RootsWeb is funded and supported by
Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community.
Learn more.
About Us | Contact Us | Copyright | Report Inappropriate Material
Corporate Information | Privacy | Terms and Conditions | CCPA Notice at Collection
The King's School, Parramattathe true foundation day historyBeside a high-rise the still standing in 2024 house at 182, George Street, Parramatta, NSW where the school commenced on 13 Feb 1832 |
Errors in a 1981 published school historyOpening Day Attendance
The 1981 published history of Australia's oldest
non-government owned and operated school, titled:
The Kings School 1831-1981 : An Account,
erroneously stated that only three boys averaging
eight years of age named James Staff,
James Orr and Ebenezer Orr attended when the school first opened in the above pictured
rented house on Monday 13 Feb 1832. The claim was based on
the author's interpretation of newspaper reports of an address
given in 1880 by the then school headmaster G. F.
Macarthur, who after carrying out some research
during the preceeding Christmas holidays to ascertain
when the school first opened, stated in a press
advertisment it was on Monday 13 February 1832. G. F. Macarthur 1825-1890 The address was given on 14 Feb. 1880 at a function held at the school when G. F. Macarthur instigated the first of the since annually held commemoration of foundation days in which he put on record a romantic "three little boys" attendance only on the opening day story no doubt in the expectation it would be retold as such down through the years on future commemoration days. A newspaper report of the address can be interpreted in two ways - that Macarthur had claimed three boys he named were the first to arrive at the school that day, but not necessarily the only ones, or that they were the only ones to attend. The author of the 1981 "history" decided to state as if it was a fact they were the only ones to attend and speculate just turned seven years of age Macarthur may not have attended because he may have had an attack of bronchitis. He gave no reason why the eleven year old son of the coachman, who would have transported the headmaster around until he acquired his own carriage and lived just next door to the school, did not attend although the evidence is that day he and another boy were sitting on the doorstep waiting for the doors to open and the of methodist domination coachman's son, who later became Australia's most prominent Methodist minister, was the first boy through the doors ! Another unsighted newspaper report of the speech apparently exists, presumably a report in the local 1868 established Cumberland Mercury newspaper, that had Macarthur as saying he was not personally present that day thus acknowleging his attendance claim was at best heresay and seemingly to this writer just how he chose to present the school's opening day attendance. As he had been a first term attendee he was well aware no person present in the audience that day was in a position to conradict him as none had then attended and he even lamented the poor attendance of early old boys. If later challenged as to the correctness of the attendance claim, having covered himself by saying he was not present, he would have been able to counter with - well that's what I was told! It was an R.S.V.P. occassion. With reporter's present it would still have been for all time on the record and would be passed down orally as a legend. One such instance was noted, garbled as so often happens, that had Macarthur as one of the three. Although the three named by Macarthur were undoubtedly among the first term attendees and could have attended that day, there is no "evidence" they were the only attendees and irrefutable first person evidence published over a century ago that at least two others attended on the first day of whom one who lived next door to the school was actually the first through the doors! In repeating Macarthur's as reported erroneous claim as if was undisputable fact, by inference the 1981 book's author was saying two other distinquished Old Boys during their lifetimes lied in respect of having attended the school on the opening day! The book's without qualification attendance claim can have no other conclusion. Not Reliable EvidenceIn addition to other significant reasons it would surely have been the case with patrican appearing Macarthur of - "God forbid that a convict stain attach to MY SCHOOL'S opening day history let alone the name a prominent thoughout Australia Wesleyan Methodist whose church's teachings I have publicably made clear I arbore and whose father was my father's coachman! Macarthur would have been well aware the coachman's son had always said he was an opening day attendee. Saying is one thing but recording it for posterity is another. With newspaper reporters present on the RSVP occasion the opportunity was there for Macarthur to put on record an opening day attendance version that accorded with his perception of how it should have been. The newspaper report of the 1880 address quoted in the Waddy authored book had Macarthur saying two of the three attendees in his first day attendance "story" were the sons of a "good old settler". That certainly was the case as the two boys referred to arrived in the colony with their parents as free settlers so no unacceptable convict stain there. Back in those days and well into the 20th century a convict origin was consideded inferior to those who came "free". G. F. Macarthur was brought up in a family of great prominance in the colony and that alone would have coloured his social views. His father Hannibal was aligned politically with the 'exclusive' party that sought a degree of political power commensurate with their own estimate of their social worth and economic power. His uncle John Macarthur was the spirit behind the 1826 establishment of the colony's second bank the Bank of Australia, described in the Monitor newspaper as "the pure merino bank", of which it was said at least half the shares went to 'settlers' and most of the remainder to civil and military officers. Hannibal was appointed a director and by 1835 was the Chairman and with his other financial interests and political activities was one of the most prominent citizens of the colony. After it was established he was appointed as a member of the Legislative Council and remained so until 1848 despite a major change in his financial standing following the "nipping frost" of the early 1840s depression with at one point him going through the Insolvency Court. A reader of this article may well ask, apart from a presumed desire by Macarthur that no convict stain should attach to his school's future foundation day commemorations, why would he not have wanted it on record that such a prominant throughout Australia Wesleyan Methodist as the Rev. John Watsford had been an opening day attendee. As Macarthur had saved King's from oblivion and built it up to what it had become, for which he deserves the greatest possible credit, it was very much HIS SCHOOL and life's work. However as evidenced by his writings in 1870 and 1871 he was an entrenched Wesleayan Methodist antagonist of the first order. He was publically an openly religous bigot in respect of Wesleyan Methodist teachings. That in 1863 a Wesleyan College opened just down the river at Newington, that likewise to King's was primarily a boarding school, may have played a role in him going to some lengths to publically argue, acrimoniously at times, theology with Wesleyan ministers stating that Wesleyan teachings did not accord with scripture and he even went so far as to publish a booklet (held by the Mitchell Library) he sold to the public for one shilling. After the establishment of Newington he would have seen it as being in completion with him for country boarders and to some extent taking "bread" out of his mouth that otherwise would have been his. Of course as the years passed and the population of the colony rapidly increased before 1880 competition with Newington for boarders would have become less significant but it would not be expected his bigotry in respect to Wesleyan teachings changed in any way. Erroneous Enrollment ClaimThe facts are that the initial plan of education drawn up in 1831 and advertised by the first headmaster after his arrival as availble from him provided that only boys aged nine years and over were to be be accepted as pupils. However in the day's before the school opened the headmaster Robert Forrest advertised that after receiving several indications from parents of younger children they would like to have them taught some basics of the three R's, the initial nine years minimum age qualification would no longer apply and he had changed the plan of education so that classes would now be available for younger children at an annual fee of half that to be charged for the nine years and over boys. Thus it is logical the first boy enrolled would have been before the change was made so was at least of nine years of age. To put it succinctly - anyone knowing the details of the initial plan of education age restriction should have known the first boy enrolled would not have been a boy who then was not quite seven so that boy could not have been McArthur! It seems the author of the school attendance register and the 1981 history publication in this regard have been blinded to the facts by a reverance for the later to be headmaster and saviour of the school McArthur described in the 1982 Waddy publication reverently as the "Old Chief". Macarthur was born at Parramatta on 19 Jan 1825 so when the school first opened on 13 Feb 1832 he had just turned seven. That in 1880 he expressed a belief he would have been the first boy enrolled did not make him so. It just meant he was seeking that distinction for himself with the qualification that he said it was only quote "reputed" he had been the first enrolled. Reputed by whom? Contrary to his claim evidence not mentioned in the Waddy book is that it was NOT REPUTED and Macarthur must have known it. He could not have anticipated that 22 years after making the reputed claim a from 1834 school attendee Henry Baylis, some of whose other recollections were quoted in the Waddy book, would put on record a contradictory version of who was the first boy enrolled. Unlike Macathur's claim the Baylis recollection makes perfect sense as it had nine year old in Feb 1832 Ebenezer Orr (1822-1874) "Eban" as the first boy enrolled thus according with the until amended initial minimum age requirement that commonsense dictates would have been at least the age of the first boy enrolled. Ebenezer was the second son of Church of England and Ireland born James Orr (1793-1835) Registrar of the Court of Requests and Clerk of the Parramatta Bench of Magistrates who arrived in the colony on the Elizabeth in 1825 with his wife and five children. Prior to those appointments he was the Parramatta Coronor and Postmaster and initially after arrival in the colony for a few months in 1826 the Clerk at the Parramatta Female Factory that housed the convict women after their arrival in the colony etc. and for a period Acting Accountant to the Trustees of the Clergy and School Lands Corporation (aka Church and School Corporation) that set up and oversighted The King's School for the government. He resided in "Erin Cottage" on an about 6 acre (2 ha) lot in George Street located a short walk from the school and worked out of the court house/police station in the same street a short walk from the school. Back in Ireland his younger brother John was an attorney-at-law and he was also obviously educated so there can be no doubt he was in the position and would have had the desire to immediately enrol nine year old son Ebenezer and followng the nine years of age enrollment qualification being reduced also the next born son James. The first headmaster Forrest after arrival would have posted a notice at the court house and/or at the post office of where in Parramatta he could be contacted by those interested in enrolling a son and no doubt when doing so would have made himself known to the most prominent public official in the small township. It is of course not disputed after the age limit was abandoned McArthur's father Hannibal would have enrolled him. In July 1902 it was reported in the local Parramatta newspaper that Henry Baylis who first attended in 1834 had sent in some recollections to the School Magazine that in respect of first boy enrolled read - "George Macarthur and the two Orrs, Ebernezer and James, were attending the school when we went there. It was generally spoken of amongst the boys that Ebernezer was the first boy who went to the School and that in consequence of his being the such first boy he had his schooling free, no charge being made for him. I have a perfect recollection of James Orr, who was of somewhat remarkable appearance as a boy. I never knew him to be disabled in any way by an accident or otherwise. Their younger brother Robert came to the school when it opened in the present building. The Orrs were day scholars and their parents lived at the eastenmost end of George Street, and near the Old School building". Obviously the reference by Baylis to a first term or first year free, or then and thereafter free schooling, was not to a door entry prize for the parents of the first boy to elbow his way though the front door on opening day but for the first boy enrolled. It was perhaps put about, such as by a poster at the Court House, as an enrollment incentive by headmaster Forrest after his arrival from England. As he spent eight years as a student at King's Macarthur could not have gone about all that time with his ears plugged with cotton wool. At the time of his 1880 address claim that it was reputed he was the first boy to be enrolled he had to know it had been reputed by his contemporaries at the school that Ebenezer Orr, who when he made the claim in 1880 was already six years in the grave so unable to dispute the claim, was known to have been the first enrolled. Whilst unlikely McArthur knew that after leaving King's Ebenezer in his early pioneering days as a pastoralist on the Liverpol Plains in NSW had lived in a cave with two of his aboriginal shepherdesses and in the early 1850s had fathered a daughter with an aboriginal mother, had he known it would have given him additional motivation to attempt a rewrite of the enrollment history in his favour. The 1981 history quoted some of Baylis's recollections but not this one that completely contradicted what Macarthur had claimed 20 years earlier was "reputed". Baylis likewise to first day attendee Henry Gordon was a Police Magistrate (at Wagga Wagga). He retired in 1897 and died in July 1905 after being hit by a train when crossing rail tracks whereas Gordon died a couple of weeks after a near miss by a train when similarly crossing rail tracks it was said not having fully recovered from the shock. At the time of his death Baylis held a government appointment as a member of the Old Age Pensions Board for the Parramatta District that assessed eligibility for a means tested old age pension then of a pound a fortnight first introduced in NSW the year before. There is no reason to doubt his recollection as factual. In respect of the quoted Baylis recollection of the attendance of Robert Orr, whose second given name was Roe, he was the 1826 born in NSW youngest of the four sons of Ireland born James Orr (1793-1835) who attended the school. However the 1990 edition of the School Register listed him in error as Robert C and that he died on 28 Nov 1868. There was an Ireland born plain "Robert Orr" who died on that date in Sydney but he was a Register ring-in as his Sydney newspaper death notice clearly stated his age was 66 years from which it follows if he had in fact first attended in 1836 he would have then been aged 32 which would have made him the record oldest "boy" to attend. The real Robert died in New Zealand on 5 May 1900 aged 73 years. His death notice in The Sydney Morning Herald and the NZ papers stated he was of Duntroon in NZ and formerly of 'Garrawilla', Liverpool Plains. From the late 1840's his older Ireland born brothers James and Eban acquired several large pastoral stations on the Liverpoool Plains including 'Garrawilla' and in partnership with brother-in-law Robert Campbell "Tertius" (1811-1887). When in the Coonabaraban district both James and Ebenezer were magistrates from 1859 on the Coonabaraban Bench and when a group of eleven partnership owned stations were sold at auction in May 1873 the parttnership was stated to be running 175,000 sheep. James pictured below attended the school with older brother Ebenezer from 1832 to 1839. Ebenezer died in Sydney in 1874 and James moved to England in the second half of the 1870s and died there in 1902 in Sussex. In Reminiscences of Coonabarabran (1920) its author recalled that - the Orr Brothers were continually buying and selling property and purchasing sheep stations in the district and she was sad to see the brothers leave adding - "I must state that the brothers were greatly missed as I have stated before they were most generous and kind hearted to every one alike". . Three Boys ? Although
Macarthur in his 1880 address as reported did not
specifically say only three boys attended on the
first day, just that the ones he named were the first
to arrive outside the school which may well have
been the case, there is no particular reason not to
accept it was possible only three attended but if
so for the reasons speculated in this article
at least two of their names were not as claimed in
his address. As evidenced by the below quoted school
publications and extracts from newspapers, the 1981
book author's repetition of the Macarthur claim as
if it was an established fact those he named were
the only ones to attend, contradicted without a
reason given the unchallenged first day attendance
claims made during the preceeding 149 years in
publications by earlier King's School historians
and in other published early school attendees
first person accounts that had two of those present
on the opening day as eleven-year-olds day-boys
John Watsford and Henry Gordon. The
historian author of the 1932 published centenary
of foundation school history titled The History
of The King's School Parramatta, S. M. Johnstone
M. A., F. R. H. S., who unlike the author of
1981 history book was not an old boy, made no
finding in respect of the first day attendance
or of the first enrollee merely stating that
during his research four different boys had been
claimed to him by their families as having been
the first enrolled. He simply pointed there was no
surviving list of the initial enrollees. He stated he
had been given access to the copies of the local
Cumberland Mercury newspaper so presumably
viewed any report in it of the 1880 Macarthur
address and did not accept it other than as
just another heresay claim.
In attempting to change the previously accepted attendance history to exclude both gentlemen the Waddy authored 1981 publication by implication branded the two, who in their lifetimes were highly respected and distinquished ‘old boys’ and, also the longest living of the boys who had attended the school in its' initial year, as having been untruthful during their lifetimes in respect of claiming to have been present on the opening day. To say at the least that was quite extraordinary unless of course through a lack of personal research of the prior school publications etc. it was done in ignorance. In the book no source was given and the author stated he was in the main responsible for anything written without a source given. The purpose of this article and the linked pages is to correct a resulting from the first day attendance version in the 1981 book unwarranted and outrageous slur on the character of the two longest living first year attendees by identifying and placing on the record the reasons why the Lloyd Waddy authored version of the first day attendance was most certainly astray. All that can reasonably be said is that first person evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt John Watsford and Henry Gordon were present on the opening day and that the 1880 G. F. Macarthur address identified James Staff and the two Orr brothers as also possibly present that day. Below follows indented extracts from relevant publications and thereafter further comment.
As evidenced by
the above two 1910 Henry Gordon obituaries, and a mention
in the Rev. John Watsford's school magazine obituary
establishing the source of the quote in Henry Gordon's
obituary was a 30 May 1907 letter Watsford wrote to the
magazine editor, it was clearly accepted without challenge
prior to the extraordinary 1981 revision that John Watsford
and Henry Gordon attended on the opening day.
In 2004 and again in 2005 the author of this article gave the then school headmaster Timothy Hawkes the opportunity to enlighten him as to the reasons for the book's first day attendance revision of the previously accepted and School Magazine recorded attendance history. Nothing was forthcoming in 2004 and twelve months later in 2005 all that was elicited was a response from the then school archivist, replying in the capacity of delegate of the headmaster, advising that despite the proofs to the contrary given in this article the school's position was it accepted the first day attendance was as given in the 1981 published history as it was a conclusion reached by a school archivist P. J. Yeend based on "written evidence" dating from earlier than the references given in this article - presumably the newspaper reports of the G.F. Macarthur's 1880 address of which one not linked to herein has not been sighted by the compiler. Whilst extolling Henry Gordon and John Watsford as being leadership role models for current day students and, at the same time by virtue of an acceptance of the 1981 as published "history" as being accurate, the headmaster's delegate apparently saw no resulting conflict in that it followed as night doesw day that the two "role model" Old Boys whilst alive must have lied regarding their own opening day attendance ! Headmaster Hawkes' response through a delegate was seen by the author of this article as a classic blame shifting exercise. Without personally knowing the man it was perhaps unrealistic to expect a person apppointed to the headmaster position when the author of the 1981 book had chaired the School Council to acknowedge the records referred to in this article had raised even the slightest doubt as to the veracity of what about the first day atendance was said was a once archivist's attendance conclusion regurgitated in the book. So much for the vision expressed in 1966 by the then incumbent headmaster when he announced the establishment of a school archive society that in respect of the school history the way forward was to quote "sort fact from fiction in relation to the history of The King's School". The stated aim was replace "incorrect concepts" with "concepts which are able to be argued from school historical sources". No doubt he meant those that could not be CONCLUSIVELY argued from such sources should no longer form a part of the school history. Of course the same applies to the contradictory to commonsence claim that a then seven years of age G. F. McAurthur instead of logically and, in accord with the published recollection of an early scholar, that a much older Ebenzer Orr was the first boy enrolled. Never mind in this matter of first day attendance that John Watsford was not only an old boy who attended the school for five years but for a year after leaving an Assistant Master for two years in 1838 and 1839 under the first headmaster Robert Forrest. The simple fact is that if G. F. Macarthur's 1880 attendance claim continues to be accepted by "the school" as accurate it follows that Watsford/Gordon's were false. "The School" cannot have it both ways. Unlike Macarthur John Watsford never claimed to have been the first enrolled but he always said he was an opening day attendee. Not only were Watsford and Gordon the longest surviving ‘old boys’ from the first quarter intake but throughout their lives were highly respected men seemingly not given to self promotion or the seeking of personal distinctions who in their respective spheres spent their entire working lives in the service of the public. To persist in by implication in effect denigrating their truthfullness seemingly based on an as reported by a journalist heresay account of a former headmaster G.F. Macarthur is surely unbefitting of "the school". Perhaps when the incumbent headmaster departs the position a new headmaster will view the recording of the early school history differently should a book be published at the time of the 200th anniversary of the founding in 2032? In this case if there does exist a reasonable arguement based on a school historical source this writer is open to hear it, to add it to this account, and to make any ammendment if such is required. In that regard he has in mind an otherwise undisclosed document noted as in 1981 held by the school archives as #4100. Although not certain it may have been the previously mentioned incomplete listing of attendees to 1839 compiled that year by a thirteen year boy who just happens to be one of the three the 1981 Waddy book had were the sole attendees. However if that document is in some way relevant one asks why in 2004 when the opportunity was given to the then school archivist to justify the 1981 book claim with "evidence" such was not conveyed to the compiler and again twelve months later when then headmaster Hawkes was given the same opportunity ? It is of course open, as it was then, for the school to at any time resolve the attendance matter by referring this article and its linked pages and its archive held document #4100 and anything else held to an independant 3rd party such the (or Associate Professor) of History at the nearby University of Western Sydney in Parramatta for an unbiased opinion as to the veracity of the 1981 archivist's interpretation of the relevant records. After all it is a simple question - was the 1981 archivist's interpretation reasonable bearing in mind it follows Gordon and Watsford lied about their first day attendance, an attendance accepted as a fact by the school magazine editor in 1907 and in again in 1910, and one that had stood unchallenged by their peers down though the years ? Since about 1893 there has been a King's School Old Boy's Union - does it care that the school's earliest old boys have in effect been denigrated and consequently denied the acknowledgement of their attendance role on the 1832 foundation day? A Complete Fiction
It
can be confidently stated it is a complete fiction the
three named in the 1981 school history, even if they
did attend on the opening day, were the only ones.
Regardless of what Macarther actually said in 1880
perhaps it has been assumed they were present if
their names were at the top of a surviving list
(unsighted) of the first seven years school attendees
that was mentioned in another context in the 1981
publication as compiled by a then thirteen year old
student James Staff in 1839 at the time of the
departure of the first headmaster Robert Forrest.
However it would surely be contrary to commonsense
to assume a literal meaning to a perhaps descriptive
heading on this list that it was ordered in the day
by day order within each year that each boy first
attended regardless of the obviously important
consideration of when and by whom a heading if
such exists had been inserted. Given the then times
a young boy most certainly would not have had
access to the departing headmasters private
attendance and accounts records. Drawn up seven
years after the school first opened such a list
could only have been an attempt by the young boy
to compile a year by year listing of some of
the school attendees, most probably for a
purely practical purpose associated with the
headmasters departure, such as to include the
names of students taught under him as headmaster
in or accompanying an Illustrated Address
to be presented at the student's farewell dinner. As
there would have been a cost involved in providing
the dinner and, commissioning the presentation item
to both the headmaster and his wife, the list may
have been compiled to establish the names of those
no longer at the school who could be approached for
a monetary contribution. The actual order of names
within each calender year would thus have no
particular accuracy and it would be expected the name
of the thirteen-year-old compiler James Staff would
appear at or near the top of the 1832 attendees
with perhaps those of his best mates (perhaps the
two Orr boys whose parents had a 6 acre block fronting
George Street east in the street from the school
and about where Harris crosses it) or those that
came first to his mind when he commenced to compiled
the 1832 section! If such has since been treated
as of a factual accuracy it would be quite absurd.
Watsford lived next door to the school and Gordon only a mile away so both were logical first day day-boy attendees. The close association of the Rev. Samuel Marsden with the founding of the school and, leasing of the house where it was to be initially conducted and, with Gordon's anglican mother being Matron in Charge of the Parramatta Female Factory whose Management Committee Marden chaired, and a presumed association of Watsford's father who ran stage coaches with Rev. Forrest who arrival with his wife from England would have needed transport, indicates both boys would have been first day day-boy attendees. In his 1901 autobiography the Rev. James Hassell, son of Rev. Thomas Hassell who had a residence opposite initial the school in George street, said he entered the school in April 1832 and was the ninth to enter. If Hasell's name was not in ninth position on the 1832 section of the Staff list such only heightens the absurdity that his may have been used to determine first day attendees! As prior mentioned the initial advertising for scholars sought both day boys and boarders and according to the original plan of education it was initially intended only boys aged nine years or older would be taken as students. The advertising commenced on 26 Jan. 1832 and continued until 2 Apr. 1832. At the latter date a surviving record has it that sixteen were enrolled although Hassell had by that date only eight were attending.Thus it seems the sixteen were only those for whom the first half-year fee had been received by the headmaster and thus taken by him as enrolled although some would not have actually first attended until when the second term began at mid-year and additional facilities had become available to accomodate more boarders in an adjoining house. No register with the names of the initial enrolments and/or actual attendances has survived. Likely all that existed originally were the headmaster's books of account and they would have only reflected the order of payment of the fees and not attendance as such. Thus to determine names of the initial attendees regard must be given to what was later written on the subject and the reliability of the source. A first person record, especially if intended for publication where it could be noted by contemporaries and others best placed to contest an inaccuracy clearly must carry more weight than one not intended for publication or a second person or other degree of remove record that falls into the category of hearsay. Watsford and Gordon were highly respected men - one a prominent clergyman throughout Australia and the other for 31 years a NSW Police Magistrate. In 1839 Watsford became the first Australian born candidate for the Wesleyan Methodist ministry. He was its first Australian born missionary and was regarded as one of the three greatest evangelists to work in Australia in the nineteenth century. In 1878 less than two years before Macarthur's 1880 address he was elected as the first President of the Methodist General Conference that was referred to in "The cradle city of Australia: A history of Parramatta 1788–1961" as the Supreme Court of Methodism in Australasia. According to his 1899 written autobiography titled: Glorious Gospel Triumphs he was a scholar at The Kings School for six years followed by two as a teacher under the first Headmaster the Rev. R. Forrest. In his book Rev. Watsford comes across as a person more interested in giving credit to others than taking it for himself or seeking personal distinctions. However as the school magazine editor pointed out in 1907 - he "always" claimed to have been the first boy to pass through the school doors and as he lived next door there was no reason to doubt he had that distinction. It would appear out of character for him to have made that claim if it was not true One might well ask why would anyone doubt the Rev. John Watsford's word that he had been the first to enter the building on the opening day and his obvious acceptance Gordon had also been present that day ? Why in 1898 would John Watsford have written for publication in the school magazine he had been present and then again to the editor nine years later in 1907 re Gordon's attendance with him unless he knew Gordon who outlived him by three years would have been in full agreement with the facts as he stated? No doubt Gordon would have fully agreed as indicated by his 1910 Maitland Mercury newspaper obituary having stated he had been quote "one of the pupils" when the school first opened. Clearly the main motivation for the 1907 John Watsford letter, written only eight weeks before his death, would have been a concern that Gordon's status as an initial year student and opening day attendee was not recorded in the annals of the school as his name was not on a 1902 and a 1903 published list of the first six students enrolled in the day-boy category and the first six enrolled in the boarder category (the 12 apostles). Gordon was present six months before his death and just three weeks before his 90th birthday at the 13th Feb. 1910 foundation Commemoration Day church service. Likely it was by special invitation of the Old Boys Union as at that great age he would hardly have otherwise made the long train trip down from Maitland to Sydney Central and then out to Parramatta just to attend a church service. The obvious factor behind his attendance would have been his recognised status as an opening day attendee and as the last survivor of the first quarter intake of students. Another aspect of the 1981 history claim, naming James Staff as a first day attendee but omitting Gordon, is that neither of their names appeared in the above mentioned 1903 published list of the first six day boys and the first six boarders enrolled. This list appeared in the Journal of The Australian Historical Society in an article delivered in Feb. 1903 by Archdeacon W. J. Gunther on the school history titled: ‘A short history of the King's School, Parramatta’. This list of twelve names, that would have been the list referred to by John Watsford in his 1907 letter to the magazine editor, was also given by a fellow Anglican church minister and likewise to Gunther former King's School scholar the Rev. James S. Hassall in his 1901 autobiography titled: In Old Australia : records and reminiscences from 1794. Hassall's list was the same as Gunther's except for the minor variation of Hassall spelling the surname of one boarder as "Waller" and Gunther as "Walker" that would have been a typographical error. The other difference was that Gunther the historian referred to his list as being of those first "enrolled" and Hassall to his as the first "pupils". Clearly Hassall's description of his list as first "pupils" was just less precise than Gunther's later description as Hassell also said he was ninth to enter the school and his name was not on his list. Both lists have no relevance to the matter of the names of the first day attendees. Although neither the Staff or Gordon names were among the first six day boys enrolled it is not likely either would have been present on the opening day unless enrolled - i.e. at least half the day-boy fee of £10 PA had been paid and accordingly a record of such made in the headmaster's books of account. An mere expression of interest in sending a boy to the school or even an expression of intent would not have resulted in an account book entry. It can be confidently said the Gunther and Hassell lists would have been extracted by the headmaster at some time during the first year from his account books most probably for the purpose of reporting on progress to that date to the School Visitor, Rev. Samuel Marsden of St. John's or the Church & School Lands Corporation. Gordon and Staff may well have been the seventh and eighth day boys enrolled, and whilst listed on the Gunther and Hassall lists source document, their names were not included in their lists because only the first six names in each enrolment category were extracted from a longer list of each category. Thus the writing of the source document may have either predated the school opening or been much later. By the 13 Feb. opening day, of those on the Hassall and Gunther twelve disciples lists, there could well have been only some of the six boarders actually enroled and all six day-boys plus Staff and Gordon making a total of eight plus of whom several did not actually attend until after the end of the first term June holidays. As from a surviving record sixteen are known to have been enrolled at 2nd April 1832 it is quite possible Staff and/or Gordon were enrolled only shortly before the school opened on Monday 13 Feb. As Hassall said he first attended in April he could well have been the fifteenth enrolment. Because the press advertising campaign seeking students commenced so soon after the headmaster elect arrived in Sydney from England and so close to the opening date, it seems quite possible when the school opened only nine or ten were enrolled with almost all being boys residing in the Parramatta locality thus enrolled in the day boy category, and the expansion of the enrolment to sixteen by 2nd April comprised mainly boarders from the country such as Hassall who because of poor communications would have been the slower to respond. A telling point is that Gunther in his history journal article made no mention of first day attendances, which surely he might have been expected to do if he had accepted as valid the version given in G. F. Macathur's 1880 address at which he was present, and after which within days had convenyed a meeting to address a matter raised in that speech. The first comprehensive history of the school was a 1932 published 415 page centenary of foundation commemorative history titled: The History of The King's School, Parramatta by Archdeacon S.M. Johnstone (1879-1949). S. M. Johstone was the Rector of St. John's Church of England, Parramatta from 1910 to 1935 and a member of the School Council from 1918 to 1949. Whilst noting the above mentioned single surname variation between the Gunther and Hassall lists, the author was silent on the names of those in attendance on the first day except for a comment it had recently been claimed to him that one listed in the boarder category on these lists of initial enrolments named George Rouse had been the second boy to "enter" the school. Presumably the Rouse "second" to enter claim was made in deference to the unchallenged John Watsford claim he had been the first! Rev. Johnstone also mentioned at least four claims had been made on behalf of different boys for the distinction of having been the first boy enrolled - stating the problem there was that none could be validated as a list of the early enrollees had not survived! Johnstone included a roll of students he compiled from various lists. These lists did not include any compiled by James Staff. Thus his list must have surfaced after 1932. Conclusion |