A Confronting Discovery About My 3x Great-Grandfather.

When researching family history today, you will inevitably make discoveries that are confronting and challenge modern-day sensibilities, especially given the colonialist, misogynistic, and white supremacist history we have.

This was the case for me with this next discovery about the Rev. David.

Just a quick reminder: Rev. David was the first minister appointed to the Presbyterian congregation in Albury, New South Wales, when it was established in 1852.

When I stumbled upon the first article that mentioned the incident, or more to the point, alluded to it, I was stunned. Here it is, below.

Charges… affecting his moral character! What? Of course, when you are getting to know your ancestors through digital searching, it is very difficult to get a good read on them and their character; it can be very flat. Often, the context is missing, and you are only exposed to a very shallow view of them through the eyes of whoever penned the article you happen to come across.

I am very aware of this, but everything I have discovered about David to date paints him as a very devoted minister and family man. I was stunned when I read this article, and considering the time it was published, May 1869, it must have been quite explosive for David, the family, and his congregation in Albury.

What did it mean? Was David a sexual predator of some sort, a thief, or a domestic abuser? Oh, the shame the family must have felt, especially with David named in print. This article set me off on a research frenzy. What a find it was.

I have spent the last three weeks reading everything I could find on Trove that mentioned the incident and trying to collate it into a sort of timeline in the hope of piecing together the story.

This next article was the key to collating that timeline. It is from the Cornwall Chronicle, a publication based in Launceston, Tasmania. It was printed in November 1868, six months before the article above.

Article 2: Courtesy of Trove, National Library of Australia

So, it’s clear the editor of the Albury Banner was not happy with the Ovens and Murray Advertiser and what they’d published about the alleged scandal. I searched for their article to see exactly what they were alleging and whether David was implicated by name.

Luckily, Trove allows you to search one particular newspaper publication at a time. So I searched the Ovens and Murray Advertiser between the years of 1867 and 1870, and look at what I discovered after a couple of hours of reading.

“…an improper intercourse…”, “…two young married women.” No, David, No! Well, at least he wasn’t named, but still.

Wow, this must have hurt the family so much to read this at the time. I wonder how my 3x great-grandmother, Margaret, must have felt, not to mention my 2x great-grandmother, Jessie, who was just 14 at the time.

The Rev. James Taylor’s case, mentioned above, started similarly to the Rev. David’s, with rumours. It differs in that the Rev. James, who at first lied about committing adultery with the wife of a parishioner, had to come clean and admit his failings when the lady in question admitted her guilt to her husband, and he sought restitution.

I just want to make it clear at this point that I’m not suggesting that David is innocent or guilty here; I’m just presenting the information I have uncovered. Of course, as his descendant, I’ve got my fingers crossed that it turns out to be a big misunderstanding.

From what I have uncovered so far, it shows that it was a complicated story. So complicated that I have over 120 pages of information saved from Trove on the issue so far.

Below is a copy of the timeline that I mentioned above. It has definitely helped in trying to keep track of the story and how it unfolded.

You will note that the article in Figure 2 states that an investigation is going to happen, while the article in Article 2 implies that it has already taken place. This suggests that in those two weeks between the two articles being published, the investigation took place sometime.

I went searching for any mention of a meeting specifically in those two weeks. This is the closest I could get. An article from the Illustrated Australian News printed on the 4th of Jan 1869 mentions the investigation meeting taking place on the 28th of November.

Article 3: Courtesy of Trove, National Library of Australia

This timing doesn’t fit with the information in the Cornwall Chronicle piece, Article 2 above, printed on 25 November. It states that the Albury Banner had a copy of the findings of the investigation in their hands, which means they had the findings days before the actual meeting took place on the 28th. It turns out that it was a mistake with the dates.

Several other articles state that the investigation meeting actually took place on Tuesday, 24 November, which fits with the Banner having the findings on the 25th.

What still doesn’t fit, though, is how a Tasmanian paper mentioned the findings the day after the investigation meeting took place.

At the time, the telephone had not yet been invented (it would be eight years away), and apparently there was no telegraph cable working between Tasmania and the mainland until May 1869. https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/T/Telegraph.htm https://www.monumentaustralia.org/themes/technology/industry/display/110873-flinders-cable-station

Here is another article confirming that the investigation took place on the 24th, from the Ovens and Murray Advertiser—the publication that initially printed the rumours.

It seems they had a real axe to grind on this issue, going to the trouble of parenthesising their editorial comment to ensure their readers were aware that, because they were not able to publish the evidence supporting the charges against the Rev David, they wouldn’t print the verdict or findings of the investigation.

Once again, after many hours of searching and reading, I found an article that contained the full findings of the church’s investigation, and it also explained why they were unable to publish the evidence. It is actually the article shown above in Figure 4.

But just before I put a copy of that report below, let me share with you what I have discovered about the actual complaint against David.

We already know from Figure 2 above that the rumour was that David acted inappropriately with two married women. From what I have read so far, there is no other mention of another woman being involved. In fact, it was only one young married woman who was identified in the investigation.

Before I discovered the article publishing the full findings of the investigation, I couldn’t find any information explaining how David had acted inappropriately. I was resigned to the fact that this information was probably lost to us until I stumbled upon this short piece from the Gundagai Times.

Wow, I wasn’t expecting that. He allegedly proposed marriage to this young woman while his current wife, Margaret, was still alive. It sounds like the storyline from a cheap romance novel. How fortunate to have found this one small mention.

I only discovered this article last week, and then shortly after that stumbled upon the full findings. So without further ado, here they are below.

I will interject here just to let you know that when this investigation took place, the young woman in question was already married. Her husband attended the meeting not only to support her but also to give his testimony on the matter.

You see, it was revealed in another article discussing the details of a slander case that this young couple ultimately brought against the elders of the church, that the young woman had told her husband, sometime before they married, about “…certain improprieties…” that had taken place between her and the Rev. David.

Apparently, the husband sat on this information for about nine months and then shared it with a friend. The friend then shared it with other people, and eventually the rumour reached Rev. David and his family. I’ll share the slander case article later in this post; it contains some amazing information. Now, back to the full findings.

I highlighted those inverted commas as I just think it is incredible to actually read what the story was from the young woman’s point of view. How lucky for us that it was included.

And you will see that I also highlighted that sentence above, as it refers to the fact about the evidence and why it couldn’t be published, according to the church. I’m assuming this is what the Ovens and Murray Advertiser editor was referring to and why they wouldn’t print a version of the full findings.

I cannot, for the life of me, uncover what that evidence refers to. In actual fact, multiple articles report that there was, in fact, no evidence anywhere to be found supporting the claims of this young woman.

Now the next part of the findings is fantastic as we get to hear Rev. David’s side of the story.

Mr Blackmore is referring to Mr S. F. Blackmore, a local solicitor in Albury who was acting on behalf of Rev. David and the church. Here is the Committee’s resolution:

The Rev. Mr Macmillan gave the final address:

I had to laugh at that; I would not describe an organisation convening a committee of its own members to investigate another member as an impartial body. Clearly, I’m not right-minded.

Wow, what a ride and what a story. And how sad for all those involved. A seventeen-year clerical career teetering on the brink of collapse, not to mention the effect that it must have been having on David, Margaret, the family and their relationships.

I can only imagine how worried they must have been thinking about what the members of the congregation and the broader community must have been thinking about David, having heard or read all the salacious details.

And in the midst of all that, a young couple—married for just 12 months—starting their life together, with a black cloud hanging over them.

You will have noted that the names of the young couple have not been shared up to this stage, but they are eventually revealed. This is not the end of the story.

I hope you can join me for Part Two; there is so much more to share with you, such as the details of the slander case this young couple brought against the Church that I mentioned earlier.