; And how to sketch a native cat in dainty picture frame; But strangely they forgot to teach him how to spell his name.

They taught him how to take a tape and measure the back yard, They taught him how to bake a scone with suet or with lard; At ‘Chemistry experiments9 they frittered time away; He made his letters upside down, they did not care not they, Then Johnny's pa got angry, and he went one day to find What 'twas they did to make him so backward in the mind; I don’t want Johnny wrecked’, he cried, in temper far from cool, I'll have him educated at the ‘Empire Grammar School.'

Before the end of the century local pressure groups at Campsie and Belmore endeavoured to have more convenient schools established. In October, 1895, 282

a Campsie petition estimated its school population at 140 with a prospect of a further eighty three pupils. The Department was not at all impressed.

Canterbury and Croydon Park were easily accessible by ‘good roads’. A free rail service was available for travel to Canterbury. A school at Campsie would create ‘a source of unhealthy rivalry’. The progressive housing developments at Harcourt, Campsie and Mildura Estates led to further petitions which were similarly declined. In July, 1906, a site was submitted for an infants school and the erection of a school ‘second to none’ was promised. The present site was purchased for £237, but until buildings were erected, an infants school was conducted by E. Paterson in the Kia-Ora Hall, Dryden Street. The first buildings, completed at a cost of £1343, were opened by the Minister for Education, James Hogue, in March, 1909. Since it was agreed that Campsie was a district ‘growing in a remarkable fashion’, especially when compared with that of Canterbury, further buildings, erected at a cost of £5267, were opened in 1912 with J. J. Massey as principal. From 1908 to 1939, Campsie was classified as a public school. Super-primary classes specialising in technical subjects, were commenced in 1940. Central school status was granted in 1947, but when Belmore Central Tech became a full high school in 1959, Campsie reverted to a primary school.7 In August, 1899, a Belmore deputation urged the establishment of another public school. This was declined on grounds that other local schools were sufficient for the district’s educational requirements. Further deputations stressed that 135 pupils were prepared to attend, an inspector reported that as only Canterbury had vacancies, and residents objected to train travel for young children, an extra school, Belmore North, was recommended. A site was chosen on the Redman Estate and the following year, a building of ‘neat appearance’, which promised to seat its ninety six pupils admirably, was erected at a cost of £560. John R. Jarvie was the first principal.8 As the population increased other primary schools were established in the Municipality. By 1979 there were nineteen such schools in operation. These, except Hampden Park, are set out in Table 36.

The above table reveals that almost 500 teachers are employed to teach the 12 000 pupils attending Canterbury’s primary schools. This figure does not take into account pupils from border schools such as Yeo Park and Croydon Park, some of whom would live in the Municipality. Similarly, the enrolments of peripheral schools such as Narwee would include some pupils living in contiguous municipalities. Lakemba Public School, one of the state’s largest, has an enrolment of 1447, roughly six times that of Hannan’s Road, the smallest school in Canterbury. This huge enrolment has led to provision for a new ultra-modern school, Hampden Park, erected for occupation before September, 1978. The new primary school located in Hampden Road, Lakemba, has unique features. It is the first to be built to new specifications for public schools in N.S.W. The planning architect involved the existing 283

TABLE 36 284

PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS CANTERBURY MUNICIPALITY, 1977 School Ashbury Belmore North Belmore South (2) Beverly Hills North Campsie Canterbury Canterbury South Clemton Park (2) Earlwood Hannan’s Road Harcourt Hurlstone Park South Kingsgrove North Lakemba McCallum’s Hill Narwee Punchbowl Riverwood Undercliffe

Est. Year P. S. Status 1924 (1) 1903 1862 (2) 1925 (3) 1908 1878 1926 (4) 1929 1916 1957 1926 1927 1952 (6) 1869 (5) 1928 1950 1922 1948 (7) 1928

Enrolment 1977 Infants Primary Total

Foundation Principal

1977

Margaret Eastwood J. R. Jarvie W. H. Miller Nellie Smith E. Paterson G. Wenholz Ada Cousin E. Moran E. Moran K. A. Dillon Kate Clarke Marcia Macara Ella McDonald A. W. Page Phyllis Scurr Mabel S. Chapman Minnie Haigh J. McGrath F. Bridge

Betty Finn P. Lee C. J. Caffrey Marion J. Edwards D. S. Sprott R. C. Harbin Shirley E. Herreman J. P. Dalton K. A. Dillon Yvonne Fisher A. Wells Monica B. Griffin

168 513 318 320 458 339 179 288 404 133 316 147

234 534 325 365 533 649 180 391 507 125 326

J. B. Kennedy P. A. Hilliar A. L. Parker P. Van Zuylen K. O. Franks J. G. Goodger

691 294 213 451 222 145 5,599

TOTALS

I. 7

Staff 1977 P. Total

402 1,047* 643 685 991 988 359 679 911 258 642 147

10.1 21 23 12.6 15.5 11 13.5 19 24.9 16 26

756 359 292 513 240 144

1,447* 653 505 964 462 289

6,473

12,072

12 14

16.6 20.7

13 6

13.5

30 10 7 18 8

33.4 15.1 11.2 21.9 12.2

17.1 44 28.1 24.5 43.9 42 13.9 28.6 34.7 10.8 26.5

—

* Subsequently reduced to 1147 and respectively by the opening of Hampden Park P. S. on 30 January 1979.

NOTES 1. Ashfield South 1924-6.

2. Moorfields 1862-1917.

3. Lakemba South, 1928-53.

4. Clemton Park (1), 1926-8.

5. Belmore (1), 1869-1907, Belmore South (1), 1907-10.

6. St. Albans Road, 1952, Abolished 1958.

7. Herne Bay, 1948-58.

Source: J. J. Fletcher, J. Burnswoods, Government Schools of N.S.W. 1948-1976, pp. 28-181, Dept. Education Files, E. Quigley, St. George Area Office, Hurstville.

63.4 25.1 18.2 39.9 20.2 11.9 408.8

schools and community in getting inputs into the design. The community is to be involved because the large open central library, the hall and grounds will be available after school hours for the people’s enjoyment. The class­ rooms have been arranged in clusters around common areas and flexibility has been imported by the provision for joining two or more rooms. In addition there are three cooled audio visual rooms. Canterbury Council has played its part by providing a series of mini-parks leading to the school, thus enabling the pupils to avoid crossing busy roads. The new school was opened on 30 January, 1979, with 551 pupils and a staff of twenty six teachers. The first principal was John Peart.9

PRIMARY INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS The introduction of the public school system put an end to all primary independent schools in Canterbury except those established by the Catholic Church. There is little information on the origin of these schools.

Evidence supplied by Sr. Martin Sarkis reveals that the origin of Belmore Catholic School is to be found in the house teaching which was undertaken by convent sisters from the 1880’s. Two early pioneers of these schools were Sister Lucille and Sister Brigid Anglim. In 1907 there were two such very small schools in homes at Belmore with enrolments of ten and six pupils respec­ tively. When St. Joseph’s first opened at Belmore in 1921, the teaching was undertaken from St. Mel’s, Campsie.

In 1894 the first Catholic Church, St. Anthony’s was erected in Howard Street, Canterbury. A Sunday School, which operated in the church by 1901 had become a general primary institution under the care of the Sisters of St. Joseph. In November that year the Catholic population was given as 470. By 1907 the Canterbury primary enrolment was 123. Some sixty-four Catholics attended local public schools. 10 In 1909, Fr. R. Condon, out of his own pocket bought ‘an oasis in the houses desert,’ consisting of six blocks of land in Duke Street, Campsie for £450. Fr. Condon originally intended that the purchase be a church site and in 1911, when the removal of St. Anthony’s to Campsie was first contem­ plated, he offered his land for the purpose.11 In 1915, its transfer‘holus-bolus’ on horse drawn waggons to Campsie the church was renamed St. Mel’s by Fr. Richard Lonergan. The original wooden church continued as a school until 29 April, 1972.

New classroom wings to the school were added in 1967 and 1972. A school complex, first contemplated by Fr. Justine McGlynn, was completed in 1975

by Fr. Patrick Bell. It consists of a three-storey brick building, comprising four classrooms, staff and canteen. 12 In 1922 Sisters from Monte Sant’ Angelo, North Sydney, opened a school 285

‘Linga Longa’ in Bayview Avenue, Earlwood with Sr. M. Francesca Cleary, the first principal. The following year the former home of George Hocking, mayor of Canterbury, 1920-2, was occupied as a convent and the school was transferred to a garage on the present site, one of the several buildings it has occupied. By the end of 1923, 100 pupils had been enrolled, and ten years later the first pupils sat for the Intermediate.

Following the erection of a new church in 1954, the former building was converted into a modern two-storey school. The introduction of the Wyndham system and the adoption of regional high schools such as St. John’s and McKillop led to the reduction of Our Lady of Lourdes to primary status.

In 1978 the enrolment was 404, including a large migrant segment which is taught not only English culture but also the preservation of their own. In this way and by inculcating an awareness of locality and the use of community services such as the library, the entertainment of members of the Earlwood Caring Association and participation in sport, Our Lady of Lourdes makes a valuable contribution to the local community.

St. Therese’s at Lakemba was originally commenced in the church. It was partitioned into rooms which had to be removed to make way for Mass each Sunday. The first teachers were nuns from Belmore, the principal being Sr. Mary Joseph. This system operated until the construction of the present school. St. Jerome’s at Punchbowl had similar experiences. The first school which opened in the local church hall in 1935 was taught by nuns from Bankstown. Sr. Pierre Davin was the first principal. From 1947-57 the nuns lived in a private cottage in Turner Street. A new school was constructed in 1950, and finally completed eight years later.13

SECONDARY EDUCA TION PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS The Public Instruction Act, 1880, recognised the need for a system of secondary education and from 1883 the first high schools were established to provide for academic interests. At the same time superior and other primary schools gradually extended their courses by offering technical and home science training. The entrance to the academic high schools was gained by passing the Q.C. (Qualifying Certificate) but it was eventually recognised that as the majority of primary pupils were either not suited or did not desire academic courses, some provision for a secondary course with a vocational emphasis should be made. Accordingly, in 1923, the Q.C. was replaced with a simpler primary final examination and a new system of super-primary classes was introduced to cater for those pupils not desirous or capable of academic pursuits. The intermediate high, a school with both primary and secondary departments, had been introduced in 1912, and when the secon­ dary department became a separate school it became a junior high. Certain 286

287

N am e

Year Est. 1930 1958

Principal 1977 Enrolment 1977 Total Boys Girls 197 158 355 85 121 206 174 226 400 341 242 583 144 258 402 157 261 418 217 329 546 1177 1733 2910

Teaching Staff

Ashbury Belfield Belmore Campsie Earlwood Lakemba Punchbowl

St. Francis Xavier St. Michael’s St. Joseph’s (b) St. Mel’s (a) Our Lady of Lourdes St. Therese’s St. Jerome’s

Sr. Patricia Andrew (O.S.U.) 14.0 N. Dodd 8.0 Sr. M. Imelda (R.S.J.) 13.8 1915 Sr. A. M. Whiteford (R.S.J.) 21.6 1923 Sr. Xavier McDonell (R.S.M.) 14.0 1928 Sr. Johann O ’Sullivan (R.S.J.) 16.3 1935 Sr. Anne King (R.S.J.) 20.8 TOTAL 108.5 NOTES (a) Commenced about 1895 as St. Anthony’s Canterbury (b) Originated from unofficial schools run by private people at homes.

Source: Catholic Education Office, Monica Thom (Research Officer) Our Lady of Lourdes School at Earlwood in 1923

School

CA THOLIC PRIMAR Y SCHOOLS MUNICIPALITY OF CANTERBURY 1977

TA BLE 37

super-primary tops, providing vocational orientated courses, became central technical or domestic science schools providing non-academic courses to the intermediate certificate standard. By the 1930’s state secondary eduction had become a three-tiered system, under which the pupils were graded to that level considered appropriate for their capacities. The post-war population explosion brought radical changes. Additional high schools were erected, but these were made ‘comprehensive’, providing courses for all levels of ability.

In 1959, all secondary schools became high schools and ‘co-education’ became settled policy and in 1962, the six-year Wyndham scheme was introduced.

Secondary education opportunities at Canterbury were further extended at Canterbury Superior Public School in 1912 by its division into primary and secondary departments. The latter provided subjects up to the intermediate certificate (third year) standard, with special emphasis on a commercial training for boys and home science for girls. The separation of primary and secondary education began in 1918 when the Canterbury’s Boys’ Interme­ diate High School was created under E. J. Rourke, its first headmaster.14 Canterbury’s first secondary school was housed in the stone building opposite St. Paul’s in Church Street. It commenced with first year classes and of interest, its top pupil, Douglas Burling has, therefore the distinction of being the first dux of a secondary school in Canterbury. His father, William Burling, was first president of North Earlwood Progress Association, and Jane Street was renamed Burlington Avenue after him in recognition of his efforts for the district.

In 1924, a new building was erected in Holden Street, overlooking the racecourse and the following year became a full high school. It was ‘selective’ drawing its pupils from a large area extending south to the Sutherland Shire.

St. George similarly, catered for girls. Canterbury remained the only full boys’ high serving the Municipality until the 1950’s. Many of its scholars gained fame in a variety of callings, but its situation in the Ashfield Municipality precludes a more detailed history of its achievements. 15 During the 1920’s the Department began the construction of separate boys’ junior technical and girls’ domestic science schools to serve super-primary pupils from a defined district. Land had been resumed adjoining Belmore North Public School in 1902 and on this site a central junior technical school to cater for a vocational and general education to the Intermediate Certificate was opened in January, 1928, under George Humphreys. Belmore remained a central technical school until its re-classification as a high school from January, 1959. The first principal, G. H. Wright, the headmaster of the former junior technical school, was a keen student of nature studies, and had written books on the subject. He was also posstessed of considerable drive and innovatory powers, a good example of which was a special project, a Laboratory of Natural Sciences, installed in the school in 1963 at a cost of 288

Opening day at Belmore South Public School, 22nd January, 1917

£2000 to commemorate the 175th anniversary of the founding of New South Wales. Previously in 1956, a century clock was installed to commemorate the first century of responsible government. The records it contains will be opened in 2056.16 A complementary school to provide home management and general education courses for girls, a Central Domestic Science School, was opened in 1932 with Edith Summerly as the first principal. By 1928, the domestic science classes at Canterbury Public school contained 600 pupils compared with 190, eight years earlier, so that a separate school became necessary. This was erected on a site adjacent to the primary girls’ school at a cost of £31 000, met from the unemployed relief fund. At the time, Canterbury Central Domestic Science School was a ‘show-place’. Beside the normal class rooms, it contained kitchens, a laundry, a home unit arranged to give ‘a purely domestic atmosphere’, and specialist rooms for sewing, typewriting, art, a library and a gymnasium. Fourth and fifth years added 1932-3 had the object of ‘preparing girls mentally, physically and practically to deal with the problems of after-school life.’ Because Canterbury was one of only three areas originally having domestic science schools providing for courses to the 289

Leaving Certificate, it could now claim to be ‘one of the most important suburban centres of education.’ In January, 1959 the school was renamed Canterbury Girls’ High School with E. M. Stark as the first principal.17 The third level of the selective system, Canterbury Junior High School, was opened in 1943 at the public school buildings. It originated from an annexe of the high school created in 1939. The first principal was Hector Walker.

The school was closed in December, 1954, and most of its staff and pupils transferred to the newly created Enmore Boys’ High School. The vacated rooms were temporarily taken over by East Hills Boys’ High School until the new buildings at Panania were ready for occupation. 18 East Hills was one of several comprehensive area high schools erected during the 1950’s. The first of these to have an education impact upon Canterbury Municipality, Punchbowl High, was opened in January, 1955, with H. E. G. Atkins as the first principal, a staff of thirty teachers and 75 8 pupils from first to fourth year. The site, in Kelly Street in Bankstown municipality, was first purchased in 1930 for £7500. The three-storey school, ‘set squarely on the side of a hill commanding a view to the south and west for many miles’, was erected in 1954 at a cost of £276 000. The school magazine The Voyagers, told of the early difficulties experienced at Punch­ bowl, which incidentally were those of the new schools generally during the 1950’s—a result of the shortage of men and materials in the early post-war years.

‘In the beginning was chaos. Empty rooms, lack of information, lack of fences and a bustling, noisy set of workmen trying to complete their job, added to the confusion . . . Worst of all, there was neither furniture, money, nor arrangements for even the minimum of essentials. . . School began with makeshift collapsible tables and chairs. ’ 19 A sister school, Wiley Park Girls’ High, built on a six-acre site in The Boulevarde, at a cost of £200 000, was opened in January, 1957, with Grace Bell the first principal. Its magazine wrote, too, of the ‘daunting circum­ stances’ faced by new schools at the time.

‘Old hands on the staff still recall the rigours of the early days when facilities were minimal, when, for example, we had a library without books, walls without pictures, a hall without chairs, a tuckshop without food. ’ The school magazine stressed that Wiley Park was never a school without a soul. That this was so, it attributed to the inspirational leadership of the founding principal Grace Bell.20 Towards the end of the war and the immediate years which followed there was a hive of residential building in the Beverly Hills and Kingsgrove districts.

The secondary school population subsequently increased to such an extent that overcrowding in the above three high schools forced the erection of 290

additional high schools. These were to be of a character different from the one-sex schools. The Department had been won over to the principle of co-education and the abolition of the selective system. From now on high schools would be serviced from defined pupil areas.

In 1958, the Kingsgrove North Infants School was closed and its pupils transferred to nearby schools and on the site a new co-educational high school, Kingsgrove North, was erected at a first-stage cost of £189 153. The 715 pupils began their secondary education in January, 1959, but they faced a different set of 3R’s from those to which they had been accustomed. ‘Rain, Riot and Rubble’ characterised the pupils’ eventful opening day. Heavy rain had converted the quadrangle into a quagmire and the lack of adequate shelter caused the foundation principal, Errol Johnston to divide the parents and pupils into classroom groups. The crowding of the waiting group into the canteen shelter caused a supposed riot, hastening a newspaperman, eager for a press ‘scoop’ to interview the principal. A school publication the North Grove further described conditions:21 ‘Teachers and pupils cavorted their way across the quadrangle by the only dry means possible—slabs of concrete and narrow wooden planks. They balanced with amazing skill on slippery stairs without bannisters . . . Mud was added to the mess of masonry and rubble littering the buildings.’

Kingsgrove North differed from Canterbury’s other two high schools. For the first two years it was actually two schools in the one set of buildings. The Department planned to erect a South Kingsgrove school simultaneously, but could not obtain immediate possession of Ferguson’s Nursery site at the corner of Kingsgrove and Stoney Creek Roads. The new school did not open until 1961 so its pupils were boarded at the North School for two years. In the meantime the two sets of pupils wore different uniforms and observed different mottoes and to a degree different loyalties. The school population, despite the loss of pupils in 1961, grew rapidly and at the end of 1963, the school became complete with 1196 pupils (617 boys, 479 girls). One special feature was the provision for partly-seeing pupils, the first of such classes in a normal state high school. In 1979, a Community Sickness Centre was established with ‘fun run’ proceeds of $12 400. Its aim is to promote fitness by teaching pupils how to monitor it. Each pupil will have a sickness as well as an academic report.22 Hardly had the new high schools solved their accommodation teething problems when they were required to face another of a different cha­ racter—-the migrant intake and the consequent language difficulties. Belmore High School enrolment contains forty six different nationalities, some of whom cannot speak English. Despite the various problems students from these high schools are already making their mark on society in a variety of walks of life.

291

Table 38 PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS, CANTERBURY MUNICIPALITY, 1977 Principal Foundation 1977

High School

Year Est.

Belmore (Boys) Canterbury (Girls)

1959 1959

Kingsgrove North (Co-ed) Wiley Park (Girls)

1959 E. R. Johnston 1957

G. H. Wright E. M. Stark

E. Grace Bell

T. W. Sumners Vere Humphreys A. J. Spence Norma J. Lee Totals

Enrolment Teaching 1977 Staff Boys Girls Total 814

814 1 030 1 030

639

751 1 390

1 200 1 200 1 453 2 981 4 434

61 59.4 89 71 280.4

Source: The Principals of the first high schools.

Although the new comprehensive high schools have had a relatively short existence, their students have made an impact upon education, the profes­ sions, the arts, in sport and in public life generally. University lecturers include Pat Whatley (1), W. Julian, K. O’Toole (2), Teachers—Sonia Elphick, Lorraine Kennett (3) and A. Endicott (2); arts—Judith Board (3), Lila O’Hara and Jane Dellis (1); medicine—Soraya Alami (3), R. Mason, R. Cooper, M. Abramovitch (2), Helen Creasey (1); Law—I. Barrett and A. Bingham (2), Brilliant students include J. Spraggon (2) and mention must be made of Pam Young (1) who was the first Waratah Princess. In the field of sport may be noted Geoff Thomson and Len Pascoe (2) Ron Graham and G. Vasil (4).23

INDEPENDENT HIGH SCHOOLS Prior to the 1950’s Canterbury Catholic students ineligible to leave school at the completion of their primary courses and desirous of remaining under their own system of education went to secondary schools outside the Municipality. After the war a new regional system of secondary education was devised, somewhat on lines similar to those for public high schools. In 1951 negotiations were commenced for a site at Lakemba for a regional high school. The foundation stone of St. John’s College was laid by Cardinal Gilroy on 24 May, 1953 and in February, 1954, the new school opened with 345 pupils, reaching a peak of 1 008 in 1962.

The introduction of the Wyndham six-year scheme in that year caused some uncertainty as to St. John’s future, for the additional cost of secondary education had forced economy measures. Nevertheless St. John’s was retained as a school providing courses up to the School Certificate (Year 10).

Between 1954 and 1975 considerable improvements and additions to the school have been made. These include new classroom buildings, a science block, staff-classroom complex and a new library. Ground beautification 292

schemes and student and religious amenities include a grassed playing area, handball courts, the Grotto and Statue of St. De La Salle and the Monastery.

Students wishing to continue to the H.S.C. transfer to further regional schools, mainly Benilde (Bankstown) and Ashfield.24 The McKillop Girls’ High School was named in honour of the foundress of the Sisters of St. Joseph, Mary McKillop, who opened her first school in 1866 at Penola, South Australia. The high school originated in 1934 at St. Therese’s in the form of a secondary adjunct to the primary classes. The Wyndham scheme, introduced in 1962, required a separate administration, and during 1963, about 200 secondary pupils were moved from St. Therese’s to a section of St. John’s College. Sr. Raymond Burford was the first principal.

In 1978, the McKillop enrolment was about 600 pupils, about 65 per cent of whom are migrant, predominantly Lebanese and Italian. The subjects taught cover four years of the secondary courses, to the School Certificate level. Students wishing to continue their secondary studies transfer to Nazareth College (Bankstown), public high schools or Bankstown Technical College.25

TERTIARY EDUCATION Rudimentary adult education schemes began to operate following the introduction of public primary schools. An evening public school was first opened at Canterbury in 1881 and in 1901 at Moorefields. The former became an evening continuation school providing domestic science courses for girls in 1914. A similar school providing technical classes for boys was opened at Campsie in 1912. These schools were renamed evening youth colleges in 1946 and the following year, evening colleges.

The colleges tended at first to concentrate upon the courses leading to the Intermediate and Leaving Certificates. During the 1960’s there was an extension into community education the emphasis being on more practical subjects and hobbies aimed to create new adult interests. This change may be noted at Campsie, conducted by Graham Norman. Here about 500 people were enrolled in February, 1978, and classes conducted for technical sub­ jects—woodwork and dress making, commercial—typing, and shorthand; hobbies arts and crafts in pottery, jewellery, leatherware, lapidary, soft furnishing and other novelties; practical utility—motor maintenance and cake decorating. (In addition, there were classes general school subjects for the School Certificate remedial reading, languages such as Italian and even Yoga.) Most of the classes are held in the evening, but there are some day classes in cake decorating and dress making. Annexes of Campsie are held at Clemton Park and Dulwich Hill.26 Canterbury’s first and only tertiary institution, Belmore Technical College, was opened in 1929, with Joseph W. Raffin as sub-registrar. It occupied part 293

of the Belmore North primary school and was originally known as Belmore North Trades School. The college played an important part during the war years in the training of engineering operatives for defence work involving three daily shifts.

In 1949, the school was given technical college status and J. W. Raffin became its first principal. Accommodation became a pressing problem as enrolments grew. A new site was purchased at Bankstown in 1946, and by 1954, the Belmore enrolment had increased to 1815 and some trade classes were moved to Bankstown where workshop rooms had been erected and as a result the college was re-named Canterbury-Bankstown.

The accommodation problem led to the opening of annexes at Canterbury Boys’ and Girls’ High Schools. Students at the former may well remember the savoury aroma arising from the stews cooked by the staff to brace them for the task of teaching the preparatory diploma classes. The accommodation problem was rendered more acute by increasing enrolments at the primary and high schools. As more buildings were completed at Bankstown, further classes were moved from Belmore, until 1962 when the transfer was completed except for some classes such as fashion and childrens’ art for which there was a local demand. With the closure of Belmore, Canterbury was omitted from the college title.

The successful development of the technical colleges was largely attributed to the energy and foresight of the Technical Education District committee upon which some prominent Canterbury residents have served. Alderman Herbert Thorncraft was foundation chairman, and office held by W. J. Bryant for thirteen years, Alderman George Mulder, W. D. Skan, and A. J. Watt.

Considerable credit must go to the principals, J. W. Raffin, A. J. Twamley, and J. N. Peek.27

SCHOOLS FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES Schools for specific purposes are special schools for handicapped children.

In 1947 a District Clinic &C School for Crippled Children was established by a Citizens’ Committee under the presidency of S. E. Warren at Campsie Baptist Hall. Mrs. Holcombe was foundation treasurer, and Anne Pringle, foundation secretary. The first school was opened in December, 1949. It was erected in the grounds of Canterbury Hospital and named Broderick, in recognition of the services of J. W. Broderick, a member of the Citizens’ Committee.

In 1954 the erection of a modern permanent school was begun on a site purchased two years previously in Haldon Street, Lakemba. The foundation stone was laid by “Hopalong” Cassidy and the school officially opened by Governor Northcott in September, 1955. Several extensions have been made, the last being a block for a regional centre. The entire cost of land and 294

buildings was met by public subscriptions, work of voluntary helpers, local residents, and voluntary committees.

The school serves an enrolment of from eighty-five to 100 pupils with physical handicaps. Educational programmes, supervised by the principal, Paul Gallagher, are provided at all primary and secondary levels plus a pre-school. Pupils are freely admitted to the school if it is shown they have need of the special service. A wide range of medical and therapy services are provided by the New South Wales Society for Crippled Children and are administered by the officer-in-charge, Enid Harris. Two full-time physiotherapists provide appropriate programmes involving a wide variety of aids and appliances to assist posture and mobility, and maintain health and comfort. Occupational therapy services are similarly provided. These range from simple self-help skills for the young to pre-vocational programmes for senior pupils. A part-time speech pathologist attends pupils with speech problems and a full-time social worker provides services to pupils and their families. All the therapy programmes combine to provide maximum support to individual pupils in their day-to-day efforts to achieve active participation in school and the community. Vital assistance is given by aides, who supervise meals, toiletting and travel. Door-to-door transport is available to all students. Eductional excursions are available to students by use of the school bus.

Canterbury Mayors, Herbert Thorncraft and George Mulder have served as presidents of the Citizens’ Committee, the latter being succeeded by Stuart L. Kerry in February, 1976, after 24 years service. Long periods of service have been indicative of the devotion of the committee’s office bearers. George Hyam has been treasurer since 1965; Anne Pringle was secretary from the committee’s inception until 1976, when she was succeeded by Ivy E. Thompson.28 The Sydenham-Bankstown Branch of the Sub-Normal Children’s Welfare Association originated from a meeting in May, 1952, when eight parents of sub-normal children agreed to commence a special school. The first class was held in Campsie School of Arts and within a month a rapid increase in enrolments forced the school to engage additional staff and move to the Scout’s Hall and later to the Presbyterian Church Hall. A building and land purchased at 51 Loftus Street were converted into a school which was officially opened by Governor Northcott in November, 1956. Within four years eighty seven children were in attendance, transported daily by four buses.

At this stage, the Education Department, seeing the need for specialised programmes for moderately retarded children, appointed a trained teacher to the school. Pressure on accommodation led to the purchase of a contiguous property, and in May, 1963, an adjunct, a sheltered workshop was intro­ duced to cater for the older children. The need for more appropriate premises 295

led in 1965, to the purchase of the present site in Hampden Road Lakemba, on which a modern, attractive school was erected and occupied in June, 1967.

Two years later the older children were moved to a well-planned activity centre. After considerable investigation of other organisations’ residential facilities, a temporary and emergency care hostel was opened in 1975. This facility was extended in 1977 by two additional bedrooms. A staff under the manageress, Joan Taylor, cares for up to nine children who can be accom­ modated. The following year a further adjoining purchase and voluntary effort led to the conversion of the building into a craft cottage ‘in order to extend and enrich the craft content of (the) overall training programme.’ In March, 1978, the Branch was caring for 150 children and young adults.

The Lakemba Centre provides in a praiseworthy manner for its handicapped children. Its facilities are remarkable for their comprehensive­ ness. The school has twelve classrooms, each equipped with lockers and toilets. Fully equipped specialist rooms cater for domestic science, sewing and manual arts. The well-equipped craft cottage under the supervisor, Kathleen Ferarris, enables the extension of these facilities. The children’s comfort is a primary consideration. Each room has a specially heated floor with ther­ mostatic control, and aide facilities include a washing machine and clothes dryer. Excellent recreational facilities include two well equipped play­ grounds, a heated swimming pool and a wide range of associated equipment.

The activity centre under Elizabeth Seers, and John Thompson provides for modern occupational training and is complete with a wide range of mechanical aids, and a spacious dining room. Transport facilities include eight buses and a truck.

The Association School, under the supervision of Pam Ford, has for its aims to inculcate in each child a responsibility and independence and to make each child socially acceptable and competent, having regard to their several disabilities. The school is entirely free. A departmental school responsible for ordinary educational services has a staff consisting of the principal, Colleen Johnson, seven teachers and an aide operates in rooms rented from the Association.

Parents play an important part in the raising of funds and aid in the general administration. Each parent, if able, is required to give four hours voluntarily each fortnight. Members engage in fund-raising projects. Other financial aid comes from donations, local service clubs, and government grants.29 The Farrar Public School for the Deaf was named in honour of Abraham Farrar (1861-1944). Though totally deaf from infancy, he completed a university degree in architecture, following which he devoted his life to enhancing the cause of the deaf through research, writing, speaking and example. The name ‘Farrar’ and a most appropriate school motto ‘Nitor Donee Supero’-—‘I strive until I overcome’, serve as an inspiration to both teachers and pupils.

296

The first principal of Farrar, Dorothy Burns, began her teaching career in a normal private school. Difficulties of travel led her to accept a trainee teacher post at Darlington School for the Deaf and Dumb in 1926, and to gain a diploma from the National College of Teachers of the Deaf. When the Darlington school was taken over by the R.A.A.F. in 1942, she was given the too arduous task of teaching forty two children under seven by correspon­ dence. Then followed army service, but a rubella epidemic during the war causing deafness in children was responsible for her return to her calling. In response to a demand for oral rather than manual education for deaf children, she opened a small private day school in February, 1946, naming it Farrar.

The school began with four pupils in two rooms rented at St. James House, Croydon, and the age of the children necessitated the employment of trained kindergarten teacher, Judith Henry. In 1949 the requirements of space led to a removal to Liverpool Road, Ashfield, where Dorothy Burns and her co-principal, Elsie C. Cole had purchased and renovated a two-storey building. At their request the school was purchased by the government on the condition that it would preserve its character and standards as a small oral day school where conventional signing was not used in or out of school.

Farrar thus became the first N.S.W. departmental school for the deaf. A year prior to Dorothy Burns’ retirement in 1963, the school was moved to its present site in Croydon Avenue, Croydon Park.

During these formative years, parents and friends worked hard educa­ tionally to maintain the school. Theirs was a pioneer movement, where the parents participated in their children’s education. Special mention may be made of Mary Wordley, Frank Stedman, Frank Noonan of the Farrar P. & C., Richard Morris, Ashfield returning officer and Edith M. Gibson, who persuaded the Education Department to buy the present site, Bruce Day, Cliff Cook, Roger Booth—three ‘towers of strength’, and Thurles Thomas and the Canterbury library staff who catalogued and set up the library.

In March, 1978, the staff at Farrar consisted of the principal, Lesley Geoghegan, and eight full-time specially trained teachers of the deaf. Parttime teachers using the specialist rooms at Croydon Park Public School instruct Farrar pupils in physical education, home economics, needlework and woodwork. Farrar retains the small school principle by providing for a maximum of fifty two pupils. In March, 1978, there were thirty seven, of whom eleven were engaged in secondary studies. The pupils, whose ages range from three to sixteen years, are profoundly deaf. Each has a pair of behind-the-ear hearing aids, issued and maintained by the National Acoustic Laboratories. Children up to nine years are entitled to travel free by taxi.

Older pupils are encouraged to travel by public transport, as an important means of developing confidence and independence.

Pupils study the same subjects as normal children in departmental schools.

The teaching of language is basic to all subjects to the deaf. Their language, 297

school and character training are developed through speech, speech (lip) reading, auditory training, reading and writing. Secondary students pursue courses offered by the Correspondence School, whose leaflets are studied, discussed in class, and then returned for marking and comment. In 1958 the first class of deaf children in N.S.W. sat for the Intermediate Certificate.

Farrar pupils are encouraged to mix freely with normal children. Both individual pupils and whole classes (up to seven pupils), have attended lessons with normal children at Summer Hill, Ashbury and Croydon Park Primary Schools.30 Canterbury Hospital School is the second of those for specific purposes, controlled by the government. In June, 1951, a one-teacher school was established at the hospital, the teaching being carried out within the ward.

Short-term patients are given schoolwork commensurate with their normal grades. For long-term patients, contact is maintained with the particular schools to ensure that they are completing work simultaneously with their regular classes. Morning sessions are devoted to mathematics, English, reading and spelling. The afternoon sessions are concerned with craft, games, slides and other activities of a therapeutic nature. In March, 1978,.Kathryn McAlpine was the teacher-in-charge, and the children’s reponse is ‘quick and often stimulating’.31

298

1. Acts No. 22, 1866, 23, 1880 2. Department Education, History Branch, Division of Planning, Belmore South (typescript) pp. 4-8 3. J. J. Fletcher, J. Burnswoods, Government Schools of N.S.W. 1848-1976pp. 113,131.

B. J. Madden, Early Education at Punchbowl and Lakemba, (typescript) pp. 1-5.

4. Dept. Education, History Branch, Canterbury Public School (Typescript) pp. 1-4 5. Advertiser, 10 June, 1905; 14 July, 25 August, 1906, 29 February, 1908 6. Ibid, 29 August, 1908. J. J. Fletcher, J. Burnswoods, Government Schools of N.S.W. 1848-1876, pp. 55-6 7. Dept. Education History Branch, Campsie Public School (typescript) pp. 1-4, J. J. Fletcher, J. Burnswoods, Government Schools of N.S.W. 1848-1976, p. 55. Advertiser, 7 July, 1906, 9 May, 1908 8. Dept. Education, History Branch, Belmore North, (Typescript) pp. 1-3 9. School Project Architect, Chris Johnson—interview 7 March, 1978; Sun-Herald, 16 July, 1978.

10. St. Mary’s Cathedral Archives, Fr. C. Duffy.

11. Ibid.

12. St. Mel's Campsie, Diamond Jubilee, 1915-75, pp. 1-3 13. Information, School Principals 14. D. L. Burling, Communication, 3 January, 1978 15. Department of Education, History Branch, File Canterbury H.S. 16. Ibid.—Belmore High School 17. Ibid.—Canterbury Girls’ High School 18. Ibid., Canterbury Junior High 19. Ibid., Punchbowl Boys’ High School, The Voyagers, 1964 20. Ibid., Wiley Park Girls’ High School 21. North Grove, a review of activities 1959-63, p. 12 22. The North Grove, pp. 12-16, 22 23. (1) C.G.H.S., (2) P.B.H.S. (3) W.P.G.H.S. (4) N.K.H.S. 24. Information St. John’s Lakemba, Bro. Luke Coyle 25. Information A. R. McKenzie, McKillop Girls’ High School 26. Information, Circular, G. N. Norman. Principal, Campsie Evening College 27. D.T.A.F.E. (Per R. O’Connor) T.A.F.E. Head Office Library (Gillian George, Librarian) 28. Canterbury District School for Crippled Children, pamphlet and information, 26 January, 1978 (I. M. Thompson) 29. Sydenham-Bankstown Branch, Sub-Normal Children’s Welfare Association—School Supervisor (P. Ford) A Brief History of the Branch 30. Information L. Geoghegan, M. L. Gordon (Farrar), 13 March, 1978, Interview A. D. Burns, 16 March, 1978 31. Information R. Tindale—Chief Executive Officer, C.M.H. 14 March, 1978

299

INTRODUCTION

rior to the incoporation of the Municipality, only two religions, Church of England and Methodists, had actually erected churches. A century later Canterbury possessed some sixty-seven churches which had been established by nineteen different religions. Space and time preclude an account of the work accomplished by each of the churches, which, no doubt, involved sincere unselfish and devoted efforts of numerous residents, worthy of mention in this history. Neither is it possible to give a similar account of the origin and work of all the various religions, which again are, no doubt, all worthy of mention. The details which follow are devoted to selected churches and beliefs, as examples of the work and effects of religions influences in the Municipality. More details have been given concerning the newer religions than those described in an earlier chapter.

P

CHURCH OF ENGLAND In 1977, there were fourteen Anglican churches within the Municipality and several others close to its boundaries. Of these St. Paul’s, Canterbury’s oldest church building was erected 118 years ago. The second church, St. Albans, was erected at a cost of £220 in Moorefields in 1888, on a site donated by Frederick Oatley at the western end of St. Alban’s Road, Kingsgrove. The church-school was only intended to be a temporary building and advantage was taken of a 1905 subdivision to choose a more convenient site in Canterbury Road, Belmore, a new church being erected there in 1907. St. George’s, Earlwood, the third church, was opened in 1915, as a mission church within St. Clement’s Marrickville, which arranged the services. It became an independent district in 1926, with Rev. L. G. Edmonson in charge, and finally a parish in 1942.1 The Anglicans, following the great influx of non-British ethnic groups into the Municipality in the post-war years, have become a minority group and so the days of large congregations and organisations are no longer charac­ teristic of the first churches such as St. Paul’s and many other Church of England parishes. Despite this trend a good relationship between all creeds has been maintained. Though there are few official and formal meetings, the members of all Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches often work side by side in community and welfare organisations, such as ‘Meals-on-Wheels,’ or combine to support ‘Austcare’ and ‘Freedom from Hunger.’ 2 A further effect of the changing social conditions had been the need for a 302

Clemton Park Baptist Church

rationalisation of Anglican resources. A good example is the recent amal­ gamation of Canterbury and Hurlstone Park Parishes under which St. Paul’s will become the principal church with the new parish bearing the title of St. Paul’s Canterbury with St. Stephen’s Hurlstone Park.3

THE BAPTISTS The first of the five Baptist Churches established in the Municipality was commenced at Campsie in 1912, under the ministry of Rev. W. Cleugh Black from Dulwich Hill. The Campsie Church assisted to form a new cause in Lakemba in 1922. Six years later churches began in Punchbowl and Earlwood, the latter assisted the formation of Clemton Park Church in 1940.4 The Earlwood Baptist Church originated from a decision made in November, 1928, by five members of the Marrickville Baptist Church to establish a fellowship in that district. The first service, attended by twentyeight people, was held in Kennedy’s Hall, later rebuilt as the Chelsea Theatre.

303

After vacating the hall, the Fellowship moved to the Earlwood, later Mayfair Theatre. Within six years the church site at the corner of Homer Street and Richard Avenue had been purchased, a building erected and Earlwood Baptists Church constituted. Later adjoining land was purchased for the erection of a manse and a Christian Education Centre. The total outlay on the site was £575 and during the succeeding fifty years some £71 186 was spent on erection of the buildings which are now debt free. In November, 1978, the golden jubilee of the church was celebrated and a target of $2000 set as a gift to Baptist work in Irian Jaya (former Dutch New Guinea).5 The five Baptist Churches, though independent and autonomous have served to meet the spiritual, educational, social and physical needs by the services of worship exercised from each centre. A four-point programme is the basis of the Boys and Girls Brigades, together with the Sunday schools, youth clubs, musical groups, sports teams, pre-school play centres, childminding services, language classes for New Australians and functions for Senior Citizens and disabled persons. The five churches together ‘represent within the Municipality, the comprehensive testimony to Jesus Christ, being contributed in 140 different countries by over forty-seven million Baptists.’6 As an integral part of a combined effort Canterbury’s Baptist Churches ‘are taking a valid and important share in a missionary outreach into seven Third World areas, as well as helping to support in (N.S.W.), two camps for young people, five homes for children, ten homes for the aged, one for ex-prisoners’ rehabilitation and a home for unmarried mothers. Chaplains are appointed to most hospitals and several ministers in industrial situations.’ The Rev. Sydney Brook’s account of the Baptist Church activities concluded: ‘We give thanks to God for the privilege of serving in various ways within our Municipality and also in a work that reaches out considerably beyond the Canterbury district, through the work of the Baptist Churches as one denomination. 7

CHURCHES OF CHRIST The Church of Christ held its first service in Canterbury Municipality on 3 June, 1906, at the home of William and Jessie Hall at Belmore. The Halls, desirous of establishing an assembly locally, held discussions with other interested members, particularly E. Tanner from Campsie. An outcome was the first service, attended by sixteen worshippers and presided over by William Hall. Now that a congregation had been established, the next step involved the erection of a church. At the time, Congregational Church services were being regularly held in a galvanised iron building on the corner of Chalmers and Mooney Steets (Burwood Road), owned by the minister, George Preston. This property, together with all church accessories, was purchased by the Church of Christ in October for £350, and the following month the first services were conducted by A. E. Illingworth.

304

The church prospered from its inception, particularly through the assis­ tance given by the state evangelist, Thomas Hagger, G. H. Browne and J. Crawford. A Sunday School of one hundred pupils was immediately com­ menced under the superintendency of Percy Tanner, and a year later, the first full-time preacher, Arthur G. Day was appointed. The original building, affectionately dubbed ‘the old tin church,’ was replaced by a more commo­ dious chapel in 1918. Though this second ‘home’ was intended as temporary it faithfully served its congregations for thirty-seven years. The ‘old building’ had been associated with many happy memories, and at its last morning service, an appropriate message from the twenty-sixth Psalm—‘Lord, I have loved the habitation of Thy House,’— caused eyes to be ‘tear-dimmed’ and brought a ‘touch of sadness’ to the congregation.

The present Belmore building was completed in December, 1955, and it was most appropriate that Jess Hall, in whose home the first meeting was held, should perform the opening ceremony and that Florence A. Kent and Alice Edwards, having the longest continuous membership, should be first to enter the church. The minister in charge in 1978, was Rev. Allan Rae.8 The first meetings of the Church of Christ in the Canterbury district were held at Sunrise Hall in Canterbury Road in 1932, and shortly afterwards, a Bible school was commenced in the Soldiers’ Hall in Fricourt Avenue, Earlwood. In 1938, a new building was erected and the church and school were merged as the Canterbury-Earlwood Church of Christ. A site was acquired in Jane Street (now Burlington Avenue), for £90, and a building erected with limited finance and mainly by voluntary labour, especially by Jack Thompson, who organised a team of workmates at Australian Glass Manufacturers to assist in the construction of the church. The official opening was celebrated on 10 September, and the first services held on the following day, various addresses being given by prominent Church of Christ preachers.

At the first service, a local member, A. J. Rosser preached the sermon. In its earliest years, the leadership of the church was undertaken by Albert Schofield, first secretary, and Jack Thompson. Marjory Cox, a foundation member, was organist, a duty she has performed to this day.

The church originally stood on a rocky prominence ten feet above a ‘rugged’ footpath. To give easier access, a church member, William Roots chiselled twelve steps out of the rock. The saying, ‘Built on solid rock,’ signifying stability and strength, applies most appropriately to any church and therefore is worthy of adoption as a motto by the Earlwood Church of Christ.

At the rear of the church vacant land ran back to an impassable rock face of a disused quarry. This was purchased in 1955 and a hall for youth activities constructed upon it. A manse was purchased in Permanent Avenue for £2250, the sale being negotiated by a church elder, Norman H. Matthews, with necessary renovations made by voluntary effort. In 1977, the Earlwood 305

Church entered a new phase by establishing three ministries—David Scho­ field, son of the first secretary and elder, a teacher at Canterbury Boys High School, became church preacher-teacher; Frank Freckleton, previously an elder at Belmore and a theological student was invited to be the pastor, involved in care and visitation, and John Dostine, another student, invited to a youth ministry.9 The Church of Christ in recent years, has shown a remarkable growth, a rate of 35 per cent being recorded in 1977. Its aim is primarily that of seeking to reach people, particularly migrant families, with the message of Christ’s Gospel. Considerable emphasis is given to Christian fellowship.

Youth and community programmes are conducted in conjuction with neighbouring churches, and it it through the various activities that the desire to bring people to Christ is best fulfilled. 10

THE CATHOLICS Until the erection of the first church, visiting Sisters of St. Joseph kept local Catholics in touch with their faith. On 11 November, 1894, Cardinal Moran opened and blessed St. Anthony’s at Canterbury. The church, situated at the junction of Howard, High and Canton Streets, was described as ‘a commo­ dious weatherboard structure of neat design . . . situated in a commanding position in the vicinity of Canterbury Town Hall.’ Its fittings were ‘plain but substantial.’ In the presence of a large crowd Cardinal Moran congratulated the mayor, Patrick Scahill, Chairman of the Building Committee, on the erection of ‘a very beautiful religious edifice.’ A sum of £125 was raised from contributions by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The Vincentian Fathers were given control of the Church.11 Priests of that order, such as Frs. Hanley and Quinn, came regularly from Ashfield to say Mass in St. Anthony’s. An Irishman, Fr. J. Dalton who was the first known resident pastor at Canter­ bury, lived in George Street, and the first convent was a stone building, still standing in Fore Street. 12 Because of the difficulties of cost and distance faced by parishioners in attending St. Anthony’s, a decision was made in 1911, to find a more central site for the church. Fr. Richard Condon, Fr. Dalton’s successor, in 1909 was described as being ‘quite a character, with what appears a delightful Irish wit’, a good example arose from his purchase of seven blocks of land in Duke Street, Campsie between Evaline Street and the railway. In offering these as the new site for St. Anthony’s at the cost price of £450, he remarked to the Archbishop that the purchase of the remaining corner block should pose no problems, once the owner realised that he would have 123 noisy school children as neighbours. Needless to say the block was acquired and on it stands the presbytery, erected there in 1915 by Fr. Condon’s successor, Fr. Patrick Kenny. It was he who was responsible for the removal of the entire 306

St. Anthony’s Catholic Church, 1909. First Catholic Church in Canterbury. Moved from Canton Street to Evaline St. Campsie.

St. Anthony’s Church to Campsie in that year. 13 The wooden structure continued to serve both as a school and a church until 1927. Since then it was used continuously for school purposes until the mid 1970’s when it was demolished.

Fr. Kenny, ‘the pioneer parish priest of Campsie’ died in September, 1920, Fr. Richard Lonergan, his successor, was responsible for the erection of the present church of St. Mel’s, the foundation stone of which was laid by Archbishop Kelly on 13 March, 1927. Fr. Lonergan, who controlled Campsie Parish for thirty-five years until his death in 1955, known as ‘the maker of St. Mel’s’ gave the name to the new church. This stemmed from his being a native of Longford County, in southern Ireland. The small township of Longford, the County centre, contains St. Mel’s Cathedral, the headquarters of the Diocese of Ardagh. During the fifth century St. Mel was appointed Bishop of Ardagh by his uncle St. Patrick. Because of his association with St. Mel’s in Longford, Fr. Lonergan’s choice of the name was logical. It was not until 1969 the Campsie had its first and only Australian Parish Priest, Fr. Justin McGlynn. The author of the booklet issued for St. Mel’s Diamond Jubilee wrote of him: 307

‘Big in heart and soul and body, bluff and hearty his appro achability and friendliness, his contagious energy had everybody moving.'

Fr. McGlynn carried on the work of Fr. John O’Farrell, who on succeeding Fr. Lonergan, had added a new wing to the parish school and convent extensions. He certainly ‘shifted things around.’ A lay teacher was employed to teach English and speech training for migrant children. The church was renovated at a cost of £37 000 and a new altar added. School accommodation was increased. Then death struck suddenly in 1974, just as he was planning a new school complex, which was later built and dedicated to his memory. 14 In February, 1975, Fr. Patrick Bell became St. Mel’s fifth pastor. He hails from Fermoy, County Cork in Southern Ireland and possesses the Irish geniality. He is very friendly to meet, an interesting and pleasant conversa­ tionalist, who makes one feel immediately at ease.

As Belmore, Catholics were considered to be too poor to travel to Canterbury, the parish priest at St. Anthony’s Fr. J. Dalton, began to celebrate masses in Bradburn’s Hall towards the end of 1905. The hall was hired at a six monthly rent of thirty pence. At the same time a building committee was formed to work for the erection of a church. A site was purchased for £1488.10s. near the intersection of Canterbury and Burwood Roads and St. Joseph’s Church erected upon it in 1906.15 The present building was erected in 1954. Fr. John Lyne was the parish priest in 1978.

In Earlwood, similar to Belmore, the first Catholic services attended by about fifty worshippers, were held in the Progress Association’s Hall at Undercliffe in 1922, under the Rev. Fr. J. Smith of Tempe. A site for the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes was acquired in Homer Street in 1923, and the first building erected there in 1926. Extensions were made in 1938 and the present imposing structure was commenced in 1950. In 1928, Earlwood became a separate parish under Fr. Troy.16 The parish priest in 1978 was Fr. Gregory Meere.

The Ashbury parish was created in 1928 with Fr. Edward McMahon in charge. During 1929, the first masses were celebrated in a marquee erected in the presbytery grounds and later in a large shed until a school-church was erected the following year. The site for St. Francis Xavier’s Church had been originally purchased by the Ashfield Vincentian Fathers in February, 1924 and in 1930 Archbishop Kelly opened the church. In 1978 the priests were Frs. Richard Funchion P.P., and Dennis O’Neill.

Punchbowl was originally attached to Bankstown Parish, from which priests conducted services in Key’s Hall, on the site of the present Baby Health Centre in Punchbowl Road. The first church-school was constructed on the present site by Dr. Eris O’Brien in 1933, and two years later Punchbowl became a separate parish with Fr. Walter Clarke, the first priest in charge, a position held in 1978 by Fr. Hugh Boland.

308

There are eight Catholic parishes in the municipality. In addition to the above these are: Belfield, Fr. Gerald Wallington; Punchbowl, Fr. Hugh Boland; Lakemba, Fr. Ron Hickman; and Clemton Park, Fr. Eric Corbin.

The Belfield Margaret Street site was purchased and the St. Michael’s Church erected upon it. Until Belfield became a separate parish in 1955, St. Michael’s was attended by Lakemba priest. Fr. Gerald S. Wallington, the first parish priest, has served for twenty-four years. Fr. Ron Hickman, Lakemba and Fr. Eric Corbin, Clemton .Park, control the remaining parishes.

THE SAL VA TION ARMY The first Corps in the Municipality was opened in Campsie in June 1912 under the command of Captain John Manley. When the original meeting hall was resumed for extensions to Campsie Public School, the Army built a new hall in Anglo Road in June, 1913. In January, the first Corps Sergeant— Major, Sis. Millicent Lewer, had been appointed, The Salvation Army, has always been identified with a band. In 1914, the Campsie Corps Band was formed with seven players under the first bandmaster, A. Menzies. This was, perhaps, the second band ever formed in Canterbury. 17 Another typical group, the Home League was formed in 1919. A noted Salvationist, Tom Mudiman, one of the first group of soldiers enrolled in Sydney in 1882, later transferred to Campsie where he ran a tailoring business. The existing Campsie Citadel was built in 1967, replacing an earlier structure erected there in 1929.

The Belmore Corps, first established as an outpost of Campsie in 1918, became a separate Corps in January, 1921. The original hall site was near the corner of Belmore Road and Collins Street, where the old “Stunnumville” Hall was re-erected. Later it was converted into a dwelling occupied by a Mr. and Mrs. Carlow. The first Corps officer was Captain Ivy Durrant, assisted

by Lieutenant Eva Howard. In 1923 a new building was erected at the corner of Station Street and Burwood Road, later replaced as a main hall by the existing building. To further youth activities the Youth Hall was opened in 1977.18 The Salvation Army made the first step towards establishing a Corps at Earlwood when Major William Butt conducted a service there in September, 1925. The Corps was established in 1929, under officers Captain Hope Menzies, assisted by Captain May Mackie and Lieutenant Mann. In March, 193 3, Commissioner William McKenzie laid the foundation stone of the first citadel, opened in May by Colonel Ernest Knight. Ethel Williams, still an active member in 1978 took up the first collection. The existing hall in Earlwood Avenue was opened in 1974 and Ethel Williams was accorded the honour of being the first to enter it. 19 The Narwee corps commenced as an outpost of Belmore and its first 309

meetings were in tents erected on land at the corner of Penshurst and Graham Roads, purchased in 1954 from the N.S.W. Housing Commission. The first hall, built the following year, was later converted into officers’ quarters when the new hall was built in 1964. The first officer, Probationary Lieutenant Elwyn Hopper, was appointed in 1957 just prior to the Corps’ gaining its independence in 1958.

An interesting feature of the Salvation Army ministries, not commonly found in other denominations, is that every officer’s wife is fully ordained in her own right and shares the duties with her husband. Thus the officers in charge of the municipality’s citadels in 1978 were:20 Campsie: Brigadiers Frederick and Ena Reeves Belmore: Brigadiers Stanley and Lil Tomlinson Earlwood: Major Hugh and Pauline Mackintosh Narwee: Auxiliary Captain Edna Gorringe, assisted by Candidate Cherylee Hogan.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES Presbyterian home services, which began last century, were continued in the various districts until the first churches were erected. In Lakemba, for example Margaret Kyle conducted a Sunday School at her home in Croydon Street. Church services were also held there, the preacher being the Rev. James Marshall of Campsie. By 1910, a site had been obtained in Canterbury Road and a timber church erected in May the following year. From 1915 Lakemba and Bankstown were combined into the one Home Mission Station, separating in 1922. Seven years later, the church was raised to the status of a Sanctioned Charge, thereby qualifying for an ordained minister, the first appointee being Rev. E. C. Bowen. A new manse constructed largely by voluntary labour at a cost of £1 575, was opened on 30 April, 1949.

Subsequently a new hall for Sunday School and other purposes was erected.21 The Lakemba minister in 1940, Rev. S. A. Eastman, initiated a meeting of Punchbowl Presbyterians from whom was formed a ‘small but enthusiastic’ management committee with G. E. Tarrant secretary and R. B. Smith treasurer. As a result regular church services were conducted at a shop at 54 Highclere Avenue until 1941 when the Soldiers’ Memorial Hall became the venue. By this time a Sunday school was operating under the superintendence of I. Paterson, and in 1944, a Women’s Guild and Fellowship Association was formed. The following year the church returned to 54 Highclere Avenue, newly converted and furnished voluntarily by the members. In 1946, Punchbowl became a Home Mission Station.

Land for a church was first purchased in Catherine Street, but because of its not being sufficiently central, a futher site was acquired in Punchbowl Road on the corner of Rickard Street. Financial assistance from the Home 310

Mission Department enabled the commencement of the construction of the church. The foundation stone was laid by the State Moderator, Rev. A. M. Stevenson, on 12 March, 1949 and the building opened and dedicated on 3 September. Later adjuncts included a voluntarily built kindergarten hall and storeroom.22 The first recorded Presbyterian service in Earlwood was conducted in Kennedy’s Hall by Rev. G. M. Scott from Marrickville, on 13 June, 1926.

A ‘very inspiring’ address was given to the congregation, exceeding 100 persons, by Rev. Thomas Morgan. The first Management Committee appointed at the end of this service consisted of T. Amos, chairman, John A. Gray, Herbert L. Kebblewhite, Alexander McDonald, secretary, Joseph C. Orr, treasurer, Charles Whyte and a Mr. Williamson. The Kennedy’s Hall services were continued weekly until August the following year, when the venue was transferred to the Mayfair Theatre, but within four months, a Presbyterian church hall had been erected in Collingwood Avenue and on 18 December, dedicated for worship.The first pastoral work was undertaken by J. S. Scott, a retired minister. Early in 1928, a student minister John Marshall, was appointed a full-time home missionary and the first session consisted of Frank Moffat, Charles Whyte, William Brooks, Arthur Jennings and the clerk, Edwin Wain.

In 1940, the existing school hall was erected and the original building, suitably furnished, became a centre for worship. Five years later a further purchase of land was made at the rear of the school hall for future building expansion. In 1945, the Home Mission Station was raised to the status of a Sanctioned Charge. The acquisition of a manse in 1948, enabled the call of an ordained minister, Rev. A. W. E. Seal, who remained until November, 1950.

During 1958, the church was completely renovated. Alterations were made to the pulpit, dais and choir seating, while the financial support given by the Ladies’ Guild was mainly responsible for the enhancement of the interior by the beautiful carpeting of the church floor. Next the school hall was completely remodelled and extended. The new section, completed in 1961, included the ‘Margaret McDonald Kindergarten Hall’ named in recognition of Margaret’s devoted service to the Earlwood Church. She was an original communicant, prominent in the affairs of the Ladies’ Guild (Presbyterian Women’s Association) and superintendent of the kindergarten, 1927-52.

Several of the original communicants have retained their association with Earlwood parish for fifty years, and those deserving of mention are Charlotte Jennings, Margaret Park (nee Murray), Mary Nathaniel, and James Park.

Three, Jeanie Gray, Evelyn King and Charlotte Jennings, were honoured for their parish work with life memberships of the Presbyterian Women’s Association. James Potter, a long serving member of the Committee of management, a veteran of the two world wars, has been commemorated by 311

a stained glass window. There have been four ministers since the Rev. Seal.

The minister since February, 1975, has been Rev. Keith D. Allen.23

THE UNITING CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA Prior to the formation of The Uniting Church of Australia in June, 1977, there were twelve Methodist churches in the Municipality. Services were held in homes and even in the Canterbury Town Hall. In Earlwood, for example, services were conducted in 1875 at the home of Mrs. Parkes in William Street, and the following year, a stone church was erected near the intersection of Cameron Avenue and Sparke Street. Later the responsibility of the ‘Parkestown’ church was assumed by the Wesleyans, and it was not until 1922 that a new building was erected in William Street. In Campsie home services were begun on the Mildura Estate in 1897, and a church and school began operations as the Wesleyan Mission Church in rented rooms in Beamish Street. Two years later, a weatherboard mission hall was erected. In 1906 the hall was re-erected on a larger site and finally a new church was opened in Campsie Street in 1925. The Campsie property was sold in 1971 and the building demolished. The Wesleyans commenced activities in Canterbury where a stone building was erected in 1847. In 1888, the church services were transferred to the town hall but in 1893 the old church was re-opened and in 1902 a new stone church was erected in Canterbury Road. Twenty years later the present church was opened.24 The break away from the established churches had led to the development of sects among the non-conformists, and from time to time the question of a united church arose. This movement began as early as 1865 when four groups of Presbyterians met in the Masonic Hall, York Street, in an endeavour to resolve their differences. An outcome was the United Presby­ terian Church of N.S.W. In 1901 a nationwide meeting prepared the Deed of Union. The following year, the Methodist Church of Australia was formed from Wesleyans, Primitive Methodists, Bible Christians and United Metho­ dist Free Churches. At the time the Presbyterian Church had been seeking conferences with other denominations on church union and in 1904, the Methodist Conference unanimously resolved that the union of the two churches was desirable. During the next fifty years various policies and steps were taken to facilitate union, for example co-operative training of theol­ ogical students, joint boards to provide educational material and so on.

In 1959, a joint commission on union drew up a Basis of Union, but considerable debate delayed any action until 1972 when a vote taken at local church levels, revealed that while Methodists and Congregationalists strongly favoured union, the Presbyterian attitude was by no means clear on the question. Though a substantial majority of individuals favoured union, congregations were slightly against it. In N.S.W. a vote in 1973 repeated this 312

Methodist Church, Canterbury, built 1902

313

result, and across Australia there was support for union. Finally on 22 June, 1977, the first Assembly of the Uniting Church, met in Sydney and elected Dr. Davis McCaughey, as the first president.25 The creation of the Uniting Church of Australia caused a re-organisation and rationalisation of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches. All Methodist churches joined the new union, but not necessarily all of their congregations, some of whom transferred to other denominations.

The parishes were revised and that of Campsie-Earlwood may be taken as an example of the impact of the Uniting Church upon Canterbury. In 1976 Undercliffe Methodist Church was sold to the Greek Orthodox Church which has converted it to fulfil its mode of worship, a good example of a changing influence upon congregations stemming from influx of ethnic groups. The three former Methodist churches—Clemton Park, Canterbury and Earlwood come under the jurisdiction of the Rev. T. W. Bird; St. Philip’s Presbyterian Church has remained under Rev. A. North and similarly the Earlwood Congregational Church remained under Rev. R. Marsden.26

LEBANESE MOSLEM ASSOCIATION As a result of the post-war migration scheme, a group of Lebanese settled in Lakemba. A Lebanese Moslem Association, established largely through the efforts of Ali Oydah, saw the need for a place of worship where not only the Moslem religion, but the Islamic faith in Arabic, could be taught. The Association set about the raising of funds and the purchasing of a suitable site. In 1962, a house in Wangee Road was acquired for $10 000 and used for religious and teaching purposes. The arrival of more migrants over-taxed the house and led to extensions in 1966. At the time the attendance of 300 persons was considered as excellent, but the continued increase in Moslem population rendered a larger building necessary, and this in turn, a larger site.

An adjacent block was next-purchased.

In 1975 when Khalil Chami became the Association president, steps for the erection of a mosque began. After a world-wide study of Moslem mosques designs, a Sydney firm, Paynter & Dixon, design and construction engineers, erected a magnificent edifice at a cost exceeding $550 000. The greater proportion of the funds was internationally subscribed. The Saudi-Arabian and Libyan and Kuwait Governments gave $300 000, $90 000 and $30 000 respectively, while Khalil Chami undertook a fund raising project in the Middle East from which $45 000 was collected. The remainder was raised from local Lebanese donations.

The Islamic Arabic design of the mosque is of no religious significance. The building is available for prayer five times daily, especially on Fridays, when services are taken by a full-time Imam or Sheik. Within the mosque are three special purpose rooms, a school library and kitchen for social functions. The 314

Lebanese Mosque, Wangee Road, Lakemba

children’s school which operates each morning is devoted solely to the teaching of Arabic and Islamic script. A special balcony provides for women’s functions. The mosque provides parking space for fifty cars and a small play-ground for children.

The Municipality is most fortunate in possessing such a rare and out­ standing edifice. The Lakemba mosque is easily the largest of the three mosques operating in this state. The others are situated at Surry Hills and Erskineville. Furthermore, it demonstrates in a tangible form cultural influ­ ence of ethnic groups upon the Municipality.27

THE GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF BELMORE AND DISTRICT About 1963, a group of parents initiated a movement for the setting up of a Greek Community at Belmore, involving the establishment of a church. The Archbishop, Ezekiel Tsoukalas, was very interested in the creation of new churches, but because of his being not entirely satisfied with certain elements in the proposed community, the first attempts at Belmore were unsuccessful.

The following year saw the formation of an acceptable group under Con315

Greek Orthodox Church, Belmore

stantine Papapostolou, and the Belmore Community was established under his presidency on 22 March, 1964. The first minister the Very Rev. Ezekiel Kefalas who later became Bishop of Perth, Western Australia, was a major driving force behind the Community Committee. Next followed the creation of the Ladies Auxiliary by the wives of the Committee members and other willing workers, and the Sunday school and School of Greek for children.

The first church services were held in the Parry Pavilion. In May, 1964, negotiations were commenced for the purchase of All Saints Anglican Church, a small building at the corner of Isabel and Cecilia Streets, Belmore.

Purchase loans were quickly raised from members of the Greek Community, including £1000 interest free from the Archbishop and £720 from Thomas Tolitsas. The Anglican name, ‘All Saints,’ was retained for the Greek Orthodox Church of Belmore which served a variety of uses—place of worship, committee, school and Sunday school rooms. An array of functions ranging from dances, bazaars, film-nights to afternoon teas have always considerably aided towards meeting the financial needs.

The influx of Greek migrants, in turn which dramatically increased the parishioner attendance at church and the number of the children attending 316

its schools, led to the purchase of a cottage in Isabel Street, opposite the little church in 1966, and its conversion into class rooms and offices. Then came the purchase of the next-door property. The demolition of the two cottages provided the site for a new church. The design of the new building was undertaken voluntarily by Constantine Papapostolou, a life trustee member of the Community and a Main Roads civil engineer. His transfer to Dubbo caused delays, but Constantine obtained the approval of his landlady to set a drawing office in the boarding house and the plans were prepared. On his return to Sydney, Constantine built a small scale model of new church which was unveiled during the All Saints Day celebrations on 16 June, 1968.

Canterbury Council, which had given every assistance to the Community, approved of the plans and a loan of $150 000 was obtained. After some discussion, George Peponis ‘a most dynamic foundation member’, volun­ teered to act as builder. Further voluntary assistance was rendered by a consulting engineer, Constantine Saltis, who checked the plans. Work began, culminating in the laying of the foundation stone by Father Ezekiel on 28 February, 1969. Difficulties were encountered, but finally on 10 June, 1972, All Saints was officially opened by the Minister for Justice John Maddison, during the presidency of J. Antoniou, an untiring Committee member.

The Community makes use of the hall below the church for various functions of the Ladies’ Auxiliary, the youth and theatrical groups, the Hercules Soccer Club, Sunday school, Greek language classes and occasional dance nights and barbecue festivals. An attempt was made to form a Greek scout group. Constantine revealed considerable enthusiasm for the project by graduating as scout master. Unfortunately the Scout Commissioner’s refusal to allow the use of the Greek language at meetings put an end to the project.28

WELFARE SERVICES Canterbury District Polio Club was established in 1953, as the result of a simple incident observed by Wal Burke, at Canterbury Hospital. A ‘bright and intelligent lass’, unfortunately disabled by polio, was using her wheel­ chair to visit wards, seeking friendly chats with other patients. Being a keen rotarian, Wal suggested at a Campsie meeting that, since there must be similar polio cases in the district, Rotary should undertake a project to find a club room where they could meet and chat. A launching group was appointed, comprising Wal Burke, Frank O’Brien, John Gall, Harry Hobbs, Jim Waters, Ron Pate, and Herbert Thorncraft. Frank O’Brien’s ownership of the Canterbury Hotel led to its lounge being used as a club room, and eleven polio victims attended the’first meeting. The second meeting set up a committee with Ashley Coops and Jean Symonds, first president and secretary respec­ tively, and so the Canterbury District Polio Club was born. Since its 317

foundation the club has had six presidents including two ladies, Rene Keane and Kate Glanville. Reg Wade has served the longest term, twelve years.

The introduction of late closing caused the club to move to Jack Barrett’s Parisienne Cafe jn Beamish Street. The next step was the construction of club premises. Through the keen efforts of Campsie Rotary Club, a block of railway land at Canterbury was rented, numerous fund raising functions and appeals followed, £6000 was raised, and a building erected and opened on 16 March, 1957, appropriately by the Minister for Health, Billy Sheahan. The club rooms were complete in every detail—piano, television, modern kitchen conveniences, and furniture sufficient to cater for eighty people, a member­ ship soon achieved.

The twenty odd years since the club opening have seen the successful achievement of the aims of Wal Burke and his co-founders. In fact, success was experienced from the very beginning. Reg Wade, proudly tells of a young lady who ‘screamed and cried her heart out. She just did not want to go, but after that first night, she ordered a wheel chair so that she could get around.

Today (1978), that same girl holds down a good responsible job, drives her own car, and lives a near normal life.’

This one success epitomises successful fulfilment of the club’s aims generally. Reg Wade wrote: ‘over the years, many young folk have met and married and gone their various ways to make their own lives, and many of them now have their own families. In fact, when we held a re-union of past members . . . we had a great roll up, and among them were twenty four children, so the club has performed, and is performing a very useful function, bringing new life into the hearts of so many who would otherwise be lonely'

The club has had some outstanding artists in painting and singing and even formed its own concert party, which was greatly and voluntarily assisted by Cecil Wotton, a professional pianist. Mention should be made of Audrey Lyons, who, in spite of a severe disability, rendered meritorious service. Thus has the club’s motto, ‘Find a friend, be a friend’, been successfully fulfilled.

The Canterbury Community Aid Bureau stemmed from a public meeting convened by the mayor of Canterbury, Colin G. Williams on 29 June, 1972.

The meeting, attended by nearly 200 people heard speakers from the Child Welfare Department and Chester Hill Community Aid Centre, and formed a steering committee.

The first full meeting of the community aid service was held at Canterbury Council Chambers on 25 July. Dr. Paul d’Arbon was elected first president and in September the first training session for volunteers was commenced.

At the quarterly meeting in October, Joan Armour was elected secretary and membership of the N.S.W. Council of Social Services was approved. By May, 1973, the Bureau had obtained premises in a building purchased by Can­ terbury Council in the Boulevarde, Lakemba at a cost of £25 000.

318

A Lakemba Mothers’ Friendship Club was formed and the C.C.A.B. began to extend its activities from mere information and referral, to provision of services through a volunteer workforce. A survey and a conference on the frail aged in 1973 resulted in two ‘startling’ revelations, firstly, that Canterbury contained rates of pensioners higher than that of any other metropolitan municipality, and secondly, of these at least half lived alone. These revela­ tions, therefore, stress the urgent need for a community aid bureau in Canterbury as well as many more voluntary and dedicated workers.

The Bureau is especially interested in migrant social services and two part-time workers in this field were appointed in March, 1975. Rosa Billeke was engaged in work among the Spanish community and Saad Khalil similarly assisted the Arabic speaking population. An outcome of a com­ munity meeting in 1976 was the formation of an Ethnic Forum which ‘provides the opportunity for an interchange of information, consultation between workers dealing with the ethnic community, and the implementation of practical programmes when deemed necessary’. The welfare workers with various ethnic organisations face ‘tremendous strains’ especially those of the Lebanese.

The Home Help Service was pioneered during 1976, providing paid help at a nominal rate to people in need of light housekeeping assistance. The Bureau selects the home helpers, arranges for workers’ insurance and guides their relationship with the households seeking aid.

A Social Committee organises functions for C.C.A.B. members, their families and friends. These include picnic outings for ‘oldies’ and ‘shut-ins’, held twice yearly. An interesting feature is the ‘community meeting’, an example of community co-operation, and it has as its objective to involve people positively in community action. Social features include luncheons and entertainment of the C.C.A.B., its aims and achievements.

The president, the Rev. Arthur North, in his annual report, 1976-7, wrote: I believe the Bureau now enjoys some considerable standing in the community and has successfully surmounted the denigrating description of being a band of little old ladies intent in doing good to someone or other. The Bureau is concerned with community consciousness, and with equipping people with the tools and confidence to enable them to involve themselves constructively in community action. ’ The Canterbury Council has played a positive role in the C.C.A.B. Two Aldermen, Colin Williams and Harold Bull, have been prominent in its activities while the Council has given generous support. It provided the building and took up the ‘tab’ for office salaries when aid under the Australian Assistance Plan ceased, and completed an extension of a counselling room.

Finally, it must be emphasised that the undertakings of the Bureau ‘do not progress by accident. Rather, they are the result of careful planning and implementation’, particularly by a band of dedicated volunteer social 319

workers, and the part-time secretaries, Joan Armour and Betty North.30 Rotary, Lions and Apex Clubs are well known for social and welfare activities. Generally they are composed of men strongly motivated to further the ideal of community service and to promote fellowship and ethical conduct. Rotary and Lions originated overseas and spread throughout the world while Apex is a purely Australian institution. The Rotary club of Campsie is a typical group outstanding for its community services.

The club financed and built Canterbury Polio Club, established the Rotary Club of Campsie Ward at Canterbury Hospital and provided two cardiac monitors for use in the intensive care ward. For the latter purpose $30 000 was raised by the Noel Rhodes Memorial Appeal to honour a former club president. Further funds exceeding $129 000 were raised to purchase two Laser Beam Scalpels for use by Sydney Hospital in special surgery for otherwise inoperable patients. For this achievement Campsie was honoured by a Sydney Morning Herald Community Award. A split screen oscilloscope was donated to the Farrar School for the Deaf to assist in speech therapy, while the Broderick House School for Crippled Children was given aid to obtain equipment for occupational therapy. The Club, fully aware of great need for an aged persons centre, played a prominent part in acquiring a lease of Campsie School of Arts and its conversion into the Rotary Community Centre where the Friendship Club provides a variety of activities for aged persons while Meals-on-Wheels are daily prepared from the Centre’s kitchen.

Another interesting activity was the establishment of the Wiley Park PreSchool and Family Surveillance Centre, rendered necessary by the high incidence of battered babies in the community.

Campsie has sponsored two daughter clubs—Kingsgrove, 1954, and Riverwood, 1971. Though these clubs meet outside the Municipality, some of their project activities benefit organisations within it, for example, Kingsgrove raised a substantial sum in aid of Broderick House School. The Rotary movement has brought a high degree of fellowship amongst its members and many lasting friendships, not only in the Municipality but throughout the world.31

320

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, pp. 40-2 Information, W. Carter, 11 April, 1978 Canterbury-Hurlstone Park—The Church Times, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 2-3 Information, S. M. F. Brook (Campsie B.C.) 11 March, 1978 Information, P. O. Bonner (Asst. Sec. Earlwood B.C.) 4 March, 1979 Information, S. M. F. Brook (Campsie B.C.) 11 March, 1978 Ibid.

Jubilee Editorial Committee, Golden Jubilee, Church of Christ, Belmore, 1906-1956 Information, D. J. Schofield, 26 February, 1978 Ibid., A. Rae, D. J. Schofield, 18-26 February, 1978 Sydney Morning Herald, 12 November, 1894 St. Mary’s Cathedral Archives—Fr. C. Duffy; Booklet, St. Mel's Campsie, Diamond Jubilee, 1915-1975 pp. 1-2 Ibid.

St. Mel's Campsie, 1915-1975; Interview, Fr. P. A. Bell, 14 March, 1978 St. Mary’s Cathedral Archives—Fr. C. Duffy J. Jervis, A History of the Canterbury Municipality, p. 46 See Advertiser, 10 July, 1897 Information: Territorial Headquarters (Capt. T. Hubbard), 15 March, 1978 Ibid. J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, p. 46 Information: Territorial Headquarters (Capt. T. Hubbard &c Major E. Baker) 15 March, 1978. E. Williams (Earlwood) J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, pp. 45-6 Ibid., Information R. J. Lawton, Session Clerk, 1 April, 1978 J. E. Whitfield, The Earlwood Presbyterian Church, 1926-76, pp. 1-11; C. Clarke (Lakemba) J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, pp. 44-5. Information, T. W. Bird, 15 February, 1978 The Uniting Church, H. R. Dews, 17 April, 1978 Rev. T. W. Bird, Campsie-Earlwood Parish Interview, Khalil Chami, President, Lebanese Moslem Association, 21 April, 1978 Information, C. Papapostolou, 14 May, 1978 Information—Canterbury District Polio Club, R. Wade, Publicity Officer Information, C.C.A.B. History of the Canterbury Community Aid Bureau, pp. 1-5; Rev. A. North, President's Annual Report, 1976-77, pp. 1-4The Rotary Club of Campsie

321

INTRODUCTION

he incomplete Ashfield Advertiser file covering the period from 18901908, while giving a good coverage to sport makes no mention of any Canterbury teams except in cricket. A variety of codes flourished in nearby Ashfield and it can be reasonably assumed that Canterbury residents wishing to participate would have joined Ashfield Bowls Club or teams in competi­ tions run by Western Suburbs Associations. When cricket clubs were formed in the Municipality they played under the Western Suburbs Cricket Asso­ ciation. On occasions clubs such as the Ashfield Harriers made use of Canterbury racecourse, but their appearance does not appear to have stimulated any desire to form a local athletic club.

T

CRICKET A Canterbury Cricket Club was formed in October, 1892, at a public meeting in Ashfield at which some fifty members and supporters of various borough clubs and two parliamentary representatives for Canterbury electorates, Thomas Bavister and Cornelius Danahey were present. The first team selected to play Glebe contained players from the municipalities of Strathfield, Ashfield, Marrickville, Rockdale and Hurstville, but none from Canterbury.

The team, during its initial season failed to win a match.

In 1893, the electorates were revised and increased. The area from which the original team was chosen was divided into five electorates, and in October, a new electorate cricket competition was begun. In its final season, 1894-5, Canterbury came tenth, out of twelve teams, winning only one match and drawing three. Lack of a home ground severely handicapped the Canterbury side, but in 1895, when some Burwood residents leased the local recreation ground, Canterbury team ceased to exist. The Burwood Electorate Club formed at a meeting in February, 1895, entered the competition. In its initial season it fared little better than Canterbury. Eventually in 1913 Burwood, renamed District Club in 1904, became the Western Suburbs District Cricket Club.1 Junior competitions were conducted for younger players. In 1905, there was a well-organised church competition, the forerunner of the Western Suburbs Church Union, but in that year there were no Canterbury entrants.

The first Canterbury teams—Canterbury Isis, Belmore Cambridges, Fernhill and Forest Hill played in the second or third grades of the competitions conducted by the Western Suburbs Junior Association. Canterbury Public School was strong at cricket, defeating all other schools in 1905.2 324

Canterbury teams played in these competitions until the formation of the Canterbury and District Cricket Association in 1919-20. Its competitions were open to clubs from Marrickville to Bankstown. The first secretary was L. W. ‘Luck’ Andrews and seventeen teams in three grades competed in the inaugural season, the first premiers being United Service, Campsie Harcourt and Canterbury respectively. Each year saw progressive increases in the number of teams playing in the Canterbury competition until 1930-1 season which attracted an all-time record entry of eighty-four teams, involving 1377 players. The war seriously affected the entries which by 1942-3 had dwindled to thirty teams. Immediately after the war, when entries had recovered to sixty-one, the formation of the Bankstown District Junior Association in 1947-8 again made serious inroads into Canterbury’s competitions. By 1958-9 entries had fallen to only sixteen teams. The decline in interest in cricket cannot be solely attributed to Bankstown’s separation but much more to a well pronounced move away from the desire to participate in team games which swept through youth from the 1950’s. It was most noticeable in the secondary schools, where the ‘sit and watch’ attitude was preferred and later spread throughout the population. Further a tendency to participate as an individual was encouraged by the introduction of bowling alleys and the surf board. These offered more excitement than the normal team games. Never­ theless the Association was able to keep the available wickets in the Municipality fully occupied on Saturday afternoons. During the 1977-78 season thirty-six teams with 550 players competed.

Juvenile cricket, an innovation for the time, was introduced in 1924 for two seasons. Dulwich Hill and Campsie Juniors being the premiers. The competition was revived in 1937, and later extended to cover four divisions of juveniles under ten to under sixteen years. In 1977-8 there were thirty-four teams with 550 boys playing in a Saturday morning competition on Council wickets free of charge. The C.D.C.A. co-operates in the inter-district rep­ resentative matches in all age groups for the various trophies, for example, the Daily Telegraph and Martin Shields.

Several international players have graduated from the junior ranks. These include Billy Brown (Marrickville Old Boys), Ron Saggers (Marrickville Juniors), Bob Simpson (Earlwood Juveniles) and Graham Thomas (Campsie Juveniles). Billy Brown and Bob Simpson have captained Australia and few will forget the latter’s remarkable ‘comeback’ during the 1977-78 Sheffield Shield and test matches against India and the West Indies.

Cricket associations cannot function without competent administrators and support. In this regard C.D.C.A. has been most fortunate. The secretary 1978, Ray Davis, a life member, has been a committee member for a record forty-four years, of which twenty-four years have been as secretary. The president Keith Harris, too, is a life member, with a record twenty-four years in office, and is senior vice-president and vice-chairman and a life member 325

of the N.S.W. Junior Cricket Union with which the C.D.C.A. is affiliated. The treasurer, Robert Garwood, is also an executive member of the Union, serving as its publicity officer.3 The rapid expansion of population in the Municipalities of Canterbury and Bankstown during the immediate post-war years emphasised the need for a full district club, and that such was formed was the result of the foresight and persuasive efforts of J. H. (Jack) Fitzpatrick, and Harry Toohey. Jack played first grade with Cumberland and was a state representative in the pre-war Sheffield Shield competitions, while Harry was a successful businessman and prominent in supporting sport and community affairs in Bankstown. Their persistence led to Bankstown’s admittance in the shires competition in 1947.

Its success goaded them to renew their efforts, culminating in the granting of district status for the 1951-2 season.

The inaugural meeting of the Bankstown-Canterbury District Cricket Club was held in the Capital Hall Chapel Road, Bankstown in July, 1951. The meeting recognised the efforts of Harry Toohey, Jack Fitzpatrick by electing them as first president and secretary respectively. Among the foundation members was Ald. H. Culbert of Canterbury Council, whose guidance and support was greatly appreciated by the Club during its formative years.

The Club won its first premiership in its second season when the third grade won its competition. Since 1952-3 B.C.D.C.C. has won every premiership including the Club championship.

TABLE 39 BANKSTOWN-CANTERBURYD.C.C. PREMIERSHIPS 1952-77 Team

First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Poidevin-Gray Shires (C. Div.) A. W. Green Shield Club Championship

Premiership Seasons 1958-9 1957-8, 1952-3, 1961-2, 1976-7 1953-4, 1966-7 1962-3, 1958-9,

1960-1, 1961-2, 1974-5 1966-7 1971-2 1960-1 1964-5, 1965-6, 1969-70 1966-7

Source: B.C.D.C.C.

The Club’s first player selected for Sheffield Shield, Ron Briggs, who represented the state 1952-5, was selected in an Australian XI against the M.C.C. Other Shield players have been Roy Amson, Bob Madden and Bob Vidler. The most outstanding representative player was Grahame Thomas of Lakemba. Grahame played regularly in Shield games from 1957 to 1966.

His international career began with an Australian second eleven tour of New Zealand during the 1959-60’s. Then from 1960-66 he was a member of Australian teams playing against the West Indies, England and South Africa.

326

In all he played in eight tests against England and the West Indies in 1965 scoring 325 runs at an average of 29.5. Bankstown-Canterbury has had two outstanding pace bowlers, Jeff Thomson and Len Pascoe, former pupils of Punchbowl High School. Jeff represented N.S.W. 1972-4, and since trans­ ferring to Queensland has represented that state since 1974. He first played for Australia against Pakistan in 1972-3. Then followed series against England, India and in 1978 the West Indies. Len gained Shield selection from 1974-7, and in the latter season, was ‘cricketer of the year,’ following which he was selected to tour Great Britain.

Since its inception the Club has been fortunate in possessing a fairly stable executive. Harry Toohey and Jack Fitzpatrick saw the Club through its formative years; J. L. (Jack) Lewis served eighteen years as president; Sid Boddy was secretary for seventeen years, after which he succeeded Jack Lewis as President and M. Lilienthal, a prominent cricketer, has been a delegate to the N.S.W. C.A. since 1952.Theirdedication and valuable services have been recognised by the granting of life membership of B.C.D.C.C. and for Sid Boddy and Maurice Lilienthal the higher honour of life membership of the N.S.W.C.A. The B.C.D.C.C. has its eastern boundary adjoining Petersham-Marrickville. The original boundary was Beamish Street and Bexley Road. Subse­ quently this has been moved westward to a line through Hampden Street to Wolli Creek so that only about one third of Canterbury Municipality remains in the B.C.D.C.C. area. Nevertheless the Club retains its gratitude for the efforts of many aldermen and council officials for ‘the co-operation, and understanding in all trials and tribulations’ it has experienced. Most of the grounds are within the Municipality and of these Punchbowl Oval is ‘fast becoming a showpiece for cricket.’4 The location of the cricket boundaries means that some of Canterbury’s residents play with Petersham-Marrickville. Graham Hughes, for example, played his early cricket with his school, St. John’s Lakemba. At the age of sixteen he was chosen to play first grade with Petersham, later representing N.S.W. in Shield matches 1975-9. Like Les Johns, he has also played in first grade football with Canterbury.

The Canterbury Municipal Cricket Club was formed at a well-attended meeting convened by two Council aldermen, Harry Culbert and Bert Thorncraft, at Shaws Hall, Burwood Road, Belmore in July, 1951. An outcome was the entering of a team in the ‘B’ Division of the N.S.W.C.A. municipal and shire competition, 1951-2. As the name implies these teams were confined to their local areas and sponsored by the relevant Councils. The first office bearers included the patron, Bert Thorncraft, president, Harry Culbert, secretary, Ken C. Ryan and treasurer, Frank Hall with an array of federal and state parliamentarians and well-known personalities, H. R. Williams, W. Hodgins and J. Vollmer, vice presidents.

327

In its formative years, the Canterbury Council rendered valuable assistance by providing practice nets and storage cupboards, at Waterworth Park, the home ground. The Canterbury team captained by Eric Cook, came fifth in its initial season. Then after being semi-finalists, 1952-3 the Club faced extinction for only four persons attended the annual meeting. That it survived was because of the unselfish devotion of Harry Culbert, who was untiring in his search for players. The B.C.D.C.C. recognising the value of the municipal Club as a nursery, assisted by arranging for Arthur Asquith, a former Sheffield Shield player to captain the team and helped by allowing other players who just missed grading, to join the Club. As a result Canterbury was able to maintain its semi-final position and the following season enter two teams. At the same time the Council granted the Club the use of the improved Punchbowl Oval with its turf wicket, and to exemplify Harry Culbert’s meritorious work for the Club, the Punchbowl pavilion was named the ‘Culbert’ in his honour. He was the first life member and his passing in 1963 was a sad loss. It has been truly said ‘He founded the Club and lived the Club until he could do no more.’ His efforts will always be remembered by the Harry Culbert Memorial Shield for internal team competition. The Club too, was fortunate in having ‘a very sport-minded and sympathetic Council,’ to care for its needs.

During 1958-9, Ernie Flint scored his record 175 runs and in the following season the Club, captained by Col Hemsworth, won its first ‘A’ Grade premiership. Additional teams, an under-sixteen and a ‘C’ Grade, were entered in the 1964-5 season and in 1967 the Club became the Canterbury District C.C. The Club’s playing record since 1967 is set out in Table 40.

TABLE 40 CANTERBURYM.C.C. PREMIERSHIPS 1967-1978 Season

1967-8 1969-70 1972-3 1974-5 1976-7 1977-8

Result

B. Finalists C. Joint Premiers B. Semi-finalists B. Semi-finalists B. Premiers C. Semi-finalists B. Semi-finalists

Special mention must be made of the 1975-6 season when the Club celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary in a fitting manner by recording outstanding successes. Canterbury won its first club championship; ‘A’ division, its second premiership and ‘B’ division were minor premiers.

A feature of the officials is that they have maintained their loyalty to the Club since its inception, over long periods of dedicated work. Herb Thorn328

craft was patron for twenty-two years; there have been only three presidents, Harry Culbert, 1951-2 to 1962-3, Fred Wiseman, 1963-4, 1973-4 and Col Hemsworth, who after twelve years as treasurer has been president since 1974. Several secretaries served until 1960 and Alan Schwebel has held the office ever since, serving the Club for eighteen years. Over this period too, there have been only two treasureres, Col. Hemsworth and S. Ruston.5

FOOTBALL Prior to 1908, Canterbury residents interested in rugby would have played union in the competitions conducted by the Western Suburbs Association.

In 1907, noted players such as Dally Messenger joined a breakaway move­ ment which split rugby into two codes, union and league. The defection of its best players greatly weakened union. For fifty years after the split, Canterbury rugby union players took part in neighbouring competitions. In December, 1959, the Canterbury Juniors were formed, largely through the effort and enthusiasm of a local businessman, Bruce Forsyth. His keenness for the code led to his knocking on doors to obtain players. So successful was he that from 1959 to 1965 the club won every premiership from the ‘firsts’ the under 21’s down to the ‘sixths’—under 10’s.

These successes led in 1965 to the formation of a Canterbury-Bankstown Rugby Club which entered the senior Sydney Second Division competition with four graded sides the following year. It was here that the Club won its first premiership, the fourth grade. During the following eleven years, Canterbury won eight further grand finals. These included first grade in 1973 and 1976, but in the latter year, Canterbury’s overall strength became evident when it won its first club championship. From its strength stemmed its eighteen representative players of the Sydney Rugby Union, including three captains, D. Collett, 1968, R. Lum, 1970 and G. Landry, 1972-3.

One must agree that ‘a body of people formed on the basis of common interest will not be successful by its mere formation’. Two factors explain the reason for Canterbury’s success—first a zealous group of administrators’ in particular Bruce Forsyth, Bill Everett, Herb Goodmanson from the Juniors and Roy Falloon, the senior inaugural president, Geoff Markham, Tony Mole, Basil Harris, Geoff Landrey, Terry Buckley and John Gunn; secondly ‘a spirit based on fairness and togetherness which engendered loyalty among the players’. This is evidenced by the long-standing coaches and players.

Within twelve years, three players, G. Landrey, R. Morris, and D. Sparshott had played 200 games; six, R. Lum, D. Benson, R. O’Brien, J. Finlay, R. Bennett and Barry Butt, 100 first grade games, while thirty other players also achieved this distinction in any grade. ‘Enduring’ coaches include Trevor Thompson, Basil Harris and Ross Seymour. All these achievements over the twelve years have been registered by only sixty footballers playing eighteen 329

matches annually. In 1977, under Terry Buckley’s guidance an under 20 years team entered in the Metropolitan Colts competition, had immediate success becoming minor premiers. This success has revitalised the reconstituted juniors, ensuring the future ‘life blood’ of the Canterbury Rugby Club.

The purchase for $42 000 of the Wills Grounds, formerly Hordernian Oval, on Wardell Road has been described as a ‘coup for the fledgling club’.

The twelve hectare field assumes a major significance when it is considered that in 1978 only three clubs among all codes owned their own grounds.

Furthermore, Canterbury has been fortunate in virtually having a full-time groundsman, gratis, a retired businessman, Doug Mole, ably supported by a former president, Herb Goodmanson.6 Prior to the formation of the Canterbury-Bankstown District Junior Rugby League, teams from the Municipality competed in competitions conducted by the St. George, Western Suburbs and Newtown Districts. An early local side, Canterbury Fernleigh, for example, played in the Western Suburbs Junior League. In 1922, the Canterbury-Bankstown Junior League was constituted at a meeting held in a hall above ‘The Ideal Milk Bar’, in Beamish Street, opposite the Campsie Railway Station. Mr Cruickshank was elected president, Frank Miller, secretary and Tom Johns, treasurer. When the latter became president, George Russell, dominated the Canterbury executive scene until well after the formation of the grade league in 1935.

The initial A Grade competition in 1922 attracted seven teams—Campsie Ionas, premiers, Hurlstone Park Fernleigh, runners-up, Earlwood, Belmore, Lakemba, Punchbowl and Bankstown. The Junior League fielded teams in inter-district competitions such as the President’s Cup, first won by Canter­ bury in 1931. The Junior League and Hurlstone Park Fernleigh in particular became a ‘veritable nursery’ for the district clubs. Jerry Brien of Lakemba, who played for Western Suburbs, won inter-state honours; Frank Sponberg, who also transferred to Wests, played in N.S.W. sides in 1933-4; Frank Gilmore, one of three brothers to transfer to Newtown gained state selection.

Despite the opportunities for progress in Rugby League, the ‘call-up’ system penalised the junior clubs and was therefore a source of discontent.

In addition, residents such as Jack Morrison, an interstate representative, played with South Sydney and the district was thus denied their services.

These player losses together with the ‘growing-up’ of the Junior League, resulted in the decision in 1935 to enter the grade competition and the Canterbury-Bankstown District Rugby League Club was born with the Junior League officials, Tom Johns, Frank Miller and George Miller filling the major executive posts.7 The newly elevated district made its grade debut at North Sydney Oval on Anzac Day, 1935. Canterbury held the home side to 5-10, but ‘faded’ in the final stages when lack of experience told, North Sydney running out the winners 20-5. Jack Hartwell a forward scored Canterbury’s first try in grade, 330

and Tom Carey, half back, its first goal. Three successive losses were followed by real disaster in the fifth match against St. George at Earl Park, Arncliffe, where the crushing defeat of 91-6 was inflicted and all grade records wiped off the book. Surprisingly, Canterbury scored first and early led 4-0, but then the try procession really began in earnest. So great was Canterbury’s utter despair with its failure to stem the red and white tide, that in an endeavour to contain St. George backs, a three-man scrum was played. New records were established, all St. George players contributed to the highest score yet recorded in first grade and winger Les Griffin broke the individual record with a tally of thirty six points— two tries and fifteen goals. It was said that an experiment with a rubber ball led to his uncanny goal kicking from any placement in Canterbury’s half.8 Canterbury fared little better in the sixth match against Eastern Suburbs, losing 87-7. Les Griffin’s record was shortlived. East’s centre, Dave Brown, by scoring forty five points— five tries, fifteen goals, became the highest individual scorer. Canterbury’s first win came in the eighth game by defeating University, 21-2, the outstanding players being Frank Sponberg, Eddie Burns and Jack M cConnell.9 TABLE 41

CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN D.F.C. RESULTS FIRST ROUND 1935 POINTS For Against 5 20 9 37

Game 1 2

Opponents North Sydney South Sydney

Venue North Sydney Marrickville

3 4

Balmain Newtown

Leichhardt Marrickville

5 14

44 22

5 6 7 8

St. George Eastern Suburbs Bye University

Earl Park Sports Ground

6 7

91 87

Pratten Park

21

2

9

Western Suburbs

Pratten Park

19

25

86

328

Total Source:

SCORERS Tries Goals Hartwell Carey Hartwell Carey (2) Morrison Hobson Carey McConnill Main (3) Burns Carey (3) Chaplin Carey (2) Elliott Hartwell Dwyer Sharp Burdon Dwyer 12 (36)

Main (6) Main (5) 25 (50)

Sydney Morning Herald, 26, 29 April, 6, 7, 13, 20, 24, June 1935

In its first season Canterbury finished eighth and its record must have given its coach, Tedda Courtney, great scope for improvements but disasters of this nature serve to call forth the greatest efforts and certainly this was true with Canterbury. Their sobriquet ‘the bull-dogs’ was most appropriate. Under a

331

keen and capable executive and a supreme effort by the coaches and players Canterbury were runners up in 1936 winning the premiership crown two years later. The Club’s record 1935-77 may be noted from Table 42: TABLE 42 CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN D.R.L.F.C.—PAST ACHIEVEMENTS,

1935-77

Grades

Minor Premiers

First

1947

Reserve

1945 1952 1963

Third*

SemiFinals

Finals Runnersup

1936 1939 1941 1960 1970 1973 1975 1938 1953 1970 1973 1975 1938 1948 1951 1959

1976

1940 1947

1959 1963 1974

1945 1952

1970 1973 1975

1947

Club Grand Premiers Champion­ Finalists ship 1938 1938-9 1967 1974 1942

1939 1971-2

1963 1969 1972 1974 1976

1971

JUNIOR LEAGUE President's Cup

1942 1968 1971-2

1967 1969-70

1931 1976

1973 1975 Jersey Flegg S. G. Ball

1970 1967-8

1969 1965-6

1963 1971 1976 1972

1978 * Under 23 from 1973 Note: Canterbury was pre-season competition winners, 1962; semi-finalists—Ampol competition 1963, Inter-city champions 1938; semi-finalists, State Cup, 1965.

Source: Canterbury-Bankstown D.R.L.F.C. Annual Report, 1977.

During the forty three years 1935—1977, the Club has produced very fine players. Ron Bailey in 1942 became the first Canterbury player to play for Australia, followed by Bruce Hopkins and in 1952 Ron Willey became the first local junior to become a Kangaroo. Canterbury bought well from 334

Newcastle Central when it imported full back, Les Johns in 1963. His record stamps him as the most brilliant of the ‘Bulldogs’. During the 1963—7 seasons Les played in practically every representative team—Sydney ‘Firsts’, N.S.W. and Australia. He had a wide international experience, playing against South Africa, France, New Zealand and Great Britain. His club record was most impressive—115 matches he scored 599 points—fourteen tries, 278 goals and one field goal. Johnny Greaves, too, has a fine record, playing internationally against France and Great Britain and in the World Cup, 1968. Chris Anderson and George Peponis were selected in the 1978 ‘Kangaroos’ tour of England and France.

Henry Porter was the first Canterbury player to represent N.S.W. Other inter-state representatives have been Roy Kirkaldy, Eddie Burns, Merv Denton, Edgar Newham, Lyn Johnson, Len Holmes, Eddie Tracey, Roy Hasson, Barry Nelson, Fred Anderson, Barry Stenhouse and Steve Mortimer.

Of these, Eddie Burns deserves special mention for having played for the Club a record number of 235 competition matches, all but three of which were played in first grade. Among the competition players (1977 season), Stan Cutler 526, Ray Kear 228, and Garry Dowling 204 were the leading aggregate point scorers. 10 The Canterbury Leagues Club was the first of its kind, but its splendid premises in Bridge Road, Belmore, had a humble origin. In 1956, a meeting of seventeen keen league supporters appointed a foundation committee with Ken Charlton, as secretary and £1145 in funds, to promote the club.

Nevertheless the committee succeeded in opening a licensed club in Collins Street, Belmore in June, 1957. P. F. (Frank) Stewart, the father of two local parliamentarians Frank and Kevin, was foundation chairman and Edward E. Burns secretary. The club began with 292 members. An annual average increase in membership of almost 80 per cent during 1957-60 led to the erection of the palatial premises in Bridge Road. The new club was officially opened by the federal member for Lang, Frank Stewart in April, 1960. During the twenty years since the Club’s foundation the membership has grown to 20 000. It has played a prominent role in the promotion of League in schools and among junior footballers. A glance through the Club Journal will reveal the extent of its social value—indoor and outdoor games, camera, fishing and chess clubs and a variety of stage and other entertainment.11 Ernest Flint was president in 1978. Ken McCaffery the Secretary-Manager since 1970, is not out of place in a Leagues Club. Prominent in Easts in the 1950’s he represented Australia between 1951 and 1957.

The Canterbury-Bankstown Junior League continued to foster the junior teams which feed the grade sides. In recent years it has grown in ‘stature and efficiency’ with the result that since 1975 there has been a sharp increase of fifty four teams participating in the various grades. In 1977 the Junior League conducted twenty two competitions ranging from ‘A’ to ‘N’ grades, catering 335

for players from under eight years of age. Twenty six clubs entered 187 teams in the various grades. The Junior League has been well served by a relatively stable executive. Since 1951 there have been only four presidents. Of these Sam Batten served twelve years and William Hodgins ten years. Since 1956 there have been only three secretaries—Vic Saunders, Norm Holmes and William Delauney who has served for the longest period, L. Cox held the office of treasurer for twenty two years until his death in 1976.12 Perhaps the most outstanding service to junior football in Canterbury was rendered by Victor Saunders whose introduction to local football occurred in 1935 as a member of a Lakemba team. When his playing career was suddenly ended by a serious accident, Vic became an official. He was appointed delegate to the Canterbury Junior League and for his interest and work he was made life-member of Lakemba Club. After serving as a referee Vic became secretary of the Canterbury Junior League in 1957. At the time the competitions were the concern of only three grades A, B and C. Through his initiative lower grades were included, increasing the number of teams from thirty four to 127 in 1962. The schools also attracted his attention and in 1954 Vic became chairman-organiser for annual Canterbury Schools’ carnival, an office he held for twenty three years and for which he was elected a life member of the Junior League in 1962. Next in 1965, he founded the first coaching school and was a pioneer worker for the Leagues Club. Finally, Vic became a committee member of the C.B.D.R.L.F.C. in 1963, chairman of selectors, 1963—8 and life member, 1969. Then followed secretaryship of the Universities Cup, a post he held to his retirement in 1977. For his services he was elected as the first life member of the University Cup in 1977.13 It was not until 1910 that Canterbury Soccer Club was formed by interested people such as Fred Piggott, ‘Scotty’ McFarlane and Ern Bannister.

Team colours were blue and gold vertical stripes with blue socks and gold tops. The first soccer ground was situated in Campsie, opposite the present site of the Council offices. In 1912, land between First, Second and Eighth Avenues was set aside as Campsie Recreation Ground. It was fenced and possessed a dressing shed no bigger than a double garage. The first club relied for its revenue upon raffles and functions held at Kia-Ora Hall such as dances and socials. At the time the main clubs were Granville and Pyrmont and Canterbury usually finished in the middle of competition. Since there was no reserve grade, the preliminary games were played by Canterbury Junior A’s.

The senior club always had difficulty in recruiting juniors because of their loyalty to their own clubs.

The Campsie ground eventually became too valuable for sport and was sold for housing blocks. This forced the venue to move successively to Canterbury racecourse and the adjacent Goodlet’s Reserve in Ashbury.

During the 1930’s the original club disbanded following the introduction of firm teams such as Metters and Goodyear.

338

Harry Parsons, a teacher at Campsie Public School provided the inspiration for the successes enjoyed by junior soccer in the Municipality. On arriving at the school he immediately set about the formation of a soccer tean. A loss of 9—0 in the first match only increased his determination to foster the game.

He maintained his interest in his pupils after they had left school and the Canterbury Junior Soccer Club was formed from the Campsie old boys. The team, at first, failed to win a competition. In 1920, strengthened by the inclusion of new players, Ossie Joass, Jim Marshall and Albert Armstrong, won the A Grade competition, and were runner-up, 1921, but the following year, much to Harry Parson’s delight the Club won the metropolitan championship.

Wallsend had won the northern championship undefeated, so Harry Parson’s boys sallied forth to Newcastle to challenge for the state cham­ pionship. Wearied by the train journey and facing Wallsend at home, Canterbury were trailing 0—2 at half time. Alf Brinkley recalls the unforgetable stern ‘dressing down’ given by Harry Parsons and coaches, Les Harper and Harry Ogden. Their efforts were not wasted. When Canterbury drew level at 2 all, the excitement became intense only more so when Canterbury kicked the winning goal.

The team, rated as Canterbury’s greatest, provided four state representa­ tives O. Joass, T. Gilbert, R. Bennett and Alf Brinkley. Another Campsie old boy, Roy Crowhurst, who played for a considerable period with Metters and represented Australia as a right winger, was considered by Harry Parsons to be his greatest product.

An outcome of these excellent performances was the formation of the Canterbury District Soccer Association in 1924 and it was fitting that Alf Brinkley, an outstanding player in the 1922 team, should be guest speaker at the golden jubilee of the Canterbury District Soccer Association in 1974.

A photograph of the famous 1922 team was reproduced and hung in the Association rooms at Rudd Park. It was further fitting that Alf should represent the Campsie Public School and the soccer team at a very sad event, the funeral of Harry Parsons. The grand old man died peacefully in the jubilee year four months before his 100th birthday. He had lived the previous twelve years at the Nuffield Village, Castle Hill where he spent hours growing plants and making up pots for village fetes. Harry possessed a very retentive memory and was an authority, not only on soccer, but on cricket too. It must have been pleasing for him to receive visits from Alf Brinkley and other Campsie old boys. A frequent visitor, too, was Stan Squire, Mayor of Canterbury.

Soccer was played on a field adjacent to the Canterbury Velodrome in Charles Street. In 1927, the Alert, a local newspaper staged an all-comers knock-out competition in conjunction with the cycle races as a fund raiser for the Canterbury Hospital. The Alert Cup was won by Canterbury Park, 339

a team containing several Canterbury players, organised by Andrew Burton and captained by Alf Brinkley.

In 1943, the Canterbury Club was reformed by soccer enthusiasts, Andy Burton, Roy Crowhurst, ‘Tugger’ Bryant and Alf Brinkley who ‘bought’ for £65, four Wallsend players, one of whom was Reg Date, later played centre forward for Australia. At Blick Oval, opposite Canterbury High School, the Club won the first grade competition and each player received the ‘munif­ icent’ sum of £42 for the season’s sterling effort.

At the time soccer was on the eve of professionalism and with the influx of New Australian players interest in the code greatly increased. An outcome was the professional player demanding payment for playing services. The effect of the overseas influence upon soccer was to be seen not only in the increase in interest but the change in team names. The firm names were replaced by Hakoah, Croatia, Marconi, Apia, Yugal and so on. The Can­ terbury team, taken over by the Greek community, became CanterburyMarrickville with its home ground at Arlington Oval, Dulwich Hill. It is a pity that the soccer did not adopt the name, Canterbury-Bankstown, in common with the Rugby League and cricket. Soccer is still played by junior and lower grade sides at Belmore and elsewhere, but to participate in the Phillips League and similar competitions, requires costly top class players.14 Australian Rules was probably first played in the Municipality as a school sport. An enthusiastic teacher is often the reason for a school adopting a particular sport and coaching his pupils and becoming skilful. This explains why Canterbury Public School had victories of 100-0 and won the compet­ ition in 1906. Some forty years later in 1947, the Western Suburbs Australian National Football Club was formed by a band of enthusiasts. The club played its first season in 1948, in the N.S.W. Australian Football League competi­ tion, Henson Park, Marrickville being its first home ground. After an inauspicious beginning, tenth place in the competition, the Club soon made its presence felt, winning its first premiership in 1951. In 1949 the Club moved to St. Luke’s Oval, Concord, and in 1957 Picken Oval in Croydon Park became its headquarters. Details of team achievements may be seen in Table 43.

There have been sterling individual performances by Club players since its inception. The Phelan Medal for the best and fairest player of the N.S.W. Australian F.L. has been won by Ken Champion (1949), RaySharrock (1963) and George Allen (1975 and 1976). Thirty players each have had 100 or more first grade games, and P. Burgess (255), L. Hetherington (254) and J. Spane (252) have exceeded 250 games in first and reserve grades. 15 Western Suburbs’ winning of the 1977 premiership, was both thrilling and memorable, and described by the president, John Donovan as ‘magnificent’.

If any action has ever epitomised what Western Suburbs Football Club stood for, it was surely highlighted on the afternoon of Sunday, 25 September, 340

(1977). Down some forty points ten minutes into the third quarter, the side then commenced to put together twelve months’ dedication and proceeded to demolish the opposition (North Shore) to such an extent we eventually became premiers of Sydney football by forty points (18, 2 5 ,1 3 3 to 14, 9, 93).

An outstanding player, the captain and coach, Ian Harry, played a prominent part in the victory. He also represented N.S.W . as its vice-captain in the N.F.L. Championship.

TABLE 43

WESTERN SUBURBS A.N.F. CLUB—PAST ACHIEVEMENTS M inor Premiers 1952 1956-7 1963 1965-6 1969-70 1972-5 1977 1959 1964 1966-7 1970-5 1977

Grade First

Reserve

Third

Third division

Source:

1967 1971 1973

Runners Up 1952-3 1956 1958 1964 1968 1973 1978 1949 1959 1966 1968 1977 1959 1964-5 1967 1969 1971 1975

Premiers 1951 1963 1965-6 19 69 1972 1974-5 1977 1952 1963-4 1967 1971-4 1966 1970

1971-4

Western Suburbs A.N.F.C. Annual Report, 1977 pp 14-15

The Club encourages the development of ‘Aussie’ Rules in the school.

At the primary level, there were eight competitive groups in 1977. These cover an area much wider than the Municipality, and only two groups— Wiley Park senior and junior involve Canterbury Primary schools. Schools which competed in 1977 were Punchbowl, Lakemba, Belmore North and Belmore, Ashbury, Canterbury, Canterbury South and Harcourt. At the secondary level the Wolli Zone involves high schools such as Belmore and the W oniora Zone, Kingsgrove North. The various activities could not be conducted without officials. Long serving officers include H. R. Conlon, president for ten years, and W. H. Hart, thirteen years as secretary. The president in 1978 was John Donovan and the secretary, Keith Smith. For 341

outstanding services to the club, G. (Mick) Young, Geoff MacLean, Ray Cahill and Bryan Woodbridge were granted life membership in 1977.

In common with numerous other sports Western Suburbs opened a licensed club in May 1962 at Hampton Street, Croydon Park. The club has been a progressive venture with a membership of 4 500 in 1977.16

BASEBALL It is believed that a Bankstown-Sydenham Baseball League was formed after the first World War and catered for teams from an area from Bankstown to Dulwich Hill. Grounds on which the game was played included Punchbowl Oval, Croydon Park, Lees, Ewen and Canterbury Parks, now Campbell Oval.

Early teams which played in this competition were Dulwich Hill, Canterbury Croydon Park, Belmore, St. Claire, Punchbowl and Ashbury. An early photograph shows that the latter team won the C Grade premiership and the T. W. Clarke Cup in 1933. The Pearces figured prominently. R. H. Pearce was club president, G. Pearce, secretary, R. Pearce, bat boy, and A. Pearce, mascot. The onset of the second World War caused the League to cease its competitions, but two of the teams entered the N.S.W. Baseball Association and played in its competitions during the war years.

In 1946 the Association became the N.S.W. Baseball Union which intro­ duced district baseball, out of which arose the Canterbury-Bankstcwn Club.

The first president was Jim Moriarty, and the earliest members were those of the original League. Particular mention must be made of Roland (Pop) Pearce, a hard working administrator, who succeeded Jim Moriarty, held the office of president for over twenty years. His son Albert, following in his father’s footsteps, succeeded him and still held the office in 1978, a remarkable performance by the Pearce family in the promotion of baseball.

The 1946 competition saw the C.B.C. enter three teams each season but for many years it ‘wallowed’ among the wooden spooners. It was not until 1972—3 that the first competitions were won. The following season, the N.S.W.B.L. changed to summer competitions—Canterbury won the third grade in 1975—6, and both the first and second grades in 1976—77. The following season they were runners-up in the three grades.

In 1970, in an endeavour to interest the younger people in baseball, the East Hills Little League Club was formed. This was subsequently renamed the Bankstown Junior Association which caters for teams from under nine to under fifteen years. The groups under nine to eleven years play tee ball, a game similar to soft ball, except the ball is hit by the batter from a tee, rather than its being pitched. Canterbury enters teams in these competitions, using grounds such as the outer Belmore Oval, Boggabilla and Clarke Reserve. The Municipality can boast of players in the three age levels gaining selection to the N.S.W. teams. These include Ian Kinney, Stephen Pearce, Kevin Thomas, 342

Ashbury Baseball Club — “C” Grade Premiers, B.S.B.L., 1933 —Holders of T. W. Clare Cup. J. Johnston (V.P.) — N. Haines (V.P.) — J. Carroll — D. Paget — J. Colman (V.P.) — A. E. Jones (Sen. V.P.) - T. W. Clare (Patron) N. Johnston — R. Gorringe — G. Pearce (Sec.) — H. R. Pearce (Pres.) — Mrs. Hastie (Scorer) — K. Johnston — B. Robinson — L. Wall J. Hastie — A. Pearce (Mascot) - G. Manning (Bat Boy) - R. Pearce

Wayne Cooper, Garry Pearce, Wayne Harvey, Warren Lewis, Tony Riley, Marco Lepre, Matt Everingham and Brett Caldwell.

At the senior level the club first gained representation in N.S.W. teams in 1952. Since then twenty one players, mostly the products of local coaching have represented N.S.W. in the Australian baseball championships for the Claxton Shield. Those who have been selected are Keith Graham, Peter Power, Ron Campion, Roger McCredie* George Jarman, Ross Hendy, Leon Mills, Garry Heggie, Stephen Neville, Alan White, Ben D’Antonio, Grant Franklin, Ken Hall, Cec Lysaght and Barry Holland. Six of the twenty one state representatives, namely Albert Pearce, Garry Williams, Ian Kinney, Graham Thomas, Garry Harvey and John Reid, have won selection in Australian teams, whilst Ian Kinney and Grant Franklin were selected in the Australian high school team which toured the United States in 1976, and Albert Pearce has been coach for N.S.W. on three occasions.

The club has been without a home ground since its inception thirty two years ago. For short periods it used Punchbowl and Bankstown Ovals. A 343

former president of the B.S.B.A., Vernon McLaughlin, an enthusiastic supporter of juvenile and junior baseball, noting the potential and suitability of an old tip in the vicinity of the Salt Pan, devoted weekends to ground improvements for a ‘diamond’ for the use of the junior Sundowner Club, sponsored by Millers. His efforts were recognised by the Council by naming the ground McLaughlin Oval. The Canterbury-Bankstown Club tendered for the lease of the oval in order to undertake further improvements and make it a home ground. The Council, at first, granted a twenty year lease, subsequently reduced to two years to enable further reclamation and development. 17

BASKETBALL The Canterbury Bankstown Amateur Basketball Association was formed in February, 1964. Paul Crealy was first president and Morrie Moroney secretary. At the time basketball had become a major interest at Narwee Boys’ High, largely through the efforts of teachers such as Brian Booth, Morrie Moroney and later, Colin Murray. It was largely because of the school interest that an inaugural competition involving seven junior teams was played at Beverly Hills Girls’ High School. From that meagre competition, the Association grew rapidly, each season has generally experienced addi­ tional entrants, so that by 1978 the summer competition has attracted 193 teams from ten years to senior men and women.

These intra-district competitions are similar to those of which the junior associations conduct in football and cricket. Beyond these are the inter-dis­ trict or grade competitions. In basketball, the latter involves senior divisions, 1, 2 and 3 and juniors in age groups 13, 15, 17 and 19. In 1970 the ‘very strong’ Paratels Basketball Club, coached by Bob Elphinston joined in the C.B.A.B.A. as part of a Sydney plan to implement district competitions and because of ‘the initial boost’ given by that ‘talented group’ the Canterbury players became fired with the zeal to become state premiers.

Like League football teams, Canterbury adopted the practice of having an appropriate ‘battle’ name—not ‘bull-dogs’, but ‘bruins’. In common with Rugby League they too became sponsored. An important policy of the C.B.A.B.A. is seeking the support and co-operation of business houses. The support of Sydney G.M.H. dealer, Boyded of Bankstown, by sponsoring the men and women first division teams has enabled the Bruins to promote basketball, not only locally but interstate too. The sponsorship has gone further enabling the development of mini basketball through school coaching clinics and gala days. The C.B.A.B.A. has adopted a unique approach to the mini development. The players are introduced to the game at the primary level but the competitive aspects are eliminated in favour of participation for enjoyment and acquiring of basic skills.

344

The Bruins have made their presence felt in the N.S.W. Division 1 championship. During the seven years of their participation they have at least been semi-finalists, a feat shared by only two other associations. This achievement has stemmed from the junior promotional programmes, and the Narwee boys, such as Alan Morris, Glynn Mallett, Darrell Corcoran and Michael Rees. Of these Alan Morris became the first locally developed player to compete in Division 1.

In 1977 the Bruins enjoyed their most successful year. They were easily the most dominant team in Sydney, losing but one match in the Sydney cham­ pionship. They were Sydney summer series and championship winners, runners-up in N.S.W. championship and their best yet, sixth in the Australian club championships. The ladies had a ‘slight edge’ on the gentlemen, by winning the Sydney pre-season competition and championship, the N.S.W. championship, whilst filling sixth position in the Australian club cham­ pionship. The lady Bruins have had three outstanding players, who have represented in world championships: Maureen Elphinson a member of the 1966 Australian team, Vicki Croucher represented 1967 and Liz Franks in 1972. Australian squad members include Kerry Donnelly and Debbie Lee. Peter Lopez was the first male player to represent Australia, while squad representatives have included Graham Cuthbert, Phil Bridge, Darrell Cor­ coran, Alan Morris and Dick Stubbs.

In 1978 long service secretary Keith Fenton, became the Association’s first life member, and Canterbury has been fortunate in having as president Bob Elphinston, for no person is more steeped in basketball than he.18

BOWLS Lakemba was probably the first of Canterbury’s nineteen bowls clubs. It appears from an early photograph that a Lakemba Club existed in 1922.

These bowlers evidently played on a self-made green, but the interest in the game so generated led to the gathering of a small group of enthusiasts, who formed the Lakemba Club in 1924. A green was promptly constructed on rented land in Croydon Street, near the present Telephone Exchange, while a small brick building was converted into an attractive club house. The first executive consisted of J. Nathan, president; F. Brown, secretary and E. Penny, treasurer. The initial membership was forty players. By 1928 the Club was housed in new premises containing two new greens and a new club house erected for £1000. In 1946, the name was changed to Lakemba District Bowling Club. Increased membership made extensions necessary and a fourth green was added. Further land purchases enabled amenities such as a car park to be constructed. A Lakemba Women’s Bowling Club was first formed in November, 1933. The chief Club officials in 1978 were Ray Bennett, president; Mick Sherman, secretary and Bill Redhead, treasurer.19 345

Bowlers at Lakemba Bowling Club, 1923

Early in 1928, Alex Arthur, proprietor of a furniture store in Campsie and a former Ballina bowler, A. C. Askham, suggested a bowling club at Campsie, and in June, Hugh Moss and fourteen prominent Campsie residents met at the local School of Arts to discuss its formation and elect the first officers and committee. Hugh Moss the chairman, has been subsequently remembered by having a green named after him. Other founders included Harry Miller an ironmonger, similarly honoured, and prominent businessmen, George Downes, mercer; Neil Hallowes, cordial manufacturer, father of a past president, Ken Hallowes, and current member of the club.

Canterbury Council gave support by agreeing to lease for ten years a site known as Carrington Square, at a nominal annual rent of £1. The agreement subsequently re-phrased in more suitable terms involving various payments, exists to the present day. The first general meeting, held in the Dispensary Hall on 9 August, 1928, was attended by eighteen interested persons, including new members such as Arthur Barden, George Ferns and Fred Hocking, who was first president of Campsie Bowling Club. The new club was fortunate in selection of officers, who ‘brought knowledge and expertise to many prob­ lems which always confront any worthwhile project.’

The incorporation of the club on 28 November, 1928, brought together ‘many men, prominent and influential in all walks of life, active in all areas of community and municipal affairs,’ and explains the reason for the rapid progress of Campsie Bowling Club. In this regard one must remember the work of Dick Treleaven; Bill Andy, Ted Angelo, Jim Hughan, Frank Barnes, 346

Kevin O’Malley-Jones, Ted Hocking and Bert Thorncraft a former mayor of Canterbury Council.

One tangible civic aspect, the attractiveness of Carrington Square is a tribute to the work of the members of Campsie Bowling Club. Those who knew the site in 1928 will remember the Square and neighbouring streets as virtually a wasteland surrounded by unmade roads and gutters. Gradually hard work brought improvements. A stone fence and memorial gates were completed in 1947, and the rose gardens of that time were partly donated by Alderman H. A. Macpherson to advance the Council’s progressive beautifi­ cation policy, and of course the well-kept greens and areas of lawn are themselves things of beauty.

That the Club has produced many fine bowlers is not surprising, the immaculate greens are most conducive to bowling and draw the very best performances from the players. Jim Hughan, a baker of Beaumont Street, by administration as president, 1953-4, 1957-63, his zeal in other offices, and undoubted ability as a bowler has earned him the title of ‘Mr Campsie’ and at eighty-six still bowls. Ted Angelo, a prominent printer of Fifth Avenue, attended the Club and celebrated his ninety-sixth birthday there on 2 February, 1978.

After forty-seven years as a men’s club, a change in activities led to the formation of the Campsie Women’s Bowling Club during 1974. Edna Krimmert was the inaugural president and the interest assured progress. Jess Hutt has been president since 1975, and with men’s president George Hyam celebrated the Club’s golden jubilee with a week of bowls 7-13 May, 1978.

A photograph taken in 1949 shows 137 members, sixteen of whom were still active. In 1978 the membership was 295 men and 109 women.20 The Belmore Bowling Club originated from the suggestions of an ‘inspired’ person in 1948. From this stemmed discussions among Tom Johns of the Canterbury Rugby League, Dave Cotter of the local Parks Committee, Bert Thorncraft, of the Canterbury Council and Campsie Bowling Club, Joe Murray and others. A meeting of twenty-one local residents held at Parry Pavilion, Belmore Oval on 20 September, chaired by Ald. Thorncraft, resolved to form Belmore Bowling Club and apply to the Council for an area in Belmore-Campsie Park sufficient for two greens. The first officers included T. H. Johns, president, J. H. Murray, treasurer D. J. Cotter, secretary. The Council agreed to lease the required area and further members were attracted, one of whom Claude Hinwood won the veteran’s singles at ninety-one years ‘young’.

The Club was officially opened by the president of R.N.S.W.B.A., George Carson, on Anniversary Day, 1952. Two greens were laid and an army hut purchased for use as a temporary club house. Improvements to the site and clubhouse and provision of services were accomplished by voluntary labour.

Special mention must be made of valuable work of the Ladies Auxiliary, the 347

first officers being Nell Winnel, president, Lilian Levingston, secretary and Della Bohlson, treasurer. The Auxiliary raised funds but various members, provided refreshments, and undertook kitchen chores, which enabled the Club to improve amenities and provide entertainment for all.

From the Auxiliary stemmed the request to form a ladies’ club but quite ungraciously the men’s reply was ‘a quick smart uNO!” ’It was a gentlemen’s club so the ladies gave the reply ‘no Auxiliary’. After a little persuasion the ladies continued until a more favourable opportunity was presented. Even­ tually the men gave way and in March, 1954, a meeting elected the first officers Maud Hayes, president, Linda McGlinchy, secretary, Mrs Hebblewhite treasurer. The Club was officially opened on 28 October, 1954.

The success of Belmore proved the dictum that ‘achievement it the result of enthusiasm and dedication.’ A few initial members, with previous club experience became dedicated teachers of the ‘new band’. Foundation secre­ tary Jimmie Jones, organised visiting groups who ‘gathered in their car loads and travelled to distant clubs’, and with the establishment of Belmore, the standard of play improved still further. History was made when George ‘Wicky’ Woodward’s Belmore team defeated a team of state bowlers from Hurstone Park. In 1957 the first major success was achieved when Jim Jones and Harry Brown won the district pairs championship and when Belmore won the No. 1 second division pennant, it ‘had “arrived” amongst the top bowling fraternity’. In 1962 Stuart Stubbs gained selection to represent N.S.W. and in 1972, Norm Fletcher won the first R.N.S.W.B.A. success in becoming metropolitan reserve champion.21 Canterbury Women’s Bowling Club established in 1940, was the first independent ladies’ club established in the Municipality. This club originated from a committee formed at a meeting held early in 1937. Alderman Tasker was instrumental in having the area bearing his name on the south bank of Cook’s River, set aside as a playing area for ladies and children, and a portion was allocated to the newly formed Club, complete with greens and club house, and officially opened in March, 1940. The Club began with a membership of forty. The first officers were Rebecca Tasker, president, Ellanor Sheffield, Secretary and Ruby Horne, treasurer. A small membership has not deterred Canterbury ladies from making its presence felt in open competition. Its first success was the winning in 1944-5, of the James Wall Shield at an inter-club competition, followed by Metropolitan ‘C’ pennant in the 1946-7 season, and three years later, the ‘B’ pennant, and finally the ‘A’ pennant. Other outstanding successes include the winning of the Head of River, a competition among clubs in close proximity to Cook’s River, for six successive years, and the State Carnival, 1957-8 and 1967-8. Canterbury’s membership was sixty-seven in 1978. Three ladies have been honoured by life membership. The first, Rebecca Fischer, a foundation member, has been associated with the Canterbury Club continuously for almost forty years, ten 348

of which were served as secretary. The second, Lottie Nicholson, the secretary, 1978, has served in that office for many years. The third was Doris Williams. The president 1978, was Bessie Holden.22

CYCLING The Campsie Cycling Club, formed in November, 1906, appears to have been the first established in the Municipality. Club races were held mainly on Canterbury Road, the first from Campsie railway station to the Salt Pan and return, finishing at John Quigg’s residence, attracted five riders. Early Campsie cyclists included C. T. Scharenberg and J. Fraser, both of whom were scratch men. Club funds were raised by means of town hall concerts.

The Campsie Club also competed in track races at Pratten Park, Ashfield.

Another local club, Lakemba, which also competed with district clubs at Pratten Park, was the first to establish its headquarters at Wiley Park.23 This track became a popular cycling venue and many state championships were held there. In 1978 Wiley Park was the home track for the Bankstown Sports Club, but the widening of Canterbury Road put an end to the use of the park for cycling and other sporting purposes. Henceforth it will be used as a centre for passive recreation.24 Perhaps the greatest fame for Canterbury in the realm of cycling came from the board track erected near the station in 1928. Leading Australian cyclists competing in the United States had returned home and enthusiastically praised the small, highly banked board tracks used for top cycling in centres such as New York, Boston and Newark, which not only provided a thrilling spectacle but created a greater interest in cycling. They were unanimous that a similar track should be erected in Sydney. As a result a site was obtained at Canterbury and in November, 1928, the erection of an 8-lap board track was commenced. When the Canterbury Velodrome first opened for training on 15 December it was ‘crowded with cyclists.’ The grand opening followed a week later. Though the spectator accommodation was still incomplete, every seat and vantage point was occupied and several hundred spectators failed to gain admittance. The ‘well varied’ programme included handicaps, match race and motor-paced events for both amateur and professional riders.

These races certainly made cycling more thrilling, especially for the blood thirsty when a ‘few’ falls occurred. Those who ‘hit the boards’ were certain of at least a week’s occupation—removing a myriad of small splinters, one by one. Later design improvements in 1935-6 gave relief from some of these arduous operations.

Ernie Tagg, an experienced cyclist of those days, has preserved some three penny programmes of the velodrome meetings during the seasons, 1933—5.

Among the professionals were world champion, Jack Fitzgerald, English champion, Sydney Cozens, Clement Germaine (France), Jimmy Beer, Len 349

Rogers, G. Pye, Jack Standen, Bob Carswell (Riverina) and Keith Oliver. In the amateur ranks were Olympic champion, Dune Gray, Harry Pethybridge, A. J. Parsons and S. G. Steen. The programmes show a wide variety of handicaps and scratch races up to ten miles, match, pursuit and teams races, even up to seventy kilometres. To add further attractions vaudeville items were included, for example wrestling and boxing contests involving local ‘pugs’ such as Curly Maher, Campsie, Spider Crouch, Canterbury, Battling Billy Blackwell, Earlwood and wrestler Norman Scott, Lakemba, the Hilo Trio, Miss Irvine’s trembling wonders, Pat Reno’s performing dogs, trick cycling by the well-known Bill Stevens, manufacturer of Stevens’ cycles, Billy Martin and his ukulele and the North Sydney Mouth Organ Band.

The velodrome was used by three local amateur clubs, the CanterburyEarlwood A.B.C., formed 1929, Hurlstone Park and Lakemba for the inter-club mid-week and other carnivals, promoted by the former to raise funds to liquidate the track debt and build one of their own design. The new track, the ‘best’ in Australia, with no splinters in the banking, permitted ‘riders to circle at full speed in a natural manner’, which was both ‘thrilling and spectacular’. Four ‘pro-am’ carnivals were devoted to raising funds for Canterbury Hospital for a new block for the ‘much needed’ X-Ray, patho­ logical and out-patients accommodation.25 The velodrome experienced financial difficulties during the early depres­ sion years and this explains reasons for the inclusion of vaudeville acts.

Eventually, in April, 1936, it was forced to close down. It was later dismantled and most of the wood was used in the construction of the sports arena in Surry Hills.

The conversion of Wiley Park to a passive recreational area with ornamental ponds, gardens and barbeque facilities would have left Canter­ bury without a cycling track, a sports arena which it had enjoyed for fifty years, but the Council has planned otherwise. It will construct a velodrome on Waterworth Park, at the junction of Wolli Creek and Cook’s River, surprisingly, an area originally declared a health risk, never to be used. The new Canterbury Velodrome will be constructed by the Council to a design prepared by its Engineering Department in consultation with amateur and professional cycling bodies and the Department of Sports and Recreation.

Built to olympic standards, it will contain an open air cycling track of three laps to 1000 metres. The track will have a concrete base, with a surface covering of asphalt. The rather small oval space will provide for tennis and other games adaptable to such areas.26

HOCKEY The Canterbury-Bankstown District Hockey Club originated from meeting on 31 March, 1947 when the inaugural proceedings were discussed.

350

a

At a further meeting, held on 9 April, it was announced that district status had been granted and the first executive committee elected, comprising Tom Irvine, president, Alan McKillop, secretary, Maurice Spalding, assistant secretary and Donald Heggie, treasurer. A motion was passed acknowledging Alan McKillop as the club’s founder. The colours selected were in the true Canterbury spirit of blue and white.

Initially the club recruited its players from those of Glebe and Western Suburbs and for a home ground, Gardiner Park, Banksia was shared with St George. Later, Parry Park was obtained for training and practice games. From 1959 to 1974, the Club used two fields at Jensen Park, Regent’s Park. Finally, two excel lent playing fields and a club house were provided by the Bankstown Council at The Crest complex at Georges Hall.

During its early years several noted foundation members rendered praiseworthy service in the promotion of hockey in the Municipality. Douglas Corkish, Maurice Spalding and William Pengilly were outstanding devotees.

Donald Heggie (Senior) served eighteen years as patron, 1947—65 and Charles Gettens, six years as president, 1948—54.

The C.B.D.H.C. until 1952, played under competitions conducted by the Metropolitan Hockey Association. The governing authority then became the Sydney Hockey Association, which confirmed the Club’s district status and standing in first divisions. Though the C.B.D.H.C. has been well conducted and diligent in its attitude to hockey, it has won only minor grades and become club champions only once in the second division. Nevertheless it has produced some outstanding juniors and high calibre seniors. Roger Hazleton toured India with the Australian team. The development of junior players has been a special feature and after all this is the best way of ensuring success at first division level. Another essential to win a premiership is to have capable administrators and here the club has not been lacking. Special mention must be made of the capable secretaries, Alan Erskine, Tom Rushton, Allen Robinson and Charles Gettens. Noted presidents include Maurice Spalding, James Greenan and Robert Woodhouse. Several members and players have received life membership as an acknowledgement of their outstanding service to the Club and hockey in general. Outstanding service has been given to junior hockey by Ken McLellan, Roger Hazleton, Merv Breakspear, Leon Lill and the 1978 club patron, Jack Morrison.27

SWIMMING The Canterbury Men’s and Women’s Swimming Clubs were formed in March and April, 1959, under the Mayor and Mayoress, Stan and Adelaide Squire. The respective foundation secretaries were Frank Beattie and Audrey McLeod. The first competitions were held in October, and by the end of that season the membership had grown to 204 men and 187 ladies. The Canter­ 351

bury Council gave valuable assistance to the Club during its first season and several aldermen, particularly Alf and Ron Pate and Robert Schofield. Ron Pate and his wife Edith maintained their interest until 1967, when the two clubs merged to form the Canterbury Amateur Swimming Club. In that year too, the meeting place was transferred from under the spectators’ stand to a new room for which the Club raised £1000, while the remaining costs was generously met by the Council.

The Club was most fortunate in having the services of a prominent swimming coach, Frank Guthrie, who was responsible for the training of Canterbury’s Olympic and Commonwealth Games representatives. The most notable of these champion swimmers were Robert Wendle, John Monckton, Jan Hogan, Jan Andrews and Kathy Wainwright. Patsy Plowman represented Australia at the 1962 Commonwealth Games at which Jan Hogan was chosen as swimming captain.

Since their inception both Clubs have been very active in the promotion of the ‘Learn-to-swim’ campaign. On Saturday mornings during the season, non-swimmers of all ages are taught swimming by senior club members and life saving is an important feature of Canterbury A.S.C. Considerable sacrifice is entailed by members in the surrender of their leisure hours to such a worthy cause.

Another interesting and attractive aspect, synchronised swimming, intro­ duced 1962, was a feature of Club activities. Two outstanding girls, Judith Pettiford and Anita Saviane were selected for the Australian team which toured New Zealand in 1964. Unfortunately, interest in this attractive aspect of swimming lapsed after Audrey McLeod and Joan Garratt, the two ladies responsible for the girls’ training left the district.

Canterbury A.S.C. representatives at state and national carnivals are too numerous to mention. Its strength may be gauged from the selection of four girls—Jan Hogan, Jan Andrews, Kay Brunes and Helen Barttier—as the N.S.W. team to swim in the Australian medley relay championship. The Club, too, won premierships in the District of Sydney competitions.

Three life members have been awarded for devotion to the swimming and the Club’s progress, namely Frank Beattie, Jack Preston, current president and Jean Saviane, vice president and trustee. Warren Fisher has been a most energetic and conscientious secretary while other officials have voluntarily assisted in the conduct of numerous school, scouts and ‘Young Boys’ Brigade carnivals. The Club has been further fortunate in having hard-working social committees, responsible for raising funds for trophies and amenities. Strong support has been given by the local businessmen’s generosity and aid which proved important in maintaining the Club’s high standard of performance.

In 1978, the membership totalled approximately 200.

In 1977 the Canterbury pool was converted to metric distances to conform 352

with international standards and a planned project is to have a recording room erected between the two stands. The secretary in 1978 was Des Pasfield.28

ICE SKATING A swimming pool and an ice skating rink can be closely associated sources of recreation, as for example at Prince Alfred Park, Sydney. The Canterbury Olympic Pools Company, which leased the Tasker Park baths, aware of the complementary nature of swimming and ice skating activities, constructed a rink in close proximity to the pool in 1966. A galvanised building, formerly an aircraft hangar, covered a rink of 14 000 square feet, the largest of its kind in the southern hemisphere. The rink, which operated as a winter pastime assisted to convert Canterbury baths into a warm water pool. Unfortunately, problems arising from difficulties in keeping the surface hard frozen and level, seriously affected the financial returns, forcing the rink’s closure in 1969.

Previously the Burwood Glaciarium, an all-season full-sized rink, which had opened in the mid-1960’s, provided an agreeable arena for the promotion of skating. It was privately owned, but because its owners were more attracted to mineral exploration, it was suddenly closed in January, 1970.

The district was now without an ice rink and naturally a valuable sport and recreational facility. The fact that Burwood was closed by a decision of its owners, who were more influenced by financial gain than the public’s interest, led to the proposal to form a skaters’ co-operative. The inspiration for the move came from John R. E. Brown, a Killara builder, and a former vice-president of the Australian National Ice-Skating Association, who, in conjunction with John Coulthard and Marcel K. Doolan, formed the Ice Skating Club co-operative.

The attention of the convenors was immediately drawn to the disused Canterbury rink. John Brown wrote: ‘That morning,, January 27, 1970, I had stood in a dimly lit galvanised-iron clad building . . . Through the eyes of a builder I took in the substantial framing of the structure with approval On the debit side was the large amount of uncompleted work . . . I wondered whether the 30 year old “carrier” compressor down in the engine room was as good as I had been told. . . and whether any of the 300 galvanised pipes running under the bitumenised ice-floor were blocked.

I moved up to the grandstand ... I could feel the powerful radiant heat of a summer sun . . . and I pondered on summertime operation without insulation ... I had a sudden sense of awareness of the immense technical responsibility I would have to assume to put this rink into working order with volunteer labour'.

The I.S.C. was not perturbed by the immensity of the problems. Its members went to work with a will and for three months they toiled 353

unselfishly, giving their service freely. High school students joined in after classes and ‘every week-end saw fifty or more people gathered around a gas-fired barbeque . . . during the break, under the control of the ladies’. In this manner Canterbury rink was kept from the auctioneer’s hammer and so became ‘a living memorial to the tenacity and dedication of a small group of people who had brought it back to life against almost impossible odds’.

Canterbury Council became ‘ice-skating’s benefactor’, when a full meeting approved of a ten year lease under ‘sympathetic conditions’, which gave ice-skating the required break. The Commonwealth Government donated $55 000 and the remaining finance was raised from other sources and on Wednesday 5 March, 1971, the rink was opened to the public and ‘a good humoured crowd’ spent an enjoyable evening. The impossible had been achieved and ice skating was brought back to life.

Canterbury’s skaters soon achieved Australian and world recognition.

Belinda Coulthard, who tried on her first pair of skates at twenty two months but did not enjoy the experience, became an Australian junior champion at fifteen. She has represented the state since 1968 and in 1971, won the Australian junior championship, 1972—4 and the senior pairs championship with Mark Lynch. In all she has won four national titles and has competed overseas. Nola Dickson was junior champion in 1972. Two Campsie school students, Cheryl-Anne Jupe and Brian Meek won the N.S.W. junior pairs championship in 1973. Cheryl-Anne was Australian novice champion, 1974, Margaret Doolan was Australian junior champion 1974. Michael Pasfield, though only sixteen, is considered a veteran, because of his eight years experience on the ice. Not only has he won the Australian senior figure skating championship in 1977 and 1978 but has finished among the top ten in the past two world junior championships, and won a French silver medal for excellence in figure skating. The most outstanding champion is Jim Lynch, the speed skater, a motor mechanic in P. J. Rider’s Punchbowl garage, the first Australian to win a world title in a purely winter sport. He has ‘battled his way into the top ranks of the world’s fastest men on skates and set a new record on the way.’ At the 1978 world indoor speed skating championships in Birmingham, England, he caused an upset by not only winning the championship but establishing a new record of 48.9 seconds for 500 metres which because of his average height, was ‘a triumph of technique over brute force.’29 In September, 1977 with the assistance of Caltex as a sponsor, Canterbury Ice Rink became the venue for the first International Ice Skating Tournament ever held in Australia. The event was the Caltex Southern Cross Trophy—a speed skating teams event contested by Japan, Canada and Australia, led by Jim Lynch. This event is now an established part of the World speed skating calendar.

3S4

TENNIS The Sydenham-Bankstown Tennis Association was formed in September, 1920. Within its boundaries were three municipalities, Canterbury, Bank­ stown and Marrickville. In 1956 when the latter municipality became autonomous it was omitted from the original Association, its name was changed to Canterbury-Bankstown. Among the early officials outstanding for their promotion of tennis in the district were Spencer Woodham, president, 1920-6, Jack Gall, general secretary, 1943-51 and Jack Kavanagh, treasurer, 1930-49. Harold Twyford-Jones, a dedicated tennis administra­ tor, has served the Association longest as president, 1959—69. Later, he became secretary to the controlling body, theN.S.W. Hardcourt Association.

Other outstanding workers for tennis have been Jim Kidney, with forty eight years of unbroken membership, thirty one of which have been spent in executive offices such as competition and general secretary, Keith Englert, general secretary 1951-6, treasurer, 1959—78, has been a member of the Council of Management since 1949 and the competition secretary Bruce Snell since 1953.

Perhaps the most noted player to have played tennis in the district was Harry Hopman. Prior to his moving to Victoria, he competed in the district competitions during the 1920’s. Later he represented Australia in the Davis Cup, but earned far greater renown for his outstanding coaching of the Australian Davis Cup teams 1950—70. His first major triumph was the regaining of the cup from the United States in 1951. In all, Harry Hopman’s teams won the coveted trophy fifteen times out of twenty attempts. Other Canterbury district players of Davis Cup and international note include Tony Roche, Phil Dent, Bob Giltinan, Bill Sidwell and the Wimbleton finalist, Martin Mulligan.

Tennis boomed in the pre-war era when Sydenham-Bankstown had 5070 registered players. In common with other team sports, interest in tennis declined considerably in the post war years. For reasons previously explained for cricket, a reduction in the Association’s area in 1956 and the sale of courts for more lucrative building blocks combined to reduce registrations to 2300 in 1978. Canterbury Council has been most co-operative in promoting tennis.

In 1929, land was provided for the Association in Canterbury Park and a club house and three courts constructed upon it. Three additional courts were built in 1954. The Council has been active during the past twenty years in the replacement of backyard courts by municipal complexes at Beaman Park, and Moxon Road, Punchbowl.

The Association conducted five competitions in 1978, of which two were night competitions. An average of twelve teams annually enter the Metro­ politan Hardcourt Inter-District competitions, home matches being played at the Association headquarters, Canterbury.30 355

WOMEN’S ATHLETICS Though athletics contests had been held in Canterbury, particularly in conjunction with sports carnivals held on the race course, no local clubs were formed until September, 1930, when the Earlwod Amateur Athletics Club was formed with only six members. In 1933, the club name was changed to the Marrickville-Earlwood A.A.C. and its headquarters moved to firstly Marrickville Oval and later Henson Park. Inadequate lighting arrangements forced the Club to move to Belmore Oval. The change in headquarters led the Club to change its name to Canterbury-Bankstown A.A.C. The Club’s first coach and trainer was Arthur Goddard and the outstanding athletes of the 1930’s were George Gosling, the Club’s- first interstate representative, and a member of the four mile walking relay which broke the N.S.W. record, and Neville Masters, three times winner of the police 100 yards championship of Australia. Canterbury Council made every endeavour to foster the Municipality’s first athletic club. The Mayor Stan Parry, donated Parry Cup, William Wolfe being the first holder.

By 1939 the Club membership had reached sixty, but the outbreak of war disrupted all the athletics arrangements. During the 1939-40 the Club affiliated with the N.S.W. W.A.A.A. as the Canterbury-Bankstown Women’s A.A.C. Dot Eggleton, the Club’s most successful competitor in the State Championships, gave splendid service by arranging social entertainment to stimulate interest. During the war, the Club merged with St George until 1945. Zora Fibbins, a current life-member of the N.S.W. W.A.A.A., served the Club as secretary for several years. In 1950, with only a membership of six competitors the headquarters were changed to Tasker Park. It was here that Graham Crichton commenced his coaching, a devoted service he has maintained for the last twenty five years. Doug Buckman, his deputy, has served for fifteen years. The Club’s patroness since 195 8 is Maureen Stewart, wife of the Federal Member, Frank Stewart. Margaret Thelander, the present Secretary, who joined the Club in 1955, was its captain for ten years and has served as Secretary for a similar period. She emphasised that, although the Club has yet to produce an Olympian it has had numerous state represen­ tatives and has produced some dedicated athletes and fine citizens—the real aim of amateur athletics.31

356

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

W.S.D.C.C. 50 Years of Cricket, 1895-1945, pp. 4-6 Advertiser, 2 December, 1905; 6, 20 January, 22 October, 1906 C.D.J.C.A. A. R. Davis (Hon. Sec.) 4 February, 1978 Information—S. Boddy, President B.C.D.C.C. April, 1978 Information C.D.C.C. A. Schwebel, 1 May, 1978 C.B.D.R.C. Submission J. Gunn (Pres.) April, 1978 Reminiscences; F. Sponberg, V. Saunders and J. Moss 9 February, 6, 7 April, 1978 Sydney Morning Herald 13 May, 1935 Reminiscences, F. Spongberg, 9 February, 1978 Ibid, 20 May, 1935 Information, Canterbury-Bankstown Leagues Club, photograph gallery; C.-B.D.R.L.F.C. Annual Report 1977 Interview, V. Saunders, 6 April, 1978; Club Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6 C.B.D.J.R.F.L. Annual Report, 1977, pp. 4, 5, 10, 11 Reminiscences, V. Saunders, 6 April, 1978 Reminisences and accounts compiled by A. Brinkley, Advertiser 14 July, 1906 Western Suburbs A.N.F.C. Annual Report, 1977, p. 16, Information K. Smith (Hon. Secretary) Ibid.

C.B.B.C., A. Pearce, President, V. McLachlin, Interview 16-17 May, 1978 C.B.A.B.A. Year Book, 1977, Annual Report, 1977, Information, M. Duncan, L. Landon, 15 March, 1978, R. Elphinston, 5 May, 1978 Lakemba B. C. Golden Jubilee 1925-75 Information, Campsie Bowling Club, compiled by A. Carrington—March, 1978 Belmore Bowling Clubs 25th Birthday Celebrations, 1973 J. Jervis, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, pp. 75-6 Interview, Canterbury Women’s Bowling Club, L. Nicholson (Sec.) R. Fischer Advertiser, 1, 15 December, 1906, 16 March, 1907; Sydney Morning Herald, 17 October, 1928 Canterbury Municipal Council, D. H. Sheffield, Chief Engineer Sydney Morning Herald, 17, 31 October, 23 November, 17, 24 December, 1928 Velodrome programmes lent by E. Tagg, especially 24 February, 1934, 23 February, 1934 Canterbury Municipal Council, D. H. Sheffield, Chief Engineer C.B.D.H.C. & N. Robinson, 27 March, 1978 Information, Canterbury A.S.C. J. Saviane (Vice President) 18th September, 1978 The Ice-Skating Club Co-operative, Submission to Dept. Tourism and Recreation, pp. 4—6, 17, 19. Sydney Morning Herald, 29 July, 11 August, 1978, Interview—John Coulthard, Director of I.S.C. Co-operative, 20 June, 1978 Information—Canterbury-Bankstown Tennis Association, J. Kidney, 22 February, 1978 Information—Canterbury Women’s A.A.C., M. Thelander, April 1978

357

$£l

INTRODUCTION

revious chapters have stressed that early economic development was concentrated in the primary industries. Canterbury did not possess adequate supplies of any natural resources upon which permanent manu­ facturing industries could be based. Its main potential was residential settlement, but following the war, areas of light industries were set up in the Municipality. These were not established indiscriminately. The Council possesses powers to encourage promote and stimulate the expansion or development of industries and zone land for industrial uses. Such zones have been created in Belfield, Belmore, Campsie, Canterbury, Croydon Park, Earlwood, Kingsgrove, Lakemba, Punchbowl and Riverwood.

The Municipality has become very attractive for the establishment of light industries for three important reasons. Firstly, the gently undulating Can­ terbury terrain, was eminently suitable for factory sites and could be purchased at reasonable prices in sufficient quantities to provide for business expansion. Secondly, the development of road and rail transport has given easy access to other industries supplying raw materials and to markets and export ports. Thirdly, the Municipality is well populated and so provides not only a good market for local products but an easily available and stable workforce. Add to these three advantages, the encouragement given by the Council for factory development and it is easy to see why the Municipality has made such forward steps as a light industrial area.

A wide range of industrial activity is now undertaken in the spheres of manufacturing, servicing, wholesaling and retailing. A cursory glance through the list of firms prepared by the Canterbury Library will confirm the nature and range of industrial activity undertaken in the Municipality. It covers fields devoted to the printing trade, paper and equipment, the manufacture of a variety of stone work, bricks, tiles, pipes and pottery, electrical goods including gear, appliances and lighting, furniture, clothing and textiles, blinds, household linens and fabrics, paper patterns, garden supplies, paints and dyes, food, soft drinks, cordials, confectionery, meat products, metal structures, timber and health products.

P

MEAT AND FOOD PROCESSING Huttons Ltd., a meat processing firm, is one of the oldest surviving Australian owned food companies. It was founded in 1872 by James Carruthers Hutton, the son of a Yorkshire immigrant who settled near Melbourne in the 1850’s.

Hutton’s considerable business acumen and drive led to his establishment of 360

the company at the age of twenty six. He died in 1886, but in those fourteen years he not only founded a business but established branches in several Australian states and New Zealand. The business was continued under members of the Hutton family, but in 1907, it was converted into a proprietary company.

The company is of particular note, for not only is meat processing Canterbury’s oldest surviving secondary industry, but the firm’s location on Cook’s River, has preserved the link with the Municipality’s first experience in manufacturing. It will be remembered that the Australasian Sugar Com­ pany ceased its refining processes at Canterbury in 1855, leavingthe old stone building vacant. The sugar house served a variety of uses when in 1900 it became the Canterbury Bacon Factory, owned by the Sydney produce merchants, Denham Bros. Eight years later the factory was purchased by Huttons, and the old building formed the nucleus of the firm’s operations in Canterbury. As production was increased other extensions were added. For some forty years the slaughtering of pigs was undertaken at Canterbury, and many of the people who lived in the vicinity no doubt still possess the memory of the squeals of the doomed animals.

Huttons have experienced an interesting economic expansion adopting schemes of integration not only with firms in meat processing but also the addition of new production stages. In 1927, Huttons amalgamated with one of its main competitors, Foggitt Jones. Another burst of expansion followed the second world war when the company diversified production by extending operations involving cattle, sheep and lambs and entered new stages by purchasing the Melbourne business of William Say 8c Co. in 1956, thereby entering beef and mutton export trade. Four years later the firm of A. & R. Smallgoods, manufacturers of continental style sausages was added to the group. In the 1970’s new capital improvement policy was implemented—a new meat works at Kyneton, and an ultra-modern plant at Preston, Victoria, a replacement ham, bacon and sausage plant at Perth, a new cannery at Brisbane, and finally in 1977, at Canterbury, a new plant, marking ‘another stage in the vigorous growth of a totally Australian company now settling into its second century of prosperous operation.’

The Canterbury factory, the most modern and largest processing plant of its type in N.S.W., erected at a cost of $2.7 million, was officially opened by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, in April, 1977. The plant, which has a weekly output of 500 tonnes, operates on lines, very similar to those of a domestic refrigerator. The lower level provides facilities for dry goods storage, chilling and freezing. The processing operations, the boning, processing, cooking and packing of meat is undertaken at the upper level before being chilled or frozen for storage and delivery. The new factory has an important feature—a licence to export, not possessed by the previous obsolescent plant. Huttons play a valuable part in Australian trade by 361

exporting their products to forty five countries, even those in Europe and Scandinavia which have for centuries been noted for their smallgoods industries. The Canterbury factory is well-placed for exports, having a short rail connection with Darling Harbour.

Huttons are playing an important part in preserving a link with Canter­ bury’s past. Special attention has been given to the sandstone sugar house, the oldest building in the Municipality. Though the sugar house has been classified for preservation by the National Trust, it will not be restored to its original condition, because the original structure, with its six storeys only eight feet high were not conducive to modern working conditions. Subse­ quent extensions to the old building are being demolished so that externally it will revert as closely as possible to the original appearance. Internally, the building will house employees’ amenities, including a staff canteen and medical centre.l The building occupied by Tip Top Bakeries in Punchbowl Road, Belfield was originally erected in mid 1928 as a bakery operated by Gartrell White long before many of the houses in its neighbourhood were built. It has thus become a well-known landmark. In 1960, the business was purchased by Tip Top Bakeries, a branch of the firm of George Weston Foods, but its bakery operations were continued. Tip Top’s main activities consist of the manu­ facturing of bread, crumpets and breadcrumbs. Some 150 workers are employed at the factory. The output is sold both retail and wholesale. Bread and crumpets are sold direct to about forty five self-employed vendors, who, in conjunction with company personnel, service wholesale and retail outlets.

The breadcrumbs are retailed through various stores.2

PRINTING, PAPER, CARTON AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES The firm of Collins Bros, had its humble origin in a small publishing company, established in Glasgow in 1819 by a young school teacher, William Collins.

In 1842, the printing plant had been modernised and power driven, a licence to print bibles was granted and Collins became the Queen’s printer. Today, employing a staff of some 3500 people in all, its subsidiaries and represen­ tatives may be found in countries throughout the world and there has always been a Collins presiding over the firm’s destinies.

The local subsidiary developed from a survey of business possibilities and markets in Australia and New Zealand undertaken by a John McCloud in 1872. An office was first opened in George Street and, finally in 1912, Collins purchased premises in Clarence Street where publishing and stationery manufacturing commenced. In 1929 a new factory was built in Rosebery, but when this was requisitioned by the R.A.A.F., Collins returned temporarily 362

Collins Bros. Stationers, Kingsgrove

to its Clarence Street premises until its Rosebery property was vacated at the conclusion of World War II. At this stage a series of economic integrations began. A wholly Australian firm, B. J. Ball, Ltd., founded in 1906, had prospered in paper merchanting industry with additional products such as printing machinery, ink and twines.

It was also notable for its manufacture of tennis nets. In 1946 B. J. Ball bought out the portion of Collins, dealing with the manufacturing of stationery, and adopted the company name ‘Collins Bros. Stationers’. The original Collins now specialising in book publishing traded as William Collins (Aust.) Limited and though not connected by financial ties the two companies are now linked by a ‘bond of friendship’.

The new stationery company purchased the Rosebery property and commenced the manufacture of a wide range of stationery products, including the famous Collins diaries. With its products directly related to writing implements, they acquired a valuable adjunct, the Waterman Pen Agency, but this was relinquished in 1953, to enable greater concentration on, and expansion of the manufacture of quality stationery. New and sophisticated plant was installed, so increasing the firm’s output that it transferred sections of its operations to other premises. In 1966, a merger between Edwards Dunlop and B. J. Ball (two of the leading Australian-owned merchants), not only strengthened them in the industry, but had advan­ tageous flow-ons for Collins. This in turn led in 1967 to the sale of Rosebery property and the purchase of a new five-acre site at Vanessa Street, Kings363

grove, on the border of the Municipality. The new Collins building enabled the adoption of special features, not possible in the older buildings. The offices were air conditioned, and the roof lining treated to gain temperature benefits in all seasons. It has been said that ‘there is no security other than in constant change and man’s progress can often be measured in the buildings he creates’.

The truth of this pronouncement is exemplified by Collins’ continuous growth and development. Within four years of its taking over the Kingsgrove building further extensions became necessary and a new bay was added in 1971.

Collins’ output consists of definable product categories. Today, the firm is best known for its range of diaries, of which it is Australia’s largest producer. The second category consists of commercial stationery—account books, analysis books, counter books, memorandum books, share registers and the like. Thirdly there is a wide range of specialised books—record keeping essentials such as cricket and tennis scoring books, visitor and guest books. A school section constitutes the fourth category and involves a variety of books used in school classes—exercise books, memorandum, note and sketch books and pads. The fifth category involves a large range of personal and gift stationery. All these products are produced at Kingsgrove and are attractively displayed in modern showrooms. The Kingsgrove complex occupies two thirds of its five-acre area, the remaining one third being reserved for future development. The General Manager of the Company is Douglas W. Pulsford.3 The firm of W. C. Penfold, was first established in 1830 by William Moffitt in Pitt Street, not far from the present location in Sydney. The main printing plant was located in Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills until 1972 when space pressure from expanding business forced its transfer to a more appropriate site. Penfolds selected a 6.5 acre parkland area in Forrester Street, Kingsgrove, which offered ample room for future development.

The Kingsgrove plant has a two-fold activity. Its giant packaging and printing complex supplies cartons, labels and flexible packaging for the Australian food, beverage and pharmaceutical industries. The stationery warehouse supplies a city and suburban chain of Penfold shops with countless items for offices, artists, engineers, the legal profession and local government authorities.

The firm of W. C. Penfold Holdings Limited has made remarkable progress since moving to the spacious Kingsgrove site, where the packaging operations represent a large proportion of total investment. Thus Kingsgrove has become the group’s major contributor to profits, no doubt because Penfolds is a leading supplier of packaging to the food industry which despite the difficulty of the economic times, continued trading actively. Protective packaging is supplied for food lines such as biscuits, confectionery, butter and margarine as well as those of the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, the production of 364

flexible packaging required 50 000 kilometres or 31 250 miles of foil, paper and cellulose film annually, wrapping sufficient to package the equator almost one and a half times. Penfolds have no intention of standing on its records but continually searches for new areas and studies of new systems of packaging. Towards this end it obtained licences from the Swedish firm of Akerlund 6c Rausing, the developers of unique forms of system packaging.

G. & L. Etchers are Penfold’s specialists in the highly skilled fields of photogravure and photo lithography. About 60 per cent of their output serve the general printing, the remainder meeting the group’s domestic needs in specialist packaging. G. & L. skills are responsible for the ‘highly individual’ designs which characterise most Australian cigarette packets.

Since 1974 Penfolds has pursued an expansionist policy in retailing. The firm of Smith &C Lane Pty. Ltd. was acquired adding three Sydney shops and one in Brisbane to the group. Through these and other stores, Penfolds markets over 20 000 products ranging from traditional stationery to artists’ material, equipment for engineers and draughtsmen, students’ tools and office furniture. Perhaps the unique feature of Penfolds is that the horse and cart continues to be a distinctive sight, not only in the delivery of supplies but also in the promotion of the firm name. Financial statistics indicate clearly growth of the Penfold’s group. Its assets more than doubled from 1971-1977 from $5 million to $14 million. Sales and revenue showed a bigger increase from $5.8 million to $15.7 million and operating profits from $283 000 to $1 192 000. Thus Penfolds have contributed materially to the prosperity of the Canterbury Municipality.4 The firm of V.R.G. Paper commenced operations servicing the printing industry in Holland in 1918 and since 1960 it has been registered as a public company on the Amsterdam stock exchange. The firm in the meantime had come to Australia in 1951 when it opened an office and warehouse in King Street and the expansion of business forced removals to other larger premises and the opening of branches in all mainland states.

Attracted by the availabilty of adequate land suitable for the construction of a large warehouse on one level, and a location which would give ready access to its clients, V.R.G. Paper came to the Municipality in 1963. New Australian headquarters were established in Leslie Street, Lakemba where the firm’s major activity areas lie firstly, in the supply of printing paper both sheet and reel to all types of commercial printers, newspapers and manufacturing stationers, and secondly, the supply of computerised phototypesetting equipment, used by all sections of the printing and publishing industries. The Lakemba warehouse usually stocks over 1000 tons of paper immediately available for very prompt delivery.5 The paper pattern was the brainchild of an ordinary Massachusetts tailor, who made shirts. He conceived the idea of fashioning paper patterns so that any person could make a shirt. Since they were so very cheap and useful, the 365

paper pattern was immediately successful, enabling large businesses to engage in its production and distribution.6 The Canterbury firm, Simplicity Patterns, a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Company of the same name, first commenced business in Wentworth Avenue, Sydney, in December, 1940, but was attracted to Canterbury Municipality by availability of a suitable site in Bonds Road, Punchbowl. A warehouse and offices were erected and business commenced in 1956. Substantial additions made to these premises in 1968, increased the area of operation to 55 000 square feet. Simplicity Patterns employ 100 workers, predominantly women local residents, many of whom have worked for the firm for periods from ten to twenty years.

In 1969 Style Patterns Pty. Ltd., was incorporated and in conjunction with Simplicity serve the Australian market. Simplicity patterns have a United States flavour, while those of Style have a United Kingdom flavour. The Simplicity—Style patterns are manufactured in their Auckland factory. The local firms distribute annually millions of their paper patterns throughout the Australian continent from their Punchbowl works. High school and college students within the Municipality learn to sew with aids, publications and technical material supplied by Simplicity. Their paper patterns are a basic component of home saving, a hobby or craft which has very strong support in the Canterbury Municipality.7

ELECTRICAL GOODS AND APPLIANCES In the city of Chicago, USA, John K. Stewart and Thomas J. Clark developed horseclipping manufacturing machinery and founded the Company in 1893 which four years later was incorporated as the Chicago Flexible Shaft Company. In the year 1910 the Company diversified its manufacturing to the electrical appliance industry and the first product which was manufactured was the ‘Princess Electric Flat Iron5. This appliance was the forerunner to Sunbeam’s leadership in the small electrical appliance field.

The history of the Company in Australia began in 1904 with the opening of a small business in Pitt Street, Sydney, concentrating in the field of sheep shearing industry for which equipment was imported from Chicago. With the heavy cost of importation, the Company which was known as the Cooper Sheep Shearing Machine Pty. Ltd., acquired premises in 1933 at Elizabeth Street, Waterloo, where the manufacture of shearing equipment was under­ taken by the new registered company, Cooper Engineering Company Pty. Ltd. In 1941, land was acquired at Coward Street, Mascot, where a new factory was contructed which was added to from time to time and became the headquarters for the manufacture of the sheep shearing and allied equipment but in 1946 began the manufacture of its first electrical appliance in Australia, the Sunbeam Mixmaster Mixer. Thus, the Company established itself as not only the leader in the sheep shearing equipment industry but from 366

1946 to the current year has maintained leadership in the small electrical appliance field, manufacturing a comprehensive range of household electrical appliances.

In the year 1951, Sunbeam acquired land in the Canterbury Municipality with the purchase of 103A acres of land at Campsie. In 1954 the new factory had been erected and became the headquarters for the appliance manufacture but is now the headquarters for the Company operations following the sale of the Mascot premises in 1972 with the final transfer of the Marketing and Office staff in November, 1977.

Sunbeam has maintained the manufacturing of shearing and allied equipment of which it is the largest in the world with an ever-increasing range and in the home electrical appliance field, the Campsie plant is regularly producing over 1.5 million appliances annually.

Fully integrated offices and distribution centres have been established in every state with the exception of the Northern Territory and the Company offers complete service for all its products through the Sunbeam Appliance Service Company operating over 27 service centres throughout the Commonwealth.

Sunbeam, like many other large organisations, has progressed with the times and proudly boasts a completely integrated computer control through its manufacturing, administration and distribution areas. It offers attractive working conditions for all employees (many of whom reside in the Canter­ bury area) and this is borne out by a high percentage of long term employees on the current payroll which includes a large cross-section of many nation­ alities. It is estimated that at least fifty different countries are represented on the employment register. An excellent relationship has been maintained in the integration of these nationalities into our society.

Sunbeam maintains a most progressive leadership which is based on the development of new and exciting products. A fully qualified Research and Development Division is maintained to this end to ensure that the products being developed or continuing to be sold maintain the quality expected from the Sunbeam brand. With the demands on space in the Campsie premises, the Service Division has been moved to Charles Street, Canterbury, for the distribution of spare parts throughout Australia.8 Thomas Electronics of Passaic, New Jersey, USA was attracted to the Canterbury Municipality because of the availability of sufficient land for a factory location which would allow for future expansion, have the use of water, gas and electricity and permit an efficient distribution of the firm’s products to all suburbs. Furthermore, there were sufficient local residents to provide a stable workforce. In 1955, the Company purchased a small factory in Larkin Street, Riverwood, and the following year commenced the manu­ facture of television picture tubes. In 1961, Australian interests purchased the subsidiary from its United States owners. Since then further land has been 367

purchased allowing its factory space to be increased tenfold to 50 000 square feet.

Thomas Electronics of Australia manufactures a complete range of monochrome (black and white) television picture tubes, and cathode ray tubes for industrial, commercial and military use. Colour picture tubes are rebuilt for a replacement market. A Kingsgrove firm, James Fielding Com­ pany, supplies large quantities of cartons used in packaging Thomas Elec­ tronics’ products.9 In 1933, George L. Thompson of Moree founded the battery manufac­ turing business bearing his name in Dixon Street, Sydney. As the method of wholesaling of batteries through dealers and garages meant higher prices for the consumers because of the commission payouts, George Thompson introduced in 1936, a new trading system—‘direct from factory to consumers at factory prices’. Buyers could thus obtain much cheaper batteries to which, for no particular reason, the name ‘Marshall’ was given. The direct trading system was extensively advertised throughout Australia, a special mail order system introduced, and the business experienced considerable expansion.

Office and sales headquarters were established in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Next came the search for a more accessible location for better sales service to the metropolitan area and as Canterbury offered the best prospects, a factory was erected near Cook’s River Bridge, where thousands of batteries are manufactured by the most modern production methods. A large sign inviting the public to buy direct from the factory led to a familiar sight of queues of cars whose drivers were taking advantage of the generous offer of cheaper batteries. Business boomed, factory extensions followed, and the slogan ‘Holler for a Marshall’, became widely known throughout the land.

In 1972, Marshall added to its range of automotive batteries by com­ mencing the manufacture of industrial and stationary types. The former are used in applications such as fork lift trucks and electric locomotives for coal from mines. They range in size from fifty kilograms to seven tonnes and are particularly used in the export of minerals. Stationary batteries are used in Telecom exchanges, emergency power in hospitals and other public build­ ings. It is most interesting to note that the George L. Thompson Company is deeply involved in the development of electric road vehicles both for private and commercial applications. The Company, then, is a further example of the development of a business from humble beginnings to a major force in the battery industry. Some seventy persons mostly residents of Canterbury, are employed at the factory. 10 The Simpson organisation was first established in 1853 at Adelaide. In 1958-9 the Pope Electronics, one of the group of companies controlled by Pope Industries, commenced in the manufacture and assembly of television sets at Kingsgrove Road, Belmore. These activities were discontinued prior 368

to the merger of the Simpson and Pope Group in 1963. At that time, sales, warehouse, spare parts and service facilities were consolidated at Belmore, with depots operating at Canberra, Newcastle and Wollongong.

Simpson-Pope Limited manufacture a wide variety of domestic and industrial products—all of which are produced at Dudley Park in Adelaide.

These include automatic and wringer type washing machines, rotary clothes dryers, electrical ranges, garbage disposal units, irrigation and garden products, air conditioning and electric motors. These products are shipped to Belmore where a labour force of 137 workers is engaged in their assembly, sales, servicing and the provision of spare parts.11

CLOTHING AND TEXTILES MANUFACTURES Robert Adcock founded ‘King Gee’ in 1926 not on the principle of ‘success at any cost’, but on the personal philosophy that ‘people are just as important as profits’. Despite the depressive outlook of the day the new philosophy paid off and the business prospered. Bob Adcock selected for his first factory, a small room in Daking House, Rawson Place, Sydney. There he commenced the manufacture of protective clothing which he decribed as ‘honest mer­ chandise at an honest price’. An early problem was the selection of a suitable name to register the firm and its choice came from an unexpected source—a scrap of street conversation involving ‘King G’, a common sarcastic expres­ sion of the day used to refer to pretentious males who thought themselves to be King George.

The firm of King Gee made steady growth and because of this did not experience the growing pains of forced development. A branch was opened at Corrimal and when, in 1958, it had outgrown its Chalmer Street premises, King Gee came to Canterbury Municipality, selecting the area because of the availability of industrial land, good car parking facilities, and an adequate supply of labour. King Gee Clothing Company chose its site in Kingsgrove Road, Kingsgrove, where further expansions have since occurred.

King Gee’s main activity is concerned with the manufacture of men’s and boys’ clothing. It produces a wide range of boys’ schoolwear, a large industrial range of garments for men and leisure and sportswear incorpor­ ating ranges of shorts for men and boys. The Company has been very successful with its working clothes lines, simply because it asked the men who wore them—‘a plumber wants a pocket here, a carpenter . . . there . . . bricklayers, boilermakers, housepainters—each wants something different from a pair of overalls. So King Gee made them specially for each trade . . . in the language of the day. There were “Tuf-Nuts” for engineers. “Trimmers” for railwaymen’.

King Gee believes in satisfied customers and does not draw the line at animals. What firm has ever fitted a chimpanzee? King Gee has, though the 369

general manager, Bob Adcock Jun. strongly advises not to try it. After much biting and grabbing of a young lady’s leg, Bob managed to get two happy circus ‘chimps’ nicely fitted with 'King Gee overalls.’ This was far enough and Bob had to draw the line when another owner phoned for overalls for his giraffe. These simple episodes clearly illustrate the versatility of King Gee in supplying wide ranges of working clothing, and prove the dictum, ‘Work with ease in King Gees.’

The firm had a single sales representative in 192 8, and now, fifty years later, the number has grown to forty-five, who cover a territory from Sydney to Broome and Adelaide to the Solomon Islands. The first of these, the Sydney sales representative, Jack Curzon, began with the Company at the age of 15.

His first job was in charge of clothes transport—wheelbarrow. ‘They’re more like ambassadors than salesmen,’ Bob Adcock Jnr. remarked, ‘They carry on the “personal contact” philosophy we’ve always believed in. To our clients they are King Gee.’ The Company has a total staff of 700, employed in its production centres at Kingsgrove, Wollongong, Maitland and Kempsey as well as interstate centres in Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia.

Of these some 200 are employed at Kingsgrove. King Gee has successfully promoted a harmonious relationship with the employees because the management believes they are the company, so over its fifty years it has never laid off any employee. 12 Twentieth Century Blinds commenced operation as a new company in 1949, in very small Redfern premises, making Holland blinds. The firm came to Canterbury in 1957, to a building now occupied by Flynns Pianos and Organs. A small staff of twenty-seven was employed on the manufacture of the blinds. Business expansion forced a move to larger premises at Undercliffe in 1962. An old derelict building in Riverview Road, formerly used as a galvanising works, was purchased and converted into a factory making a wider range of products—Venetian blinds, fly screens and doors and alu­ minium awnings. In addition the Company began to make the blind rollers, which were previously imported from Canada and Sweden, and developed machines, covered by world patents, to assist in the marketing of Twentieth Century products.

The Company’s products grew in popularity and with turnover doubling every four years, the staff had increased to 230 by the summer of 1975. Space pressure forced the renting of other premises at Botany and Punchbowl, but the administration of three separate factories posed difficult problems. For two years the Company watched for a site in Canterbury Municipality sufficient to house all its operations and yet provide for further development.

Eventually, in January 1977, Twentieth Century moved to Bond’s Road, Punchbowl, a site supplying sufficient space for development until the end of the century, guaranteeing a large and stable workforce, and a location to enable daily servicing of an area extending from Palm Beach to Helensburgh, 370

inland to Penrith. Besides local markets, the Company boosts Australia’s earnings by exporting blind fabrics to South Africa, New Zealand and South East Asia.

Twentieth Century Blinds make use of other local products in their manufacturing processes. Roller springs are manufactured by Australian Springs at Canterbury and the aluminium supplies are supplied by Meyers Taylor (Sales) of Broughton Street, Canterbury. 13

METAL GOODS AND STRUCTURES The Franklin Manufacturing Company commenced business in 1950 in a tin shed in Close Street, Canterbury, with a staff of five, manufacturing alumi­ nium pantry and cookware, under such styles as ‘Colonial’ and ‘Fiesta.’ From this simple beginning the firm’s business developed to an extent requiring offices and a factory with a floor space of 11 000 square feet and a labour force of thirty-seven employees. Unfortunately, from about 1973, Franklin Manufacturing Company began to suffer from competition with cheap Taiwanese imports. These together with the high cost of Australian raw materials forced the Company to discontinue the production of its pantry and cookware and to concentrate upon the manufacture of metal flexible tubing for use on bed and desk lamps and pendants. ‘Daydream’ lights are manu­ factured for another firm, Quick Heat Products. With a staff of six, Franklin Manufacturing has been forced to return to the production output of its earlier years. 14 The firm of R. J. Brodie was founded at Stanmore in 1943, by Robert J. Brodie. For some years, operations were undertaken in the Mascot and Marrickville districts, but with business expanding, the Company was forced to seek a suitable location where land was available and labour more plentiful. In 1963, a site was purchased in Belmore Road, Punchbowl, on which an office and factory block were erected. These premises were subsequently enlarged by the purchase of adjacent blocks.

R. J. Brodie is in reality two firms, a lighting company, manufacturing a complete range of domestic light fittings and a proprietary company spe­ cialising in sheetmetal engineering, manufacturing a large range of metal products, such as door frames and other items, associated with the building industry. The Company attempts to purchase its materials from local suppliers, wherever possible. 15 M. F. Dippert Pty. Ltd. came to Belmore in 1950 and rented an army hut at the rear of S. L. Bailey Ltd., 650 Canterbury Road. The firm’s staff consisted of two persons, Max Dippert and one employee. With very elementary equipment the firm produced mainly moulds for plastic toys and kitchenware. From this simple beginning the Company gradually expanded under the encouragement given by the Canterbury Council, especially its assistance during the erection of new premises in 1966.

371

The firm’s tool room in 1978 would probably be amongst the biggest and most modern in Sydney. The plant is very advanced, having every type of toolroom equipment including electrical discharge and numerically controlled machines. Because of such modern equipment the Company’s toolroom compares favourably with the world’s best in its production of every possible type of injection and compression moulds and diecasting dies. 16

PLASTICS Ceeco Products began as local firm at 642 Canterbury Road, Belmore, manufacturing their invention, plastic beer bungs for stainless steel kegs with only three employees and three machines. Belmore was chosen for the firm’s location because the polythene material for the bungs came from Imperial Chemical Industries (I.C.I.) at Botany and the manufactured product sold to Tooth’s and Toohey’s Breweries in Sydney. The Canterbury district also ensured a stable workforce in light of future expansion.

Later, Ceeco was taken over by United Packages and in 1971 moved to larger premises in Canterbury Road, Belmore. By 1978, the workforce had grown to 150 employees, and the number of machines increased to sixty two.

The product range had widened from bungs to injection moulding of plastic parts for a variety of uses in the radio, television, furniture, brewery and lawnmower industries. A new and important product manufactured by Ceeco is a large volume of ‘Caroma’ bathroom fittings.

Rainsfords Pty. Ltd. of Kingsgrove, had its origin in a partnership in Birmingham, England, formed in 1860 between Charles Rainsford, a man­ ufacturer of pins, and Stephen Jarrett. By the 1890’s a flourishing business in haberdashery and fancy goods had been developed, serving both home and colonial needs. By the 1900’s a brisk trade had been established with Australia where Rainsfords’ products were distributed from warehouses independently by local firms.

A new partner, G. A. Laughton, who had risen from the lowly position of office boy, visited Australia in 1928, an outcome of which was the formation of a new company to continue the import business. As a mark of respect for the Rainsford family it was registered in Sydney as Rainsfords Ltd. Laughton had great faith in the Australian potentiality and in 1934 he made the decision to commence manufacturing locally. Suitable floor space was acquired in Foster Street, Surry Hills, where an initial staff of four persons commenced the manufacture of the Lady Jayne products, slumber helmets and dress shields.

Business thrived, and successive moves to larger premises became necessary as the range of products was increased. These included cork mats, curlers and wave setters, assembled from Birmingham parts. Laughton’s son, George S., 372

developed metal manufacturing requiring a new plant—power and foot presses, hair grip machines. Once again came the pressure for more space, and this in turn, led to the search for a new site. Canterbury Municipality’s ideal building terrain proved most attractive and in 1946 Rainsfords pur­ chased an excellent site in Kingsgrove Road where the new premises were opened the following year.

Over the years fashion changes have meant the replacement of some original products by newer types, such as toilet and moth-proof bags and baby pants. Subsequently there have been other developments particularly in moulding, where expert toolmakers produce intricate moulds of a high standard. Rainsfords’ bobby pins, popular because of their superior quality and finish, are produced by a complete conveyorised set-up for making and carding tonnes monthly. Rainsfords’ trade marks, Lady Jayne hair acces­ sories, Stratton powder compacts, Twinkle Tots baby products, Twinco combs, Tiffany bathroom accessories and Springwood cosmetic and toilet bags, are not only known throughout Australia but also in South Africa, New Zealand, Malta, Fiji, South East Asia and even Hong Kong.

Because of its international impact Rainsfords is of considerable impor­ tance to Canterbury, more directly so as an avenue of employment for its citizens. In 1978 the firm employed a staff of 252, twenty-seven of whom have been with it for periods of from twenty to forty years. Every opportunity is given for promotion. G. A. Laughton began as an office boy. Edgar Rainsford rose from eight shillings a week to Managing Director, Harry Harris, a school leaver in 1925 subsequently became the second and Reg Heins, appointed in 1975, the third managing director.

The staff represents a good cross-section of the ethnic influences upon the Municipality. Besides Australians, there are seventeen nationalities combin­ ing to make Rainsfords’ products. Though generally English is spoken, sometimes there are ‘variations’. 17

STONE, SOIL AND EARTH PRODUCTS J. A. Macdonald and J. W. Goodyear formed the A. & A. Constructions Company in 1946. The business of manufacturing small structural steel buildings was first undertaken in premises at the corner of Canterbury and Kingsgrove Roads. Three years later, the Company moved to larger premises in Forrester Street, Kingsgrove. The progressive development of the firm involving new allied steel products such as oil storage tanks for the chemical and oil industry, led to moves to Belmore Road, Punchbowl in 1956.

The company, not wishing to put all its eggs in the one basket based on steel, diversified its output. By the 1970’s when it had become apparent that the use of reinforced and prestressed concrete was reducing the amount of structural steel used in the construction of multi-storey buildings, A. & A. 373

Constructions diversified by entering the marble and stone industry, products extensively used in commercial building. Quarries were opened in the Mudgee district and marble blocks were obtained near the Wombeyan Caves where a large quarry was in operation. These blocks were transported to the Belmore Road factory, where modern processing machinery had been installed for cutting and polishing marble tiles and panels. In 1972, the Kinetic Mining Company opened a large quarry near Marble Bar, Western Australia and from it A. & A. Constructions obtained blocks of various coloured marble for processing.

The import of western marble proved uneconomical. It was too hard to cut and polish for tiles and this aspect added to transport costs forced a discontinuation of the use of this product. Four large blocks of seven tons were donated to Riverwood Rotary Club, for the decoration of a park being constructed in conjunction with Canterbury Council. The marble blocks have created a considerable public interest, particularly for students of geology.

The widening of the Company’s product output forced it to obtain a larger storage area by leasing premises from the Punchbowl Brick Works in Bonds Road, Punchbowl. The increased costs of labour and transport from country areas rendered the import of Italian marble sheets more economical. The Italian marble is cut and polished at the Bonds Road factory, and ultimately cut into tiles, vanity tops, fireplace surrounds, and many other small items used by the building industry. 18 The firm of N. H. Smee & Son is in every way a purely local product. Ernest Smee came from Orange 1911 and took up residence in Croydon Street, Lakemba. It was here that his son, Norman was born in 1912 and lived most of his life in Lakemba. His close association with the Municipality led to his purchasing an area of land in Bond’s Road, Punchbowl in 1945, and early the following year a haulage and contracting business registered as N. H. Smee was begun. In 1949, he took his son, Norman E. Smee into the partnership, trading as N. H. Smee and Son. The original business involved the supplying of sand, metal, soil and cement. These goods have a close connection with gardens and landscaping and it is not surprising that in 1970 the firm developed into a very large garden supply centre, so that N. H. Smee now deliver practically every necessity for home and the garden, a service greatly appreciated by the Municipality’s residents.19

SOFT DRINK AND CORDIAL MANUFACTURE In 1886, a pharmacist, John S. Pemberton, a dabbler in patent medicines, set about inventing a tonic for hangovers and nerves. The concoction was first tried out in a soda fountain in Atlanta, Georgia, and after experimentation, 374

Dr. Pemberton eventually found a mixture that everyone enjoyed. A friend named it Coca-Cola because two of the ingredients were obtained from coca leaves and cola nuts. A local pharmacist, Asa Griggs Candler won over by the new drink and scenting its possibilities bought all shares for under $2300.

Candler really began to market Coca-Cola, producing it by the barrel-load and widely advertising it. So successful was he that in 1919 the Candler interests were sold for $25 000 000 and the new owners continued the expansion, making more millions. ‘Coca-Cola’ wrote Meredith Hooper, ‘is always thought of as an especially American drink. Yet in 1964 seventy-five million Cokes a day were downed in 127 different countries. By early 1974 the total had reached over 165 million, in more than 137 countries of the world.’20 Coca-Cola made its first appearance on the Australian market in 1937, when Dalgety &C Co. began importation and distribution of cartons of 6.5 ounce bottles throughout the Sydney metropolitan area. The following year, The Coca-Cola Export Corporation commenced the actual bottling processes at the Australian Glass Manufacturing Company, Waterloo. From 1949, the company acquired additional premises at Mascot and Ryde, and the Waterloo plant was closed in 1957.

By this time it became evident that the continuing high volume sales trend would soon outstrip the combined production capacities of the Mascot and Ryde plants. The Kingsgrove area offered excellent factory sites with con­ siderable expansion potential and in 1959, an area of 6.5 acres was purchased in The Crescent, possessing the advantage of both front and rear access. In February, 1960, James A. Farley, chairman of The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, turned the first sod on the Kingsgrove site. By November, the buildings had been erected, the plant installed, and production commenced.

As a result, the Mascot and Ryde plants were closed, and the manufacture of Coca-Cola products became concentrated in the Kingsgrove area. Its value to Canterbury lies in the employment of 35 6 persons, most of whom are local residents.

Coca-Cola bottle and market a variety of soft drinks. Beside the original product there are brands such as Fanta, Leed, Leed Lemon, Soda Squash, Tab, Tresca, Lo-Cal Lemonade and Lemon Flavour. The firm manufactures a variety of syrups for post-mix units, for example Coca-Cola, Fanta, Lemo­ nade, Tab and Tresca as well as Dry Ginger Ale, Ginger Beer, Tonic Water, Bitter Lemon and Orange Concentrate. An idea of the Company’s output may be gauged from the plant operation of four filling lines, each of which is capable of filling 200 and one even 600 bottles per minute, depending on the size. Coca-Cola markets its Kingsgrove output mainly in the metropolitan area for which it has a trading franchise. Its Northmead plant, capable of filling 1200 cans per minute, produces for both Australian and export markets.21 375

RETAILING In 1885, Joseph N. and Albert E. Grace established a business in George Street West, with stock of goods worth £500. The large and well-known firm of Grace Brothers, under its motto of ‘Sure to get it at Grace Brothers’, developed from this simple beginning. Various branches were opened in other suburbs and in October, 1966, Grace Brothers came to Canterbury Muni­ cipality in a spectacular and unique manner by opening Roselands, ‘A city in the Suburbs’, the first of the comprehensive shopping complexes which dot the suburban horizon. Roselands is well placed for trading located as it is in the centre of densely populated suburbs. Its size, variety and scope of consumer amenities and the provision of one of Australia’s biggest decked car parks, has attracted international interest, particularly American shop­ ping centre developers.

The shopping complex was erected on a 31 acre site, formerly a golf course.

Roselands, the largest community centre in the southern hemisphere and the biggest building of its type in Australia, was opened in 1965 at a then total cost of $15 million. The ground floor which extends beyond the retail centre covers 10.1 acres, an area equivalent to two of the biggest city blocks, for example, those bounded by George, Market, King and Castlereagh Streets.

It is 255 metres long by 233 metres wide, altogether it has 30.4 acres floor space. To equal this the Reserve Bank in Martin Place would require seventy three storeys. Roselands retail space would require a mile of shops in a suburban main street. Under one roof there are Grace Bros., Australia’s largest suburban departmental store, Coles separate variety store and supermarket, and ninety five individual shops and kiosks.

The restaurants provide ‘food for all tastes and pockets’, at its eight ‘eating houses’, together with the unique ‘4 Corners Gourmet’ which has fourteen food bars providing a great variety of international dishes. There are banks, a post office, and a wide range of professional services—doctors, specialists, dentists, opticians, lawyers and architects. An automatic closed circuit television camera scans the supervised playing area and reports on screens in various locations to inform parents of their children. The Town Hall on the Gallery level, accommodates a seated audience of 250 persons or 200 at a ball or wedding reception. The hall may be divided into three smaller rooms for small club or social functions accommodating up to sixty guests. All the Centre is covered by 847 loud speakers, one of the largest public address systems in Australia. The area is well decorated and attractively ornamented and lighted, fountains, pools, statues and general furniture.

Roselands is unique because it has made radical departures from the out-moded business concept that every space must pay for itself. Almost $2 million was spent on customer amenities, parking for 15 000 cars daily, a vast centre court with its atmosphere of joy and excitement; large rest areas with 376

comfortable chairs, television, magazines, a hostess to answer queries, ironing rooms and ‘freshen-up’ showers. Thus in the Rendezvous Room patrons may put their feet up and relax which prompted the query ‘where else can you do that when you’re shopping? THAT’s what makes Roselands different.’ Its two key concepts then are family atmosphere and an attractive alternative to a tiresome day in town. Grace Bros, are firmly confident that Roselands has proved to be more than a shopping centre, and has become a new way of life for the 35 000 people within walking distance and the half a million within ten to twenty minutes drive.22 That Roselands has been extremely popular is evidenced by the further extension plans, which would increase the area of the centre by 13 000 square metres. The extension will be occupied by a major retail store, a hardware-homeware centre and small speciality shops. Additional parking requirements would be provided in the form of an enlargement of the surface area and two additional floors added to the existing multi-storey car park.

Canterbury’s mayor, John Graham Mountford, has promised ‘maximum publicity’ and a public meeting has been called to enable residents to discuss the proposals with company consultants and council officers. The council is further considering the expenditure plans.23

377

1. Meat and Allied Trades’ Federation, The Meat Industry Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 4 (New series) pp. 5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19 2. Tip Top Bakeries (Belfield), A. E. Maginnis, General Manager, 17 April, 1978 3. D. W. Pulsford, Collins—100 Years in Australia (Pamphlet).

4. W. C. Penfold & Co. Ltd., K. N. Lloyd, Director, 21 April, 1978, Annual Report, 1976 5. V. R. G. Paper Pty. Ltd., P. A. Andrews (Nat. Marketing Manager) 3 April, 1978 6. M. Hooper, Everyday Inventions, pp. 127-8 7. Simplicity Patterns Pty. Ltd. J. S. Lyall, Managing Director 8. Sunbeam Corporation Ltd., C. Watkinson, 23 March, 1978 9. Thomas Electronics of Australia Pty. Ltd., H. W. Hutchinson, Managing Director 10. George L. Thompson Pty. Ltd., W. M. Vincin, Factory Manager 11. Simpson Pope Holdings Ltd., J. W. Pavey, Secretary, Annual Report, 1977 12. King Gee Advertising Feature—Reprint from Australian Financial Review, 25 June, 1976; King Gee Clothing Co. Pty. Ltd., E. Barth, Personnel Officer 13. Twentieth Century Blinds (ACT) Pty. Ltd., J. H. Mays, General Manager 14. Franklin Manufacturing Pty. Ltd., A. W. Bradley, Managing Director, A. Galbraith, General Manager, 30 March, 16 May, 1978 15. R. J. Brodie Lighting Co., R. W. Frew, General Manager 16. M. F. Dippert Pty. Ltd., 14 August, 1978 17. Ceeco Products, T. Caffey, Plastics Superintendent; Rainsfords Ltd., R. Heins, Managing Director; G. Gleed, The Story of Rainsfords, 1928-78, pp. 1-49 18. A. &: A. Constructions Pty. Ltd., J. A. Macdonald, Director 19. N. H. Smee & Sons, H. H. Smee, Manager 20. M. Hooper, Everyday Inventions, pp. 110-13 21. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Sydney, L. W. Golding, Community Relations Manager, 17 May, 1978 22. Grace Bros., F. Siro, Librarian, The Retail Trader, June, 1965, Explore Roselands, a digest of facts 23. St. George, Sutherland Shire Leader, 24 May, 1978

378

LIST OF MAYORS 1 879 188 0 1881 1882 1883 1884 188 5 1886 1887 1887 1888 188 9 1889 1 890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1 895 1896 1897 189 8 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1 905 1906 1907 190 8 1909 191 0 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 *1917 *1917 1918 1919

J. S. Sproule J. C. Sharp J. C. Sharp J. C. Sharp T. A. Davis B. Taylor B. Taylor J. Slocombe J. Slocombe T. A. Davis J. C. Sharp J. C. Sharp J. C. McBean J. S. Stone

J- Quigg P. J. Scahill P. J. Scahill P. J. Scahill S. R. Lorking S. R . Lorking S. R. Lorking S. R. Lorking G. W . Nicoll J. Denniss J. Denniss J. Denniss J. Denniss B. Taylor B. Taylor B. Taylor B. Taylor J. Draper J. Draper J. McCulloch P. J. Scahill J. E. Draper G. F. W. Hocking J. A. Wilson J. A. Wilson J. A. Wilson J. A. Wilson A. M. Preston A. M. Preston A. M. Preston

1 920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 193 0 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1 938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1 945 1946 *1 9 4 7 *1 9 4 7 1 948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1 955 1956 1957 1 958 195 9 1 960 1961 1962

G. W. F. Hocking G. W. F. Hocking G. W . F. Hocking J. W . Ewen J. W. Ewen J. W. Ewen N. B. Rydge E. H. Stephenson A. North G. H. Bramston G. H. Bramston G. H. Bramston The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, The Hon. S. E. Parry, H. A. McPherson H. A. McPherson G. Q. Williams S. E. Warren H. R. Thorncraft H. R. Thorncraft G. H. Mulder G. H. Mulder G. H. Mulder G. H. Mulder S. C. Squire R. J. Schofield S. C. Squire R. J. Schofield R. J. Schofield R. G. Pate

M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C. M .L.C.

379

1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

J. S. Scott J. S. Scott J. S. Scott A. J. Pate A. W. Mulder J.W. Eccles J.W. Eccles J. R. Beaman J. R. Beaman C. G. Williams

1973 C. G. Williams 1974 C. G. Williams 1975 C. G. Williams 1976 C. G. Williams *1977 C. G. Williams *1977 J. G. Mountford 1978 J. G. Mountford 1979 J. G. Mountford

* Denotes part year only

LIST OF ALDERMEN Allman, J. G.: 1928-34 Andrew, J. G. 1890-2, 1900-3, 1905-7 Andrews, I. H. 1920-25 Barnes, A. E. 1908-11 Barnes, W. 1908-11 Barnett, J. 1891-4 Beaman, J. A. 1956Bennett, F. T. 1934-37, 1941-45 Birkinshaw, H. C. 1978Bland, J. W. 1959-65 Bowden, P. T. 1959-65 Blick, J. W. P. 1928-34, 1937-44 Bramston, G. H. 1927-34 Bray, D. W. 1937-48 Brideson, H. H. 1937-41 Brown, A. 1887-1900 Brown, I. L. 1894-96, 1901 Browning, G. C. G. 1952-53, 1968-71 Bruce, J. L. 1922-25, 1928-34 Bryant, W. J. 1950-53 Buckeridge, J. H. 1959-61 Bull, H. M. 1967-68, 1971Burns, E. J. 1925-28 Buzacott, N. J. 1928-31 Carolan, E. F. 1971-77 Cayley, G. A. E. 1965Chant, A. P. 1925-26 Chapman, H. W. 1950-53 Chapman, W. E. 1908 Cheadle, G. H. 1927-28 Collins, J. T. 1953-55 Colliss, R. S. 1962-65 Crockford, A. L. 1902-08 Cropley, E. F. 1902-5 380

Cruikshank, J. G. 1922-25 Culbert, H. 1948-56 D’Arrietta, W. 1896-98 Davis, T. A. 1879-87 Denniss, J. 1895-1908 Dickson, E. 1944-50 Doolan, B. D. 1925-28 Draper, J. E. 1903-14 Dunlop, J. 1922-25 Eccles, J. W. 1952-71 English, E. 1922-24 English, W. 1932-43 Evans, H. J. 1948-56 Ewen, J. H. 1920-25 Ferguson, A. 1914-17 Ferrier, L. A. 1944-48 Folster, J. 1948-50 Foord, C. J. C. 1889-91, 1894-95, 1914-17 Forsyth, R. J. 1899-1902 Gorrie, J. F. 1977Griffiths, M. C. 1950-52 Hale, J. M. 1958-59, 1965-1971 Hall, H. K. 1917-22, 1925, 1944-48 Harris, A. H. 1926-27 Harris, A. 1889-91 Hartill-Law, W. E. 1934-44 Hawes, C. R. 1910-14 Henry, R. A. 1974-77 Heynes, A. 1956-62 Hillard, W. 1900-6 Hocking, G. F. W. 1911-25 Hodgkins, J. E. 1948-50 Hollier, E. C. 1946-50

Holmes, E. 1925-28 Howard, W. S. 1944-48 Hughes, P. A. 1928-34, 1953-58 Huntly, A. P. 1901-4 Hutchinson, L. W. M. 1965-68 Iverson, C. L. 1905-6 Jacob, W. J. 1934-37, 1941-48 Johnsen, O. A. 1937-41 Keir, J. 1911-17 Kennedy, B. J. 1971-74 Knapton, G. L. 1950-53 Knox, D. A. 1968-71 Langley, W. J. 1961-65 Lees, F. R. 1928-34 Leonard, G. M. 1959-66 Lorking, S. R. 1892-1900 Lovejoy, H. R. 1922-24 McBean, J. 1885-90,1895-1902 McCulloch, J. 1906-11 McLean, K. J. 1953-59 McPherson, H. A. 1934-38 MacPherson, H. M. 1971-74 Mahon, (Mrs) J. A. 1977Mannix, F. P. 1932-37 Marsh, E. A. 1907-10 Mattox, F. P. 1932-37 Mayo, J. H. 1977Meredith, F. 1902-8 Messiter, R. C. 1911-14 Miller, H. 1934-37 Moncur, W. 1917-20 Morris, J. J. 1956-59 Morris, S. M. 1955-62 Moss, H. 1914-22 Moss, K. J. 1973Mountford, J. G. 1974Mulder, A. W. 1962-73 Mulder, G. H. 1948-56 Nevill, W. F. 1901 Newton, (Dr) W. T. 1917-22 Nicoll, B. R. M. 1917-22, 1924-25 Nicoll, G. W. 1890-99 North, A. 1925-28 O’Connor, W. P. 1968-74 O’Neil, J. E. 1880-83 Parry, S. E. 1928-47 Pate, A. J. 1959-71

Pate, R. G. 1956-65 Pearce, J. H. 1977Penfold, R. A. 1904-5 Pettit, R. F. 1965-68 Phillips, L. J. 1948-53 Poole, E. J. 1887-95 Poole, J. G. 1971-74 Preston, A. M. 1914-20 Pritchard, S. A. 1920-22 Quigg, F. 1879-82 Quigg, J. 1885-1903, 1905-6, 1908-11 Reddacliff, T. 1937-38, 1940-48 Reid, R. E. 1928-34 Roberts, M. 1880-84 Robertson, J. 1911-13 Robinson, P. C. 1914-17 Rossiter, F. R. 1902 Rudd, I. D. 1932-44 Rydge, N. B. 1925-27 Sayers, E. T. 1879 Scahill, P. J. 1889-1901, 1908-14 Scahill, T. 1879 Schofield, R. J. 1953-1962 Scott, J. S. 1956-74 Scott, R. E. 1885-89 Sharp, J. C. 1880-85, 1888-89 Sharp, P. V. C. 1908-1914, 1917-20 Simpson, S. H. 1934-37 Slocombe, J. 1883-87, 1891-93 Slocombe, P. S. J. 1928-31 Smith, W. G. 1909-17 Sproule, J. 1879 Squire, S. C. 1953-59 Stanley, F. 1925-28 Stephenson, E. H. 1922-28 Stewart, J. K. J. 1965-71, 1974-77 Stone, J. C. 1890-1902 Summerfield, R. P. 1901-4 Tasker, W. S. 1925-31, 1937-44 Taylor, B. 1883-88,1904-11 Taylor, J. W. 1948-56 Thompson, A. 1887-90 Thompson, (Mrs) J. 1965-68 Thorncraft, H. R. 1943-56 Treleaven, A. G. 1956-59 Turner, H. S. 1917-22 Warren, S. E. 1941-50 381

Warton, K. J. 1971-77 Warton, (Mrs) M. D. 1974-77 Waterworth, A. 1928-34 Webb, V. R. 1950-52 Whitfield, H. C. 1931-34 Whittington, N. H. 1977-78 Williams, C. G. 1968-

Williams, F. 1882-85 Williams, G. Q. 1948-50 Wilson, J. A. 1914-17 Wilton, H. M. 1974Yard, A. E. 1950-56 Young, A. L. 1906-8

LIST OF TOWN CLERKS 1879-1880 1880-1882 1883 1883-1888 1888-1902 1902-1907 1907-1910 1911 1911-1912

N. W. Quigg E. T. Sayers S. M. Burrowes H. M. Innes B. Taylor F. Davis S. E. Marsden C. L. Iverson (Acting) H. L. Dunstan (Acting)

1912-1914 1914-1929 1930-1934 1934-1941 1941-1942 1942-1948 1948-1965 1965-1973 1973-

F. Haworth J. L. Sutton R. A. Brouff E. Jay C. Hunt R. A. Brouff S. H. Lofts J. D. Wheeler J. E. Whitmar

MR. J. E. WHITMARSH TOWN CLERK

MR. D. H. SHEFFIELD CHIEF ENGINEER / TOWN PLANNER

382

MR. K. HACKSHALL MUNICIPAL HEALTH SURVEYOR

ALDERMEN

H. C. BIRKINSHAW

G. A. E. CAYLEY

J. F. GORRIE, J.P.

(MRS) J A. MAHON

H. M. BULL, J.P.

J H. MAYO

383

ALD. J. G. MOUNTFORD, MAYOR Ald. John Graham Mountford was born in 1933 at Punchbowl. His father was a Scottish migrant and his mother an Australian with Irish parents. He is married with a son and a daughter and occupies a residence in Punchbowl built originally by his father, fifty years ago. Thus Ald. Mountford has lived in the one house and in the municipality all his life. He had his primary education at the local convent school of St. Jerome and for his secondary school he attended De La Salle College Marrickville, gaining the Intermediate Certificate in 1949. He is a qualified accountant with experience in private enterprise and government and is presently employed by the N.S.W. Department of Tourism as development officer.

ALd. Mountford has been greatly interested in the Labor Party from his childhood and in 1960 he joined the Punchbowl Branch to which his father had belonged in the 1940’s and of which he has been secretary for the past thirteen years. He served as president of Lang Federal Electorate Council and Campaign Director for the Hon. F. E. Stewart, M.P. from 1969 until the abolition of the electorate in 1977. Currently, he is senior vice-president of the Banks Federal Electorate Council.

Ald. Mountford became interested in local government in his teens and joining the local progress association at eighteen years, he immediately saw the need for a strong representation to enable local suburban dwellers to enjoy a high standard of living. Local government being closest to the people, provides those services with which they come into daily contact.

ALd. Mountford was elected unopposed to the Canterbury Council for West Ward at a by-election in April, 1974 and similarly at the 1974 September elections. In 1977 the Council adopted the separate election of the mayor by the people which was won by Ald. Mountford by an absolute majority. He was also returned for West Ward.

Ald. Mountford believes that politics is an important element in local government as a political team can plan development on a long term basis and carry out essential works on a priority basis for the benefit of the whole Municipality. The need for long term planning is most necessary if people are to have their way of life positively improved.

The mayoress, Valerie Mary Mountford (nee Johnstone) lived at Canter­ bury prior to her marriage. She was born at Annandale and lived at Stanmore for most of her childhood. She was educated at St. Michael’s Convent School Stanmore and worked as a stenographer with the Sydney County Council and Bankstown Council. Mrs. Mountford is interested in welfare work and is the secretary of the Ladies Conference of the Punchbowl St. Vincent de Paul Society.

384

ALD. J. R. BEAMAN Ald. James Beaman was born in 1910 at Balmain and educated at St. Joseph’s Catholic School Rozelle and Sydney Technical High, Ultimo. He was married at Homebush in 1939 and has a son and two daughters. He moved into his own home in Earlwood in 1940. He served with the R.A.A.F. for three years in the last war mostly on active service in New Guinea and New Britain. His aim has been the improvement of the quality of life throughout the munici­ pality in general and South Ward in particular. To accomplish this he has been active in local affairs for almost forty years. From 1941 to 1956 he was honorary secretary of the Progress Associations of South Ward and his election as Alderman in December, 1956 followed naturally from his active interest in local government. His real worth as an alderman was soon discovered by the electors who have returned him eight times on the first count. By the end of the current period in 1980 he will have served twenty four consecutive years, an all time record of service for a Canterbury alderman. During this period he has been twice mayor and four times deputy mayor.

Ald. Beaman became president of Customs House R.S.L. Sub-Branch after his return from active service. He was awarded life membership for his interest in Canterbury Hospital and he is well-known for his active assistance to sporting organisations, youth groups and the senior citizens.

ALD. H. C. BIRKINSHAW Ail. Harold Birkinshaw was born in 1925 and lived originally at Kensington where he attended our Lady of the Rosary School. The early war years were spent at Sydney Grammar School and in 1942, he enlisted in the R.A.A.F. until discharged in 1946. He was married at Our Lady of the Rosary Church Kensington and has a daughter and a son.

Ald. Birkinshaw had always been interested in the labor movement and in the 1950’s joined the Hyde Park Branch of the Labor Party and for several years served as its vice president. On moving to Lakemba, Ald. Birkinshaw joined the local A.L.P. branch of which he is currently president. Being greatly active in community affairs he sought and gained election as an alderman for North Ward in May, 1978.

ALDERMAN H. M. BULL, J.P. Ald. Harold Bull was born in Newtown in 1915. He is married with two daughters. He was educated at Christian Brothers, Newtown and Marist Brothers Commercial College, Church Hill, Sydney. In 1932, at the age of seventeen he joined Wormald International where he has served for forty six years and is currently an inspector of fixed fire protection installations.

385

Ald. Bull was first elected to the Council at a by-election in 1967 and has served two terms as Deputy Mayor, 1972-3 and 1976-77. He is active on the Finance, Plans and Specifications, Works, Library, Youth Advisory and Welfare Committees. He is especially interested in the care and welfare of the community’s adolescent and frail aged members and towards this end has undertaken several honorary activities. He is a foundation vice-president of Canterbury Community Aid Bureau, President of Canterbury Community Co-ordinating Conference and a member of Canterbury Ethnic Forum.

ALDERMAN G. A. E. CAYLEY Alderman George Cayley was born in 1918 at Belmore, where both his grandparents and parents had lived before him. His grandfather was an employee of the Council and his father was coach builder. Alderman Cayley also married a local girl and has five children. He was educated in Belmore and Campsie and Belmore Technical High School. He is a painter, decorator and a sign writer with the Public Transport Commission and served in the last war with the 7th Australian Field Engineers, A.I.F. Alderman Cayley was elected to the Council in 1965, West Ward, then known as the ‘Cinderella’ because of the lack of sealed roads, footpaths, kerbing and guttering and huge drainage problems. Nowadays, most of these major works problems have been resolved. He was the instigator of the Canterbury Municipal Golf Course and the resolution to implement the meals on wheels scheme. He was one of the original proposers of Roselands swimming pool, the establishment of senior citizen centres, Belmore sportsground and Wiley Park beautification scheme. His concern for the pensioners is shown by his efforts in 1967 for a full rate rebate and for the youth of the Municipality by exposing before Council in 1969 active drug and narcotics operations being undertaken in Canterbury which led to investigations by the authorities. He has striven for town planning and zoning improvements and stricter control of building and high density development. He is the Council’s institutional member of the Library Association of Australia and was a delegate to the Royal Australian Institute of Parks & Recreation Conference in Burnie Tasmania, 1978.

Alderman Cayley has been a member of the A.L.P. since 1950, is Secretary of the Punchbowl Park Branch and has served as a delegate on A.L.P. electoral councils and conferences. He is a past president of the Painters and Decor­ ators Trade Union and was a delegate to the Trade and Labour Councils and A.C.T.U. For his service to the trade union movement he received a Queen’s Coronation Medal.

Alderman Cayley is interested in sport from the early 1930’s being involved in junior rugby league and later golf and bowls and is the senior vice-president of Punchbowl Diggers’ Bowling Club.

386

ALD. J. F. GORRIE, J.P. Ald. John Gorrie, J. P. was born in 1937 at Grenfell, N.S.W. and eight years later his family moved to Riverwood within the Municipality. He was educated at St. Therese, Lakemba, and Christian Brothers, Burwood. He is married with two daughters.

Ald. Gorrie has been an active member of the A.L.P. for many years, serving as secretary of the Harcourt Branch and the Lang Electorate Council for the eight years prior to its abolition. He was elected to the Canterbury Council in September, 1977.

Ald. Gorrie has always been active in the organisations within the district, having been secretary of the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Herne Bay during the period when the housing settlement was at its peak. He is active in Parents & Friends Association at the local convent and in 1977 he was appointed to the Board of Directors of Sydney Hospital. His wife Shirley, too is a keen local worker, particularly for the meals-on-wheels service.

Having resided in Canterbury for the greater part of his life he would like to see more civic pride within the district and sincerely hopes that this centenary year will rekindle renewed pride and vigour in the people of Canterbury.

ALDERMAN (MRS.) J. A. MAHON Ald. Judy Mahon was born in Cooma and being daughter of a railway man she spent most of her life in country towns.

She attended schools at Ganmain, Goulburn and Camden and then became a bank clerk, following which she had an early introduction into local government by serving as a clerk for the Muswellbrook Shire Council. She was married in 1954 and after moves to Wollongong, several metropolitan suburbs and Canberra she finally came to Earlwood in 1970.

Ald. Mahon has always had a special interest in government and from this stemmed her decision to nominate for Canterbury Council, a difficult one for a mother of four children. The three most important issues uppermost in her mind were the development of Botany Bay, the paucity of women in Australian government and the general discrimination against women. As a member of the Labor team she was elected an alderman for South Ward at the 1977 elections. She has brought to the Council the varied experiences of a family person, environmentalist and a woman.

Ald. Mahon is a member of the Botany Bay Resident Action Group pledged to oppose its further development. She enjoys her work as an alderman of Canterbury Council because she feels that she is giving women a voice in local government, and is striving to restore quality of life to the people of the Municipality by working for the preservation of the environment and attending to the community’s social needs.

387

ALDERMAN J. H. MAYO Alderman James Mayo was born in New Zealand in 1939, and after a high school education, he joined the Bank of New South Wales. He took a particular interest in scouting and attained the status of scoutmaster. This association was the catalyst which lured him into community affairs, parti­ cularly those with emphasis on youth. After serving four years with the bank he came to Australia on a holiday where its greater advantages induced him to take up permanent residence in Earlwood. He first obtained a position in his uncle’s Campsie produce store, and then joined Twentieth Century Blinds, Earlwood, as a trainee blindmaker, from which lowly position, he eventually became general manager and director, controlling a staff of 250 employees.

Alderman Mayo married an Earlwood girl, Judith Tweedie, and has two children. During his twenty years residence in the Municipality he has shown a keen interest in Canterbury’s community affairs. He has retained his interest in scouting, being involved with McCallum’s Hill Scout Movement. His sporting interests lie with Earlwood Wanderers Soccer Club, and, when time permits, he enjoys golf and fishing. He is a member of Canterbury-Hurlstone Park R.S.L. ALDERMAN K. J. MOSS, J.P.—DEPUTY MAYOR Alderman Kevin Moss was born in 1946 and is a fifth generation resident of Canterbury. His ancestor was John McCoy who first settled in Moorefields in the eighteen fifties.

His interest in local government stems naturally from his sincere belief that ‘it’s the closest form of government to the people and administers to such a wide range of the community’s needs.’ He was elected to the Council at a by-election in June, 1973, and has been returned in 1974 and 1977, serving as deputy mayor in 1976.

As an endorsed Labor alderman, he believes in a politically structured council because he feels that only a team pledged to defined policies, when elected as a majority, is capable of implementing its policies. Though he is fully aware that the greatest part of Council funds must be spent on the more mundane but essential aspects, he has particular interests in the Council’s environmental, welfare, recreational and historical programmes. ‘I am’, he asserts, ‘proud of being part of a team which has has supported me in such programmes without neglecting the Council’s traditional role’.

Ald. Moss sincerely hopes to remain on the Council to continue his work alongside the staff and local residents at the ‘grass roots’ level of government.

Thus he expresses his gratitude to his electors for the opportunity to partake in community planning and seeing these plans involve into worthwhile projects.

388

ALD. J. H. PEARCE, LLB Ald. James Pearce was born at Paddington in 1953. His parents Harry and Agnes Pearce both worked in the printing industry. His maternal grandfather James Hunter immigrated from Scotland and his grandmother from Man­ chester. His paternal grandmother came from Dublin.

Ald. Pearce’s family came to Earlwood in 1959 and his mother now resides at Waygrove Avenue. He was educated at Our Lady of Lourdes and Lewisham Christian Brothers Schools. He then attended Sydney University where he graduated in law.

During his school days and when at University, Ald. Pearce became involved in the Labor movement and in 1975 was elected State Secretary of N.S.W. Young Labor Council. Currently he works for a trade union.

ALD. C. G. WILLIAMS, J.P. Ald. Colin Williams was born in 1928 at Orange, N.S.W., and is married with three children. After moving to Canterbury in 1935, he was educated at Campsie Public and Dulwich Hill Commercial Schools. He then gained a Certificate in Economics from Sydney University. Though a carpet-layer by trade he has been a company director for the last twenty eight years.

Ald. Williams was first elected to the Council in 1968. He served as mayor from 1971-7, the second longest continuance term for that office in the municipality’s history. His achievements while mayor include the new codes for residential flat building, density of population and factories. Senior Citizens Centres were built at Punchbowl, Earlwood, Lakemba and Riverwood and the Community Aid Bureau established. Ald. Williams has been active in the sphere of public health, playing a prominent part in the construction of the pulveriser (shredder) metalic separator at Salt Pan Creek, the first of it's kind in Australia. Other work included the Health Department depot and seven zone contract waste collection system. Finally he was responsible for the introduction for the first time in Canterbury of the election of the mayor by the people and during his mayoral term of office naturalized over 9000 migrants.

Ald. Williams has a keen interest in local government. He was a delegate to the local Government Conferences 1969-77 and has the honour of being the only Canterbury alderman to be elected to the Local Government Association Executive, serving as a member 1973-4 and 1974-5.

ALD. H. M. WILTON Ald. Max Wilton was born in Mudgee in 1918 and is married with three children. He is a direct descendant of James Bloodworth, the founder of the 389

Australian brick making industry and earliest colonial architect who came in the Friendship, with the first fleet in 1788.

He has been a resident of the Municipality for twenty seven years and for the past fifteen years has conducted a service station business in Earlwood.

During his residence in the municipality he has been very active in community affairs, particularly children’s activities and currently president of Canterbury-Bankstown Tennis Association.

390

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. BOOKS Adams, D. (ed.), Letters of Rachel Henning, (Reprint), A. &c R. Sydney, 1966.

Aird, W. V. The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney, 1788-1960, M. W. S. and D. Board, Sydney, 1961.

Anderson, G. F., Fifty Years of Electricity Supply, Sydney County Council, Sydney, 1955.

Backhouse, J., A Narrative of a Visit to the Australian Colonies, Hamilton Adams, London, 1843.

Barnard, M., A History of Australia, A. &c R. Sydney, 1962.

Beaglehole, J. C. (ed.), Journals of Capt. James Cook, Vol. 1, The Voyage of the Endeavour, 1768-1771, Cambridge, 1955.

Birch, A., Macmillan, D. S., The Sydney Scene, 1788-1960, M.U.P., 1962.

Bradley, W., A Voyage to New South Wales, 1786-1792, Reprint, 1968 Brown, A. J., Sherrard, H. M., Town and Country Planning, M.U.P. 1959.

Fletcher, J., Burnswoods, J., Government Schools of New South Wales, 1848-1976, N.S.W. Dept. Education, 1977.

Cameron, J., A Century History of the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales, A. &c R. Sydney, 1905.

Clark, C. M. H., A History of Australia, Vol. 1, M.U.P., 1962.

Collins, D., An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales, Cadell & Davies, London, 1798.

Colwell, J., The Illustrated History of Methodism in Australia, 1812-1855.

Crocker, T. C., Memoirs of Joseph Holt, Colburn, London, 1838.

Colonial Sugar Refinery Co. (Various Authors), South Pacific Enterprise, A. &c R., Sydney, 1956.

Ellis, M. H., Lachlan Macquarie, (3rd edn.), A. & R. Sydney, 1958.

Fletcher, B. H., Landed Enterprise and Penal Society, S.U.P., Sydney, 1976.

Fowles, J., Sydney in 1848, Fowles, Sydney, 1848.

Geeves, P., Jervis, J., Rockdale, Rockdale Municipal Council, Sydney, 1954.

Gibbs &c Shallard, Illustrated Guide to the International Exhibition at Sydney, G. &C S., Sydney, 1879.

Gordon & Gotch, Glimpses of Australia, G. & G., Sydney, 1897.

Ham, J., A Biographical Sketch of the Life and Labours of the Late William Pascoe Crook, Melbourne, 1846.

Hassal, J. S., In Old. Australia, Brisbane, 1902.

Helmore, B.-A., The Laws of Real Property, (2nd edn.), Law Book Co., Sydney, 1966.

Henry, F. J. J., The Water Supply and Sewerage of Sydney, M.W.S. &c D. Board, Sydney, 1939.

Herman, M. E., The Blackets—An Era of Australian Architecture, A. &c R. Sydney, 1963.

Hooper, M., Everyday Inventions, Pan Books, Sydney, 1975.

Hunter, J., An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and Norfolk Island, Stockdale, London, 1793 (reproduced, 1968).

391

Hurstville Municipal Council, Jubilee History of Hurstville, W. C. Penfold, Sydney, 1937.

Jervis, J, A History of the Municipality of Canterbury, (Typescript). Canterbury Municipal Council, 1951.

Kenny, T., Who Murdered Dr. Wardell of Petersham?, (pub. by author), Sydney, 1971.

Lang, J. D., Narrative of the Settlement of the Scots Church, Sydney, N.S. W'., A. Hill, Sydney, 1828.

Larcombe, F. A., A History of Local Government in New South Wales, 3 vols. Local Government Association, S.U.P. 1973-1978.

Botany, 1788-1970, (2nd edn.), Botany Municipal Council, Sydney, 1970.

Laughton, G. A., A Century of Achievement, The Laughton Story, 1860-1960, Ebor Press, York (Eng.), 1960.

Lynch, W. B., Larcombe, F. A., Randwick, 1859-1976 (2nd edn.), Randwick Municipal Council, 1976.

Macquarie, L., Journal of His Tours of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, 1810-22, (Reprint), Pub. Lib. of N.S.W., Sydney, 1956.

Marrickville Municipal Council, Marrickville—75 Years of Progress, 1861-1936, Marrickville, 1936.

Maxwell, C. F. (ed.), Australian Men of Mark, 1788-1888, n.d. Melbourne (2 vols.).

Perry, T. M., Australia's First Frontier, Melbourne, 1965 (Reprint).

Pike, D. (ed.), Australian Dictionary of Biography, (6 vols.), M.U.P. 1968-1976.

Reid, G. R. S., The History of Ebenezer—Australia’s Oldest Church, 1939.

Ruhen, C., (ed.), Ashfield, 1871-1971, Horwitz, Sydney, 1972.

Shepherd, A. M., The Story of Petersham, 1793-1948, Petersham Municipal Council, 1948.

Southey, R., The Life of Wesley and The Rise and Progress of Methodism, Vol. 2.

Steven, M. J. E., Merchant Campbell, Oxford, Melbourne, 1965.

Tench, W., A Complete Account of the Settlement of Port Jackson in New South Wales, London, 1793.

Wells, W. H., A Geographical Dictionary or Gazetteer of the Australian Colonies, 1848, (Facsimile), Library of N.S.W., 1970.

Whitworth, R. P. (ed.), Bailliere’s New South Wales Gazettes and Road Guide, (2nd edn.), Melbourne, 1870.

Wood, G. A., The Discovery of Australia, Macmillan, London, 1922.

2. BOOKLETS AND PAMPHLETS Belmore B. C., 25th Birthday Celebrations, 1973.

Campsie, Souvenir Campsie Shopping carnival, 1919.

Canterbury Municipal Council, Souvenir, Opening Canterbury Municipal Administration Buildings, 1963 and Opening of Refuse Shredding Plant, 1975.

Centenary Committee, 100 Years of Methodism in Canterbury, 1847-1947, 1947.

Cook’s River Improvement League, Ocean to Ocean Opportunity, 1928.

Gledhill, P. W., A History of St. Peter’s Church of England, Cook’s River, 1958.

Gleed, G., The Story of Rainsfords Pty. Ltd., Kingsgrove, NSW, 1928-78 Greenwood, E., St. Paul’s Canterbury—The Story of a Parish, 1960.

392

Jubilee Editorial Committee, Golden Jubilee, Church of Christ, Belmore, 19061956, 1956.

Kingsgrove High School, The North Grove, 1959.

Lakemba B. C., Golden Jubilee, 1925-1975, 1975.

Moorfields Methodist Church, A Century of Methodism, 1851-1951, 1951.

Pulsford, D. W., Collins—100 Years in Australia, Punchbowl High School, The Voyagers, 1964.

St. Mel’s Church, Campsie, Diamond Jubilee, 1915-1975, 1975.

Western Suburbs D.C.C., Fifty Years of Cricket, 1926-1976, 1976.

Whitfield, J. E., The Earlwood Presbyterian Church, 1926-1976, 1976.

3. ARTICLES Angel, J., Sydney’s Cook’s River Community, D.U.R.D. Community, 9 April, 1975.

Bethel, W. E., Tall Timber, Sydney Sun, 9 May, 1931.

Boden, E. G., Sugar Refinement; It’s Australian Beginning, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August, 1933.

Brown, J. R. E., They All Said It Would Never Work, Canterbury Ice Skating Rink, Sport and Recreation Service, Newsletter, No. 6 Spring, 1975.

Freame, W., Sylvan Scenes, Ocean to Ocean Opportunity, 1928.

Green, J., Model Suburb: Harcourt, Burwood, Centennial Magazine, 1889-90, Vol. 2.

Lee, I., Pioneer of Christianity in Australia, Empire Review, April, 1909.

Parry, R. B., An Old Sydney Suburb, Evening News, 14, 21 November, 1908.

Salmon, M., The Suburbs of Sydney; Canterbury and Belmore, Evening News, 24 September, 1904.

4. HISTORICAL SOCIETY JOURNALS Canterbury: Currey, I. E.

Lloyd, R. G. Madden, B. J. Peek, N. K.

Roberts, T. M.

Early History of the Moorefields District Frederick Clissold The Settlement of Lakemba District The Towers Subdivision—Large Grants to Small Lots Attack by Natives Early Education at Punchbowl and Lakemba Canterbury House Cornelius Prout Stoneless Bay and Harcourt The Fenwick Family George Wallace Nicoll The Earlwood and Undercliffe Districts

Hurstville: Madden, B. J.

The Background to the Townson Grants,

Stevens, L. K.

Forest to Suburbia,

S 2 No. 2 S 2 No. 3 S 2 No. 3 S 2 No. 2 S 2 No. 8 Dept. Educ. Files S 2 No. 6 S 2 No. 5 S 2 No. 8 S 2 No. 4 .

S 2 No. 7 S 2 No. 2 Monograph No. 5 Monograph, No. 4 393

Tearle, S. E. Hannah Laycock of King’s Grove Farm—Brochure R.A.H.S. Swynny, F. R., Moorfields, N.S.W., R.A.H.S. Journal, October, 1944.

Wood, G. A., The Reverend Richard Johnson, R.A.H.S. Journal, 1926-7, Vol. XII, Part 5.

5. REPORTS Barnett Committee, Local Areas and Administration, 1973.

Cook’s River Projects, 1973, 1976.

Fire Brigades Board, Annual Reports, 1907-08.

Local Government Department, Annual Report, 1932.

Metropolitan W. S. & D. Board, Annual Reports, 1889-1916, 1977 Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Cook’s River Improvements, 1896.

Marrickville-—Burwood Railway, 1889.

Royal Commissions: Administration of Fire Brigades Act, 1911.

Constitution of a Greater Sydney, 1913.

Local Government Boundaries, 1945.

Rating, Valuation and Local Government Finance, 1967.

Select Committee on Education, 1855.

Sport: Canterbury-Bankstown D.F.C. Canterbury-Bankstown D.J.F.C. Western Suburbs A.N.F.C. 6. OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS—NEW SOUTH WALES Calendar and Directory, 1832.

Calendar and Post Office Directory, 1833.

Census, 1828, 1841, 1846, 1851, 1856, 1861.

Government Gazette, from 1839.

Journal of the Legislative Council, 1843.

Official Post Office Directory 1846.

Parliamentary Debates, Hansard, 1879-1977.

Parliamentary Record, Vols. 1 (1856-1956), 2 (1956-74).

Returns of the Colony, 1846.

Statistical Register from 1880.

Statutes—Public, Private from 1833.

7. SOURCE MATERIAL Historical Records of New South Wales Municipal Minutes Ashfield M.C. 1880-1883 Canterbury, M.C. 1879-1978 Randwick M.C. 1869 Registrar General’s Department—Grants Indexes, Grant Serials, Transfer Registers

394

8. NEWSPAPERS Advertiser (Ashfield) Alert (Campsie) Australian Campsie News & Lakemba Advance Echo (Sydney) Empire (Sydney) Evening News Illustrated Sydney News Sun-Herald Sydney Gazette Sydney Herald 8c Morning Herald Sydney Sun

9. MAPS Brownrigg W., Maps of the Parishes of the County of Cumberland, about 1850.

Department of Lands, Land Grants, Canterbury Municipality, Maps 1-4.

Grimes C., Plan of the Settlements in New South Wales 1796 Frontispiece, Historical Records of N.S.W., Vol. 3.

Higinbotham, Robinson, Harrison—The Country between George’s and Cook’s Rivers 1885.

Kelly, M. Crocker R., Sydney Takes Shape, Macleay Museum, University of Sydney, 1977.

Willis J. A. C., Port Jackson, City of Sydney and Adjacent Municipalities, 1868.

10. MISCELLANEOUS Australian Encyclopaedia Files: Australia Post (History Branch) Canterbury Municipal Library Department of Education (History Branch) N.S.W. Police, Public Relations Office McGarvie Papers, Mitchell Library The Ice Skating Club (N.S.W.) Submission to the Dept. Tourism and Recrea­ tion—Area Improvement Programme, 1974.

Shell Refining (Aust) Ltd., Environmental Impact Statement on Pipeline—Botany Bay to Rosehill, 1974.

395

INDEX PERSONS Abercrombie, A. 108 Abbott, J. P. 196 Abramaovitch, M. 292 Adcock, R. 369-70 Airey, C. 220 Alami, S. 292 Alexander, J. 89 Allen, A. 186 Allen, G. 340 Allen, K. D.312 Allen, W. 214 Ames, H. 214 Amos, T. 311 Amson, R. 326 Anderson, C. 335 Anderson, F. 335 Andrews, L. W. 225 Andrews, J. 352 Andy, W. 346 Angelo, E. 346-7 Anglim, Sr. B. 285 Anslep, J. 28, 38 Antoniou, J. 317 Armour, J. 319-20 Armstrong, A. 339 Arthur, A. P. 346 Ashworth, J. A. 181 Askham, A. C. 346 Asquith, A. 328 Atkins, H. E. G. 290 Ayr, N. 215 Bagley, K. A. 220 Bailey, R. 334 Baillie, G. W. 246 Barden, A. 346 Barker, T. 143 Barnes, A. E. 206 Barnes, F. 346 Barnes, J. 237 Barnes, W. 206 Barrett, I. 292 Barton, K. 255 Barttier, H. 352 Batty, D. 28, 38 Bavister, T. 324 Baxter, P. 215 Beaman, J. R. 244, 385 Beasley, J. 246 Beattie, F. 351-2 Beer, J. 349 Bell, F. 290

396

Bell, (Fr.) P. 285, 308 Bell, W. S. 132 Bemish, F. 30, 179 Bennett, H. G. 215 Bennett, J. Ill Bennett, R. 329 Bennett, R. (Soc.) 339 Bennett, R. L. 345 Bennett, W. 28, 42 Benson, D. 329 Bentley, J. 28, 42, 45, 76 Bentley, Lt. 59 Berghofer, FL 281 Bernard, W. 280 Bethel, E. 80 Bigge, J. 23 Billeke, R. 319 Bingham, A. 292 Birch, E. 185 Bird, T. W. 314 Birk, T. 280 Birkinshaw, H. C. 244, 385 Birrell, C. 163 Birrell, J. T. 280 Black, W. C. 303 Blacket, E. T. 132 Blackwell, W. 350 Bligh, Gov. W. 24 Board, J. 292 Boddy, S. 327 Bohlson, D. 348 Boland, Fr. H. 308-9 Bond, A. 38, 83, 89, 104 Bond, J. 89 Bond, W. 28,38, 85, 116 Booth, R. 297 Bowden, T. W. 109 Bowen, E. C. 310 Bowers, T. 28, 38 Bradburn, R. 166 Bradley, W. 19,57, 100 Braimson, T. 28, 35 Bramston, G. FL 219, 222-3, 225 Brand, E. 215 Brand, S. 215 Brandt, P. 281 Breakspear, M. 351 Brice, W. 214 Bridge, P. 345 Brien, J. 330

Briggs, R. 326 Brinkley, A. W. 339-40 Broderick, J. W. 294 Brodier, J. 371 Brook, S. 304 Brooks, W. 311 Brown, Ald. A. 193, 195, 198 Brown, Aub. 215 Brown, D. 331 Brown, F. 345 Brown, H. 348 Brown, J. 216 Brown, J. R. E. 353 Brown, W. 326 Browne, G. H. 305 Brunes, K. 352 Brunker, J. N. 272 Bruxner, M. F. 222 Bryan, J. 44 Bryant, T. 340 Bryant, W. J. 294 Buckley, T. 329-30 Buckman, D. 356 Bull, H. M. 244,320,385 Bull, J. 31 Burford, Sr. R. 293 Burgess, P. 340 Burke, W. 316-7 Burling, D. L. 288 Burling, W. 288 Burns, A. D. 297 Burns, E. 331, 335 Burns, E. E. 335 Burt, J. 44 Burton, A. 340 Butler, H. 28,38 Butt, B. 329 Butt, W. 310 Buttenshaw, E. A. 67, 219 Cahill, J. J. 67-8, 263 Calcutt, R. 28, 38, 85 Caldwell, B. 343 Cameron, S. D. 259 Campbell, E. 48 Campbell, M. 163 Campbell, Miss 65 Campbell, R. (Jun.) 80, 108 Campbell, R. (Sen.) 23-6, 48, 77, 82, 106-7, 120,

129, 132, 143-5 Campbell, S. I. 132 Campion, R. 343 Candler, A. G. 375 Cannon, C. 257 Capon, T. 28, 39 Carey, T. 331 Carr, L. 282 Carruthers, J. H. 84, 186, 197-9 Carruthers, W. 215 Carson, G. 347 Carswell, R. 350 Carter, Rev. J. 159, 186 Catley, J. 80 Cavey, T. 104 Cayley, G. A. E. 244, 284, 384 Chadwick, J. W. 163 Chambers, C. 79 Chami, K. 314-5 Champion, K. 340 Champion, J. 27-8, 45 Chandler, J. 85 Chapman, W. E. 206 Chard, D. 80 Chard, Jas. 35, 127 Chard, John, 35, 79-80, 128, 254 Chard, R. 35 Chard, T. 35, 127-8, 166 Charlton, K. 335 Chick, W. 198 Child, C. K. 105 Child, K. 48, 105 Child, W. K. 105, 107-11 Chisholm, J. 281 Clark, T. J. 364 Clarke, J. S. 42 Clarke, Fr. W. 308 Clatworthy, F. J. 258 Cleary, Sr. M. F. 286 Clements, F. M. 212 Clifton, T. 92 Clissold, F. 102-3, 151-2, 180-1, 183 Cohen, I. R. 208 Cole, E. C. 297 Coleman, C. 27, 34, 85 Coleman, G. 5, 63 Coleman, Jas, 116 Coleman, John, 64, 92

Collett, D. 329 Collins, W. 362-3 Colwell, J. 126 Condon, Fr. R. 285, 306 Conlon, H. R. 341 Cook, B. 243 Cook, C. 297 Cook, E. 328 Cook, (Capt.) J. 18, 56, 104 Cook, J. 92 Cooper, R. 292 Cooper, W. 343 Coops, A. 318 Copeland, H. 211 Corbin, Fr. E. 309 Corcoran, D. 345 Corkish, D. 351 Cotter, D. J. 347 Coulthard, B. 354 Coulthard, J. 353 Courtney, E. 331 Cowper, C. 80 Cox, L. 338 Cox, M. 305 Cox, W. 22-4 Cozens, S. 349 Crawford, J. 305 Crawley, J. 34 Crealy, P. 344 Creasey, H.‘ 292 Crichton, G. 356 Crockford, A. 273 Crook, A. 215 Crook, W. P. 28, 43-4 Cross, W. 159, 163 Crouch, S. 350 Croucher, V. 345 Crowhurst, R. 339-40 Cruickshank - 330 Culbert, H. 326-9 Curtis, G. 181 Curzon, J. 370 Cuthbert, G. 345 Cutler, S. 335 D’Arbon, P. 319 Dalton, Fr. J. 306, 308 Danahey, C. J. 197, 324 Daniels, T. 83 D’Antonio, B. 343 D’Arrietta, W. 193-5 Dart, G. 282 Date, R. 340 Davidson, G. 180, 219 Davey, A. G. 258 Davies, T. A. 180 Davies, T. E. 214 Davin, Sr. P. 286 Davis, A. 257 Davis, F. 64-5, 189 Davis, G. 180

Davis, R. 325 Davis, T. A. 83-4, 116, 154-7, 159-60, 164, 180,185,197,257,266 Davis, W. 215 Davis, W. L. 84, 181 Day, A. G. 305 Day, B. 297 Delauney, W. 338 Dellis, J. 292 De Montemus, M. 191 Denniss, J. 102, 193-4, 263, 272 Dent, G. 113 Dent, P. 355 Denton, M. 335 Dick, R. 193 Dickson, N. 354 Digby, N. R. 219 Dippert, M. F. 371 Donnelly, K. 345 Donovan, J. 340-1 Doolan, B. D. 66 Doolan, M. K. 353 Dostine, J. 306 Douglass, H. G. 80 Dowling, G. 335 Dowling, J. 79 Downes, G. 346 Draper, D. J. 126-7 Draper, J. E. 206 Draper, T. Ill Driscoll, J. 180 Durick, V. P. 220 Durrant, I. 309 Eastman, S. A. 310 Ebhart, F. 44 Eckhart, J. 113 Edmonson, L. G. 302 Edwards, A. 305 Egan, D. 79 Egan, W. 214 Eggleton, D. 356 Elliott, C. 43 Elliott, M. 166 Elphick, S. 292 Elphinson, M. 345 Elphinson, R. 345 Else-Mitchell, Jus. R. 232 Emery, W. 28, 38 Emmett, Const. 270 Endicott, A. 292 Englert, K. 355 Erskine, W. 351 Evans, I. J. 245 Everett, W. 329 Falloon, R. 329 Fanning, F. 121-2 Fanning, W. 121 Farley, J. A. 375

Farrar, A. 296 Farrell, W. 92 Farrow, J. 100, 102, 163 Faulkner, W. 28, 43, 45 Faux, T. 83 Fenton, K. 345 Fenwick, J. 176 Fenwick, P. 176 Featherstone, L. 150 Ferarris, K. 296 Ferns, G. 346 Fibbons, Z. 356 File, J. 83, 113 Finlay, J. 329 Fischer, R. 348 Fisher, T. J. 85 Fisher, W. 352 Fitzgerald, (Cyc.) J. 349 Fitzgerald, J. 272 Fitzpatrick, G. M. 258 Fitzpatrick, J. H. 326-7 Fletcher, A. C. 177 Fletcher, N. 348 Flint, E. 328, 335 Foord, F. 269 Forbes, W. 195 Ford, A. S. 246 Ford, C. 116 Ford, C. J. 181 Ford, P. 296 Forrester, E. 134 Forrester, J. 128 Forsdike, R. 246 Forsyth, B. 329 Fox, P. 104, 113 Fraser, J. 193,349 Fraser, M. 361 Franklin, G. 343 Franklin, J. 195 Franks, L. 345 Freckleton, F. 306 Frendt, F. 274 Fricker, H. 20 Funchion, Fr. R. 308 Gabb, C. 134, 151, 160 Gabb, J. 294,318 Gall, J. 102 Gall, J. (Ten) 355 Gallagher, P. 295 Gannon, W. 181 Gardiner, R. 49 Gardner, R. 31 Garratt, J. 352 Garwood, R. 326 Gelding, J. 116, 156 Gelding, W. 116 Geoghegan, L. 297 Germaine, C. 349 Gettens, C. 351 Gibson, E. M. 297 Gilbert, T. 339

Gilmore, F. 330 Gilroy, (Card) N. 292 Giltinan, R. 355 Gipps, (Gov.) G. 58 Glanville, K. 318 Goddard, A. 356 Goodlet, A. 125 Goodlet, E. 125 Goodlet, J. H. 124-5 Goodlet, M. H. 125 Goodmanson, H. 329-30 Goodwin, W. 27-8, 39 Goodyear, J. W. 373 Gorman, J. 28, 38 Gorrie, J. F. 244,387 Gorringe, E. 300 Gosling, G. 356 Grace, A. 186 Grace, A. E. 376 Grace, J. N. 376 Graham, K. 343 Graham, R. 292 Gray, D. 350 Gray, Jeanie, 312 Gray, J. A. 311 Greathead, J. 189 Greaves, J. 335 Greaves,—240 Green, M. J. 113 Green, T. 214 Grennan, J. 351 Griffiths, G. R. 121 Griffin, J. 208 Griffin, L. 331 Grose, F. 19, 20 Gunn, J. 329 Guthrie, F. 352 Hackshall, K. 246 Hagger, T. 305 Hall, F. 327 Hall, J. 304-5 Hall, K. 343 Hall, W. 304 Hallows, K. 346 Hallows, N. 346 Hammond, M. J. 260 Hamilton, W. 215 Hanley, Fr. F. 306 Hanley, M. 243 Hannon, W. 89 Harper, L. 339 Harris, B. 329 Harris, E. 294 Harris, H. 373 Harris, K. 325 Harris, J. 28,38,85 Harrison, C. 67 Harry, I. 341 Hart, W. H. 341 Hartwell, J. 330 Hartshorn, B. 83, 116, 256

397

Harvey, G. 343 Harvey, W. 343 Hascham, T. 92 Hassal, J. S. 129-35 Hassal, T. 129 Hasson, R. 335 Hawkes, C. 189 Hawkins, W. 75 Hayes, D. 263 Hayes, M. 348 Hazleton, R. 351 Heaton, H. 282 Hedgeland, G. 120 Hebblewhite, Mrs. 348 Heggie, D. G. 351 Heggie, G. D. 343 Heins, R. 373 Hellyer, W. 81-2 Hemsworth, C. 328-9 Hendy, R. 343 Henning, B. 124 Henning, R. 120-1, 124-5 Henry, J. 297 Henson, W. 84 Hetherington, L. 340 Hickman, Fr. R. 309 Hill, G. 103 Hill, R. 181 Hillard, T. 104, 272 Hillard, W. 206 Hinchey, T. R. 255 Hindron, W. 63 Hinwood, C. 347 Hird, W. 116, 184-5 Hitchin, U. M. 242 Hitchell, G. W. 237 Hoare, J. 272 Hobbs, H. 318 Hobbs, W. J. 240 Hocking, E. 347 Hocking, F. 346 Hocking, G. F. W. 20810,286 Hockley, S. 31 Hodge, J. S. 273 Hodgins, W. 327, 338 Hodgkinson, S. 28, 103 Hogan, C. 210 Hogan, J. 352 Hogue, J. A. 283 Holden, G. K. 132 Holland, B. 343 Holmes, A. 113 Holmes, L. 335 Holmes, W. 28,38 Holmes, N. 338 Holt, J. 22-3 Holt, T. 57, 59, 117 Hook, C. 24 Hook, H. 258 Hopkins, B. 334 Hopman, H. 355

398

Hopper, E. 310 Horne, R. 348 Hosking, J. 48-9 Howard, E. 172 Howell, H. 27 Howell, W. H. 245 Hudson, C. O. 259 Hughan, J. 346-7 Hughes, G. 327 Humphries, G. 288 Hunter, (Gov.) J. 57, 100 Hutt, J. 347 Hutton, J. C. 110, 360-1 Hyam, G. 295, 347 Hynde, T. 28, 43 Illingsworth, A. E. 305 Ifield, J. J. 206 Innes, Just. 185 Irvine, T. 351 Irving, C. 109 Jackson, H. 80 Jago, A. H. 237 Jamison, Dr. J. 23 Jarman, G. 343 Jarrett, F. C. 166 Jarvie, J. R. 283 Jeffres, J. 105 Jeff res, W. 105 Jeffreys, A. 18, 117, 120-1, 132, 179, 181 Jenkins, J. 82, 89 Jennings, A. 311 Jennings, C. 312 Joass, O. 339 Johnson, L. 335 Johnson, (Rev.) R. 19-22, 49,58, 100-1,126,180 Johnston, B. 220 Johnston, E. R. 291 Johns, L. 327, 335 Johns, T. 330, 347 Jolly, J. 92 Jones, D. 177 Jones, G. 259 lones, lim, 348 Jones, J. 80 Jones, J. H. 274 Joseph, Sr. M. 286 Josephson, J. 44 Julian, W. 292 Jupe, C. 354 Kavanagh, J. 355 Keane, R. 318 Kear, R. 335 Kebblewhite, L. 311 Keen, M. R. 244 Kef alas, E. 316 Kelly, (Arch.) M. 307-8 Kelsey, C. 113

Kemble, F. 105, 108 Kemple, K. 108 Kemple, W. 105 Kennett, L. 292 Kenny, Fr. P. 306-7 Kent, F. A. 306 Kerr, W. C. 192 Kerr, W. J. 192 Kerry, S. L. 295 Khalil, S. 319 Kidney, J. 355 King, E. 312 King, (Gov.) P. G. 18, 25-6, 56-7, 100 Kingsbury, H. H. 264 Kinney, I. 342-3 Kircaldy, R. 335 Knight, E. 310 Knight, W. 215 Knox, C. 109 Knox, E. 109-10 Krimmert, E. 347 Kyle, M. 310 Lack, R. 28, 38 Lackey, J. 211 Lalor, M. 128 Landrey, G. 329 Lane, F. 273 Lane, T. 31 Lang, J. D. 126, 133 Lang, J. T. 222 Larcombe, T. R. 193 Lauchlan, H. 92 Laughton, G. A. 372-3 Laughton, G. S. 372-3 Lawrence, P. 92 Lawson, W. L. 113 Laycock, H. 25-7, 30, 77, 82, 85,101 Laycock, S. 26, 28, 36,

100 Laycock, T. 25-6, 28 Laycock, W. 26, 28, 30, 81-2, 85 Lee, D. 345 Lees, B. 128 Lees, W. 127-8 Legge, J. H. 194 Leonard, R. F. 246 Lepre, M. 343 Lester, A. 152 Lester, F. 152 Levey, S. 30 Levingston, L. 348 Lewer, M. 309 Lewis, F. 127-8 Lewis, J. L. 327 Lewis, W. 343 Lie, Dr. K. 220 Lilienthal, M. 327 Lill, L. 351

Lonergan, F. 255 Lonergan, Fr. R. 285, 307-8 Lopez, P. 345 Lord, S. 23,26-7,31,49, 59 Lorking, S.R. 64,189-90, 193-4 Lowe, R. 136 Lucas, J. 107, 180 Lucas, S. 103 Lucas, W. 107 Lucille, Sr. 285 Lum, R. 329 Lynch, J. 354 Lynch, M. 354 Lynch, R. 246 Lyne, Fr. J. 308 Lyons, A. 318 Lyons, F. 259 Lyons, S. 143 Lysaght, C. 343 McAlpine, K. 298 McBean, J. 64, 186 McCabe, M. 28, 76 McCaffery, K. 335 McCaughey, Dr. D. 314 McCarty, J. 28,31 McCloskey, J. 104 McConnell, J. 331 McCoy, J. 113 McCreadie, M. B. 219 McCredie, R. 343 McCulloch, J. 206 Macdonald, J. A. 373 McDonald, A. 311 McDonald, M. 311 McDowell, D. 215 McFarlane, S. 338 McGarvie, J. 126 McGill, T. 104 McGlinchy, L. 348 McGlynn,Fr. J. 285,307-8 McGrath, P. 113 Mcllroy, Rev. 133 McKevett, J. 104 Mackie, M. 210 McKenzie, W. 310 McKillop, A. 351 McKillop, M. 293 Mackintosh, H. A. 310 Mackintosh, P. 310 McLaughlan, V. 344 MacLean, G. 342 McLellan, K. 351 McLeod, A. 351 McLeod, A. W. 216 McMahon, Fr. E. 308 McMahon, J. R. 216 McMahon, Dr. L. 219 McMartin, F. 152

McMinn, J. 116 McPherson, H. A. 347 Macquarie, (Gov.) L. 26, 34,38-9,75,77,100,' 256 Madden, J. 28, 38 Madden, R. 326 Maddison, J. 317 Maher, C. 350 Maher, F. 215 Mahon, J. A. 244,387 Mallett, G. 345 Maloney, F. 215 Manewell, T. 159 Manhood, D. 234 Mann, Dr. J. 183-4 Mann, Lt. 310 Manley, J. 309 Mansfield, T. 28, 30, 38 Markey, A. 215 Markham, G. 329 Marsden, R. 314 Marsden, S. 23, 44, 129 Marsh, E. A. 206, 260 Marshall, J. 310 Marshall, John, 311 Marshall, (Soc.) J. 339 Martin, A. 45 Martin, Rev. Jas. 80 Mason, R. 292 Massey, J. J. 283 Masters, N. 356 Matthews, N. H. 305 Maxwell, R. 28, 38 Mayne, W. (Cant.) 79 Mayne, W. (I.P.) 102 Mayo, J. H. 244, 388 Meehan, T. 79, Meek, B. 354 Meere, Fr. G. 308 Meredith, F. 28, 38, 116 Meredith, (Ald.) F. 206 Menzies, A. 309 Menzies, FI. 310 Messenger, D. 329 Miller, A. B. 116, 157, 160,281 Miller, E. A. 134 Miller, F. 330 Miller, G. 330 Miller, H. 346 Miller, J. 35 Miller, Mrs. 31 Miller, R. W. 214 Miller, S. 45,81-2,113 Miller, W. H. 134, 280 Mills, G. 219 Mills, L. 343 Milner, J. 92 Mitchell, J. 83 Moffit, W. 364 Mole, A. 329

Mole, D. 330 Molesworth, E. 65 Molloy, J. C. 81-2 Monckton, J. 352 Monckton, W. H. 186 Moncur, E. A. 212 Monk, G. 183 Monk, J. 132 Mooney, J. 154-5 Moore, P. 27, 31, 45 Moore, W. H. 31-2 Moran, (Card) P. F. 306 Morgan, H. R. 28, 38 Morgan, T. 311 Moriarty, J. 342 Morisset, J. 76 Moroney, M. 344 Morris, A. 345 Morris, R. 297 Morris, R. (R.U.) 329 Morrison, E. 215 Morrison, J. 330 Morrison, J. (Fioc) 357 Mortimer, S. 335 Morton, P. H. 237, 263 Moser, W. E. 234 Moss, H. 346 Moss, K. J. 69, 244, 388 Mountford, J. G. 234, 244, 247, 377, 384 Moxon, T. 28, 38 Mudiman, T. 309 Mulder, G. 294-5 Mulligan, M. 355 Murphy, A. 28, 38 Murphy, J. W. 259 Murphy, P. 113 Murray, C. 344 Murray, J. H. 347 Myles, D. 215 Nathan, J. 345 Nelson, B. 335 Neville, S. 343 Newham, E. 335 Newton, J. 22 Nicholl, G. W. 190-1.

198,208 Nicholls, W. 219 Nichols, I. 256 Nicholson, L. 349 Nightingale, J. 154-8, 160,164,181 Nightingale, T. 151 Nobbs, J. 28, 45 Noonan, F. 297 Norman, G. N. 293 North, Rev. A. 314, 319 North, B. 320 Northcote, (Gov.) J. 215, 294-5 Norton, C. 127

Norton, J. 127-8 Nowland, B. 28, 38 Oatley, F. 302 Oatley, J. 34-5, 49 O’Brien, Dr. E. 308 O’Brien, F. 318 O’Brien, F. J. 220 O’Brien, R. 329 O’Brien, T. 28, 38 O’Farrell, Fr. J. 308 O’Connor, P. 79 Ogden, H. 339 O’Hara, L. 292 Oliver, K. 350 O’Malley-Jones, K. 347 O’Neil, J.E. 151,155,157 O’Neill, Fr. D. 308 O’Neill, j. 81-2 Orr, J. C. 311 O’Toole, K. 292 Oydah, A. 314 Page, A. 280 Palmer, G. 219 Papapostolou, C. 316-7 Park,G. 215 Park, J. J. 312 Parker, H. 259 Parkes, H. 186 Parkes, Mrs. 312 Parkes, V. 190,194, 272 Parry, R. B. 83, 92, 100, 120, 183, 193,281-2 Parry, S. E. 176,215,219, 226, 244, 265, 356 Pascoe, L. 292, 317 Pasfield, D. 353 Pasfield, M. 354 Pashley, G. 28, 38 Pate, A. J. 244, 352 Pate, R. G. 235,244,318, 352 Paterson, E. 283 Paterson, I. 311 Patston, G. 234 Pearce, A. 342-3 Pearce, G. 342-3 Pearce, H. R. 342 Pearce, J. H. 244, 389 Pearce, R. 342 Pearce, S. 342 Pearce, S. H. 149 Pearson, J. 81, 150 Pearson, R. 215 Peart, J. 285 Peek, J. N. 294 Peek, J. R. 174 Pemberton, J. S. 374 Pendlebury, W. 104 Penfold, R. 189 Pengilly, W. 351

Penny, E. 345 Peponis, Dr. G. 335 Peponis, G. 317 Pepprell, W. 38 Perfrement, J. 80 Perrott, T. 83, 113, 133, 150-1, 154-6, 281 Perry, J. 30, 113 Pert, R. 189 Pethybridge, H. 350 Pettiford, J. 352 Phillip, (Gov.) A. 18, 57, 100, 254 Phillips, W. 42, 172-4 Pickard, H. 174 Pickering, G. 76 Piggott, F. 338 Pigott, W. H. 197,211 Piper, W. 28, 85 Pithers, J. 38 Pithers, W. 28, 35-6, 127, 254 Plowman, P. 352 Plunkett, Const. 63-4 Plunkett, J. 28, 38 Podmore, R. 28, 38 Polack, A. B. 27-8, 44-5, 76, 88 Poole, S. S. 49 Poor, W. 27 Popje, F. C. 281 Porter, H. 335 Postle, Mrs. 260 Potter, J. 312 Powell, E. 116 Power, P. 343 Preston, J. 352 Price, H. 63 Pring, W. M. 207 Pringle, A. 294 Pritchard, Matron, 219 Prout, C. 43, 59, 75-80, 82, 84-5, 113 Prout, E. 80 Pulsford, D. W. 364 Punch, L. A. 69 Punchon, W. 259 Quigg, F. 116,151,154-7 Quigg, Jas. 30, 83, 133, 151 Quigg, John, 64, 116, 158-60,194, 199, 200, 206, 208, 272 Quigg, N. W. 133, 150-1, 157-9 Quigg, S. 217 Quinn, Fr. 306 Rae, A. 305 Raffin, J. W. 293-4 Rainsford, C. 372

399

Rainsford, E. 373 Redhead, W. 345 Redman, J. 28,38-9,42-3, 77, 101, 104 Redman, J. G. 42 Redman, M. 39, 42 Redman, R. 42 Redman, W. 80, 163 Reem, A. 116 Rees, M. 345 Reeves, E. 310 Reeves, J. 310 Reid, E. 132 Reid, E. E. 132 Reid, J. 132 Reid, J. (B.B.) 343 Reid, R. 67 Richards, B. 66 Rider, P. J. 354 Ridgwell, J. 128 Ridgwell, S. 128, 134 Ridley, W. 133 Rigg, F. 214 Riley, T. 343 Rimes, J. D. 237 Roberts, M. 156-7 Roberts, R. 215 Robinson, A. 351 Robey, R. M. 109 Robey, W. J. 109 Roche, A. 355 Roger, W. W. 223 Rogers, L. 350 Rogers, M. 260 Rogers, W. 83, 92, 116, 151 Rooke, J. 242 Roots, W. 305 Ross, J. 10S Rosser, A. J. 305 Rourke, E. J. 288 Rowan, J. 174 Rudd, R. 255 Rudgley, N. 246 Ruse, J. 101 Rushton, T. 351 Russell, G. 330 Russell, J. 116 Russell, W. J. 206 Ruston, S. 329 Ryan, K. C. 327 Ryan, T. 260 Rydge, N. B. 219 Saddler, T. 116 Saggers, R. 325 Salmon, J. 31 Saltis, C. 317 Sarkis, Sr. M. 285 Sarpy, C. 35 Saunders, V. 338 Saviane, A. 352

400

Saviane, J. 352 Sayers, E. T. 103,154-60, 164,260 Scahill, P. J. 102, 190, 193-4,197-8,200,208, 306 Scahill, T. 150-1, 154-6, 160,166 Scarr, J. A. 181 Scharenberg, C. T. 193, 349 Schofield, A. 305 Schofield, D. J. 306 Schofield, R. 352 Schofield, W. 126 Schwebel, A. 329 Scott, G. M. 311 Scott, J. S. 236-7 Scott, Rev. J. S. 311 Scott, N. 350 Scott, R. E. 84 Seal, A. W.E. 311 Searle, M. 181 Seers, E. 296 Seymour, R. 329 Shadforth, H. 43 Sharrock, R. 340 Sharp, J. C. 64, 154-9, 164-5, 186, 257, 281 Sharp, V. C. 206 Shaw, J. 215 Shean, W. F. 318 Shearer, G. 270 Sheffield, D. H. 246 Sheffield, E. 348 Sherman, M. 345 Shieles, J. 214 Shortus, H. 104 Sidwell, W. 355 Simpson, R. 325 Sivertson, W. 34-5 Skan, W. D. 294 Slocombe, J. 82, 111, 116, 191, 193,257 Slocombe, P. 111 Slocombe, W. Ill, 151, 256-7 Smart, T. W. 45, 49 Smee, E. 374 Smee, N. E. 374 Smee, N. H. 374 Smith, B. 197 Smith, D. 214 Smith, K. 341 Smith, J. 124 Smith, Fr. J. 308 Smith, M. 217 Smith, P. J. 132 Smith, R. B. 310 Smith, W. 133 Snell, B. 355 Spane, J. 340

Spalding, M. 351 Spark, A. B. 18, 57-8, 62, 117, 125 Sparkes, T. 113 Sparkes, W. 113 Sparshott, D. 329 Spears, E. D. 274 Sponberg, F. 330-1 Spooner, E. S. 67 Spraggon, J. J. 292 Sprague, F. J. 246 Sproule, J. 154-7, 159, 164, 186 Squire, A. 351 Squire, Ald. S. 339, 351 Standen, J. 350 Stanford, W. 214 Stanley, F. 67 Stanley, P. 269 Stark, E. M. 290 Stedman, F. 297 Steele, Dr. 132 Steen, S. G. 350 Stenhouse, B. 335 Stephen, A. 42-3, 49, 76 Stephen, J. 42, 49, 117 Stephen, M. A. 43 Stewart, F. 335, 356 Stewart, K. J. 220, 335 Stewart, J. K. 366 Stewart, M. 356 Stewart, P. F. 335 Stevens, W. 350 Stevenson, A. M. 311 St. Julian, C. 62, 151 Stone, J. 272 Stremple, C. 214 Stuart, A. 194 Stuart-Robinson, R. J. 219 Stubbs, R. 133, 144 Stubbs, R. (B.B.) 345 Stubbs, S. 348 Sullivan, J. 30 Summerfield, R. 208 Summerly, E. 289 Sutherland, J. 62, 84 Suttor, W. 196 Swanson, Dr. C. 184 Sylvester, T. 28, 85-6, 88 Symons, J. 318 Tagg, E. 349 Tanner, E. 305 Tanner, P. 305 Tant, J. 216-7 Tant, W. 217 Tarrant, G. E. 310 Tasker, R. 348 Tasker, W. S. 223, 348 Tate, N. 216 Taylor, B. 185-9, 189,

194, 206-7 Taylor, E. S. 132 Taylor, J. 296 Taylor, T. 280-1 Tebbutt, E. J. 103 Tench, W. 56 Thelander, M. 356 Thomas, D. 281 Thomas, G. 325-6, 343 Thomas, K. 342 Thomas, T. 242, 297 Thompson, A. 84 Thompson, G. L. 368 Thompson, I. E. 295 Thompson, Ald. Mrs. J. 244 Thompson, Jack, 305 Thompson, John, 296 Thompson, Jos, 117, 185 Thompson, T. 329 Thomson, E. D. 80 Thomson, J. 292, 327 Thorncraft, H. R. 219, 294-5,318,327-9, 347 Thorp, J. 28, 44, 48, 76, 85,88 Tindale, R. E. 220 Tingecombe, J. 108 Titterton, I. 27-8, 43 Tolitas, T. 317 Tomkins, G. 243 Tomlinson, L. 310 Tomlinson, S. 310 Tompson, C. 85 Tompson, P. A. 85, 88 Tonge, A. 67 Toohey, H. 326-7 Tout, A. 215 Townson, J. 26, 85 Tracey, E. 335 Treleaven, R. 346 Tritton, H. 258 Tritton, J. 31, 166 Tritton, W. 258 Troy, Fr. 308 Tsoukalas, E. 316-17 Tucker, G. A. 281 Tuckwell, R. 28, 31, 85 Turner, C. J. 272 Turner, N. 127 Twamley, A. J. 294 Twyford-Jones, H. 355 Tyrrell, G. 27-8, 45 Unwin, A. K. 48, 88 Unwin, F. W. 18,28,45-6, 57, 85,88,108,117, 143 Vasil, G. 292 Vidler, R. 326 Vollmer, J. 327

Wade, R. 318 Wain, A. 311 Wainwright, K. 352 Wakely, A. A. 155 Walker, H. 290 Wall, J. 30 Wallington, Fr. G. 309 Ward, J. 127 Ward, W. 35 Wardell, Dr. R. 76, 88 Warren, S. E. 294 Warton, K. 244 Warton, M. 244 Wasson, S. 274 Waters, L. 255 Waters, J. 318 Watkin, J. 42 Watkins, D. 236 Watson, C. 28, 35 Watt, A. J. 294

Webb, C. 128 Welch, W. 28,81,83 Wells, W. H. 143 Wendle, R. 352 Wenholz, G. 281 Wentworth, D. 254 Wentworth, W. C. 88 Wesley, J. 34 Whatley, P. 292 Wheeler, J. D. 237, 245 White, A. 181 White, Alan, 343 Whiteman, L. 214 Whiteman, M. 214 Whitfield, P. B. 181 Whitmarsh, J. E. 245 Whyte, C. 311 Wild, F. 30 Wild, K. C. 259 Wiley, John V. 155, 166,

207, 281 Wiley, Jos. 166 Willey, R. 334 Williams, C. G. 237, 244, 318, 320,389 Williams, D. 349 Williams, E. 310 Williams, F. 156 Williams, G. 343 Williams, H. R. 327 Williams, J. 30 Wilton, H. M. 244, 389-90 Wilton, J. 180 Winnel, N. 348 Wilshire, A. 38 Wilshire, E. 38 Wilshire, J. 38, 49 Wilshire, J. R. 38-9, 49 Wilshire, J. T. 39

Wilson, J. A. 218 Wiseman, C. 329 Wood, N. 241 Woodbridge, B. 242 Woodham, S. 355 Woodhouse, R. 351 Woodward, G. 348 Woolcott, W. 256 Wordley, M. 297 Wotton, C. 318 Wran, N. R. 184 Wren, J. 241 Wright, G. H. 288 Wright, J. 258

Young, A. L. 199, 200 Young, G. 341 Young, J. 65, 197 Young, P. 292

PLACES Ashbury Catholic Church, 308-9 schools— Ashbury P.S., 284, 341 St. F. Xavier, 287 Ashfield Canterbury House, 117-24 churches, 126 electricity, 265 fire brigade, 270 gas, 260 omnibus, 92 post office, 256 sport, 192, 324 town clerk, 159 tramway, 212 water supply, 266-7 Bankstown 235, 310, 325-6 Belfield 27, 213, 287, 309 Belmore abattoirs, 192, 199, 200 baby health centre, 243 churches— All Saints (G.O.), 316-17 Congregational, 305 Church of Christ, 304-5 St. Alban’s, 302 St. Joseph’s, 308 Salvation Army, 309-10 farming, 152 grantees, 30, 39 hotels, 193 library, 242 masonic lodge, 194 omnibuses, 93 parks, 207

police, 255 post office, 258, 261-2 progress association, 207 railway, 93, 196, 199 R.S.L. club, 213, 215 schools— Belmore C.T.S., 288 Belmore H.S., 288-9, 291-2, 341 Belmore North, 282, 284, 288, 341 Belmore P.S., 280, 284, 341 Belmore South, 280-1, 284 Belmore T.C., 293-4 St. Joseph’s, 285, 287 senior citizens’ centre, 243 theatres, 216 Beverly Hills Beverly Hills North P.S., 284 grantees, 34 Oatley vault, 34-5 schools, 284 Snugborough, 27, 34 Botany Bay aborigines, 57, 74 discovery, 18 district, 34, 117, 254 police, 34, 117, 254 port, 69 Bulanaming 145 Campsie baby health centre, 243 churches— Baptist, 303 Methodist, 312 Salvation Army, 309-10 St. Mel’s, 307-8 St. Philip’s, (U.C.A.), 314

401

community centre, 236 electricity centre, 265 family day care, 243 fire brigade, 273 gas centre, 263-4 grantees, 26, 39-44 Horticultural Society, 194 Kia-Ora Hall, 194, 283 library, 241-3 omnibuses, 93 police, 255-6 post office, 257-8 progress association, 207 railway, 194-8 R.S.L. Club, 213-14, 223 Rotary Club, 320 schools— Campsie P.S., 283-4 Evening college, 293 St. Mel’s, 285, 287 settlement, 26, 39-43 theatre, 216-17 womens rest centre, 243 Canterbury (see also Canterbury Municipality) aborigines, 57 ancient village, 25, 59, 105, 127, 143-5, 149, 188 bands, 181,186, 194 baths, 238-9, 352-3 building booms, 172, 210-11 Canterbury Road, 75, 77, 81-4 churches— clergy, 125-9, 132-3 Church of Christ, 306 Methodist, 117, 312, 314 Presbyterian, 117, 132-3 St. Anthony’s, 306-7 St. Paul’s, 132, 302 Wesleyan, 127,312 communications, 89, 92-3 Community Aid Bureau, 318-20 crime, 24-5, 116-17, 184-5 electricity, 264-5 entertainment, 190, 193-4, 216, 218, 213-17 Ethnic Forum, 319 evening college, 293 family day care, 243 fire brigade, 273-5 friendly societies, 192 gas, 260-4 grantees, 19, 25-49 health, 99 hospital, 218-20, 298 hotels, 104, 113 incorporation, 148-57 Leagues Club,335 libraries, 186, 241-3, 273 lodges, 194 memorials, 191, 213 naming, 20, 22, 116 omnibuses, 89, 92-3 parks, 45, 239-40 people, 99,116-18

402

physical features, 18, 56 police, 34, 254-5 Polio club, 317-18 post office, 256-7 Prout’s punt, 76 racecourse, 103, 180-4, 192 railway, 194-8 refuse shredder, 237-8 relief committee, 223 road trust, 81-4, 152 R.S.L. Club, 215-16 schools— Central Dom. Science, 289 Girls’ High School, 290,292 High School, 288 Hospital School, 298 Intermediate High, 288 Junior High, 290 Public School, 281-2, 284, 341 South P.S., 284, 341 Superior P.S., 282 St. Anthony’s, 285 St. Paul’s, 133-5, 186, 280 sewerage, 267, 269 shops, 92, 113, 144 soils, 18, 82, 100 statistics (see List of Tables) streets, roads, 30, 42-3, 74-5. 84-5, 88-9, 143, 157, 163, 176,212 subdivisions, 143-5, 172-6 sugar house, 105-12, 361-2 theatres, 216-17 tip, 238 tolls, 77, 79-80, 83-4, 88 town hall, 159-60, 186, 188, 193, 235-6 tramway, 211, 213 U.F.Os, 234 velodrome, 339, 349-50 war emergency services, 216 water supply, 58-9, 266-7 waste disposal, 236-8 Clemton Park churches— Catholic, 309 Methodist, 314 Uniting, 314 grantees, 26 post office, 261-2 public school, 284 tramway, 212 William Street P.A., 212 Croydon Park bridge, 63 crime, 185 Farrar P.S., 296-8 park, 240 police, 254 post office, 258-9, 261-2 relief committee, 223 Earlwood baby health centre, 243 churches—

Baptist, 303-4 Church of Christ, 305-6 Congregational, 314 Methodist, 312, 314 Our Lady of Lourdes, 308 Presbyterian, 311-12 Salvation Army, 310 St. George, 302 Uniting Church, 314 Forest Hill, 207 grantees, 44-5 library, 241 omnibuses, 93 police, 255-6 post office, 259-62 progress association, 191 reservoir, 267 R.S.L. Club, 213, 223 schools— Earlwood P.S., 284 Our Lady of Lourdes, 286-7 senior citizens centre, 243 Sparke’s Camp, 49 subdivisions, 179 theatres, 303-4 tramway, 212 Essex Hill 31, 101,280-1 Fern Hill 179 Harcourt description, 174 model suburb, 172-3 origin, 42, 172-4 post office, 258 public school, 284, 341 Stoneless Bay, 172 subdivision, 173-4 Hurlstone Park baby health centre, 243 Fern Hill, 179 Pickering Point, 77 railway, 194-8 R.S.L. Club, 214 sewer, 269 South P.S., 284 St. Stephen’s Church, 303 tramway, 93, 212 Kingsgrove Community Sickness Centre, 291 gasometer explosion, 263 grantees, 30 hotel, 113 Laycock grant, 25-7 naming, 26 omnibuses, 92 Rotary, 320 schools— North H.S., 291-2, 341 North P.S., 284, 291 South H.S., 291 tramway, 211 Lakemba baby health centre, 243

churches— Baptist, 303 Lebanese Mosque, 314-15 Presbyterian, 310 St. Therese, 309 fire brigade, 273-4 grantees, 30-1, 38 library, 242 Mothers Friendship Club, 319 naming, 185-6 omnibuses, 93 police, 255-6 post office, 258 railway, 198 relief committee, 223 schools— Broderick House, 294-5 Essex Hill, 280 Hampden Park, 283, 285 Lakemba P.S., 280, 284, 341 Lakemba South P.S., 284 McKillop G.H.S., 286, 293 St. John’s College, 292-3 St. Therese, 286-7 Sydenham-Bankstown S.N., 295-6 senior citizens centre, 243 theatre, 217 womens rest centre, 243 Liberty Plains 31 Moorefields churches— Moorfield, 127-9 St. Alban’s, 302 evening college, 293 golf course, 242, 246 grantees, 31-2, 34, 38 naming, 31, 34-5, 38 schools— McCallums Hill, 284 Moorfield, 280, 284 St. Alban’s Road, 284 Narwee grantees, 38 Salvation Army, 310 schools— Narwee H.S., 345 Narwee P.S., 283-4 Percyville 30 Punchbowl baby health centre, 243 churches— Baptist, 303 Catholic, 309 Presbyterian, 310-311 grantees, 38 hotel, 113 library, 242 oval, 327-8 police, 255 post office, 258-9 Punch Bowl, 27, 34, 42, 75, 77 R.S.L, 213

schools— Punchbowl H.S., 290, 327 Punchbowl P.S., 284 St. Jerome, 287 senior citizens centre, 243 theatre, 217 Queensborough 165-7 Riverwood (Herne Bay) grantees, 38 Herne Bay, 256 library, 242 police, 256 Rotary, 320, 374 schools— Hannons Rd. P.S., 283-4 Riverwood P.S., 284 senior citizens centre, 243 Rosedale 44, 65, 185 Stoneless Bay 39, 42, 172

Sudbury 42 Undercliffe bridge, 62, 88-9 grantees, 44-5, 48 Greek Orthodox Church, 314 house, 88 omnibuses, 92 punt (Thorp) 76, 85 Quarry Minna (Juang Munna) 45, 48 sewerage, 270 schools, 284 tramway, 212 Wanstead P. Assn., 207 Wattle Hill 213 Wiley Park cycling, 349-50 Girls’ High, 290, 292 park, 222, 349-50 post office, 261

SUBJECTS Abattoirs Belmore, 192, 199, 200 Homebush, 192 site, 191-2 slaughter yards, 102 Aborigines 57, 74, 116 Amusements bathing, 48, 64 boating, 62, 100 boxing, 350 cinemas, 216-17, 303-4 concerts, 193, 216 dancing, 193, 218 debating, 193 licensed clubs, 213-16 motoring, 216 radio, 217 social clubs, 193-4 sport, 192-3 vaudeville, 350 Astronomy 234 Baths 48, 64, 189,238-9 Bridges Croydon, 63, 84, 164 Laycock (Beamish St.), 77 Prout’s, 77, 84-5, 179-80 Punchbowl Road, 63 Salt Pan, 63 Tempe, 59 Undercliffe, 62 Unwin’s Road, 48, 76, 84-5 Wardell, 85 Businesses A.G.L., 260 Australian Springs, 371 Australian Sugar Co., 105-110, 144 A & A Construction Co., 373-4 Ceeco Products, 372

404

Coca-Cola, 374-5 Collins Bros., 362-4 Denham Bros., 361 Franklin Manufacturing, 371-2 Gartrell White, 362 George L. Thompson, 368 Goodlet & Smith, 124 Huttons Ltd., 110, 360-2 James Fielding, 368 King Gee, 369-70 M. F. Dippert, 371 Marshall Batteries, 368 Myers Taylor, 371 N. H. Smee, 374 R. J. Brodie, 371 Rainsfords, 372-3 Roselands, 38, 7.75, 376-7 Simplicity Patterns, 365-6 Simpson-Pope, 368-9 Style Patterns, 366 Sunbeam Corporation, 366-7 Thomas Electronics, 367-8 Tip Top Bakeries, 362, 367 Twentieth Century Blinds, 370-1 V.R.G. Paper, 365 Washington Soul, 35 W. C. Penfold, 364-5 Canterbury Municipality aldermen, 153-7, 190-1, 195, 206, 243-5, 380-2 amalgamations, 167, 210, 234-5 area, 151-2, 166-7, 199, 200, 206 baby health centres, 243 baths, 189, 238-9 boundaries, 151-2, 234-5 council— administration, 245-7 committees, 245 departments, 245-7

depression policy, 188-90, 220-5 elections, 155-7, 195, 199, 200, 206, 233, 246 finance (see separate index) functions, 157-64, 245-7 grants, 224 petitions, 149, 151-2, 165-7 rate arrears, 163-4, 190 rating, 162, 179, 188, 200, 206, 210, 224-5, 227, 232-3, 246 staff, 157-9, 189,221,242 Staff Participation Committee, 247 town clerks, 382 valuation, 157, 160 voting, 155-9, 233-4, 236 war policy, 226-7 waste disposal, 236-8 Greater Sydney, 207-10 incorporation, 148-57 libraries, 150, 186, 241-3 mayors, 157, 164-5, 234, 379-80 parks, 45, 207, 240 progress associations, 189, 191, 207, 212 secession, 165 town hall, 159-60, 186, 188, 235-6 wards, 164, 199 Churches (see also Places Index) Baptist, 303-4 Catholic, 306-9 Church of Christ, 304-6 Church of England, 129, 302-3 clergy (see Persons Index) Congregationist, 305, 314 Ebenezer, 126 educational role, 133-4, 285-6, 305 first services, 125-33 Greek Orthodox, 316-17 home services, 127-8 Methodist, 126-7,312,314 Moorfield, 127-9 Moslem, 314-15 number, 302 Presbyterian, 126, 132-3, 310-12 religions, 34, 125-9, 132-3, 146 Salvation Army, 309-10 schools, 133-5, 186, 280, 285-7, 292-3 social role, 302, 305, 307, 309, 315, 317 St. Peters (Cook’s R.), 129, 132 Sugar Works, 126-7 Uniting Church, 312, 314 Wesleyan, 127 Cinemas 216-17 Clubs Apex, 320 licensed, 335 Lions, 320 R.S.L., 213-16 Rotary, 320, 374 sports (see under separate heading) social, 193-4, 335 welfare— Canterbury Community Aid Bureau, 318-20 Canterbury District Polio Club, 317-18

Colleges (see also Education, Schools) Belmore Technical, 293-4 Campsie Evening, 293 Cook’s River administration, 69 agriculture, 18 bathing, 48, 64, 238-9 bridges, 26, 48, 62-3, 79, 80, 84-5 canal, 58, 65, 67 county council, 67-8 dams, 58-9, 62-5, 85, 103 description— original, 18, 56-8, 62, 69 present, 56, 68-9 discovery, 18 exploration, 18-19, 56-7, 77 Festival Committee, 69 floods, 59, 63-4 fords, 59, 64, 68, 76-7 future, 69 Hilly’s Crossing, 64, 101 improvement, 60, 62, 65-9 Improvement League, 66-7 industrial use, 62, 67, 100-1 legislation— 1854,88 1897, 65-6 1946, 68 market gardens, 101 meadow, 18, 56 parks, 45, 66, 68-9, 240 pleasure resort, 62, 65, 68 pollution, 64-9 Project, 65, 69 punts, 76 recreation, 62, 65-6 service corridor, 69 settlement, 58-9, 62 transport, 59-60 tributaries— Cup & Saucer Ck., 56, 77, 80, 164 Wolli Ck., 19, 30,56, 66, 104 water supply, 58-9, 176 works, 60, 62, 64, 67-9 Crime Aborigines, 116 white persons, 24-5, 116-17, 184-5 Depressions 1890’s, 188-90 1930’s, 220-5 Economic Development Before 1879, 100-16, 188-90 incorporation period, 191 Education (see also Schools) church, 133-4, 285-6 home, 285 new, 282 primary— private, 280, 285-6 public, 136, 280-5 secondary—

private, 292-3 public, 286, 288 specific purposes, 294-8 statistics, 284, 287 tertiary, 293-4 Elections 155-7, 195, 199, 200, 206, 233 Electricity Canterbury, 264-5 origin, 264 Sydney County Council, 265 Estates (see also Farming) Aldon, 173 Bexley, 85 Bridgewater, 80, 173 Campbell, 48, 143-5, 179 Fitzroy Park, 30 Golden Park, 173 Harcourt, 42, 172-4 Lord, 27 Maudeville, 173 Mildura, 189, 282,312 Oatley, 34-5 Prout’s Bridge, 173 Redman, 173 Richland, 35, 179 Tramvale, 64 Undercliffe, 88 Warren, 59, 302 Ethnic Groups 147, 247, 286, 291, 293, 302, 314, 316-17,319, 340,373 Farming agriculture, 100, 145 crops, 101 economic importance, 103 farms— Belle Ombre, 76 Bramshott, 42-5 Brush Farm, 23 Canterbury Vale, 21-2, 26, 145 Duntroon, 24, 51 Essex Hill, 31 Forest Grove, 281 Hines Mount, 30 John’s, 39, 42 King’s Grove, 25-7 Moorfield, 34 Northumberland, 26, 30, 85 Percy, 30 Poor, 27, 103 Quarry Minna (Juang Munna), 45, 48 Redman’s (Mrs.), 42 Richland (Miller’s), 35 Richmond Grove, 88 Show, 38 Snugborough, 27, 34 St. Clair, 42, 152 Stoneless Bay, 39, 101 Sudbury, 42 Sylvester, 85, 88 Wanstead, 45, 48 mixed, 85, 88, 100, 145 orchards, 30, 45, 85-6, 101

406

pastoral, 31-2, 101-2 pigs, 101-2 poultry, 100-2, 145 produce, 145 soils, 18, 82, 100-1, 104, 143-4 timber, 27, 59, 103-4, 145 Fashions 104, 217-18 Finance (see also Tables Index) arrears, 163-4, 190, 225 depression— 1890’s, 188-90 1930’s, 220-5 council— 1880-1, 160-3, 166 1879-89, 176, 179 1897, 188-90 1892-1906, 200-1 1907, 206 1907-14,210 1908-45,227 1930-8,226 1945-65,232 1965-78,233 Royal Commission 1967, 232-3 Fire Prevention Board of Fire Commissioners, 270 brigades— horse, 273 motorised, 273 volunteers, 270 engines, 273-4 firemen, 273-4 fires— fatalities, 272 house, 270, 272-3 industrial, 275 Roselands, 275 statistics, 274-5 levies, 190, 270, 272 Metropolitan Fire Board, 270 origin, 270 police, 270 stations— Campsie, 273 Canterbury, 273, 275 Lakemba, 273-4 Gas A.G.L. Coy, 260 Canterbury, 260, 263 Campsie Gas Centre, 263-4 county councils, 260 gas unions, 260 Kingsgrove explosion, 264 lamp lighters, 264 Municipalities Gas Act, 260 natural, 263 statistics, 263 suburban extension, 260 Hospitals Canterbury, 218-20, 298, 320 Marrickville, 218 Western Suburbs, 218 Hotels 104, 113

Housing conditions, 176 settlers, 104-5 statistics, 148, 200 subdivisions, 143-5, 172-6, 179 Industries primary— boiling down works, 102-3 brick making, 104, 144 coal, 59 fishing, 48, 57 gardening, 64, 100-1 lime burning, 57 mixed farming, 30-1 orcharding, 30-1, 45, 48, 101 pastoral, 31-2, 101 pigs, 101-2 poultry, 100-2 quarrying, 77, 104-5, 145 salt, 57, 75 tanning, 59, 102-3 timber, 27, 59, 74, 77, 103-4, 145 wool scours, 102-3 wool washing, 59, 102-3 secondary— batteries, 368 bread making, 362 cabbage tree hats, 104 clothing, 369-71 coal, 111-12 earth products, 104-5, 373-4 electrical goods, 366-9 food products, 110, 360-2 leather, 102 meat products, 110, 360-2 metal goods, 371-3 paper goods, 362-6 plastics, 372-3 printing, 362-6 shearing equipment, 366-7 sugar refining, 59, 105-12, 144, 361 textiles, 369-71 tertiary— hotels, 81, 113, 185 medical, 144 retailing, 116, 376-7 stores, 113, 116,144, 148, 154, 216-17 zones, 360 Libraries 150, 186, 241-3 Lighting electricity, 264 gas, 260, 263-4 general, 176 oil lamps, 260 Local Government (see also Canterbury Municipality) amalgamations, 167, 210, 234-5 Barnett Committee, 234-5 Canterbury Municipality, (see above) county councils— Cook’s River, 67-8 Sydney, 265 waste disposal, 236-7

development 1945-78, 232-4 district councils, 142-3 gas, 260 Greater Sydney, 207-10 origin— Canterbury, 148-57 N.S.W., 142-3, 149-50, 152 road trusts, 142-3, 152, 154 Royal Commission Finance 1967, 232-3 systems— 1858, 145-6 1867, 149-50 1906, 198-9 Sydney District Council, 142-3 Mansions Belmore, 176 Beulah Vista, 243 Blink Bonnie, 191 Canterbury, 117-24 Chesney, 165 Clairville, 42-3, 117 Linga Longer, 286 Tempe, 18, 57, 117, 125 The Hermitage, 256 The Towers, 35, 125, 177 Undercliffe, 88 Wanstead, 48, 57, 117 Warren, 57, 117 Noxious Trades 102-3 Police Botany Bay, 34, 117, 254 Colonial, 254 control, 254 districts, 254 foot, 254 Highway Patrol, 255 mounted, 254 organisation, 254, 256 origin, 254 Population 110, 117, 127, 143, 146-8, 151, 166-7, 176, 179-80, 191-2, 200, 232-3, 247 Post Offices Ashfield, 256 Belmore, 258 Campsie, 255-6 Canterbury, 256-7 Croydon Park, 258-9 improvements, 257 Lakemba, 258 non-official, 259 official, 259 origin, 256 Punchbowl, 258-9 statistics, 261-2 Progress Associations 189, 191, 207, 212, 259 Prout v Chard 79-80 Public Health baby health centres, 243 building inspection, 247 conditions, 48, 164, 191 control, 191 disease, 56, 64-5

407

drainage, 67-8 garbage, 191 immunization, 247 inspection, 224 nightsoil— dumping, 269 removal, 269 use, 102, 267-8 noxious trades, 102-3 pollution, 64-9, 247 sanitation, 164 services, 246-7 Public Services fire prevention, 270-5 lighting, 260, 263-5 police, 254-6 post office, 256-60, 261-2 sewerage, 267-70 water supply, 266-8 Punts 76, 79-80, 85 Railways ceremonies, 197 construction, 194-198 deputations, 196 electrification, 198 fatality, 198 legislation, 196-7 Liverpool loop, 194, 196, 198 Marrickville-Burwood Road, 196, 211 petitions, 194-5, 197 P.S.C. reports, 194, 196,211 public meetings, 194-5, 197 routes, 194, 198 stations, 196-8 southern line, 194 Tempe-East Hills, 198 Recreation baths, 189, 238-9 golf links, 242, 246 libraries, 150, 186, 241-3 parks, 45, 207, 240 sportsgrounds, 180-4, 240 tennis courts, 240, 355 Religions 34, 125-9, 132-3, 146, 302-17 Roads Canterbury Municipality— Beamish (Govt.), 43, 85 Botany, 74 Canary, 75 Canterbury, 74-5, 77, 81-4, 157 Cook’s River, 75 Forest, 75 Georges River, 75, 89 Illawarra, 75, 89 King Georges (Dumbleton), 75 Kingsgrove, 75, 85, 89, 157, 163-4 Liverpool, 75 New Canterbury, 75 Old Canterbury, 212 Parramatta, 74-5, 145 Punchbowl, 39, 63, 75, 85, 89 Stoney Creek, 75

408

Sugar House, 157 Unwin’s Bridge, 48 Wardell, 85, 330 colonial,74 construction, 74 description, 74 rate, 74 road trusts, 81-4, 152, 154 system, 75, 85 tolls, 79-80, 83-4, 88 transport, 89, 92-3 Sanitation cess pits, 64 condition, 176 garbage, 191 nightsoil, 102 pollution, 64-7 public health (see separate index) waste disposal, 236-8 Schools (see also Places Index) administration— before 1866, 133-4, 136,280 1867-81, 136, 280 from 1881,286, 288 Belmore—public, 280-1, 283 boards, 280-1 Canterbury— Church, 133-5, 186, 280 high school, 288-9, 292 home science, 288-9 intermediate high, 288 junior high, 290 junior technical, 288 primary, 186, 188, 193,281,341 superior, 282 superprimary, 288-9 Campsie— Central, 283 evening college, 293 infants, 282-3 public school, 283 Catholic, 285-7 Church of England, 133-5, 186 co-educational, 291 comprehensive, 288 domestic science, 288 East Hills, 290 Essex Hill, 280-1 half-time, 281 Hampden Park, 283, 285 Lakemba— Catholic, 286, 292-3 public, 280, 283 South Belmore, 280 Moorfield, 280 national, 280 North Kingsgrove, 291-2 provisional, 280 Punchbowl, 284, 287, 290 scholars, 292 selective, 287-8 specific purposes—

Broderick House, 294-5, 320 Canterbury Hospital, 298 Farrar, 296-8, 320 Sydenham-Bankstown, 295-6 sugar house, 107 statistics— independent, 287 public, 284, 292 teachers, 113, 280-1, 283-5, 287, 290 types— central, 283 central technical, 288 denominational, 285-7, 292-3 domestic science, 288-9 high, 286,288, 290-2 home science, 288-9 intermediate, 286 junior high, 286 junior technical, 288 specific purposes, 294-8 super primary, 286, 288 Wiley Park, 290 Wyndham Plan, 388 Yeo Park, 283 Settlement Canterbury Municipality, 19-49 first, 18-19 Sewerage Canterbury, 176, 267 City extension, 269 Cook’s River, 62 home treatment, 267 pan service, 269 statistics, 268, 270 Social Development after 1879, 192-4, 217-18 before 1879, 125-36 Sport athletics, 192, 356 baseball, 342-4 basketball, 344-5 bowls, 240, 245-9 cock fighting, 193 cricket, 192, 324-9 cycling, 192-3, 349-50 football— A.N.F., 340-2 league, 192, 330-8 soccer, 338-40 union, 192, 329-30 golf, 176, 240 hockey, 350-1

horse racing, 103, 180-4 hunting, 116 ice skating, 353-4 quoits, 193 swimming, 351-3 tennis, 350, 355 Streets 143, 176 Subdivisions 143-5, 172-6, 179-80 Town Hall 159-60, 186, 188, 193, 235-6 Town planning 246 Tramway 144, 211-12 Transport motor vehicles, 93, 216 omnibuses— horse, 89, 92-3 motor, 93 routes, 92-3 private, 89, 216 railways, 89, 93, 194-8 tramways, 93, 144, 211-12 Waste Disposal county council, 236-7 incineration, 191, 236 land fill schemes, 237 Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority, 237 rubbish tips, 238 refuse shredder, 237-8 resource recovery, 236-7 statistics, 238 Water Supply city extension, 176, 266 Canterbury, 266-7 Cook’s River, 58-9, 266 Metropolitan W. S. & D. Board— origins, 266 reservoirs, 266, 268 sources, 144, 176 statistics, 267-8 tanks, 176, 266 Upper Nepean scheme, 176, 206 Welfare Services baby health centres, 243 Canterbury, Community Aid Bureau, 318-20 Canterbury, District Polio Club, 317 Family Day Care, 243 Home Help Service, 319 Meals on Wheels, 302, 320 Mothers’ Friendship Club, 319 Rotary, 318-20 Senior Citizens’ centres, 243 Women’s rest centres, 243

409

CHRONOLOGY 1770 Capt. J. Cook discovered Cook’s River—first glimpse of the Canterbury Municipal area by white men. 18

1788 First settlement at Sydney Cove, further examination of Cook’s River and its hinterland

by W. Bradley, P. G. King, Tench and others.

18-19

divided into the first streets. 143 The ‘ancient’ village of Canterbury created.

143-4 Canterbury’s oldest building, the Sugar House, erected by the A.S.C. 106-7 First church, Sugar Works, erected by the Wesleyans at Canterbury. 126 First school opened with Thomas Perrott first teacher. 133

1793

1843

First land grant and farm within the municipal­ ity—Rev. Richard Johnson named the area Canterbury Vale. 19-20

Canterbury’s first inclusion in a local government unit, the Sydney District Council, with Frederick Unwin as its first local government representa­ tive. 142-3 First hotel, Canterbury Arms, opened in Can­ terbury. 113

1803 Robert Campbell (merchant) purchased Canter­ bury Vale. 23-4

1804

1849

Hannah Laycock, first settler in the Municipality, named her grant King’s Grove. 26

Rev. James Hassal conducted the first Church of England services. 129-30

1810

1850

Samuel Hockley, first Lakemba settlement Essex Hill. 31

Canterbury House erected by Arthur Jeffreys.

117-24

1812

1851

John Redman was given a grant which he named John’s Farm (Campsie). 39

Moorfields Chapel erected and Wesleyan services and school commenced. 128

1826

1853

William Pithers, first police constable appointed to Botany Bay. 34 Rev. J. McGarvie reputed to have conducted the first church service in the Municipality. 126

The Chard episode at Prout’s bridge. 79, 80

1827 James Chard purchased Charles Watson’s grant at Moorefields. 35

1832 Cornelius Prout purchased John Burke’s farm, renaming it Belle-Ombre. 76

1833 Prout’s punt across Cook’s River at Canterbury Road commenced to operate. 75

1834 James Oatley purchased Snugborough from Christopher Coleman and extended his puchases in Moorefields to include John Miller’s farm. 34

1855 Canterbury Road proclaimed as a public thoroughfare and Canterbury Road Trust appointed as the second form of local govern­ ment. 81-4 Undercliffe Bridge constructed by Piddocke A. Tompson and Thomas Fisher. 85-6 Sugar Works closed. 110

1858 The Municipalities Act, providing for a general colonial system of local government, gave Can­ terbury the opportunity to incorporate. 143 The first post office opened at Canterbury village.

256-7

1859 St. Paul’s Church of England erected. 132.

1840

1867

Frederick Unwin erected Wanstead House. 45-6 Cook’s River dam at Tempe completed. 58-9 Prout’s bridge across Cook’s River at Canterbury Road erected. 77

Second Municipalities Act under which Canter­ bury was subsequently incorporated. 149-50

1868

1841

First suggestions to incorporate Canterbury rejected at a meeting at the Rising Sun Hotel. 150

The colonial era ended and the breaking up of the various large estates into smaller farms began.

48-9 First housing subdivision—a portion of the Campbell estate at Cook’s River Canterbury

Moorefields was proclaimed the first public school in the Municipality. 280 The first organised race meeting was held at Canterbury racecourse. 180

410

1871

1877

Municipality. 193

The first petition for the incorporation of Can­ terbury was presented but no steps were taken.

151

First fire brigade (Campsie) to be stationed in the Municipality. 273

1907

1878

1908

The second petition for incorporation was presented and a counter petition rejected. 151-2 Canterbury Public School opened. 281

Hutton’s bacon factory took over the Sugar House—the oldest building and secondary industry in Canterbury Municipality. 110

1879

1909

Municipal District of Canterbury was pro­ claimed on 17 March. 152 The first elections were held on 9 June. 155-6 John Sproule was elected first mayor.

The first Council meeting was held at John Sproule’s home. 157

The railway (Sydenham-Belmore) extended to Lakemba, Punchbowl & Bankstown. 198

1883 First Municipal Library opened in Canterbury.

241

1885 The murder of Constable Hird, possibly the first serious crime in Canterbury. 184-5

1886 A.G.L. Coy. extended its gas supply into the Municipality. 260

1888 Harcourt Model Suburb, the most interesting of the housing subdivisions, planned. 172-4

1889 First Town Hall, Canterbury Road, opened by the premier, Sir Henry Parkes. 186 Record and tragic flood at Cook’s River. 63 Water Board extended its mains into Canterbury.

267

1894 St. Anthony’s, Canterbury, first Catholic Church erected in the Municipality. 307

1895 Railway—Sydenham to Belmore (Burwood Road) opened. 197 First public monument (to J. Slocombe) erected by the Council. 191 First sporting team to be named Canterbury (electorate team). 192

1896 Cook’s River Improvement Act—first steps taken to improve the river and reduce pollution. 65-6

1905 Water Board extended sewerage facilities into the Municipality. 269-70

1906 New system of local government introduced and Canterbury became officially the Municipality of Canterbury. 199 First Church of Christ meetings in the Munici­ pality. 305 First cycling club (Campsie) formed in the

1910 First theatre, the Campsie Picture Palace, in the Muncipality, opened. 216 First Presbyterian Church erected (Lakemba).

310 Canterbury Soccer Club formed, the first football side to use the Municipal name. 338-9 1912

First Baptist Church (Campsie) erected. 303 First Salvation Army Corps formed at Campsie.

309

1913 Sydney City Council electricity extended to the Municipality, replacing street gas lights. 265 Tramway extended from Dulwich Hill to Wattle Hill-junction Old & New Canterbury Roads.

211,213

1915 St. Mel’s opened at Campsie—the Catholic school in the Municipality. 285

oldest

1918 Canterbury Boys’ Intermediate High School— first secondary school in the Municipality. 288

1919 Canterbury 8c District Cricket Association, first general sports organisation in the Municipality.

325

1921 The tramway extended to Canterbury Station.

212 1925 Canterbury Boys’ High School, first full high school to serve the Municipality. 288

1928 First R.S.L. Club (Campsie) to be given a charter.

213-14 Belmore C. Technical School—first school in the Municipality to provide junior technical courses.

288 Canterbury cycling velodrome opened. 349-50

1929 Belmore Technical College—first and only ter­ tiary institution established in the Municipality.

293-4 Canterbury Memorial Hospital, first public

411

hospital in the Municipality. 218-20

1959

1932

Tasker Parks baths, first Olympic standard swimming pool in the Municipality. 239

Canterbury C. Domestic School, first girls’ secondary school in the Municipality. 289-90

1946 Cook’s River Improvement Act—second act to improve the river channel. 68-9 Re-opening of Canterbury Municipal Library under the Library Act, 1939. 241

1947 First Council baby welfare centre opened at Punchbowl. 243

1954 First independent boys’ high school, St. John’s opened (Lakemba). 292 The Council established a bacteriological plant to deal with recycling of waste. 237

1963 McKillop G.H.S., first girls’ independent high school established in Municipality. 286, 293 Canterbury Civic centre and administrative buildings (Campsie) opened. 235-6

1968 Council’s first senior citizen’s centre opened at Belmore. 243

1969 Canterbury’s most spectacular fire at Roselands shopping centre. 275

1972 Greek Orthodox Church opened the Belmore Temple (All Saints). 316-17

1957

1975

Wiley Park G.H. School the first full and com­ prehensive high school opened in the Munici­ pality. 290

1958

Lebanese Mosque constructed in Lakemba.

314-15 Council established a shredder to deal with waste disposal. 237-8

Kingsgrove North H.S., first full co-educational high school established in the Municipality. 291

Centenary of the Municipality of Canterbury.

412

1979