The celebrated Spanish Civil War debate at the University of Melbourne took place on 22 March 1937, now seventy years ago. The debate is illustrative of the passions unleashed by an event that had little immediate relevance to Australians. The fact that the antagonists, who each saw themselves as joined in the conflict half a world away, debated a contentious political issue on the University grounds is of major significance. To set the scene for this debate, this paper introduces the Campion Society (the radical right) and the activities of the Communists (the strident left) as political forces at the University of Melbourne during the 1930s.

'The Spanish Government is the Ruin of Spain'

The proposition 'That the Spanish Government is the Ruin of Spain' was the subject of the University Debating Society's first meeting for 1937. It was a widely advertised public debate that attracted a large audience. The debating team for the affirmative were members of the Campion Society. Arts/Law student, B A Santamaria made his debut as a political activist at this debate. Nettie Palmer, writer, literary critic and member of the Spanish Relief Committee, led the opposing team. Biographers of these individuals saw their involvement in the debate as a significant event in Australian history.

     The evening of 22 March was hot. A large audience crowded into the stuffy and air-less Public Lecture Theatre (PLT) in the Arts Building. The University's Vice-Chancellor, Dr Raymond Priestley, though aware of the contentious nature of the debate, did not attend. Many of the details of what took place vary according to the sympathies of the teller, and some details have been subsumed into conflicting sets of mythologies. All written and oral accounts of the debate confirm that the PLT was crowded. Newspaper reports tell us that people were crammed in the aisles, jammed in at the doors and corridors. Some were reported to have climbed into the skylights and ventilators on the roof and were looking in. Though the size of the audience varies according to the paper it was reported in, possibly 1,000 people came to hear the debate though the PLT had seating for around four hundred. Some were students and many of the remainder were believed to be members of the Catholic Young Men's Society. This fact remained one of the most problematic aspects of the meeting. The affirmative side therefore 'had many more potential barrackers than their opponents'. However, as at a football match, the crowd included supporters of both sides plus many who just enjoyed the game.^[1]

     The spectacle in the PLT was beyond anything the audience might have anticipated. Three Campion Society members argued the affirmative side. They were Kevin Kelly, a public servant, Stanley Ingwersen, a Campion Society member and, as mentioned, B.A. Santamaria. They entered the PLT with all the fervour of the Catholic crusaders they imitated. Speaking against the proposition, Nettie Palmer, recently returned from Spain and member of the Spanish Relief Committee, and Jack Legge, a science student (the only student on the platform) and member of the Labour Club and the Communist Party, both 'spoke with the voice of reason'. The third speaker, Dr Gerry O'Day, was a Communist and ex-Catholic debater who enjoyed the challenge of debating with the 'fierce young Campions' whose technique and fervor he knew so well. Palmer noted in her diary that night: 'Debate university. Evening. Hottish day: hotter evening.' The heat rose as the debate proceeded.^[2]

     Once the debate began, every speaker was jeered and interrupted. Some men climbed onto the roof of the Theatre and stamped so loudly that the speakers could not be heard. The meeting ended in chaos when it was reported Ingwersen cried 'Viva Christo Rey' or 'Long Live Christ the King!' the cry of the Catholic crusaders, to a cheering audience. It was reported fighting broke out in the corridors, and fire hoses were turned on sections of the audience. Manning Clark in his memoirs recalled entering the PLT and felt it was 'occupied by two howling mobs . It was like being in the outer at a game between Carlton and Collingwood', an evocative description of the situation. Marjorie McCredie, then a first-year student, wrote that night in her diary: 'to think something like this could happen in Melbourne. What will the world think!' The middle-class University that she had entered was transformed overnight from a genteel institution to a place of fierce contention.^[3]

     Newspaper accounts of the debate highlighted the tension at the outset of the meeting and the chaos that ensued. The Argus reported that the debate 'was conducted in a disturbed atmosphere' while the Age recorded that 'Feeling ran high from the beginning, and Mr. Santamaria, who opened the debate, was interrupted by many hecklers'. It also noted that 'the great majority of the meeting was in sympathy with the affirmative team'. Or, as historian of the University, Dick Selleck puts it, this was a coded way of saying that the meeting had been stacked. On Wednesday, 24 March, the Argus was critical of the students 'undignified proceedings . when the Spanish imbroglio was publicly debated'. This article highlighted the Chancellor, Sir James Barrett's anxiety over the right to express political views at the University. The Catholic press claimed victory for the Church with the Catholic Worker's headline, 'Melbourne University Resounds with Historic Cry'. Meanwhile, the Communist Party newspaper, the Workers Voice, did not directly report on the incident but kept the issue alive by continuing to publish correspondence between Les Donald, State Secretary of the Communist Party, Kelly and Ingwersen.^[4]

     Student rags had long been part of student life, yet serious political engagement at the University had, until 1936, been embraced largely by the political left, such as the Labour Club, the Communist Party and the Council Against War and Fascism. While the Liberal Club had existed since the 1920s, and Public Questions Society even earlier, the left had been the only truly organised political force. In a student population of around 3,000 at the most 10% of students were actively involved in politics. However, from 1936, the presence within the University grounds of an articulate and powerful political movement of the right began to transform the campus. The new political agitators were members of the Campion Society, a secret Catholic society of mainly University men formed in 1931, and whose membership was known only to one another.^[5]

The Campion Society and the Spanish Civil War

The Campions were a unique Society: sanctioned by the Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Daniel Mannix, they aimed to promote the theoretical framework for Catholic Action. Membership of the Society enabled laymen to publicly express and publish their opinions on social and doctrinal matters.^[6] Contrary to papal direction and Catholic Action's avowed non-political aims, the Campion Society's determination to discuss and promote Catholic Action soon became highly political. To fight their crusade against Communism, they adopted the same tactics as their opponents, and engaged in propaganda wars through newspaper articles, published pamphlets, spoke at meetings and stacked meetings with their own supporters. Aware of the power of the written word, in 1936 the Campion Society launched a new Catholic newspaper, the Catholic Worker, from which to proclaim that the Church was calling all Catholics to 'a new Crusade' and 'holy war'. It was sold at the University as well as at the Church door and was an immediate success.^[7]

     The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936 intensified the turbulent political climate of Europe and greatly magnified Australian Catholic fears that the Communist menace would spread across Europe and toward Australia. These fears were articulated by members of the Campion Society, both at the University and in its external activities. The themes of Catholic martyrdom in the anti-Communist cause characterised most reports of the Spanish Civil War in the Catholic press whose allegiance was largely anti-Communist and pro-Franco. The Catholic Worker's articles were strongly coloured by its religious identification, especially in the early period of the Spanish Civil War when Santamaria strongly influenced the content of the paper.

Responses from the Left at the University ­ Prelude to the Debate

During the mid-1930s the Communist Party of Australia was moving from a policy of 'Class Against Class', with its vehement opposition to social as well as capitalist democracy, to one of a united front of all on the left. The consequent changes in strategy are reflected in the activities of the Labour Club. In the early 1930s some members of the Club had been prominent communists who antagonised other students by their confrontational style. These students were, according to Don Watson, 'imitators of the proletariat'. However, by 1936, the Communist members of the Labour Club were avoiding strident denunciation of their fellow students as dupes of capitalism, and instead appealing to them to join the defence of peace and freedom. The Labour Club joined forces with the University Peace Group (formed in March 1936) and the Student Christian Movement as a counterpoint to Catholic activism. This alliance also suggests that the Labour Club was achieving some success in its efforts to create a united front.^[8]

     On 5 March 1937 the Spanish Relief Committee advertised in the Age appealing for funds. So incensed were Campion Society members Stanley Ingwersen and Kevin Kelly by the appeal that they wrote a Letter to the Editor against the fundraising efforts. Les Donald, the State Secretary of the Communist Party, replied to their letter. He complained the Communist Party had been singled out, and challenged them to debate the proposition that 'the Spanish government has the support of the people of Spain and is fighting for world democracy' and to let the public decide the issue.^[9]

     In the columns of the Age, Ingwersen accepted the challenge to debate the proposition in April and specified that it should be held at the Town Hall. It is unclear why they did this, as they had previously agreed to debate the topic on their own territory at the University at the Debating Society's first meeting the following week, 22 March. The Campions, it seems, suspected the meeting would be stacked by the University's Labour Club and so arranged for busloads of members of the Catholic Young Men's Society to fill the lecture theatre. So successful was their tactic that the debate was moved to the larger PLT in the Arts Building. This strategy is illustrative of the Campion Society practicising Catholic action.^[10]

Aftermath of the Debate

The Spanish Civil War debate at the University of Melbourne had a profound impact on the University community. The Chancellor, Sir James Barrett, Vice-Chancellor, Dr Raymond Priestley, Council, staff and students were all shocked by the strength of feeling and violence exhibited by the debaters and members of the audience on 22 March. It brought to a head the simmering hostilities long felt by the left and the right at the University and its long-term impact is evident as the event is still discussed today in terms of the radicalisation of students at the University. Dr Raymond Priestley had become the University's first salaried Vice-Chancellor in February 1935. From the outset he had expounded the theory that 'any institution connected with young people, if it is to be healthy, must have a strong and vigorous left wing'. In Priestley's view, political thought and political activity among the student body ought to be encouraged and not repressed. Priestley was aware that the debate was going to take place but was not too concerned. In his diary he noted: 'I suppose the Catholic Protection Society and the Reds have been marshalling their forces', but concluded 'I can do nothing but give them a chance to show their mettle and hope for the best'.^[11]

     The debate was widely reported in the Melbourne press and student newspaper, Farrago and this caused concern for Priestley. Following the debate, Priestley spoke to the Student Representative Council and cautioned them against the increasing intolerance shown by both sides and asked the students to protect the good name of the University. He stressed that the scurrilous behaviour exhibited at the 22 March meeting would do the University no good. The message hit home. In the following weeks, contributors to Farrago were more restrained in their views. One outcome of the debate appeared to be a release of tension in the University.^[12]

     The disruption and intolerance of views on the Spanish Civil War was taken up in a letter published in Farrago by three academic staff, Herbert Burton and W.B. Reddaway from the Faculty of Commerce and W.K. Williams. They censured the Debating Society for its arrangements of the Spanish debate and pointed out that, though it was a University activity, only one University undergraduate student had spoken when the debate was thrown open to the house. The writers advised that it was necessary to choose 'balanced' speakers on each side, 'instead of which the most violent protagonists of both causes were asked to speak.' This letter brought a long and very personal response from Santamaria. Burton replied in the following edition and apologised for calling Santamaria 'unbalanced'. The editors of Farrago subsequently announced in April that correspondence on the subject of the Spanish Civil War was now closed.^[13]

     The Chancellor, Sir James Barrett, was incensed by debate. Two days after the 22 March meeting, he telephoned Priestley and 'demanded a report' ­ he was 'wrought up' by the article in the Argus concerning 'The University's Dignity'. Priestley informed Barrett that he had dealt with the consequences of the debate to his satisfaction and intended to present a report on it to the next Council meeting. At this meeting he had also intended to inform Council that he was not prepared to continue indefinitely under his present conditions. Though the Chancellor's role was non-executive, a point Priestley felt Barrett had difficulty grasping, Barrett's demands and insistence on becoming involved in the day to day running of the University were untenable for Priestley. Barrett's phone call and demand for a report were 'the last straw' to Priestley. The pressure of the few days following the debate prompted Priestley to confide to his diary:

There is no room here for a Vice-Chancellor between the Chancellor and the Registrar unless he is prepared to be a man of straw. And I am not. So Bert can act with the knowledge that I should accept any reasonable post at home where I can at the same time keep my self-respect and avoid a stroke.^[14]

The nature of the debate, the strong emotions associated with the Spanish Civil War, and the presence in the PLT of large numbers of outsiders were all gravely disturbing to some members of Council. Additionally, the issue of freedom of speech for both staff and students loomed before Council. Freedom of discussion and the right to express political views were principles the Council, especially from the time of the First World War, had never accepted.

     The responses to the debate by Council members, staff and students brought these issues into stark contrast for Priestley who was probably more distressed by the regard in which the State government and the Melbourne community held the University. The University had been starved of funds since the early 1920s. After his arrival in 1935, despite his best efforts, Priestley was unable to convince the government to increase its annual grant to enable it to return to the financing level of the 1920s. By 1937 he felt that if the Government could not accede to the University's request he must reserve the right 'to take any job offer that comes my way'. Despite his frequent appeals, the Dunstan government refused to increase the grant to the University for the 1937-38 financial year.^[15] Lack of funding, together with the breakdown in his relationship with Barrett as a result of the crisis of the Spanish Civil War debate, Priestley felt he could no longer maintain his position, and he resigned as Vice-Chancellor of the University in August 1937.

In Retrospect

Participants, observers, commentators and sympathisers from both sides of the political fence have written about this debate. Perhaps the most authoritative study of the debate is Amirah Inglis's Australians in the Spanish Civil War in which Inglis's nuanced view of the left and the right was that 'On the subject of Spain, debates were both sport and crusade.' On the issue of academic freedom and open debate, Stuart Macintyre and Simon Marginson correctly note that the debate revealed the divergent attitudes of the lay Chancellor and the newly arrived academic Vice-Chancellor toward open and public discussion on campus.

     Patrick Morgan, editor of the recently published collection of B.A. Santamaria's letters, highlights the event in Santamaria's university career; the debate effectively launched his career as a political activist. Morgan reminds the reader, too, that the memorial booklet at his funeral ends with the phase, Viva Cristo Rey!, made famous in the Spanish Civil War debate, and which he sees as 'a final defiant affirmation that his beliefs hadn't changed one iota from the days of the Spanish Civil War six decades before [his death]'. Santamaria's work with the Australian Secretariat of Catholic Action and the other secret Catholic organisation, the 'Movement', and the influence he had on the Labour Party and the 'Split' have all been the subject of scrutiny and considerable analysis. They generally conclude his power and influence were great. His presence on the Australian political stage from 1937 must, I believe, be characterised, in terms of the explosive effect his crusades had on Union and Labor politics, as passionate and powerful. In terms of Catholicism and anti-Communism, Catholic historian, Colin Jory, saw the 1937 debate as an ideological watershed while Patrick O'Farrell, historian of the Catholic Church in Australia, argues that not only did the Spanish Civil War bring 'frontal conflict between Catholicism and communism', but that it dominated, almost exclusively, 'the social thinking and apostolic energies of Australian Catholicism for the next twenty years'.^[16]

Conclusion

The formal, structured and very public Spanish Civil War debate marked a new phase in the history of the University, and brought significant changes to the University and its students during the late 1930s. Of major importance was the fact that the antagonists debated a highly political issue within the University grounds. The liberal views of the Vice-Chancellor, Raymond Priestley, encouraged students to engage in political debate. A shift was occurring so that the older idea of the University as a remote place of learning, 'a place apart', was under challenge. The University, which was known at the time and regarded by many of its students as 'the Shop', was becoming much more than that. With the expression of passionate views by the Catholic anti-Communist right-wing crusaders and the equally volatile supporters of the left, Selleck argues that the University 'lost all resemblance to 'the Shop' and became a theatre in which the great battles of the age were being fought, not fairly, but with intellect, passion and excitement'.^[17] In the context of student political engagement at the University of Melbourne, Selleck articulates the most accurate assessment of the event.

     Previously sheltered from the worldly concerns of the larger society, the University could no longer remain 'a place apart'; it had become a site of contestation ­ a public place of social and political engagement. One of Priestley's legacies to the University was to steer the University, its Council and students through a difficult period of transition. Though it would still be seen for decades to come as 'the Shop', and by others as an elite, separate and cloistered institution, from this point in 1937 it began to take on a third function ­ that of the political conscience of society.