A Change in Life?
A decade after his arrival in Tasmania Flynn now found himself not only solely responsible for a University Department but also for a plethora of extra-curricula activities that ranged from Government advisor on fisheries, to curator of the Museum and President of the Field Naturalists. In addition he had a difficult family situation. His wife, who was expecting a second child, disliked Hobart and was soon to leave Tasmania, permanently. Flynn’s relationship with his wife and family now begin to significantly influenced his career. This subject is dealt with later at ( The Family Flynn)
In addition to his teaching and research he was still an active Fisheries Commissioner (his fellow reformers welcomed his Report, but they were still in the minority), Honorary Curator and a Trustee of the Museum and was just finishing two terms as President of the Field Naturalists Club.A superbly organised person or one with an efficient secretary might just have managed but Flynn failed to copewith the complexity of his situation. His failure, and some jealousy amongst his colleagues soured his second decade with the University of Tasmania.
Following the Royal Commission Flynn resumed his earlier interests. His interest in marsupials and membership of the Field Naturalists made him obvious choice for membership of the new National Parks Board when the Government began its involvement in nature conservation in 1917. The University Council proposed that he should represent the University on it. His involvement in this Board also brought him into further contact with Leonard Rodway, and with Clive Lord, curator of Hobart’s Museum. The initial role of the Board was to develop and manage the new park at Mount Field.
Flynn recognised that this facility was an ideal opportunity to introduce the public, particularly young people, to the study of nature and the need for conservation. At its first meeting Flynn moved that a representative from the Workers Educational Association be appointed to the Board and at the second meeting that accommodation be constructed for visitors and medical assistance be provided. He also pressed that a megaphone be obtained to help control the crowds. Although the meeting time of Tuesday afternoons meant that sometimes Flynn could not attend, he was an active participant during the first three years of the Board’s operation and was as proud as any of the members when they gathered for the official opening at Mount Field on 13 October 1917.
A Dark Cloud
In May 1918 Flynn requested the University to pay his salary directly to his account at the Bank of Australasia. (Perhaps this was needed to retain their support but it may just have been a sensible move that it is now common.) The Registrar met his request. Six months later the Registrar, Montagu Ansell, received a request from Mary Roberts, owner of Beaumaris Zoo, for help in getting payment for an outstanding debt. Earlier in the year Flynn had bought a Tasmanian devil from Mrs Roberts for £3. Flynn had also borrowed some specimens, and she wanted the Flinders Island wombat and a thylacine skeleton back. She did not want to cause trouble for Flynn but ‘he always puts me off’. The Registrar apologised that Flynn was away at the moment but, he ‘shall deal drastically’ with the matter. He enclosed a cheque for the £3.
A year later Clive Lord wrote to the University of behalf of the Trustees of the Museum seeking assurance that some specimens, lent to Flynn for use in his classes, were still at the University. Flynn had resigned his position as a Museum Trustee when Lord was appointed Curator and Secretary in December 1917. Lord had begun his career with the Field Naturalists Club and thus he and Flynn would have known each other well. Whilst Lord was reputed to be a great organiser, Flynn was probably at the other end of the scale.[ADB p144.] As soon as Lord was appointed he set about organising the museum’s collections and complained that the Government would not commit enough funds for his staff adequately to care for the valuable material they had under their charge.[See Annual Report of Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery 1918 Parl papers 1919-20 No. 19.] Lord felt that Flynn as acting curator had not been careful enough in distinguishing between Museum property and the University’s.
Flynn’s research subject necessitated large collections of specimens. He had begun by describing the reproductive anatomy of the marsupials and this required specimens of both sexes in mature and immature stages. When he moved on to describe the process of reproduction he needed both live specimens and far more animals for dissection. To find females carrying embryos at each stage of development meant that he had to dissect very many. The demand became even more onerous when he proceeded to look at the embryological development. In describing the mammalian fauna of Tasmania for the Handbook given to members of the BAAS delegation in 1914 he had noted that the ‘native cat’ Dasyurus viverrinus, ‘is common, and this, together with the ease of getting it to breed in captivity, makes it a good subject for investigation of marsupialian anatomy and embryology’. [Tasmanian Handbook for British Association for the Advancement of Science Australian Meeting 1914. Gov. Printer, Hobart Tasmania. page 51. 1914] Although Flynn collected many specimens himself, he depended on commercial trappers for the bulk of his samples. Once the hunter had removed the valuable skin the body could be provided cheaply for Flynn to dissect. The University had complained that vouchers issued by Flynn to the hunters had not always been always properly accounted.
Given his status as one of the world’s leading marsupial experts and his access to a supply of these animals, it was quite logical that museums overseas and zoos should approach Flynn to supply specimens. Mrs Roberts’ thriving trade in exporting Tasmanian marsupials and Flynn’s own sales appeared to be the source of the couple’s dispute.[In 1912 Flynn sold a thylacine to a collector in Sydney for £40 – The Sunday Tasmanian 8 July 1990.] Suspicions arose that Flynn was not always scrupulous in separating this trade with his purchase of materials for research study and teaching. While Flynn was meticulous in his scientific research and teaching, he appeared to apply no such discipline to his personal record keeping. Perennial tensions that exist between teaching staff and administration flared higher when the University was asked to intervene in Flynn’s financial affairs.[In addition to the request from the Museum the Registrar’s Office had received an unpaid account from the Melton Mowbray Hotel. ]
After receiving the aforesaid letter from the Museum Registrar Ansell referred Flynn’s matter, (and the like troubles of another staff member, Dr Raamsdonk) to the University Council. By this time the issues had become –
a) A request by the Trustees of the Tasmanian Museum to recover the specimens that were lent to Flynn.
b) Flynn’s financial affairs were embarrassing it in that his salary has been assigned to the Bank of Australasia, and the University had, in successive years, been ordered to make payments of his income tax.
c) Flynn’s not paying sufficient attention to Public Examination work - in particular in relation to a paper in algebra that he had set and which had to be redone.
d) Flynn’s failure to furnish vouchers to cover £75 advanced to him to purchase specimens for use in his Department.
At its meeting on 16 December 1919 the Council appointed a committee consisting of the Chancellor, Sir Tetley Gant, Director of Education, GV Brooks, LF Giblin and WFD Butler to investigate the claims. Giblin and Brooks had recently joined the Council. Flynn could be sure that with Gant in charge of the inquiry justice would be done. Gant was a distinguished lawyer and President of the Legislative Council and held that post for 19 years, longer than any other person. Butler was another lawyer and a prominent member of the Anglican Synod. He was probably the main inquisitor for he was also the University Council’s financial expert, and had graduated in science from the University in 1900.
Coincidentally, shortly after that meeting Gant received a letter from the Attorney-General reminding him that the Trustees of the Ralston Bequest had initiated an action in the Supreme Court to amend the terms of the Bequest in order to increase Flynn’s salary. The Attorney sought formal advice as to whether he should intervene in the matter. In a note to Ansell, Gant ‘presumed that nothing can be done until after the investigation’ just initiated. However, shortly afterwards Gant decided not to wait and instructed Ansell to write back assuring the Attorney-General that the Bequest was being properly administered and the University ‘quite satisfied’ with the teaching of Biology. Therefore there was ‘no sufficient reason why you should not approve the Trustees application’. [UT72 AOT]
The Committee planned to hear from Flynn and Dr Raamsdonk on the evening of 19 January and sent a letter to Flynn at Westella requesting his appearance. The timing could scarcely have been worse. The Flynn’s second child was only seven weeks old and Flynn was on his way to Sydney to see herfor the first time when he received the request in George Town. His reply explaining the circumstances did not arrive until after the meeting was held and Dr Raamsdonk heard. The Committee threatened to initiate action to suspend Flynn unless he appeared before them with a satisfactory explanation within a month. Flynn telegraphed a message assuring them he abandon his visit to Sydney and would be back in Hobart in two days. A new hearing was set for 28 February and meanwhile Flynn asked Ansell for copies of relevant correspondence and reports.
Not all such correspondence has survived, but a personal letter from Gant to Flynn dated 8 March 1920, in response to Flynn’s of four days earlier, is interesting. It begins ‘I shall reply to your letter of 4th inst. as frankly as you have written’ and finishes
‘I don’t want you to regard this letter as hostile, it is not, but a frank statement of the position, and I want you to realise that however epoch making your thesis may be in the biological world, your friend’s task is not quite easy. I have to thank you for the partial introduction to your thesis, which I shall read with interest and send on to Major Giblin and otherwise make use of.’
Within the letter the Chancellor said –
You say you fear the University has still not (the) confidence in you which you would expect. I think I can say that in your teaching and research there is no lack of confidence, outside that I am not sure. Can you wonder there is an atmosphere of doubt? The professor of Biology has twice differed with the Royal Society and each time has come out with a loss of credit; the voucher business of last year was not satisfactory and your letter to the Council on the subject was resented and strong action on it urged in some quarters. This is too recent to be forgotten yet. Then it comes to me that you are in disagreement with people outside–official [the Examination Board?] and otherwise [Mrs Roberts?] – with regard to matters affecting your work, and this does harm to both you and the University. In fact, I have more than once heard the question raised whether the benefit to the University of your teaching and research is more than balanced by a general feeling of want of confidence in the community. The reasons I don’t know, I only concern myself with what happens in the University or connected with it, but I am getting rather weary of defending members of staff against criticism which is not always easy to answer.
As for the findings of the Committee Gant offers this prediction:
‘The success of your research and your teaching capacity will, I think, be the determining factor, but there may not be unanimity.’ Probably WFD Butler was pushing for a significant punishment.
The Committee found that –
a. Flynn did not wilfully withhold the specimens lent by the Museum but failed to complete the studies for which the loan was made. However Flynn may have carelessly handled some of the material and caused some damage to them.
b. The statements relating to his finances were substantially true but did not warrant drastic action. However in future any staff member seeking to assign his salary to a bank should get the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.
c. In relation to his examination duties Flynn was not the only offender but may have been the most notable. It was caused by overwork and Flynn should be relieved of this task.
d. The missing vouchers have now been received but they were very rough and unsatisfactory. The delay in providing them was inexcusable and in future there should be no further advances and payment for specimens should be made by a University cheque.
In summary the committee found that Flynn had ‘shown carelessness and negligence that have placed a very serious and unpleasant burden on the administration and are publicly discredible (sic) to the University’. Furthermore ‘the degree of culpability comes perilously near to one which calls for drastic action’. However, in view of Flynn’s ‘excellent record in teaching and research, his resolution of amendment expressed to the Committee’ and his plea of overwork they recommended that the Vice-Chancellor merely consider any further action. There should be an enquiry into the resources made available for the teaching of Biology.
The findings were sent to Flynn and he was asked for his response. He replied -
The report on the face of it certainly suggests that the Committee has not taken a very reasonable attitude and has not approached the matter with that sympathetic attitude which I might have expected. Furthermore the terms in which the report has been couched have, in my opinion no justification whatsoever.
With regard to his financial situation- If the Council considered it to be weak it has the power to remedy it… Members of the professorial staff now suffer tremendously in comparison with those in other Universities. We have smaller salaries, a lack of endowments and additional workloads.
On the vouchers - It is surely not unreasonable that vouchers supplied by uneducated men such as trappers and fishermen should be somewhat rough.
On the questions of the public examinations he was glad to be relieved of the responsibility for it and wanted the decision to be announced publicly.
Flynn remarked that for ten years he had pleaded with the Council to address the work in the Biology Department. The need had been mentioned in a paper considered by State Cabinet and the Council has established a Committee to consider the issue but it had never reported. Other Departments had got new staff and some assistants. ‘No professor is asked to do more. … Prof Johnstone in Sydney lectures for 9 hours a week and had no other responsibilities’. Flynn gave 24 hours of lectures a week and did all the preparation for practical classes with the help of just one student. ‘I am willing to do my very best but I am not always in a position to do the routine work with as much efficiency as might otherwise be expected.’
The value of Flynn’s research was been well covered here but evaluating his teaching is not so easy. In his later career there are glowing reports of his lecturing skills particularly to first year students. One source said that he did not encourage post-graduate students while in Tasmania but when the University began to award an annual post-graduate scholarship two of the first five went to Flynn’s students.
Central to Flynn’s defence was the failure of the University administration to recognise that the terms of his appointment entailed spending considerable time on research. The Department had no other staff administration, and teaching, was in abeyance while he carried out his responsibilities under the Bequest. He declared that -
The Bequest has not been given the recognition it deserves by the Council…. Only one other member of the scientific staff has made a contribution to science in the last few years. My own record is 23 papers and 5 in preparation. My work on the placenta of Perameles made in the past two years ranks as the greatest marsupial discoveries of the past 20 years.[His D.Sc thesis The foetal membranes and placentation of the marsupialia, Part 1 The placentation of Perameles.] The discovery of the whale at Wynyard is the most important find of such an animal yet made in the world.[See later discussion] I have been asked to take up investigations for the South African Government and the USA national museum both of which I have had to reluctantly decline.
Such issues would arise again with greater impact ten years later.
Flynn’s privileged position due to the Bequest generated jealousy and he believed this was behind the enquiry and within his reply he fired a shot in return. ‘This could only have been designed to seriously damage me in the eyes of my colleagues’. In April 1921 he wrote to the Vice Chancellor from Sydney complaining ‘that when I am away no one has any compunction about attacking me in every way possible and these yarns have now spread all over Australia much to my detriment.’[Flynn Staff file 14 August 1922.] It seemed likely that his aim was at the Registrar. Animosity towards Flynn by some in the University perhaps is confirmed in Gant’s letter. As the Chancellor predicted there was at least one on the Committee who wanted to see the back of the Professor of Biology. Not withstanding his conflict with the administration Flynn remained as active and committed as ever to his Department, although his relationship with some members of the Council remained unsettled. His vigorous defence to the attacks on him appears to have been partly successful, but he was by no means happy.
The role of Clive Lord in the affair is interesting for his appointment to executive positions in the Royal Society and the Museum coincided with Flynn’s retirement from both bodies. Flynn also left the Field Naturalists Club where Lord was again influential. Whilst Flynn remained a member of the Society until 1924 he no longer participated in its activities. His attendance at meetings of the National Parks Board, where Lord was the Secretary, became spasmodic and he was replaced in 1921. However, the enquiry and the possible rivalry with Lord are not the only explanation. Domestic issues must have played some part. Flynn had enjoyed a high-flying career in Hobart for more than a decade and in a small insular city the exploits of this handsome Sydneysider with a glamorous wife and connections to the Labor Party undoubtedly engendered envy and possibly antagonism from the more conservative elements of Hobart’s old families. He had been criticised in Parliament after handing down his Fisheries Report, but not by Gant, and now some elements in the University administration had assailed his reputation.
There is no record of any action taken by Gant but his earlier letter to Flynn had an effect. The University enquiry into his affairs hurt and appeared to change his outlook. He appeared to make a conscious decision to follow another course and avoid contact with those who he believed were behind the attack on him.