The Price Of A Wife – Test Cricketer Arthur Coningham V Catholic Priest Denis O’Haran

In December 1900, Fr Denis O’Haran, Dean of Sydney’s St Mary’s Cathedral, became entangled in a bitter divorce dispute. Australian cricketer, Arthur Coningham, accused the priest of having an affair with his wife, Alice, and demanded £5000 compensation for the loss of his conjugal rights. The court cases which followed became elaborate and the news of the day turned the scandal into front page gossip that engulfed Sydney. Sectarian divisions prolonged the affair, which ended in all protagonists being soundly humiliated. Dr Anne Cunningham is a specialist in nineteenth Irish/Australian history and the author of The Price of a Wife – The Priest and the Divorce Trial. To review and discuss this extraordinary case, Anne Cunningham spoke for The Sydney Institute on Monday 16 June 2014.

 THE PRICE OF A WIFE – TEST CRICKETER ARTHUR CONINGHAM V CATHOLIC PRIEST DENIS O’HARAN

 ANNE E. CUNNINGHAM  

 In December 1900 Arthur Coningham, Australian cricketer petitioned the courts in Sydney for a divorce from his wife Alice. Arthur was a member of the 1893 cricket team that played against England. The team captained by Jack Blackham beat England in the Ashes of that same year.

Arthur was born to English parents in Brisbane and was reared as an Anglican but had no problem with the religious affiliation of his future wife Alice who was a practising Catholic. Leaving the religious upbringing of his children to Alice, he appeared uninterested when they were baptised Catholic.

Alice admitted to Arthur that she had been unfaithful while he was away playing cricket.  She confessed that her lover had been none other than Dean Denis Francis O’Haran, Vicar General at St Mary’s Cathedral and private secretary to Australia’s first Cardinal Patrick Francis Moran.

O’Haran had been born in Ireland, spent his final years of high school at Clongowes Wood in Kildare (the Irish equivalent of St. Ignatius College or Riverview here in Sydney). Having been schooled by the Jesuits, he went straight to the Irish College in Rome to train for the priesthood. I have focussed on O’Haran’s early days to outline his comfortable middle class upbringing and to assert that, in Church terms, he was earmarked for advancement in the Church. During the early 1890s O’Haran was deputy president of the Irish College in Rome. It was at this period he came to the attention of Cardinal Moran when visiting Rome. The two men quickly bonded and O’Haran agreed to become Moran’s private secretary in Sydney. As Moran aged he relied heavily on O’Haran and refused to see any fault in the priest’s character.

From 1892 to 1899, as Moran’s private secretary, O’Haran had seniority over many of the priests in the diocese. It was during these years that he met Alice Coningham a volunteer helper in the Cathedral.

Arthur as an accomplished cricketer was regularly away from home. He argued that an affair commenced between O’Haran and Alice from 1898 and finished in 1899 when Alice became pregnant. Alice confessed all to her husband but O’Haran strenuously denied any such affair had occurred.

The concept of a no fault divorce did not exist in 1900. We can thank Gough Whitlam for its introduction. A woman in that era was the property of her husband and if he believed she had been unfaithful he could sue his wife’s lover for destroying his marital bed. In the Courts, Arthur accused Fr. Denis O’Haran, of sleeping with his wife Alice and demanded £5,000 (close to $450,000) in damages. The priest denied the charges against him. Two court cases ensued before the charge of adultery against O’Haran was declared unproven by the courts.

The focus of the NSW 1873 Divorce Act was to protect property rights. However, the Act also sought to prevent vexatious claims being brought against prominent individuals (largely men) from colluding couples intent on extorting money. Clause 28 of the Act stipulated that should the Crown Prosecutor prove that a husband and wife deliberately set out to entrap an innocent individual, then the costs and damages could go the other way. It was under this Clause that the priest O’Haran defended himself.

Arthur Coningham and Denis O’Haran were poles apart in lifestyle and personality, yet both played their respective role in entertaining and scandalising Sydney’s newspaper readers’ of the early twentieth century. Alice the errant wife became the pawn of both. Others were drawn into the vortex of the trial, most notably Cardinal Moran. Relishing the discomfort of the most senior Catholic cleric being grilled in the dock, Evangelical Protestants looked on the case as a golden opportunity to strike a blow against their old foe the Catholic Church. Under the leadership of the Rev. William Marcus Dill-Macky a true believing Orangeman from Derry in Northern Ireland, shelter and financial support were given to the Coninghams throughout ensuing trials.

Sectarianism or religious bigotry constantly bubbled up and below the surface of Australian society well into the 1960’s. This case had the potential to erupt into violence. Passions did run high, however, members of both denominations became engrossed as details of the alleged affair emerged and the antics of individuals involved descended to the level of farce.  At fashionable dinner parties, O’Haran’s innocence or guilt was the topic of conversation. Sydney’s burlesque Music Halls got in on the act and devised songs in honour of the three main players.

It is not hard to understand how this divorce case preoccupied the imagination of Sydney at the turn of the twentieth century. Given Evangelical Protestantism’s antipathy to Catholicism and celibacy the potential unearthing of a senior clerical adulterer was too good an opportunity to miss. They threw their resources into the task. The stakes were higher for the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Moran was outraged that he, as Australia’s most senior Prelate could and would be forced to stand in the dock like a common criminal. Equally abhorrent was the prospect of witnessing his confidant’s reputation destroyed by a woman, he viewed as nothing more than vile.  Sympathy for O’Haran and his plight took side stage to everything he had lived and worked for, the consolidation of the Catholic Church in Australia. From his perspective the Church stood to be judged and condemned by Godless Protestants. The institution, he believed had to be protected at all costs. Money, he assured O’Haran would be no obstacle. It was and would be used in the defence of the priest and institution.

On a human level Arthur too stood to lose substantially should he not be able to prove O’Haran an adulterer. Financially, he would be ruined, but as Arthur was regularly in debt, his financial worries were the least of his problems. Under the Act if proved that the case was an attempt to extort money from O’Haran, he and Alice faced the possibility of jail.

In fighting the case, Arthur believed he could easily prove O’Haran’s guilt. He seriously underestimated his foe and the capacity of an institution under siege to strike back.

For those unfamiliar with the case there were two civil cases brought by Arthur against his wife and O’H. To complicate matters Arthur conducted his own prosecution against the couple without any help from a barrister. No barrister of the period (Catholic or Protestant) would touch Arthur, fearing that if they were seen to be involved in the career destruction of a senior Catholic priest, their future business would be boycotted by the entire Catholic community. The first trial ended in a hung jury with an 8-4 result in O’H’s favour. The four who held out for a guilty verdict did so on sectarian grounds as no concrete proof could be presented of Alice and O’Haran’s guilt. Justice Simpson in his statements frequently showed an anti-Catholic bias.

To date I have outlined the backdrop to the case. There have been accounts written on it, most notably Dan Green’s Zero, Zero, which has dominated the input of future historians. The question needed addressing is why take another look? Well missing from the account have been the primary sources gathering dust in St. Mary’s Cathedral. These detailed records have been the missing pieces of the overall scandal.

First and foremost are the letters of a whistle blowing priest by the name of Fr. John Kenny. The backdrop to Kenny’s letters are as follows: John Kenny was an All Hallows trained priest in Dublin. From a socio-economic perspective he was chalk and cheese to the urbane Rome trained Denis O’Haran. He had a venomous dislike of O’H. and that outlook quickly became apparent after reading one or two of his letters. He saw the divorce scandal as a perfect opportunity to bring his nemesis down. He wrote approximately 10 detailed letters to Arthur Coningham who passed them on to the Rev. Dill Macky who used them in his continuous crusade against the Catholic Church. Basically the letters accused O’H of repeated sexual misconduct and of being an inveterate card player. Frankly Kenny’s accusations have an uncomfortably modern feel to them, but thankfully minors were not involved.

Arthur in conducting his own case mesmerised all in court with his capacity to understand the finer points of Catholic Theology particularly when it came to the definition of Mental Reservation. Essentially this teaching permits an individual to be evasive or withhold the truth from an interrogator or third party in extreme circumstances. In the first trial a debate erupted openly encouraged by the judge I might add on whether or not Catholics could be trusted to tell the truth under oath. This encouraged the belief that Catholics when giving testimony would lie and then seek forgiveness in the confessional, thus leaving them conscience free and with the belief that they had never lied in the first place. The debate took a more sinister turn when it was implied that priests could and would use their moral authority in the confessional to intimidate Catholic witnesses into giving favourable evidence for O’Haran.

What puzzled O’H’s Defence lawyers was the strength of the grasp Arthur had of this and other Catholic teaching. It became obvious that he was being advised by a Catholic priest. Further to this was their dismay at Arthur’s detailed knowledge of O’H’s private life and movements. I won’t have time to detail the Kenny letters today or how O’H’s lawyers got their hands on them. Essentially they set up a sting to entrap the whistle blowing Kenny through the post office system. The head of the post office in Sydney was William Patrick Crick  who in his capacity as Post Master General organised the illegal interception of Kenny’s letters. Typewritten copies of the priest’s letters were made by Dan Green (Crick’s sidekick and author of Zero Zero) replaced in their envelopes before being posted onto Arthur Coningham. Arthur’s letters to Kenny were handled in the same manner.

Arthur had no idea his letters were being read by the Catholic camp, nor did Fr. John Kenny. Thinking he was incognito and to cover his tracks Kenny signed himself as Zero – hence the Zero in the title of Dan Green’s book. Crick and Green can take the credit for unearthing the hapless Kenny.

Moving along Cardinal Patrick Moran’s private diaries are equally enlightening. On reading them I had the distinct impression that they were written after O’Haran was declared innocent and with the intent of protecting his reputation in the eyes of future Catholic generations. I say this because although they are dated by Moran from the commencement of the second trial, Moran’s sentiments appeared to be one of relief at the acquittal of O’Haran. They also reveal his deep affection for the priest. From my experience and previous knowledge of the Cardinal’s career, he was extremely careful about showing open support for an individual if there was any hint of their guilt. The diaries clearly show that Moran was aware and supported the activities of Crick and Green.

Cardinal truly believed that the Church was under attack from Beelzebub who had reappeared on earth in the guise of the Orange Order and Evangelical Protestantism. His attitude to women too was apparent. He tended to view them simplistically as either Madonna or whore. Alice most definitely was in the second category. Repeatedly he refers to her as that “vile” woman who like the Orange Order only wished for the destruction of the Church. He placed his trust on paper in the Virgin Mary to bring the Church through.

Then we come to the papers of Susannah Dill Stevenson in the State Library. She was the daughter of the Rev. Dill Macky. Her insights into her father’s behaviour do help us understand the evangelical crusade he was on. He truly believed that the Catholic Church was an evil influence in the world and had to be destroyed when the opportunity arose.

When I analysed the sources in St. Mary’s, particularly the financial records of what was spent by the Church in order to defend O’Haran the behaviour of Crick and Green is explainable though highly illegal. Church authorities gave them complete freedom to do whatever it took in order to clear O’Haran’s name and uphold the reputation of the Church.

In essence £7,000 was spent defending O’Haran. In my overview of the accounts there was a further £1200 which I could not account for. This was for the purchase of a property in Fairfield. To date I have not been able to trace this amount. To give you an understanding of what this figure means, in 1900 the pound sterling was worth approximately $88.81 in today’s terms. At $88.81 by £7,000 = $621,670 or thereabouts. If the other £1200 proves to be real, we are speaking of another $106,572 or thereabouts. The amount was enormous for the period. So how was the money allocated?

Well of course the legal eagles involved were the best and paid accordingly. I do not intend to focus on them. Rather I would prefer to look at the minions and how they fared out. Before I come to Dan Green I have taken a random sample of defence witnesses for O’Haran.

In 1900 a defence witness would be paid on average £1 for their expenses. This would be towards loss of income, food travel etc. Now let us look at these three defence witnesses.

James Exton had been a personal friend of Arthur Coningham. If one were to take Dan Green’s Zero Zero account at face value, it would appear that Exton became a defence witness because of his conscience, influence of his wife and or fear of Dan Green. Reality check, he had none of these, his motivation was greed pure and simple. Repeatedly he was questioned as a witness as to whether he was being paid for his evidence. He denied any monetary gain. Technically he was not lying as I can trace that payments only started to him on a staggered basis at the end of the trial with such payments totalling £245. His role for the defence was to spy on Arthur and Alice. He further helped Green and Crick intercept their correspondence in order to prove their collusion. Arthur never suspected him of duplicity.

William Miller was the manager of a property in Fairfield called Burrilda. It was a market garden and bed and breakfast. Both Arthur and Alice stayed there for some time and Alice was ensconced there before the second trial. The financial records reveal that £54.00 was paid to Miller. His role was to allow a number of private detectives stay at Burrilda in order to facilitate the drugging of Alice. This had to be done so that her correspondence could be stolen. This was required for the purpose of getting a handwriting sample from her so that it could be compared with letters already in the hands of Crick & Green reinforcing O’Haran’s defence team’s assertion that Alice and Arthur were working together in order to blackmail O’Haran and the Church.

The third person who lived in Burrilda was Trenery Marquet. For one day’s evidence she was paid £12/6/8. She was the housekeeper at Burrilda. She had been employed there under the instruction of Dan Green/Crick. She starting working in the B&B just as Alice arrived before the commencement of the second trial. Her role was to spy on Alice’s every movement and report to Miller or Green.

All three of these witnesses for the defence had been set up by Dan Green in order to either spy on Arthur and Alice or steal their correspondence.  When they gave evidence during the second trial, all played their roles magnificently and the rest shall we say is history. Arthur in that second trial never stood a chance.

Finally I would like to look at Dan Green as I outlined before his account of events has been seen by many as the account. He would have you believe that he acted for O’H out of a sense of altruism and fair play. He did genuinely despise religious bigotry but tolerance of difference was not his real motivation. He ran with the highest bidder as can be seen by the amount he was personally paid £639/14/=. His history is deeply flawed when it is juxtaposed against the new primary sources. In essence to achieve O’H’s acquittal Green and Crick were prepared to lie, cheat and steal in order to attain the desired outcome

Some here may believe before I analyse the newspaper reporting of the trials that I have glossed over the sectarian nature of the case. The trials were deeply divisive but it is too simplistic to assume that denominational hatreds were the motivating factors of those involved. Old fashioned greed, personal animosities (Kenny’s letters) – the classic scenario of a woman spurned by her alleged lover – O’Haran – played a larger role than sectarian hatred. The religion card surfaced only when all other arguments appeared redundant. This can be seen in how the newspapers handled the scandal.

Sydney’s society in 1900 was eclectic but it did share a commonality – a hunger for news and gossip. What is new? The main dailies, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Daily Telegraph,had the lion’s share of the market, but smaller publications such as the Newsletter and Truth were also popular. The Bulletin, with its biting satirical overtones, tended to appeal to a more sophisticated middle-class audience.

The first trial duly commenced on the 3rd December 1900. During both trials, newspapers such as the Australian, The Daily Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald shied away from direct commentary due to the contempt laws. The first trial ended in a hung jury 8-4 in O’Haran’s favour. It was the worst possible outcome for the priest and the Catholic community, particularly as Justice Simpson had inferred that Catholics particularly those of an Irish background could not be trusted to tell the truth under oath due to the malignant influence of the confessional. He was referring of course to the Catholic teaching on Mental Reservation.

In the letters pages of the main dailies evangelical Protestants wrote copious letters ridiculing Catholic teaching on “Mental Reservation” and its role in the confessional. Responding, Sydney’s second Vicar-General, John Carroll, penned a letter enclosing the signatures of the majority of Sydney’s metropolitan priesthood depicting their sense of dismay and outrage that, as a body, they would condone or encourage their parishioners to lie under oath as a result of advice given in the confessional. They further protested:against the vile and malicious insinuation that Catholics who confess their sins to a priest in the sacred tribunal of penance, and who receive absolution, may afterwards in a court of justice, truly swear they never committed these sins. Their biggest grievance lay in the supposition that non-Christians could swear and be believed in a courtroom, yet: No such credence is to be given to the sworn testimony of Catholics when the reputation of their priests or the interests of their Church are in question. This dastardly insult we regard as a shameful libel on the honour and veracity of our Catholic people.

The Evangelical Council stepped up the heat with further attacks on the teaching. They argued that it was nothing more than a doctrine concocted by devious Jesuits. The Jesuits now entered the fray. The mantle was taken up by Fr Edward Masterson from St Ignatius College.

Before the commencement of the second trial in March 1901, Masterson wrote four letters to Sydney’s daily newspapers in response to the Evangelical Council’s assertion, that the teaching was nothing more than a ruse to facilitate an end which justified the means approach in order to protect the institutional church. Masterson traced the evolution of the teaching. Pointing out that it was in place many years before the formation of the Jesuits, Masterson, by engaging Dill-Macky, sought to appeal over his head to the fair mindedness of ordinary Protestants. This was important as the Evangelical Council argued in simplistic terms that the teaching was nothing short of perjury.

Had the sectarian animosities not been so high, the debate entered into by both parties could have been productive rather than ending in a sullen draw. Overlooking Dill-Macky’s motivation in attacking Catholic theology, it did have some good side effects. Sydney’s priests and Masterson kept the animosities to written fisticuffs. This protected ordinary people of both denominations from escalating their differences into a full-on physical confrontation.

The second trial duly commenced in March 1901 and the major dailies resorted to their traditional style of reporting. The smaller broadsheets took a more creative approach particularly the Bulletin. It used their sketch artists to commentate without directly transgressing the contempt laws. O’Haran was a vain man and self-conscious about the length of his nose. When being photographed he would always sit face on. The sketch artists mercilessly lampooned him and when drawing him exaggerated the length of his nose thus creating a “Pinocchio” factor. The Bulletin cleverly picked up on community interest and portrayed a city incapable of going about its normal business while ordinary people waited for each day’s outpourings from the courtroom. – hence the sketch of 22 December 1900 as the Bulletin covered the visit of the Governor General. The visiting dignatory appeared incapable of making an impression on the people of Sydney due to their engrossment in the trial.

 The Catholic Press reacted in a predictable fashion seeing evangelical Protestant plots designed to destroy the sanctity of the priesthood and their leadership within the Catholic community. The Freeman’s Journal,more sympathetic to Irish causes, focussed on the sense of unity within the Catholic community and how they were prepared to monetarily show support for O’Haran and the Church. In its edition of February 1902, the journal published the complete and audited accounts of the contributions made by wealthy and ordinary Catholics to the O’Haran defence fund. The community raised in excess of £8,000. This statement of support for the Church was also a message to the broader populace that Catholics were prepared to fight for their rights in a federated Australia.

With respect to the mainstream press, once unfettered their coverage tended to take a pro-establishment and status quo stance. Dominated by male writers, the outlook of the Press was one of relief. In congratulating O’Haran, their arguments focussed on the need to protect men from the malicious demands of scheming women. The Sydney Morning Herald and The Daily Telegraph both agreed that the hung jury scenario in the first trial was the worst outcome any man could face and openly concurred that no other result but victory for O’Haran was possible in the second trial. The Bulletin tongue in cheek declared that all men under the age of 98 could now breathe a sigh of relief.

In April 1901, following the NSW legislative assembly election, John Norton editor of Truth failed in his re-election bid. Bitterly he claimed that his re-election campaign had been destroyed by the Catholic Church. In an open letter to the Catholic community, Norton, blamed the recent Coningham case for this failure. Norton argued that a political campaign of protest had been conducted against him by the Catholic priests of the Sydney archdiocese. Speaking, he asserted, without the “benefit of Mental Reservation”, he wrote that he had nothing to do with the manner in which his journalists had written about the case and he also denied helping Arthur write his final summation. He could not comprehend, nor would he believe, that the Catholic community would willingly “see the scotched sectarian snake raise again its baleful head within the social and political arena”.

John Norton became the owner of Truth in 1896. Born in England, Norton was Protestant in background but he despised sectarianism and his career in promoting the cause of the future Labor party stands as testament to that. Prior to the Coningham divorce trials, he had worked on the Labor party’s development. His open letter appealing to the fair mindedness of Catholics was a portent of things to come. Working Catholics did flock into the fledgling Labor movement but, once its leaders crossed their ideological beliefs or loyalties, many conservative Catholics stayed with what they knew which was their Church and community. Norton argued in this open letter that he was their first victim. There was some truth in his assertion. However by 1900, Truth had become more sensationalised and Norton was capable of ruffling the feathers of more than just the Catholic Church with his abrasive style of journalism. Norton argued strenuously that his paper had been the only one which had allowed Alice and Arthur a voice.

The posturing of different papers over the O’Haran trial reflected the infighting between journalists and politicians as they used their medium to forward their own political agendas.

Reflecting his true belief in freedom of expression, Norton allowed and published letters from Catholics who disagreed with his attack on the Catholic Church. The writers professed their Irishness and Catholicity but asked Truth’s readership a pertinent question: ‘Do you really think we are that stupid to fall for the priests?’ The writers argued that of course there was a backlash against Norton and naturally some priests spoke out against the paper. Discerning Catholics knew the difference and were grateful to Norton when he tried to make Alice and Arthur Coningham drop the case against Dean Denis Francis O’Haran

In conclusion, the above newspaper analysis represents the sophisticated argument of the political and educated. What of the reaction of those at the lower end of the socio-economic structure? The case reverberated for years and, in 1904 Dean O’Haran received a letter from a frustrated and angry Catholic, Larry Hogan, who was deeply upset by the continuous teasing and bullying he was receiving from his Protestant superiors in the city’s Sydney Hospital. Hogan claimed that some of the junior doctors were preparing a Christmas concert and as part of the programme they would perform a farcical quartet at the expense of O’Haran. Viewing their sketch as an attack on the priest and his private Catholic faith, Hogan included the words of their song. In analysing its lyrics the words were ribald and outrageous but funny in a crude manner.  They included:

“He’s a dear kind Dr” – Mrs Coningham

“I could do, could do with a bit”  – The Cardinal

“How can they tell that I’m Irish” –  Langton

“I believe it for my mother told me so”  – Denis Francis

“Who will have a drop of wine”  – Mrs Bonner

“Alice where art thou”  – Dean O’Haran.

The wording became progressively more vulgar as the doctors developed their theme.

Hogan could only see anti-Catholicism at work. It is a fine line between satire and genuine discrimination. Hogan’s letter did not reflect the comments of a highly educated individual and therefore he would not have had the verbal skills to retaliate against the jeering tones of his Protestant superiors. To him, it was discrimination. However, the scandal because of its public nature meant that people would inevitably see it as a source of salubrious fun. Hogan and Catholics, in general, had to, and did, develop a thick skin as a consequence of the Coningham divorce trials.