One of the many pieces of ephemera in the Chamberlain Case.
National Library of Australia manuscript librarian ,*Graeme Powell , delivered a fascinating speech entitled THE CHAMBERLAIN PAPERS, to a symposium at Macquarie University, Sydney, in 2005 . With Lindy Chamberlain in the audience , he said -
It may seem a bit far-fetched, but Lindy Chamberlain has something in common with Sir Henry Parkes. And also with Miles Franklin, Douglas Mawson, John Monash, Manning Clark and Peter Sculthorpe. They belong to a small group of Australians who have been good at keeping written records. In my experience, most people keep some of their photographs, but when it comes to written records it is a different matter. Legal and property documents may be carefully kept, but sooner or later most people discard the letters, diaries, notes, cuttings and other written records that document their lives and those of their families and friends. Even when good personal archives have been assembled, only a small number end up in libraries, archives or other public institutions. Of the many millions of people who have lived in Australia in the last two centuries, only a few thousand can be said to have had well documented lives. Lindy Chamberlain is one of the few.
Before I describe the Chamberlain Papers, I should say something about the National Library as a collector and preserver of documents. The Library has quite a lot of functions, but one of the most important is to document Australian history and society in all its diversity. It often says it does this comprehensively, but that is a bit of an exaggeration. It collects documents in the narrow sense –until recent times, nearly all its holdings were paper, paper which contained printed, typed or handwritten inscriptions.
Vast quantities of documents of this kind are created every day, most of them are destroyed, some end up in other Commonwealth institutions or in State and regional archives, libraries and museums. So in reality the Library, like every other institution, has to be selective and in deciding what to seek or accept it puts a lot of stress on the word “national”. Although it collects very widely, it focuses in particular on national events, national movements, national problems and issues, social change at the national level, and individuals who have achieved national fame, power or influence. The Chamberlain Case and the controversy and reactions it aroused throughout Australia for ten years or more were clearly national events and they had to be well documented in the National Library.
At first, the Library did not need to make a special effort, as a lot of Australian material comes to the Library automatically. Under the legal deposit provisions of the Copyright Act, it is entitled to copies of all items published in Australia. So from 1980 onwards law reports, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and eventually books referring to the Chamberlain Case poured into the Library and were dispersed among its collections. Much of that published material remains indispensable for anyone studying the Chamberlain Case.
Vast quantities of documents of this kind are created every day, most of them are destroyed, some end up in other Commonwealth institutions or in State and regional archives, libraries and museums. So in reality the Library, like every other institution, has to be selective and in deciding what to seek or accept it puts a lot of stress on the word “national”. Although it collects very widely, it focuses in particular on national events, national movements, national problems and issues, social change at the national level, and individuals who have achieved national fame, power or influence. The Chamberlain Case and the controversy and reactions it aroused throughout Australia for ten years or more were clearly national events and they had to be well documented in the National Library.
At first, the Library did not need to make a special effort, as a lot of Australian material comes to the Library automatically. Under the legal deposit provisions of the Copyright Act, it is entitled to copies of all items published in Australia. So from 1980 onwards law reports, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and eventually books referring to the Chamberlain Case poured into the Library and were dispersed among its collections. Much of that published material remains indispensable for anyone studying the Chamberlain Case.
Away from the mainstream, however, many publications were produced in small numbers, using cheap printing or duplication methods, by local organisations and individuals. Depositing copies in a library would not have occurred to many of them and libraries had to hunt for such works and cajole the publishers into giving us copies. In 1986, for instance, the National Library wrote to the Chamberlain Information Service at Cooranbong seeking copies of its Azaria Newsletter. [ Little Darwin specifically mentioned this publication in a previous post.] Nothing happened for a year or so, but eventually the Service sent copies and suggested the Library also approach the Chamberlain support groups throughout the country. It provided a list of 18 addresses and letters were duly written. Some groups had vanished, but several responded and the result was a series of acquisitions which have continued right up to the present day.
In seeking material from the support groups the Library unwittingly was shifting its focus from publications to archival records, including records of a private and personal nature. These bodies were willing to transfer newsletters, circulars, leaflets and newspaper cuttings, but they also offered correspondence, financial records and tape recordings. These collections documented not only the public campaigns, but also the internal workings of the groups, decision-making, the divisions and squabbles, and the relations with other groups and with Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.
Over the years, the Library received about a dozen substantial collections of Chamberlain support groups. In Queensland, for instance, Betty Hocking transferred the archives of the National Freedom Council, formerly the Plea for Justice Committee. In Melbourne Phyllis Boyd passed over papers that she and her husband, the sculptor Guy Boyd, had accumulated, particularly relating to their petition “A Plea for Mercy” and their lobbying of politicians and other public figures. Liz Noonan in Adelaide transferred many papers of the Northern Territory support group, including legal papers, correspondence, records of meetings of the group, tape recordings and publications.
These individuals and groups often suggested other people who might have retained records. An important personal collection was assembled by Norman Young, who is speaking at this conference. He passed over 51 volumes of transcripts of the two inquests, the trial and the Royal Commission, as well as correspondence, scientific papers and other material. Although the transcripts are not unique, the convenience for research of having all this material together in the Library is enormous and this collection has attracted an exceptional number of researchers to our reading room.
The archives of the Boyds and some of the other supporters contained letters of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain. However, for some reason the Library was slow in asking the Chamberlains about their own papers. It was Lindy Chamberlain herself who in 1992 phoned the Library and asked whether it had any interest in her papers. She said she had only destroyed a few papers and had kept a great deal of correspondence, material relating to the trial and hearings, papers relating to her autobiography and the filming of Evil Angels. She said it was a large collection, the equivalent of four filing cabinets. This would indeed be a large collection, as personal archives go, but in fact the collection finally acquired by the Library was three or four times larger.
A colleague and I visited Cooranbong in 1992 and did a quick survey of the papers. We did not really know what to expect, as personal archives are often much smaller or much larger than we imagined from initial conversations. In this case, we could see immediately that the papers were extensive. They were mostly on the floor, some in boxes, others just heaps of loose papers, with letters mixed up with cuttings, leaflets, and an array of objects, some of which were to end up in the National Museum. In a short visit it was hard to assess the value of such a disorganised archive, but it did seem to us that it documented in detail a family tragedy and in addition public attitudes towards the Chamberlains and the public campaigns to secure Lindy’s release and exoneration.
When I returned to Cooranbong several months later, I found that the archive had largely been transformed. A large quantity of the papers had been filed, each file had a sticker with a summary of the contents, and they had been put in alphabetical order in boxes. The files were colourful, as Lindy had colour coded her correspondence. Letters addressed to her were in blue folders, letters addressed jointly to Lindy and Michael were in red folders, letters to her parents were in green folders and so on. In addition, the files were divided into specials and ordinaries. The filing, annotating and classifying by Lindy Chamberlain and her parents involved a huge amount of work and greatly enhanced the usability and the research value of the archives. It meant that we now had a good idea of the range and content of the material that we were acquiring.
The papers were received in instalments over a period of five years. They form a much larger and wide-ranging archive than we had envisaged when we first visited Cooranbong. They occupy 179 boxes. The figure may not mean much, but as a rough guide about 600 letters can fit in a box, so the quantity of papers is considerable. The bulk of the papers date from 1980 to 1990, but there are a few from Lindy’s earlier years and a fair number from the 1990s.
At the heart of the archives are the letters, cards and notes exchanged between members of the family, access to which is restricted. There are many other personal letters from friends and associates, witnesses and lawyers in the case, and leading figures in the support groups. There are an array of special documents: notes written by Lindy during the trial and in gaol, prison memorabilia. The tapes and drafts of Through My Eyes are of considerable importance, as are Lindy’s annotations of a series of scripts for the film Evil Angels. Other papers include trial transcripts, correspondence with the Chamberlain Information Service, cutting books and other papers compiled by relatives and friends, and files relating to book tours and lecture tours.
Correspondence makes up the bulk of the archive. We have often said there are 20,000 letters but we have not counted them and the number could be much higher. Some of the letters are from well-known and influential figures, such as politicians and lawyers, or from scientists, park rangers and other kinds of experts. Some were written by people who had met the Chamberlains or known them in earlier years. Most were written by strangers, who felt forced to write because they were convinced of Lindy’s innocence, or because they were disturbed by the judicial process, or because they considered her guilty, or because they had originally thought she was guilty and had changed their minds.
Here are a few opening lines taken at random out of a couple of the boxes: I am not exactly sure how to begin this letter, as I have never been inclined to write a fan letter before... I am reading Bryson’s account of the events surrounding the loss of your daughter and I feel compelled to write to you to express my support and admiration...Myself and my Auntie feel you are not guilty, you were used to make a big story to sell papers...Here is one person who no longer believes you are guilty of murder.. I have just been watching you on Sixty Minutes...Our family was grief-stricken by the jury’s decision today...I feel like I already know you, I saw the movie, read the book Evil Angels (an American correspondent) .
Here are a few opening lines taken at random out of a couple of the boxes: I am not exactly sure how to begin this letter, as I have never been inclined to write a fan letter before... I am reading Bryson’s account of the events surrounding the loss of your daughter and I feel compelled to write to you to express my support and admiration...Myself and my Auntie feel you are not guilty, you were used to make a big story to sell papers...Here is one person who no longer believes you are guilty of murder.. I have just been watching you on Sixty Minutes...Our family was grief-stricken by the jury’s decision today...I feel like I already know you, I saw the movie, read the book Evil Angels (an American correspondent) .
Many of these letters and cards are short and simple and repetitive. Considered as individual documents, they could easily be dismissed by historians as worthless. But as part of a huge accumulation they achieve historical significance. Taken as a whole, they provide tangible evidence of the private arguments and discussions that the Chamberlain Case engendered, as distinct from the arguments and claims in the media. Moreover, some of the letters are lengthy and dwell on the writers’ experiences, ideas and prejudices in relation to the courts, the police, politicians, the media, churches, as well as less tangible matters such as family relationships, bereavement, and behaviour. The papers therefore say a lot about Australians in the 1980s, as well as about the Chamberlains and the Chamberlain Case.
Quite often correspondents began their letters by saying they hardly ever wrote letters but felt compelled to write. Collections of papers held in public institutions tend to have been written or assembled by people who were powerful, comfortably off, highly literate and with a fair degree of self-confidence. Such people are represented in the Chamberlain Papers, but so are people from humble background and remote localities, who often had trouble expressing themselves, but who had strong beliefs, fears and prejudices. They usually wrote by hand, or on old typewriters, using a great variety of stationery. I think in years to come historians and other researchers will be grateful that Lindy Chamberlain kept their letters, as well as all the other papers, and offered them to the Library. In 1989, the year after her conviction was quashed, the World Wide Web came into existence and over the next decade it drastically changed the ways people communicate with each other. I suspect that the Chamberlain Papers will turn out to be one of the last of the great collections of personal papers assembled in Australia.
*********************************************************
*Graeme Powell, now retired , was manuscript librarian at the National Library of Australia, a position he first occupied in 1969. From 1979 to 1987 he was in charge of the Australian Joint Copying Project in London. While working in the Australian High Commission he was involved in the attempt to transfer to Australia the assent copy of the 1900 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. (Thanks to the National Library and author for permission to run this important document relating to a major Territory and national case.)
