ISSN 2206-2572 (Online)
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History is published by The Salvation Army, Australia
Eastern Territory Historical Society.
2016
Volume I Issue 1 March 2016
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 1
Call for Papers
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History
ISSN: 2206-2572 (Online)
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History is a multi-national journal that fosters a dialogue on all aspects of the
history and development of The Salvation Army. Articles are encouraged to be glocal, that is, both local and global in
consideration. All articles in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review by at least two reviewers. The
aim of the journal is to publish timely, useful, informative, original and honest historical research which will be of value to
both a general audience and those interested in Salvation Army history.
The journal is published by Cross and Crown Publications for The Salvation Army Australia Eastern Territory
Historical Society and seeks to increase the knowledge and promote the interest of Salvation Army history and
understanding of its development.
The journal publishes research papers and historical papers in any areas relating to the history and development of
The Salvation Army, including, but not limited to:
Aged Care, Biographies of individual Salvationists and employees, Buildings and Architecture, The Booth family, Brass Banding, Corps
history, Education of Salvationists, Education organised by Salvationists, Emergency relief and management, Fashion of uniform -
design and meaning, Gender and Cultural Diversity, Genealogical studies, Health work and ministry, Holiness Movement, Human
Rights, Hymnology, Internationalism, Leadership styles, Methodism and Salvationism theology development, Orders and Regulations
and policy development, Religion Studies, Literature Studies, Signs and Symbols meaning, Social justice and The Salvation Arm y,
Social Work, Social Welfare, Social Impact, Urban ministry, Unemployed and Vulnerable people, Welfare State, Young Peoples’
Ministry.
Papers presented at Salvation Army heritage meetings will be encouraged to be contributed. All articles contributed
must be original, not previously published in either Army or non-Army publications, the contributors own work and
referenced throughout. Where possible, primary sources should be used and presumptive statements avoided. Images and
graphics will be accepted if the contributor or The Salvation Army holds the copyright and they are visually clear for
reproduction.
The interested contributors are highly encouraged to submit their manuscripts/papers to the executive editor via e-
mail at [email protected]. Please indicate the name of the journal (The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army
History) in the cover letter or simply put ‘Journal of Salvation Army History’ in the subject box during submission via e-
mail.
AJSAH is inviting papers for Vol. 1, Iss. 2. The online publication date is October, 2016.
Submission deadline: July 30, 2016.
For any additional information, please contact the executive editor at [email protected]
Blessings,
Garth R. Hentzschel
Executive Editor - The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History
© The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History 2016 Cross & Crown Publications for The Salvation
Army Australia Eastern Territory Historical Society
Cross & Crown Publications
PO Box 998
Mt Gravatt Qld 4122
Australia
web address: http://salvos.org.au/historicalsociety/
ISSN: 2206-2572 (Online)
Cover: The Salvation Army tricolour ribbon on a black background. A white crest of The Salvation Army. A picture of
Catherine Booth and William Booth as young adults.
Executive Editor The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History was formed in 2016
Mr Garth R. Hentzschel and is prepared by a group of volunteers made up from members of
Peer Review and Editorial Team Salvation Army historical groups in Australia and New Zealand as well as
Dr. David Malcolm Bennett others who are interested in researching, writing and displaying Salvation
Army history. It is produced by The Salvation Army Australia Eastern
Mr Lindsay Cox Territory, Historical Society in conjunction with Australia Southern and
Major Kingsley Sampson New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga Salvation Army territories.
Major David Woodbury
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 2
THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF
SALVATION ARMY HISTORY
VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 2016
Editorial Note the relationship between Booth and Mumford.
David Woodbury unpacks the romance, its
Welcome to the first issue of The Australasian commencement, development and reality, in a
Journal of Salvation Army History (AJSAH). The personal paper. It chronologically traces their
journal aims to encourage discussion and, to developing romance.
promote and publish research and inquiry into
historical elements of The Salvation Army, its Garth Hentzschel contributes two papers on
belief, practices and people. the poem recited by Booth at his first meeting with
Mumford. These papers reveal some new
Each issue of AJSAH will include; papers on information on the poem, introduces its author and
elements of Salvation Army history or historical includes the entire poem for the first time to
biographical information, a call for information on Salvation Army readers. The second paper also
topics to be researched, reviews of published describes other works the poem has inspired.
works, information on resources for researchers
and other items deemed suitable for a deeper The middle section includes a call for
understanding of the history of The Salvation information and lists resources for people
Army. interested in Salvation Army history. Glenda
Hentzschel gives a chronological outline of the
Papers to be published, ideas for research, or development and history of The Salvation Army’s
information about research are welcome. For Life Saving movements and requests more
submission to AJSAH, please contact the information to extend her research. Lyndall Maags
executive editor of the Journal. describes a resource for researchers and those
interested in genealogical studies. Garth
This current issue has taken on two main Hentzschel lists books published by or about The
themes and therefore has been developed in three Salvation Army since 1988 and also reviews a
sections. The first section investigates the book written by a former leader of The Salvation
relationship between William Booth and Catherine Army.
Mumford. The middle section comprises resources
for research and a call for information to assist The final section of this issue houses a group
with research. The final section is connected to of four papers from the research which is being
research being conducted on how World War I conducted in New Zealand on the impact of World
impacted The Salvation Army in New Zealand. War One on The Salvation Army. Kingsley
Sampson has contributed two papers, one on how
The first four papers have an overarching the war impacted brass bands of The Salvation
theme linked to the early relationship between Army and another on The Salvation Army’s
Booth and Mumford. The first paper in this Ambulance service, which outlines the brave work
section, by David Bennett, discusses the letters of of Salvationists. In modern times this work has
Booth and Mumford, investigating the years 1852 often been overshadowed by the work of other
to 1855. Here Bennett describes the form of the organisations.
letters and then, using a thematic approach gives a
deeper insight into the character of the founders as Harold Hill also gives two papers, the first
they discussed issues of their days as well as on the wider impact the war had on The Salvation
eternal matters. Salvation Army historians as well Army both on individual Salvationists and the
as those interested in the religious life of the wider movement. The final paper discusses the
nineteenth century will be forever indebted to war’s impact on the Theology of The Salvation
Bennett for his work on the Booth letters. Army.
The second paper in this section focuses on
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 3
The Australasian Journal of Title/Author Page
Salvation Army History
Electronic resource for genealogical 84
CONTENTS Vol. 1 Iss. 1 and historical research
Title/Author Page Lyndall Maag
Editorial note 3 A bibliography of Salvation Army
literature in English, 1988 – present
Contributors 5 surnames of book authors A to C 86
Garth R. Hentzschel
A look at the early Booth letters 6 Book review – An autobiography of an 118
David Malcolm Bennett 18 early Army leader. The Autobiography of
Commissioner Hugh Whatmore,
A Victorian love story – The Garth R. Hentzschel
romance of William Booth and
Catherine Mumford New Zealand Salvation Army banding
David Woodbury in World War One
Kingsley Sampson
A recitation to romance: A study 120
on the poem and event which led
to the romance of William Booth and 32 Provision of ambulances in the 132
Catherine Mumford First World War
Garth R. Hentzschel Kingsley Sampson
A new look at an old poem: 50 The Salvation Army in New 139
The poem that changed William
Booth’s life Zealand in the aftermath of the
Garth R. Hentzschel First World War – part one
Harold Hill
The centenary of SAGALA in 72 The Salvation Army in New 154
Australia with a focus on the Australia Zealand in the aftermath of the
Eastern Territory First World War – part two
Glenda Hentzschel
Harold Hill
Left: A postcard printed by the Atherton
Corps (now Atherton Tablelands Corps)
of The Salvation Army which advertised
the Sunday school and primary
departments of the corps. No date was
indicated on the postcard
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 4
Contributors - Vol. 1 Iss. 1 Case Study in Clericalisation (2007). He edited Te
Ope Whakaora: A Collection of Documents on the
David Malcolm Bennett is a Christian researcher Salvation Army and Maori 1884-2007 (2007) and
and writer based in Brisbane who has the gift of edited Norman Murdoch's Christian Warfare in
doing quality historical research and presenting it in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe: The Salvation Army and
a readable form. He has written two biographies of African Liberation 1891-1991 for publication
William Booth: William Booth and his Salvation (2015).
Army (Even Before Publishing) and The General:
William Booth (2 vols. Xulon Press). He is also the Lyndall Maag has an interest in local, social and
editor of The Letters of William and Catherine family history. Undertaking research in order to give
Booth and of The Diary and Reminiscences of presentations for the Genealogical Society of
Catherine Booth. His books include The Altar Call: Queensland and the Queensland Chapter of the
Its Origins and Present Usage (his MTh thesis, Salvation Army’s Historical Society brings her joy.
awarded with merit) in 2000 and The Origins of Left Interest in the history and culture of the Middle East
Behind Eschatology (his PhD thesis) in 2010. His has resulted in Lyndall being asked to present at
latest book is John Wesley: The man, his mission churches and meetings of Christian Supporters of
and his message (Rhiza Press). Israel. Her professional affiliations, past and present,
include the Genealogical Society of Queensland,
Garth R. Hentzschel is the acting Dean, senior Toowoomba and Darling Downs Family History
lecturer and course coordinator in the School of Society, Queensland Family History Society and
Social Sciences, Christian Heritage College. He has Prayer for Israel Australia. Lyndall attends The
degrees in education, leadership and counselling Salvation Army Carindale Corp.
(BEd, BAdminLead, MEd [SGC]). Hentzschel is the
director of Cross & Crown Publications and Major Kingsley Sampson is a retired Salvation
president of The Salvation Army Historical Society, Army officer living in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Brisbane Chapter. He has published works and As well as Salvation Army history, his retirement
presented papers on school chaplaincy, education interests include travel, gardening, reading, cycling
and Salvation Army history. Publications include; and researching the history of his forebears. He has
Our First Officer (2004), The Devil’s Army (2006), qualifications in history, theology and education
With A Smile and A Cuppa (2007), The Bag Hut (MA, BD, DipEd, DipTeaching). Apart from two
Tabernacle (2012), contributions to the history corps appointments in New Zealand in the 1980s,
magazine, Hallelujah! and the Bulletin of The most of his officer service was in education and
Methodist Historical Society of Ireland. education administration roles in New Zealand and
Zambia. This included sixteen years on the staff of
Major Glenda Hentzschel is a retired Salvation Booth College of Mission, Upper Hutt. Kingsley
Army officer who served for over 30 years in corps, was also a contributor and sub-editor of the
divisional and territorial headquarters appointments. Hallelujah Magazine.
Now retired, her interest in Salvation Army History
has increased. She enjoys research and the Major David Woodbury is a retired Salvation
opportunity of looking at the early developments of Army officer living in Sydney. Responding to God’s
The Salvation Army. Glenda is married with three call he and his wife Jeanette entered the training
children and three grandchildren. She has written, A college with the Disciples of Jesus Session and were
Servant Leader – Envoy Bram Hoepper in the series commissioned in 1979. After serving in a number of
“They took up their cross” and presented a number corps appointments, in New South Wales and
of papers at the meetings of the Brisbane Chapter of Queensland, they became part of the territorial
The Salvation Army Historical Society. headquarters staff with him holding the positions of
Secretary for Communications and Assistant Chief
Major Harold Hill is a retired Salvation Army Secretary. While in this appointment Woodbury was
officer who served in Zimbabwe and New Zealand the founding editor of Pipeline and established a
in educational, pastoral and administrative video production department. On his retirement he
appointments, and is an adjunct teacher of Salvation was appointed to produce the history magazine,
Army history for Booth College, Sydney College of Hallelujah! The story of The Salvation Army in the
Divinity. He has published The Twelve Steps Western South Pacific. He is currently the President
Workshop (written jointly with Ferrell Irvine, 2001, of The Salvation Army Historical Society, Sydney
2011), and Leadership in the Salvation Army: A Chapter.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 5
A drawing of Catherine Mumford and William Booth from the
cover from McCaughey, Betty, William and Catherine, with Love –
A Year’s Daily Readings. (Ontario: The Salvation Army Canada
and Bermuda, 1989).
An example of William Booth's handwriting in 1849 from The
Salvation Army International Heritage Centre
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 6
A LOOK AT
THE EARLY BOOTH LETTERS
David Malcolm Bennett
The Letters
The letters that William Booth and Catherine Mumford wrote to each other are vital sources for
studying the lives of the Booth family, the origins and early history of The Salvation Army as well as
British religious life in the nineteenth century, particularly revivalism. Most of their letters, those dated
from 1852 to 1861, are housed in the British Library, under the Booth Papers (TBP), MSS 64799-
64802. However, quite a few letters of that period have been lost, and some perhaps even destroyed.
(Did Mumford get so angry with Booth that on one or two occasions she deliberately destroyed his
letter?)
The letters from 1862 onwards are only to be found in certain biographies about Booth and
Mumford. What happened to the originals is debated and this paper will not speculate. The main
biographies that contain these later letters are The Life of Catherine Booth: The Mother of the Salvation
Army by F. de L. Booth-Tucker (2 vols. London: Salvation Army, 1892); Life of William Booth: The
Founder of the Salvation Army by Harold Begbie (2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1920), and Catherine
Booth: The Story of her Loves by Catherine Bramwell-Booth (London: Hodder, 1970).
These three authors had access to the original manuscripts and made extensive quotations from
letters that are now in the British Library collection and from other letters that have since disappeared.
Begbie, especially, quoted from many letters that are no longer extant.1 It also needs to be borne in
mind that Booth-Tucker had a tendency to paraphrase rather than quote the originals.2 His record is
generally only used in this research where it is the only one in existence.
These letters can be divided into six periods. First, the brief period following their first meeting
(1852); secondly, the time Booth spent in Lincolnshire as a preacher for the Methodist Reformers,
while Mumford remained in London (1852-54); thirdly, his first two years with the Methodist New
Connexion (1854-55); fourthly, their early married life (1855-60); fifthly, their years as travelling
evangelists (1861-65); and lastly the Salvation Army years (1865-89 ?). The extant letters in this last
period are sadly few in number.3 In this paper we will look at sections one, two and three. The later
letters will be examined on another occasion.
William and Catherine
William and Catherine has a modern ring about it, but this William and Catherine were not a prince
and princess but two young people from poorer backgrounds, who met, fell in love and eventually
Reference citation of this paper
David Malcolm Bennett, “A look the early Booth letters”, The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, 1,
1, 2016, 6-17.
1 Harold Begbie, Life of William Booth: The Founder of the Salvation Army (2 vols). (London: Macmillan, 1920).
2 F. de L. Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth: The Mother of the Salvation Army (2 vols). (London: Salvation Army,
1892).
3 All the letters in TBP and in the biographies mentioned above have now been published in print and e-form. The
details are David Malcolm Bennett, The Letters of William and Catherine Booth (Brisbane: Camp Hill Publications,
2003).; and David Malcolm Bennett, The Booth Letters, CD (Brisbane: Camp Hill Publications, 2011).
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 7
married. However, they were often apart, so they wrote many letters to each other. It is not intended
here to look in detail at the romantic aspect of these letters. That has been covered in an article by
David Woodbury.4 Rather the paper will look at the two personalities who emerge from these
letters, how Booth and Mumford related and also how they responded to various issues.
There is no doubt that Mumford emerges as the better writer of the two. Though she had had a
limited formal education she was well read and knew how to express herself clearly and boldly in
written form. Yet she had no idea about punctuation. Occasionally she inserted a full stop, but not
often, and even some of those stops could be ink blots. Roy Hattersley, Blood and Fire, was right
when he said “the full stop was virtually unknown” to Mumford.5 Other punctuation marks are only
noticeable because they are, for the most part, absent.
Booth was more a man of action, and he had much less time than Mumford to devote to
writing, at least in the early period. His letters are usually much briefer and often have the
appearance of being written in haste, though they were at least punctuated.
For example, in the Lincolnshire years some of Mumford’s letters would run to 2,500 words.
In fact, Mumford’s letter CM 6, started on 5 December 1852, runs to over 2,600 words.6 Booth’s
letters of this period were usually much shorter, particularly after his initial settling in period. At
first he had time to write letters of a reasonable length, but soon, with several churches to care for,
he had less time to write.
These letters will be examined here thematically rather than chronologically.
The Central Focus of the Letters
One does not have to read many of their letters to realise that the central focus of their lives was to
love and serve Christ, and to do that together. Booth’s love for Christ becomes clear even in the first
letter he ever wrote to Mumford. He had fallen in love with her and was considering asking her to
marry him. But would she then come between him and Christ? This greatly worried him. He felt an
“involuntary shudder creep over” him as he thought about the possibility of an engagement and
what that might mean.7
Mumford was certainly willing to become engaged to the man she loved and admired, but she
respected his hesitancy because of the reasons for it. She told him, “Don’t, I beseech you, take any
step without some evidence satisfactory to your own mind of the will of God”; and “Your desire is to
do the will of God & He will guide you.” From her perspective, her “constant cry” was that God’s
“will be done”.8 Eventually this problem was overcome because they came to believe that God
could use them better united than separated, and so it proved. On Saturday 15 May 1852 Booth paid
4 David Woodbury, “A Victorian love story: The romance of William Booth and Catherine Mumford’, The Australasian
Journal of Salvation Army History, Vol. 1 No.1, 13-26.
5 Roy Hattersley, Blood and Fire (NY: Doubleday, 1999), 79.
6 Letter CM 6, started on 5 Dec. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 27-30. Many of the letters are undated, so identifiers in bold
are used for all of them: CM for Catherine before marriage, CB for Catherine afterwards and WB for William, with a
number following in the assumed date order. Brackets are used for letters that are not in TBP, so (CM), (CB) and
(WB).
7 Letter (WB 1), early May, 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 8.
8 Letter CM 1, 11 May, 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 10.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 8
Mumford a visit. That evening they knelt together and committed themselves to God and to each
other.9 That was less than two months after their first formal meeting.
In a letter written on the evening of their engagement or the day after, Mumford said,
The thought of walking through life perfectly united, together enjoying its sunshine and battling its
storms ... and with thorough unanimity performing all its momentous duties, is to me exquisite
happiness; the highest earthly bliss I desire. And who can estimate the glory to God, and the benefit
to man, accruing from a life spent in such harmonious effort to do His will? Such unions, alas, are
so rare that we seldom see an exemplification of the divine idea of marriage.10
Their relationship was from the beginning a union in which they would serve God together.
Six months later Booth went to Lincolnshire as a preacher for the Methodist Reformers.
Immediately after his arrival there he told Mumford,
Oh, let us all give ourselves up entirely to the Lord. I prayed in the Railway carriage that God
would secure his work in my heart. I believe he will. Oh, for simple, childlike confidence. Come
Holy Ghost and breathe thy influences on my heart.11
Mumford was very optimistic about the future of the man she was to marry. That December
she told him “God, even your own God, will bless you & make you a blessing. Do not be over
anxious about the future. [Lincolnshire] will not be your final destination if you make the best of
your ability.”12
Early in 1854 Booth left the Reformers and joined the Methodist New Connexion, the oldest
of the Methodist breakaway groups. He was by this time back in London, but letters still flowed
between them. Officially he was studying for the ministry, but Booth was a man of action rather
than a student, an evangelistic preacher rather than an academic.
This was soon recognised by senior people in the New Connexion and that October he was
despatched to Guernsey in the Channel Islands to conduct an evangelistic campaign. It began
quietly, at least with regard to the congregation, though not so with the preacher. He told Mumford,
Last night I preached my first sermon. The congregation was middling; very respectable, stiff
and quiet. I let off a few heavy guns at the lazy formality so prevalent, and with some effect.
They opened their eyes at some of the things I said.13
The heavy guns seem to have hit their targets, for a few days later he told his fiancée,
My preaching is highly spoken of and the Lord is working, and I trust that tomorrow [Sunday]
we shall have a crash, a glorious break down, as many persons are under deep conviction and I
hope to have some glorious and deeply interesting cases to tell you before I return. Already the
Lord has given me some souls for my time in this distant place, but my anxious heart cries out
9 Different dates for when they became engaged have appeared in various sources, but according to their
correspondence at the time of their engagement Saturday 15 May appears to be correct; see letters (WB 4), CM 2 and
CM 3, ? 12, 13 & 15 or 16 May, 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 11-13; and David Malcolm Bennett, The General: William
Booth (2 vols. FL. Xulon Press, 2003), 1:105, n.35, for a brief examination of the dating.
10 Letter CM 3, 15 or 16 May, 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 12-13.
11 Letter WB 12, 30 Nov. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 21.
12 Letter CM 7, 12 Dec. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 34.
13 Letter (WB 64), 17 or 19 Oct. 1854, Booth Letters, CD, 237.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 9
for many, many more... Bless God! I am very happy in my soul in the midst of it all. I love this
work.’14
Mumford responded, “I am glad to hear that you are prospering in your labours ... I should
have delighted in helping you.” Quite what she meant by that final phrase might be debated. She
was not to take up preaching until the middle of 1860, more than five years into the future.
Mumford continued, “My soul yearns to get into the glory, but, alas, I am such an unfaithful wretch,
I fear the Lord will never deign to use me... I do hope the result will be all you desire, but whether
or not, your ‘reward is with your God’.”15
So did Booth have the “glorious break down” that he was expecting that Sunday?
Unfortunately there are no letters still available to tell us. However, Booth-Tucker quotes from
Booth’s Journal (now lost). According to that, they “took down about twenty-six names” that
Sunday, had about 35 “penitents” on Monday, with “many very clear cases of conversion”, “a great
number of penitents” on Tuesday, “Very many ... found peace” on Wednesday, and they had “sixty
penitents” on Thursday. The next day he returned home.16 Booth had found his calling.
William Booth in Lincolnshire
On 30 November 1852 Booth left London and moved to the Spalding/Holbeach area of
Lincolnshire, in the northern region of England’s Midlands. Booth and Mumford, though they did
not know it at the time, would be apart for over 14 months. On two occasions in this period Booth
paid a visit to London to see his fiancée, but apart from that their only means of communication was
by letter. About half of the letters that are available to us come from these Lincolnshire years.
Booth’s first role as a paid preacher was with the Methodist or Wesleyan Reformers in
London. The Reformers were a massive group that had broken away from the Wesleyan Methodists
in the early 1850s.
Booth had had a rough time in his brief ministry for the Methodist Reformers in London. He
later said of his flock, “They ‘did not want a parson’ They reckoned they were all parsons.”17 At
one “quarterly meeting” so sharp was a disagreement that he had with one man that Booth had to be,
in his own words, “almost forcibly restrained” by others at the meeting.18 Quite what that means can
only be guessed, but it does indicate considerable conflict.
However, in Lincolnshire the Reformers welcomed him warmly and supported him faithfully.
Upon the day of his arrival, he told Mumford, “My reception has been beyond my highest
anticipations.”19 In his next letter Booth said, “Made very welcome; everybody seems delighted to
see me.”20 A week later a solicitor invited Booth into his home. Booth said that the man’s wife,
…one of the most complimentary ladies I have ever met with, almost overpowered me with
kindness, tea & toast, to none of which had I any objection, after jogging up & down for two
14 Letter WB 65, 21 Oct. 1854, Booth Letters, CD, 237.
15 Letter CM 96, 23 & 24 Oct. 1854, Booth Letters, CD, 239.
16 Booth-Tucker, Catherine Booth, 1:130
17 Begbie, William Booth, 1:154.
18 Letter WB 5, ? second half of May, 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 14.
19 Letter WB 12, 30 Nov. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 21.
20 Letter WB 13, 1 Dec. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 22.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 10
hours in a cart among a lot of jolly farmers, talking over the relative merits of England &
America, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, agricultural distress & Disraeli’s Budget. I said little or nothing.21
That would have been a rare silence for Booth.
Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin had just been published, and it may have been
the only work of fiction that the Booths ever read. Disraeli’s budget of that year was a disaster and
resulted in the fall of the government.
Before his arrival, Booth knew that he had taken on the pastoral oversight of a number of
Methodist Reformer Churches in the area, but he may not have realised how scattered those
churches were. The distance between the chapels meant that he had to do a lot of travelling.
Occasionally he would be given a lift in a friend’s carriage, but in most cases he had to walk.
One week soon after his arrival he preached on Sunday in Spalding, on Tuesday he preached
with “little pleasure” in Donnington, the next day with “some liberty” in Risegate. Then on the next
three days he preached at Quadring Endike (after a journey of more than six kilometres), Pinchbeck
Bars (10 kilometres) and Spalding again (more than seven kilometres). On one of these journeys he
was given a lift in a cart, but it seems that he walked on the others.22 This means his life was full of
sermon preparation, leading church services, preaching, other Christian ministry and much travel.
However he loved it. He was in his element. He was preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and
this is what he wanted to do. In a PS to one letter a month after his arrival he said, “My position
here is likely to be just to my own mind.”23 Then in January he told Mumford, “I do not believe
there is a harder circuit than this in the Connexion, and I do not believe there is another in which
matters would be more to my taste than this.”24
Not All Plain Sailing
A striking, even a surprising, feature of these letters is that Booth and Mumford at times scolded
each other, especially in their earlier years. Here we have a man and a woman who were deeply in
love and who were to have a significant impact upon the church of Jesus Christ, yet they could
express strong words to each other.
In the Lincolnshire years these disagreements appear to have been exasperated by the distance
between them. If they had been able to meet often, their disputes would probably have been sorted
out more quickly and with less friction. Mumford called letters “a cold unsatisfactory mode of
salutation” and wished “for a few hours communion” with her fiancé.25 After one
misunderstanding, she complained, “What a disadvantage we labour under in this mode of
communication.”26
In the milder storms Booth would tell his fiancée that he had preached two or three times on
Sunday and four, five or six times during the week.27 Mumford, greatly concerned about his health
and lack of time spent studying, strongly urged him to preach less often. In one letter she said,
21 Letter WB 17, 9 Dec. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 30.
22 Letter WB 17, 9 Dec. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 30.
23 Letter WB 22, 27 Dec. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 46.
24 Letter WB 26, 15 Jan. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 60.
25 Letter CM 12, 1 & 2 Jan. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 50.
26 Letter CM 19, 7 Feb. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 67.
27 For example, letter WB 19, 16 Dec. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 35.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 11
I am very, very sorry to hear you have plan[n]ed yourself [to preach] so often as 3 times on a
Sunday & 4 times in the week. There were many other considerations which should have
influenced you besides the wishes of the people. I am sure neither you nor any other man can
preach at that rate & give the people any thing worth having. They must be very foolish to
expect it. They will find it out in time that such unreasonable requirements are nothing to their
advantage, but, alas, I fear they will not make the discovery soon enough for your benefit. I
beg[g]ed of you not to stop if there would be no time for study, & I think if the people had not
sense enough to think for themselves you should have thought for them, & have shown the
unreasonableness of their wishes. Time for study you must have, & time free from the flurry &
excitement of other engagements or all is lost.28
This may have been a mild storm, but they were strong words. Yet Booth took no notice and kept
on preaching just as frequently.
Sometimes Booth’s letters were too matter of fact for Mumford’s liking. In one letter she told
him,
I received your Tuesday’s letter, and for the first time feel at a loss how to answer it. I have not
been happy since I first read it. You keep me too much in the outer world of mere
circumstances. I cannot, I will not, be satisfied unless you let your heart commune with me. The
state of the weather & the condition of the roads are interesting to me because you have to brave
the one & traverse the other. The minutiae of your perambulations are always interesting, but if
you have not time to write this & also to communicate some of your soul’s thoughts, feelings,
desires, hopes & fears, I would rather be left to conjecture ... as to where you are, how far you
walk, etc., than to be deprived of heart communion... Do not call this finding fault, my dear. I
would not write so if there were not a necessity. I cannot bear to be treated coolly & distantly;
we must be one.29
In a letter that may have been in response to this Booth did open his heart to her, if only
briefly. He said,
But I know what I want. I know what I must have. But I don’t know how, at least it seems I
don’t know how, to get it. I want more inward power and life in my own soul. I fully believe if I
had this I should prosper in my work.
However, he appears to have been too busy “whirling about the country” to think long about such
things. That Sunday he was at Holbeach, on Monday it was back to his lodgings at Spalding,
Tuesday it was on to Pinchbeck, Wednesday to Sutterton and Thursday to Boston, Mumford’s old
home.30 It was no wonder he was often too tired to write long letters and to express his deepest
feelings.
Booth appears to have given Mumford a sharp telling off about the purchase of a piano.
Mumford was learning to play the piano to please her fiancé and it seems that she had purchased the
wrong one. Booth appears to have written to her rather sternly about this. That particular letter is
lost, perhaps Mumford destroyed it, but hints of it come through in one of her letters. Mumford
apologised in words that hardly sound like hers. “But I did wrong and am real grieved”, she said,
28 Letter CM 16, 18 Jan. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 63.
29 Letter CM 23, 20 & 25 Feb. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 77.
30 Letter (WB 27), probably 21 or 28 Feb. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 79-80. This letter is quoted from Begbie, Booth,
1:209-210 and is incomplete. Begbie has Suttleton, but it should be Sutterton.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 12
I hate to see [this piano], and I shall return it early next week, unless you wish me not. Forgive
me. I did not think I was acting without you... I would not in the least matter go contrary to your
wishes.31
Mumford was also a great worrier. When Booth’s letters did not arrive on time, she worried
either that something had happened to him or that he had forgotten to write.32 These delays were
usually caused by Booth being too busy to write or by minor troubles with the postal service. But
for Mumford it always led to thoughts of disaster. Booth by contrast seemed more able to take such
delays in his stride.
Women’s Role and Ministry
One area in which Mumford undoubtedly influenced Booth was in the matter of women’s right to
preach. On this subject she was bold and vigorous. Booth, at least before Mumford stated her views,
does not seem to have given that issue much thought. While Booth was in Lincolnshire, and even
after, Mumford often attended a Congregational Church, at which the minister was David Thomas,
whom she greatly respected. It was almost certainly on Sunday 22 April 185533 that he deeply
offended her by some remarks he made about women in one of his sermons. She wrote Mr Thomas
an anonymous letter protesting about his comments in very strong terms.
Yet Mumford had also made similar comments to Booth in a letter written on 9 April that
year. Booth had by this time joined the Methodist New Connexion and was serving in Bradford in
the north of England. In this letter she said, “I have long wanted to put my thoughts on this subject
on paper”, which implies that she had not written on it in detail before. It therefore would seem that
the letter to Mr Thomas was written afterwards.
The letter to Booth started off gently enough. “My own dear Love,” she began. “I am all alone
and not equal to much besides, so I will write a bit to thee, which generally makes me forget
loneliness and every thing else for a time.” She made a few other comments and then she let fly the
thunderbolts.
I solemn[l]y assert that the more I think & read on the subject, the more satisfied I become of
the true & scriptural character of my own views. I am ready to admit that in the majority of
cases the training of woman has made her man’s inferior, as under the degrading slavery of
heathen lands she is inferior to her own sex in christian countries. But that naturally she is [in]
any respect, except in physical strength & courage, inferior to man I cannot see cause to believe,
& I am sure no one can prove it from the word of God, & it is on this foundation that professors
of religion always try to establish it. Oh prejudice, what will it not do?
I would not alter woman’s domestic position (when indeed it is scriptural), because God has
plainly fixed it. He has told her to obey her husband, & therefore she ought so to do, if she
profess to serve God; her husband’s rule over her was part of the sentence for her disobedience,
which would, by the bye, have been no curse at all if he had ruled over her before, by dint of
superiority. But God ordained her subjection as a punishment for sin, & therefore I submit. But
31 Letter CM 36, ? 26 May, 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 107. Reference to other letters that appear to have been destroyed
can be found in CM 53, ? 22 or 29 Aug. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 145-46.
32 Letters CM 11, CM 19, 27-30 Dec. 1852, and 7 Feb. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 49, 67.
33 The dates for the sermon and the letter are debated, but 22 April 1855 for the sermon seems almost certain, for that is
the date stated in the letter in the British Library, with the letter a little later. For a detailed discussion of the dating see
my introduction to the letter in my booklet Catherine Booth on Women’s Place and Ministry (Brisbane: Camp Hill
Publications, 2004), 4-6.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 13
I cannot believe that inferiority was the ground of it. If it had, it must have existed prior to the
curse & thus have nullified it...
But I believe woman is destined to assume her true position & exert her proper influence by
the special exertions & attainments of her own sex. She has to struggle through mighty
difficulties to[o] obvious to need mentioning, but they will eventually dwindle before the spell
of her developed & cultivated mind...
May the Lord, even the just & impartial one, overrule all for the true emancipation of woman
from the swad[d]ling bands of prejudice, ignorance & custom, which almost the world over
have so long debased & wronged her. In appealing thus to the Lord I am deeply sincere, for I
believe that one of the greatest boons to the race would be woman’s exaltation to her proper
position mentally & spiritually. Who can tell its consequences to posterity? ...
Oh, that which next to the plan of salvation endears the Christian religion to my heart is what
it has done & is destined to do for my own sex; and that which excites my indignation, beyond
anything else is to hear its sacred precepts dredged forward to favour degrading arguments. Oh,
for a few more Adam Clark[e]s34 to dispel the ignorance of the church, then should we not hear
very pigmies in Christianity reasoning against holy & intelligent women opening their mouths
for the Lord in the presence of the church...
It is worthy of remark that there are no less than six Prophetesses mentioned in the Old
Testament, one of whom was ... unquestionably Judge as well as prophet. And these are not
mentioned in a way which would lead me to suppose that the inspired writer regarded them as
any thing very extraordinary. They are simply introduced to our notice like the other prophets.
Now, God having once spoken directly by woman, and man having once recognised her divine
commission & obeyed it, on what ground is omnipotence to be restricted or woman’s spiritual
labours ignored? Who shall dare say unto the Lord ‘What doest thou?’ when he ‘pours out his
spirit upon his handmaidens’, or when it is poured out shall render it null with impunity?
If indeed there is in ‘Christ Jesus neither male nor female’, but in all touching his kingdom
‘they are one’, who shall dare thrust woman out of the church’s opperations (sic) or presume to
put any candle which God has lighted under a bushel? Why should the swad[d]ling bands of
blind custom, which in Wesley’s days were so triumphantly broken, & with such glorious
results thrown to the moals (sic) & bats,35 be again wrapped round the female disciples of the
Lord, as if the natural & in some cases distressing timidity of woman’s nature were not
sufficient barrier to her obeying the dictates of the spirit, whenever that spirit calls her to any
public testimony for her Lord...
Let me advise you, my Love, to get settled views on this subject & be able to render a reason
to every caviller, & then fearlessly incite all whom you believe the Lord has fitted to help you in
your master’s work, male or female...
Oh, blessed Jesus! He is indeed ‘the woman’s conquering seed’. He has taken the bitterest
part of her curse ‘out of the way, nailing it to his cross’. In him she rises to the dignity of her
nature. In him her equality with her earthly Lord is realized, for ‘in him there is neither male nor
female’, & while the outward semblance of her curse remains, in him it is nul[l]ified by love
being made the law of marriage – ‘husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church & gave
himself for it’. Who shall call subjection to such a husband a curse?36
What could a mere man say in response to that? It is a passionate and powerful treatise and
clearly the result of much thought. It is also clear from Booth’s reply that he was taken off guard.
His next letter was hesitant, contradictory and pragmatic. It ran,
Your letter and contents came to hand yesterday... The remarks on Woman’s position I will read
again before I answer. From the first reading I cannot see anything in them to lead me for one
moment to think of altering my opinion. You combat a great deal that I hold as firmly as you do,
34 Adam Clarke was a Methodist scholar.
35 This probably should be “moles & bats”, and is presumably a reference to the assumed blindness of those creatures.
36 Letter CM 122, 9 Apr. 1855, Booth Letters, CD, 282-84.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 14
viz. her equality, her perfect equality, as a whole, as a being. But as to concede that she is man’s
equal, or capable of becoming man’s equal, in intellectual attainments or prowess – I must say
that is contradicted by experience in the world and my honest conviction. You know, my dear, I
acknowledge the superiority of your sex in very many things; in others I believe her inferior...
I would not stop a woman preaching on any account. I would not encourage one to begin.
You should preach if you felt moved thereto; felt equal to the task. I would not stay you if I had
power to do so. Altho’ I should not like it. It is easy for you to say my views are the result of
prejudice; perhaps they are. I am for the world’s salvation; I will quarrel with no means that
promises help.37
Whether William did give a more detailed ‘answer’ to her letter is unknown. Many of his letters
of this period have been lost. However, he eventually came to agree with her on women’s role
and ministry.
Methodism or Congregationalism?
Another striking issue in the letters are the occasions when Mumford urged Booth to join the
Congregational Church. Mumford had been brought up in a Methodist home. Booth had been
converted through Methodist ministry. They were Methodists through and through.
In the Lincolnshire years they belonged to the Methodist (or Wesleyan) Reformers. At that
time this new movement had only recently come into existence and it was not always clear what
churches and even which preachers belonged to which of the two groups. Booth and Mumford had
each, quite separately, been dismissed from the Wesleyan Methodist Church and joined the
Reformers. Mumford liked what the Reformers stood for, an energetic brand of evangelistic
Christianity, but hated their disorganisation. Booth liked what they stood for, but seemed to thrive
in the midst of the disorganisation.
For at least two years, 1852-54, Mumford wore two bonnets. She taught Sunday School for
the Methodist Reformers38 and, more often than not, attended services at the local Congregational
Church, where David Thomas was the pastor.39 She began to believe that her future husband would
be better off as a Congregational minister than as a preacher for the Methodist Reformers. Her
admiration for Charles Finney, a Congregational revivalist in America, encouraged this. She had
read Finney’s Lectures on Revival and had been most impressed.40
Booth and Mumford were Arminian in doctrine, more Arminian than John Wesley.41
Congregationalists were traditionally Calvinistic. This clearly presented a problem. However,
Finney had drifted far from the Calvinist fold42 and some British Congregationalists were also
deserting Calvinism, including David Thomas. According to Mumford, Rev Thomas told her that
37 Letter (WB 95), 12 Apr. 1855, Booth Letters, CD, 286. This is not in TBP, but is quoted from Begbie, Booth, 1:258-
59 and Catherine Bramwell-Booth, Catherine Booth: The Story of her Loves (London: Hodder, 1970), 142-43.
38 For example, Letters CM 6, CM 7, CM 11, 5, 12 & 27 Dec. 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 27, 32, 47. See also Booth-
Tucker, Catherine, 1:50.
39 For example, Letters CM 6, CM 11, CM 28, 5 & 27 Dec. 1852, 17 Mar. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 27, 47, 88.
40 Letters CM 6, CM 29, 5 Dec. 1852, 20 Mar. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 27, 90.
41 John Wesley, though an Arminian, was closer to a Calvinistic position than is usually recognised, see David Malcolm
Bennett, ‘How Arminian was John Wesley?’ The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. LXXII, No. 3 (July 2000), 237-48.
42 Finney’s soteriology is hard to classify. It is certainly not Calvinistic, but nor is it Arminian. See David Bennett, The
Altar Call: Its Origins and Present Usage (Lanham: University Press of America, 2000), 103-14; Keith J. Hardman,
Charles Grandison Finney: Revivalist and Reformer (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1990), 45-46.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 15
many of the “best & most useful men” in the British Congregational Church “were opposed to”
Calvinism. In fact, it had “been left behind years ago.”43
Mumford first seems to have nudged Booth in the direction of the Congregational Church in
May 1852. There is a line buried in one of Booth’s letters, probably written late that May, the
significance of which could be easily missed. It says, “Dr. Campbell was out yesterday. I see him
tomorrow morning: ½ past 8 o’clock.” 44 John Campbell was a leading figure in the Congregational
Church and editor of the The British Banner. Booth had gone to see him about studying for the
Congregational ministry. This approach eventually came to nothing.45
Early in February the next year Mumford dropped some loud hints about Booth leaving the
Reformers and joining the Congregationalists. “The more I think of your present position the more
dissatisfied I am with it”, she said. “I see it embraces only one side of a good man’s life, & if the
reformers expect such monstrous exertions from their preachers & such incesent (sic) slavery, they
ought to stipulate with them never to marry.” She continued,
I like the independent [Congregational] system of a pastorate more & more. After all, it is the
way to cultivate practicle (sic) preaching, and all other is mere cant. I do hope, my dear that you
will consider well. It will be easy to change your position while single, & we can affoard (sic) to
wait till circumstances are favourable. Act right.
These comments sound as though they had referred to this subject in recent correspondence, but any
letters written in the preceding ten days by either of them are missing. It is, though, more likely that
Mumford raised the subject again than Booth.46
Six days later she again addressed that issue. It is clear from this letter that he had responded to
her comments, but his letter is missing. However, it would appear that he had expressed uneasiness
about it. She said,
What I said about the pastorate of the Independents was suggested by the benefit I am myself
deriving from Mr. Thomas’ preaching. I was contrasting it with your ‘whirl’ about life & the
very defective system which makes it to so great an extent necessary, & just as the thought arose
in my mind I commit[t]ed it to paper, without any reference whatever to your past thoughts of
the Independent ministry, or one lingering thought of its future possibility. I had no reference at
all to the subject, & I am very sorry it should have conveyed that idea, for I would not that your
mind should be unsettled again on that point. I saw at the time you declined going to Cotton End
[the Congregational college] that all future prospect in that direction was at an end. I think you
acted right in the taking the step, & I never dream of your being any thing but a Methodist, nor
do I wish it.47
The issue was still on the boil a month later. Booth affirmed “I am for Methodism most
unquestionably ... I am determined to stand by it. Independency is, comparatively speaking,
powerless to effect any great good.”48
43 Letter CM 28, 17 Mar. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 86.
44 Letter WB 5, ? late May, 1852, Booth Letters, CD, 14.
45 Bennett, General, 1:111.
46 Letter CM 17, 1 Feb. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 66.
47 Letter CM 19, 7 Feb. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 67.
48 Letter WB 28, ? 14 or 15 Mar. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 85.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 16
It may have been the day that Mumford received that letter from Booth that Mr Thomas paid
her a visit. In a letter the next day, she told her fiancé about the meeting in considerable detail, but
was careful to add,
I hesitated whether to send you the substance of the conversation for fear you should think I
desire to unsettle you again on the subject, but I am sure you will believe me when I say that I
send it to you mer[e]ly as matter of information & not with the least desire to cause one
unsettled feeling.49
After that the subject faded from their thoughts.
Conclusion
The Booth Letters are clearly a most valuable resource for understanding Booth and Mumford and
what they stood for. What we have considered are just selections from a few of the letters from
1852 to 1855. However, they give vivid glimpses into their lives, their thoughts, their hopes and
their fears. The later letters will be examined on another occasion.
49 Letter CM 28, 17 Mar. 1853, Booth Letters, CD, 86.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 17
An early photograph of Catherine Booth (nee Mumford) and
William Booth
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 18
A VICTORIAN LOVE STORY
THE ROMANCE OF
WILLIAM BOOTH AND CATHERINE MUMFORD
David Woodbury
Introduction
The image most have of William Booth is that of an old man with tired eyes, white hair and white
beard and perhaps that is due in part to the fact that photography was in its infancy and was only
coming into its own in William’s later life. However, the image this paper focuses on is that of two
young people around 23 years old in the flower of their youth, alive with passion and zeal.1
William Booth as an old man, the image
most people have of the founder and first
general of The Salvation Army
One of the great temptations when it comes to the lives of deceased leaders is to invest them
with some sort of sainthood and at times, sanitize their story. William Booth and Catherine
Mumford were real people in the fullest sense of the word. What comes through from their letters is
a ‘warts and all’ story of two young people, passionate for each other and passionate for God. There
were obvious faults in their characters and flaws in their behaviour. But they still remained real and
fallible, treasures in earthen vessels, authentic people whom God used.
Reference citation of this paper
David Woodbury, “A Victorian love story, the romance of William Booth and Catherine Mumford”, The
Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, 1, 1, 2016, 18-31.
1 This paper was presented at a meeting of The Salvation Army Historical Society, Sydney chapter in 2015.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 19
In many ways their story is one of the great unpublicised love stories of the 19th century. This
relationship was to change both of their lives in a momentous way. Harold Begbie, The Life of
General Booth, eloquently wrote: “In a certain measure William Booth came into the life of
Catherine Mumford as Robert Browning came into the life of Elizabeth Barrett. In each case there
was a resurrection of the woman, and a beauty added to the man.”2
William Booth as a young man
Both William and Catherine exhibited human weaknesses, which testified to their
humanness.3 William seemed, perhaps more in his younger years, unable to pace himself and was
given to constant, re-occurring periods of burnout where he needed to withdraw and recover.
Catherine had been brought up by an overprotective mother and was paranoid about her health. In
some ways she may have been quite justified for she suffered from a spinal condition. However, at
times it seemed to dominate her thinking.
There can be no doubt that William and Catherine were complex personalities: intense,
obsessed, opinionated, and even neurotic at times, but deeply committed to the will of God,
whatever the cost. That their union not only worked but prospered is a testimony to God’s grace in
their lives. Even a casual reading of their lives confronts us with many of their faults and failings.
Yet in all this, God used them in a remarkable way which in itself testifies that God uses fallible and
imperfect people to further his kingdom.
It would appear that there is very little romantic interest in William’s life before meeting
Catherine, apart from his interaction with the Dent family during his teenage years. It is perhaps one
of the most meaningful influences in the early life of William when Mr and Mrs Dent took a
genuine interest in the tall, gangly teenage boy. His resemblance to their deceased son resulted in
2 Harold Begbie, Life of William Booth – The Founder of The Salvation Army, (London: McMillan and Company,
1920), 128.
3 Christian names are used throughout this paper to emphasise the personal approach the author wished to portray.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 20
them inviting William to their home and an invitation he readily accepted. One of the two teenage
daughters, Anne Dent, took William’s eye and it seems he was rather fond of her, however, when
he was converted the romance ended.4 Years later he encountered Anne again and told Catherine
that, “the charm that lured my youthful heart is broken, and my soul’s full flow of feeling turns to
you.”5 Occasionally William would accompany them to the Broad Street Wesley Chapel, a place
that was to become crucial in the spiritual journey of William.
For her part Catherine had received a declaration of love from a Cousin from Derbyshire.
Begbie wrote that, “he was a young man of somewhat striking appearance, and with more than
ordinary capacity.”6 Catherine’s heart responded. However, she turned him down as she doubted he
was “truly converted.”7
First meeting
In June 1851 at Walworth Wesleyan Chapel, William’s fiery preaching style had caught the
attention of Edward Rabbits, owner of a chain of footwear shops.8 Disillusioned, with the stagnation
of the Methodist Church, Edward, along with many others left the established church to join a
Wesleyan reform movement at Binfield House in the neighbouring suburb of Clapham. The
Reformers also welcomed William, who had been expelled from the established Methodist church,
into their community.
Edward persuaded William to resign from his employment as a pawnbroker and enter into
full-time ministry. When William raised the issue of funds, Edward offered to underwrite his
stipend of 20 shillings a week for the first three months. Quitting his job with the pawnbroker on
around 8 April, 1852, William found lodgings on nearby Princes Row and set his feet on a path that
was to change the course of religious history.
Whether or not Edward was playing matchmaker, it is not clear. However, he asked a young
Catherine, whose spirituality and judgement he respected, to give him an assessment of William’s
preaching at Binfield House.9 Catherine was suitably impressed and gave a glowing assessment of
William’s preaching.
Perhaps Edward saw something in these two unique young people that would be of kingdom
value. Sometime in March, 1852 he invited a number of people to his home for supper, among them
were William and Catherine and her mother.10 Against his better judgment William was persuaded
by Edward to recite a poem, The Grog-sellers Dream.
The response was some discussion on moderate consumption of alcohol which was disrupted
by the young Catherine, a believer in total abstinence, insisting that the Bible does not support the
idea of moderate drinking. The debate that followed became more fiery by the minute only to be
wisely terminated by Edward announcing supper. Interestingly, during the course of the supper
4 David Malcolm Bennett, The General, William Booth, Vol 1 -The Evangelist, (USA: Xulon Press, 2003), 28.
5 Letter WB 55, 6 June 1854, David Malcolm Bennett (ed.), The Letters of William and Catherine Booth, (CD),
(Brisbane: Camp Hill Publications, 2011), 219.
6 Begbie, Booth, 125.
7 Cathy Le Feuvre, William and Catherine – The love story of the founders of The Salvation Army, told through their
letters, (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2013), 18.
8 Roger Green, Catherine Booth, - A Biography of the Cofounder of The Salvation Army, (Grand Rapids, USA: Baker
Books, 1996), 42.
9 Bennett, Booth, 1:78.
10 Bennett, Booth, 1:80.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 21
when wine was offered, all refused.11 If Catherine hadn’t caught William’s eye before this, she
surely had now.
During Easter in April, 1852, around April 8 or 10,12 William was persuaded by Edward to
accompany him to a Reformist meeting in a school room in Cowper Street. Also present was
Catherine. Following the meeting William offered to take Catherine, who had been introduced to
him as being in delicate health, home in a cab. Bear in mind here that William is all but penniless
and hiring a cab would have been a significant luxury. Begbie again wrote;
It was one of those fallings in love which are as instantaneous as they are mutual, which are
neither approached nor immediately followed by any formal declaration of affection, and which
manifest themselves even in the midst of conversations altogether absorbed in other matters.
Suddenly William Booth knew that he loved this woman.13
Catherine was later to record:
It seemed as though we had intimately known and loved each other for years, and suddenly after
some temporary absence, had been brought together again, and before we reached home we
both suspected, nay, felt a though we had been made for each other, and that henceforth the
current of our lives must flow together.14
Catherine Mumford
as a young woman
Courtship
In 1852 the then 22 year-old William was a man on a mission from God. He had no doubt that he
had been called by God to be an out and out evangelist, and this calling was the passion and
singularity of his life. He was prepared to surrender every part of his being and strive with every
11 Ibid., 82.
12 Green and Bennett differ on this date, see Green, Booth, 44., and Bennett, Booth, 1:80.
13 Begbie, Booth, 130.
14 Bennett, Booth, 1:92.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 22
fibre of his body for the mission to which he felt God had called him. His encounter with Catherine
in March, 1852 was to completely upset his equilibrium.
On reading the early letters, that passed between them there is the sense that this was love at
first sight. However, there would be a number of difficulties that would need to be resolved before
any real progress could take place in the romance.
Like many young women Catherine had some fixed ideas about the sort of man she should
marry. At the age of sixteen she had formulated her ideas on the characteristics of a suitable partner:
He had to be truly converted;
He would be a total abstainer;
He would be a man of sense; and
They would have to think alike on all important matters.15
However among her requirements for a suitable husband Catherine entertained some more romantic
concepts. She would like him to be dark and tall, be a minister in the church and be called
William.16 William seemed to fit most of the requirements:
He was truly converted;
Occasionally used alcohol for medicinal reasons;
He was man of sense;
Catherine felt sure that they would think alike on all important matters;
He was dark and tall;
He was to become a minister; and
He was called William.
Catherine would soon resolve the issue of social drinking and William would become a total
abstainer.
William also faced a significant challenge before the romance could continue. Evidence
seems to suggest that the relationship developed at lightning speed and there is talk of an
engagement within a month of first taking Catherine home in the carriage. In a letter to Catherine
sometime in May, 1852 he spoke of an engagement. However, in the same letter William raised
some serious misgivings. His sense of calling by God was the overwhelming passion of his life and
he feared such an earthly union might detract from it.
Misgivings
Something of William’s dilemma was obvious in their first meeting. After taking Catherine home in
a cab Catherine’s mother invited him to stay the night and William, having no permanent home at
that time, accepted the invitation. This gave the young couple an opportunity for further
conversation. Years later Catherine was to recall:
W[illiam] went away in a terrible controversy, feeling that he was wounded, and he has often
told me since that he felt that for the first time he had met the woman who filled up his life's
ideal of what a wife should be. He was really in love, and yet it was all contrary to the plans he
15 Abridged from Duff and Le Feuvre. Mildred Duff, Catherine Booth, a sketch, (London, UK: The Salvation Army
Book Department, 1901), 22.; Le Feuvre, William and Catherine, 18-19.
16 Le Feuvre, William and Catherine, 19.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 23
had made. Had he not, only the day before, been able to get away from the business yoke that
had galled him for these eight years gone by?17
Perhaps it seemed to William that all his dreams and plans to serve God as a totally
committed evangelist had been threatened by his attraction to this young woman. The blatant fact
staring him in the face was that of divided allegiances which he full well knew could hinder his
commitment to the will of God for his life. Catherine later recorded:
And yet, there was the awkward fact staring him in the face, and although he said to himself as
he walked away from that door that morning, “It cannot, must not, shall not be,” it was not
many hours before he found himself at that door again.18
In the letter of early May, 1852 William raised a number of difficulties. Apart from his
inability to support a wife in his present position, his fear that the relationship and commitment to
marriage could affect his usefulness to God. He wrote:
4. I should feel such a powerful earthly bond taking up my feelings and drawing off my heart
from entire and complete devotion to God.
5. God has of late been satisfying me with Himself, and I should fear setting up or creating
another god, especially seeing that He has placed me in a position that my heart has so long
desired and given me every comfort I wish.19
Perhaps the reference to “another god” gives an inkling to the depth of William’s love for
Catherine. However, Booth, like Abraham, was submissive to the call of God on his life and
concluded his letter, “I am resigned to the will of God. I shall endeavour to pursue the path of
duty….”20
It is obvious from the letter that there was some friction between them, as William referred to
the “very abrupt manner in which we parted last evening”.21 For two strong willed people, deeply
committed to God, the path was never going to be easy. To satisfy their deep commitment to God
and the yearning of their own hearts would probably be a challenge that would be beyond most
people. But William and Catherine were in no way, ordinary people.
Almost in despair William came to the conclusion that perhaps marriage was not possible and
the best he could hope for was some form of a platonic friendship. In a following letter to Catherine,
written around 7 May 1852, William wrote:
I have read and re-read yours of yesterday evening and in answer to it what can I say? My heart
dictates what for the sake of your peace I dare not write, I mean, what I feel ... I will love you as
my sister, as I love my dearest friend. I cannot afford to lose your friendship. I should be lonely
then. We can meet now and then and talk about books and Christ and Heaven, nothing more,
can we not?22
Make no mistake; William was hopelessly in love with Catherine. He was a man smitten,
besotted and passionately in love. In his letter of 7 May, 1852, where he speculated about a platonic
17 Begbie, Booth, 132.
18 Begbie, Booth, 133.
19 Letter (WB 1), early May 1852, Letters, CD, 8.
20 Ibid., 8.
21 Ibid., 8.
22 Letter (WB 2), 7 or 8 May 1852, Letters, CD, 9.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 24
friendship he declared: “I honour you, I worship, I adore, I have loved you, oh, perhaps more
than...” and then goes on to say: “I am rambling on to forbidden ground”.23 Perhaps there is a sense
in which he was aware of the contradiction he was expressing in this letter; the resignation to a
platonic friendship and the sheer adoration of a star-struck lover.
William concluded the letter with an indication of the conflict that raged inside of him:
I love you as dearly as ever and that love is grounded on the highest esteem. But calmly,
Catherine, let us do His will. I am perfectly the master of my feelings, at least to a great extent
...24
Reading the letters around the time of their courtship, there is this sense of uncertainty.
William seemed to vacillate sometimes addressing Catherine as; “My Dear Friend,” and other
times: “My dear Catherine”. In his letter of early May, 1852 he addressed her as “My Dear Friend”
but in his letter by 7 or 8 May 1852, it is “My dear Catherine”. However, by 10 May 1852 he is
back to addressing her as “My Dear Friend”.25
Although the romance had developed at a rapid rate it seems that William’s misgivings
persuaded him to seek advice from his mother. In a letter to Catherine on Monday 10 May, 1852 he
spoke of a letter received from his mother “imploring me to do nothing rashly, fearing my
accustomed impetuosity, my feeling gaining the mastery over the calm teaching of reason”.26
William is not in a good place. There is a sense in which his spiritual heart and his carnal
heart are in conflict and the outcome of such a conflict will always be darkness. In the same letter to
Catherine he wrote: “Darkness gathers thicker than ever round the path I tread, and doubt, gloom,
melancholy and despair would tread me down.”27
The evaluation of the life of William reveals a conclusion, that like many spiritual
entrepreneurs, he was a man of moods, often suffering periods of melancholy and depression to the
point of breakdown.28 Catherine was the perfect foil, knowing when to challenge him and when to
comfort and encourage him. Replying to his letter of 10 May 1852, Catherine wrote on 11 May:
I have been spreading your letter before the Lord & earnestly pleading for a manifestation of
His will to your mind in some way or other, & now I would say a few words of comfort &
encouragement. My heart feels for you far beyond what I can express. Oh, that I knew how to
comfort you in an indirect way.29
At other times in their relationship Catherine could be quite direct and challenging, however, here
she sensed something of the pain and anguish William was experiencing. “The words ‘gloom,
melancholy, & despair’ lacerate my heart. Don’t give way to such feelings for a moment”.30 There
is a sense in which she was completely selfless in her desire that William should pursue the path
that he felt God had laid out for him. She well knew that to pursue this relationship purely for
23 Ibid., 9.
24 Ibid., 9.
25 See for example, Letters (WB 2), 7 or 8 May 1852 and (WB 3), 10 May 1852, Letters, CD, 9.
26 Letter (WB 3), 10 May 1852, Letters, CD, 9.
27 Ibid., 10.
28 For example, Charles Haddon Spurgeon was another who experienced mood swings and was often troubled by
depression, see Arnold Dallimore, Spurgeon: A New Biography, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), 186.
29 Letter CM 1, 11 May 1852, Letters, CD, 10.
30 Ibid., 10.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 25
personal reasons would be contrary to the will of God and that she would find no real happiness in
such a course of action.
Sometime in early May 1852, probably around 11 May, William proposed to Catherine.31
Although this relationship was only new it was also intense and passionate. They were both battling
with powerful and at times, overwhelming emotions which to lesser mortals, may have been quite
crushing and distressing. In the same letter she wrote:
Oh that we had never seen each other. Do try to forget me as far as the remembrance would
injure your usefulness or spoil your peace. If I have no alternative but to oppose the will of God
or trample on the desolations of my own heart, my choice is made. Thy will be done is my
constant cry. I care not for myself, but oh if I cause you to err I shall never be happy again.32
There may well have been some misunderstanding over Catherine’s hesitancy that hampered the
marriage proposal. It is possible that William may have thought that his inability to support a wife
was an impediment to Catherine in making a decision. Catherine’s letter responding to William’s of
early May, 1852 seems to be lost. However, in a letter dated 13 May, 1852 Catherine made it quite
clear that such circumstances are not the reason she was unwilling to accept his proposal;
My Dear Friend, I have read and re-read your note & I fear you did not fully understand my
difficulty. It was not circumstances, I thought I had fully satisfied you on that point. I thought
you felt sure that a bright prospect could not allure me, nor a dark one affright me, if we are
only one in heart. My difficulty, my only reason for wishing to defer the engagement was that
you might feel satisfied in your own mind that the step is right. To cause you to err would cost
me far more suffering than any thing else.33
In the same letter Catherine outlined two realities for William to consider and resolve:
That the course they were taking was not opposed to the will of God; and
That a marriage to Catherine would make him happy.
Then she wrote:
But if you feel satisfied on these two points, … come on Saturday evening and on our knees
before God let us give ourselves afresh to Him & to each other; for His sake consecrate our
whole selves to His service for Him to live & die.34
William Booth wasted no time in getting himself around to the Mumford’s residence on Saturday
15 May, 1853, where he and Catherine, on their knees before God, committed themselves to each
other and to God.
George Scott Railton, General William Booth, wrote years later:
The anxiety of both these two young people not to allow any thought for their own happiness to
interfere with their duty to God and to their fellows delayed their marriage for years; and when
they did marry it was with the perfect resolve on both sides to make everything in their own life
and home subordinate to the great work to which they had given themselves.35
31 Bennett, Booth, 1:100ff.
32 Letter CM 1, 11 May 1852, Letters, CD, 10.
33 Bennett, Booth, 1:98ff.
34 Letter CM 2, 13 May 1852, Letters, CD, 12.
35 G. S. Railton, General Booth, (London: Salvation Army, 1912), 26.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 26
Engagement
If Catherine had harboured doubts about the decision they were quickly dispelled once the decision
was made. In a letter written, perhaps within hours of the decision, certainly within a day or two,
declared the depth of her love and commitment, she wrote:
Your letter – your visit have hushed its last murmurs and stilled every vibration of my throbbing
heartstrings. All is well. I feel it is right, and I praise God for the satisfying conviction.
… The thought of walking through life perfectly united, together enjoying its sunshine and
battling its storms, by softest sympathy sharing every smile and every tear, and with thorough
unanimity performing all its momentous duties, is to me exquisite happiness; the highest earthly
bliss I desire.36
The depth of Catherine’s spirituality shone through her letters, no more so than in the closing
lines of this letter:
The more you lead me up to Christ in all things, the more highly shall I esteem you; and, if it be
possible to love you more than I do now, the more shall I love you. You are always present in
my thoughts. Believe me, dear William, as ever, Your own loving, Kate.37
William and Catherine
as a young couple
The acceptance of William’s marriage proposal and the subsequent engagement seems to
have in some sense, given Catherine more liberty in their relationship. In the space of a few days
she has gone from: “affectionately, Catherine,” to: “Your own loving, Kate.”38 In her diary entry of
31 May, 1852 Catherine wrote:
36 Letter (CM 3), 15 or 16 May 1852, Letters, CD, 12-13.
37 Ibid., 13.
38 See for example, Letters (CM 3), 15 or 16 May 1852, and (CM 4), 21 or 22 May 1852, Letters, CD, 11 & 13.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 27
I have had some liberty in pleading it before God. Enjoyed a precious season at the Throne of
grace this evening in offering myself, and one not less beloved, a living sacrifice to the Lord, &
intreating for us both a full & complete fitness to do & suffer all His will. Lord, glorify Thyself
in us through life, & in death be our salvation.39
It can only be assumed that Mumford’s reference to the “one not less beloved” and the inclusion of
the word “us”, was indeed a reference to William and the developing relationship.40
Conflict
True love never runs smoothly and William and Catherine were to encounter some area of
disagreement after their engagement. One cannot help have the impression when reading the letters
that it was not always a relationship whose path was strewn with rose petals.
In a letter in early May, 1852 Cathereine referred to the “abrupt manner in which we
parted”.41 On 3 June 1852 she wrote in her diary: “Have had an interview with my dearest William
to night. Pleasanter to me than usual …”42 and on 5 June she wrote: “Talked over some important
matters with my dearest William, after which we parted in better spirits & with Sunnier feelings
than on any previous occasion.”43
Following the engagement the couple’s thoughts turned to the future, more particularly to
William’s future as a minister. For a while they explored the idea of William becoming a minister in
the Congregational church, no doubt influenced by Catherine, who was at this point, attending
Stockwell New Chapel, a Congregational Church.
Catherine suggested that William see a John Campbell in the Congregational Church and it
seems that although William finally acquiesced he was far from keen on the suggestion. On
Wednesday, 4 August 1852, he wrote:
I doubt not that Cotton End [Cotton End was a training school for Congregational ministerial
students] has already been in your thoughts if not on your tongue, but not intending an epistle I
will not pause to moralise or discuss the pro & con of Colledge [sic] life.44
William made contact with the Congregationalists but after some further discussions he
withdrew citing his disagreement with the Calvinistic Congregational doctrine, declaring “he would
sooner starve than preach such a doctrine.”45 Although Catherine may have seen some security in
the Congregational Church, their doctrine was certainly not a fit for William, steeped in Wesleyan
doctrine. As Le Feuvre expressed, “Poverty or no poverty, Catherine would just have to
understand.”46
About this time William laid down a less than romantic routine for meetings between them:
39 David Malcolm Bennett (ed.), The Diary of Catherine (Mumford) Booth, (CD), (Brisbane: Camp Hill Publications,
2011), 44-45.
40 Ibid., 44-45.
41 41 Letter (WB 1), early May 1852, Letters, CD, 8.
42 Bennett (ed.), Diary of Catherine, 45.
43 Ibid., 45.
44 Letter WB 9, late July or early August, 1852, Letters, CD, 17.
45 Bennett, Booth, 1:112.
46 Le Feuvre, William and Catherine, 55.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 28
Our meetings must & shall be salvation meetings. We will have a rule of conversation and
action, somewhat after the following fashion.
1st Any general information to impart. Anything oc[c]urred since we last met. Inquiries into
health etc.
2 What progress made in reading, shorthand, music etc.; exchange any information on the above
subjects that may be required.
3 Inquire closely into our religious experience and give each other counsel and advice as may be
needed afterwards.
4 Each pray earnestly that our meeting may be made a means of grace and for general
prosperity.
5 Any desultory conversation and retire never later than ¼ after 10.
What think you? I have no doubt you will be perfectly willing and say that it is just what you
have wanted all along but that I have stood in the way.47
Towards the end of 1852 William took a position with Methodist Reformers and was based in
Spalding, Lincolnshire. For around 14 months William and Catherine saw very little of each other
and a continuous stream of letters were their main means of communication. It would appear that on
William’s part, letter writing was something he fitted in when he had time. In a letter, dated
Tuesday 30 November, 1852 he commented: “Do not take this as a sample of my future letters; it is
written with a number of gentlemen around me.”48
The lack of face to face personal interaction was to lead to a number of misunderstandings
between the couple. In a letter, now missing, it seems that Catherine feared that William had been
secretive about his engagement, for he wrote to her:
You rather surprise me by thinking & fearing that I shall not, to the letter, fulfil my promise to
let it be known that I am engaged. I have done so whenever opportunity, fitting opportunity,
offered, & moreover stated to Mr. Hardy some of the particulars of such engagement.49
Catherine’s letter, dated 5 December 1852 was probably written over a period of days and is no
doubt a response to William’s of 6 December 1852:
Forgive me, my love, if what I said seemed to cast a doubt on the honourableness of your
intentions as to our engagement. I did not intend it so. It was what you said about letting them
have it so caused me to say it. Perhaps I did not word it happily. However, be assured of the
fullest confidence of my soul on the subject & of my willingness, nay, desire that you should
use only fitting opportunities to disclose it.50
In Spalding, William is a lodger in the home of the local chemist, Mr. Shadford, and he is at pains
to tell Catherine that, “Mrs. Shadford is indeed a kind lady. There are no young ladies.”51
From a later letter it is obvious that the young William was missing his sweetheart. On
Monday 10 January 1852 he wrote: “My own dear, darling Kate, I feel so lonely just now. You
cannot imagine how much I would give for a kiss off those dear lips and an hour’s chat …”52
47 Letter WB 6, 9 June 1852, Letters, CD, 15.
48 Letter WB 12, 30 Nov. 1852, Letters, CD, 21.
49 Letter WB 16, 6 Dec. 1852, Letters, CD, 26.
50 Letter CM 6, 5 Dec. 1852, Letters, CD, 28.
51 Letter WB 12, 30 Nov. 1852, Letters, CD, 21.
52 Letter WB 25, 10 Jan, 1853, Letters, CD, 55.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 29
We need to remember that these are two people in bloom of their youth with all its emotional
and hormonal challenges, separated for long periods by circumstances. In the same letter William
expressed something of the frustration he was experiencing in not being with the girl he loved:
My dearest love, never did I love you more dearly, never with a calmer and more enduring
affection, and never did I more earnestly desire its consummation.53
Catherine, for her part is no doubt experiencing similar feeling and on 26 May 1853 she wrote:
My own dear Love, Your precious, kind, cheering letter came before I was down stairs, so I lay
down again in bed & read it. The first part roused all the tenderest feelings of my nature and
filled my soul with gushing gratitude to God and tenderest affection for you. Oh, my heart does
thank you, my soul appreciates your watchfulness & my body I trust will soon feel the good
effects of such sweet assurances. I cannot discribe [sic] my feelings; my tears blind me.54
David Bennett¸ The General: William Booth, suggested that:
William regarded himself as under some kind of temptation, that made him suggest that they did
not necessarily delay their wedding. It would seem that he was concerned that he might find
himself attracted to another woman while he and Catherine were so long separated.55
William, with his fiery, emotional style of preaching, no doubt acted as a magnet to young people
and it is quite conceivable that he found himself at times the centre of young women’s attention. We
need to remember that a few years later he was to pen the words of O Boundless Salvation:
My tempers are fitful, my passions are strong,
They bind my poor soul and they force me to wrong;56
As most hymn writers write from their own experience,57 is this an example of a very human
William? Catherine counselled him:
…believe me, my own dear Love, I have confidence in your professions, & I never for one
moment doubted the honourableness of your intentions. As to the time of our union, I am
surprised you think it will be practicable so soon, & I cannot think it is any way necessary in
order to prevent your being unfaithful, notwithstanding all the temptations to which you are
exposed. You have often told me that your love was founded on the deepest esteem of your
soul, that I have the preference of your judgment & soul, & that your love for me was conceived
in the entire absence of passion. This being the case, & feeling some confidence in my own
ability to sustain this esteem, I am not so anxious as I otherwise should be about the the (sic)
temptations you may meet with, tho’ I am thankful to hear they are no temptations to you.58
The later letters show some of their humanity appearing. After their marriage, in a letter to her
mother Catherine disclosed the satisfaction she experienced in bed with William and went on to
53 Ibid., 56.
54 Letter CM 36, ?26 May 1853, Letters, CD, 106.
55 Bennett, Booth, Vol 1, 169.
56 The Song Book of The Salvation Army, (London: International Headquarters of The Salvation Army, 2015), 509.
57 For example, Charles Wesley in his great hymn ‘And can it be’ was writing from his own experience of conversion.
58 Letter CM 19, 7 Feb. 1853, Letters, CD, 68.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 30
say: “If you know any poor wretch who dithers and shakes an hour every night as I used to do,
advise them to get married.”59
William and Catherine were married on 16 June, 1855, at Stockwell New Chapel. It was a
partnership that lasted a lifetime. They were able to accommodate each other’s failings and
idiosyncrasies through huge dollops of forgiveness, understanding and love. It all came to a close
with Catherine’s promotion to glory on 4 October, 1890. Immediately afterwards William wrote:
“Ever since our first meeting, now nearly forty years ago, we have been inseparable in spirit; that is,
in all the main thoughts and purposes of our lives. Oh, what a loss is mine! It cannot be
measured.”60
59 Bennett, Booth, 1:221ff.
60 Railton, Booth, 180.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 31
The home of Edward Rabbits, 1 Crosby Row, where William Booth recited the poem,
photographed in 1986, from The Salvation Army International Heritage Centre, London.
An image of William Booth as a young man from the Salvation Army Heritage Centre, Sydney
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 32
A RECITATION TO ROMANCE:
A STUDY ON THE POEM AND EVENT
WHICH LED TO THE ROMANCE OF
WILLIAM BOOTH AND CATHERINE MUMFORD
Garth R. Hentzschel
History is full of turning points1 that could have turned people or events in a very different
trajectory. One such turning point in the history of The Salvation Army was the reciting of a poem
by William Booth. For many Salvation Army historians, Booth was propelled on to two new paths
the moment the poem was recited. The first connected him to a romance with Catherine Mumford,
which blossomed into a partnership of physical, spiritual and cognitive equality. The second opened
Booth’s way to full time preaching and the romance of evangelism. These two trajectories laid the
foundation for the romance of The Salvation Army.2
This paper, the first of two, highlights the reference to the event surrounding the poem in
Salvation Army historical popular and scholarly works. It will show that although this incident has
been cited in the majority of accounts of Booth and Mumford’s life, there has been a variety of
interpretations of each element of the occasion. This paper will discuss these differences and
comment on the validity of the interpretations. It will also define how each author evaluated the
poem, although it has been found that no author knew a significant amount about the poem itself
and not one gave any indication that they knew who the poet was. The paper will also show that
authors had misquoted and misnamed the poem, while blatantly ignoring the poet and therefore to
some extent have misinterpreted events surrounding the recitation of the poem. For this reason the
second paper will build on this paper and trace the poem’s history, unveil the life of the author and
include an in-depth display of changes to the poem made in both Salvation Army and non-Army
historical works.
Reference citation of this paper
Garth R. Hentzschel, “A recitation to romance: a study on the poem and event which led to the romance of
William Booth and Catherine Mumford”, The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, 1, 1, 2016, 32-49.
1 A term used by Satterlee in his book of important historical events that impacted The Salvation Army. None of
Satterlee’s turning points relate to incidents before the formation of The Salvation Army. Allen Satterlee, Turning
Points – How The Salvation Army Found A Different Path, (Virginia, USA: Crest Books, 2004).
2 A number of authors have developed the theme of romance of The Salvation Army and how this was linked to the
romance of Booth and Mumford. Coutts, quoting a 1914 War Cry report, stated that Evangeline Booth announced, “my
father and mother kissed each other and in that kiss was conceived The Salvation Army”. The idea of The Salvation
Army enshrouded in romance continued with many pens: Evangeline Booth & Grace Livingstone Hill, The War
Romance of The Salvation Army; W.P. Ryan, Romance of a Motor Mission; William Nicholson, Romance of the War
Cry; Harlan Halsey, Romance of a Salvation Army Girl; and, William Booth even wrote for the preface of Friederichs,
The Romance of The Salvation Army, “A romance indeed it is…I am delighted that other eyes should see, and other
pens describe, the poetry, the sentiment, the overflowing wealth of pure emotion – in short, the romance which
undoubtedly abounds in every department of its [The Salvation Army] activities”. Evangeline Booth & Grace
Livingstone Hill, The War Romance of The Salvation Army, (Philadelphia, USA: J.B Lippincott Company, 1919).;
Frederick Coutts, The Better Fight – The History of The Salvation Army, Volume VI, 1914-1946, (London, UK: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1973), 17.; Hulda Friederichs, The Romance of The Salvation Army, (London, UK: Cassell & Company,
1908), 1.; Harlan Halsey, Romance of a Salvation Army Girl: A Story of New York Life, (New York, USA,: J.S. Ogilvie
Publishing Company, 1894).; William Nicholson, Romance of the War Cry, (London, UK: Salvationist Publishing &
Supplies, 1929).; W.P. Ryan, Romance of a Motor Mission, With General Booth on his White Car Crusade, (London,
UK: Salvation Army Book Dept., 1906).
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 33
The recitation of the poem and surrounding event
Notable Salvation Army historian, Cyril Barnes, With Booth In London, described the event under
investigation and set the scene in a simple manner:
…[Edward Harris] Rabbits held a house party for a group of leading reformers in his Crosby
Row home, and among the specially invited guests were Miss [Catherine] Mumford and her
Mother [Mrs. Sarah Milward Mumford] and William Booth.
The gathering for tea and conversation was well under way when William arrived. Almost
immediately Rabbits asked him to recite an American temperance poem, ‘The Grogseller’s
Dream’. Whereupon William launched into a vivid, terrifying 900-word description of the
dangers of taking strong drink.
Catherine, dressed in lavender silk with a velvet jacket of darker shade and a lavender bonnet,
smiled approval beneath her dark curly hair. In the discussion which followed William heard
her voice for the first time and his grey eyes dwelt on her as though she were a great light midst
surrounding darkness.3
Barnes went on to state that from this point Rabbits promised to finance Booth 20 shillings a week
to preach full time at Binfield House and thus Booth left pawnbroking. In addition, Barnes outlined
that Mumford took every opportunity to attend the chapel service, Rabbits’ house and meetings at
which Booth preached, and thus inferred that Mumford went to see Booth.4
Investigation of the event surrounding the recitation
As will be seen, the event surrounding the recitation of the poem, described by Barnes, has
appeared in almost every biography of Booth and Mumford and historical work on The Salvation
Army. Where the event was discussed, it has been portrayed, to varying degrees, as a significant
incident in the life of Booth and the history of The Salvation Army. Firstly, the occasion
commenced the relationship of Booth and Mumford and secondly, it led to the professional
preaching life of Booth. There could, however be some question over this story, as not all authors
listed the event, therefore raising some doubt over the origin of the story and flowing from this, the
significant outcomes.
A mere myth?
Although myths are important elements of a historical narrative, they are kept usually to pass on
certain values. No historian, except for David Bennett, The General: William Booth has explicitly
attempted to link this event to underlying Salvation Army values, even though it could easily link to
the Army’s stand against alcohol and its belief in the equality of women. Therefore, as it has not
been used as a myth to teach values, it needs to be investigated as a real occurrence.5 Yet, as at least
ten works on the life of Booth and Mumford did not include the incident, there must first be an
investigation into the validity of the occasion.
3 Cyril Barnes, With Booth in London – A Tourist Guide, (St. Albans, UK: International Headquarters of The Salvation
Army, 1986), 5.
4 Barnes, Booth in London, 6.
5 David Malcolm Bennett, The General: William Booth, Volume 1 – The Evangelist, (USA: Xulon Press, 2003).
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 34
While it is understandable that biographies written for ‘the masses’, or those written for young
people, did not include every event in the life of the subject, it would be imperative that such an
important incident, as finding one’s destiny and one’s life partner, could not be missed. There are,
however both biographies and historical research works of the early Salvation Army that included
neither the occasion nor a description of the poem and so, places a question over the event.6
Two of the authors who omitted this event: George Railton, General Booth; and W.T. Stead,
General Booth, knew Booth and Mumford personally and spent long periods of time in their home.7
Railton and Stead were also known for their showmanship, engagement with controversy and love
of early Salvation Army standards, therefore they should have been the ones who emphasised the
poem, for its drama and content, and published the romance between Booth and Mumford. Minnie
Carpenter, William Booth; known for her sensitive spirit,8 should have also used the occasion to
emphasise the sensitive side of Booth and Mumford’s nature. Yet, in the section, which covered this
period of Booth’s life, Railton and Carpenter wrote nothing of the poem or the meeting, while Stead
attributed the romance to another time and place.9
Without the inclusion of this event authors were in danger of a gap in their narrative, as there
was no explanation of how the romance began nor how Booth commenced full time preaching. To
fill this gap some of the authors tell of other occasions that led to the commencement of Booth and
Mumford’s relationship. Stead, John Larsson, Those Incredible Booths and Roy Hattersley, Blood
& Fire, each gave a different account, a later incident which commenced the relationship of Booth
and Mumford.10 Stead even included an interview with Mumford and it was she who told of the
different event. He wrote, Mumford “told me the story of her engagement and marriage” and
although she declared it was “love at first sight”, the “first sight” described by Stead was a later
occasion when Booth accompanied Mumford home in a horse and carriage. Therefore, like other
authors, the incident surrounding the recitation of the poem was not listed.11
The absence of the event in these works however does not prove the occasion did not take
place. A number of authors, who failed to include the incident in their first work, did so in a later
work, while other authors referred to the occasion later in their original work, but did not attach
much significance to it. Hattersley, who drew on an interview by Booth printed in the 8 October,
6 See for example: Charles T. Bateman, Everybody’s Life of General Booth, (London, UK: Marshall Brothers, n.d.).;
Edward Bishop, Blood and Fire!, (Gateshead, UK: Longmans, Green and Co., 1964), 20-21.; Minnie Lindsay
Carpenter, William Booth – Founder of The Salvation Army, (London, UK: The Epworth Press, 1942), 14.; Thomas
F.G. Coates, The Prophet of The Poor – The Life-Story of General Booth, (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905),
40-41.; Glenn K. Horridge, The Salvation Army – Origins and Early Days: 1865-1900, (Rochester, UK: Ammonite
Books, 1993), 13-14.; John Larsson, Those Incredible Booths – William and Catherine Booth as parents and the life
stories of their eight children, (London, UK: Salvation Books), 7-8.; Charles Ludwig, General Without a Gun – The
Life of William Booth, Founder of the Salvation Army, for Teens, (Arizona, USA: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961),
22-25.; Norman E. Nygaard, Trumpet of Salvation – A Biographical Novel on the Lives of William and Catherine
Booth, Founders of The Salvation Army, (Michigan, USA: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961).; Jesse Page, General
Booth – The Man and His Work, (Row, UK: S.W. Partridge & Co., 1901).; John Read, Catherine Booth – Laying the
Theological Foundations of a Radical Movement, (Eugene, USA: Pickwick Publications, 2013).
7 George S. Railton, General Booth, (London, UK: The Salvation Army Book Department and Hodder and Stoughton,
1912), 29-31.; W.T.Stead, General Booth A Biographical Sketch, (London, UK: Isbister & Co., 1891), 45.
8 Even the author’s grandfather called Mrs. General Minnie Carpenter, “Weeping Minnie” due to the fact that every
appeal she would cry. Carpenter, William Booth.
9 Railton, General Booth, 29-31.
10 Roy Hattersley, Blood & Fire – William and Catherine Booth and Their Salvation Army, (London, UK: Little, Brown
and Company, 1999).; Larsson, Those Incredible Booths.; Stead, General Booth.
11 Stead, General Booth, 45.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 35
1910 edition of the War Cry (London), claimed that Booth stated that the relationship commenced
at a later meeting and for him the recitation of the poem did not appear to rate highly. Hattersley
wrote:
…When he [Booth] talked, after her [Mumford’s] death, about love at first sight, he was
describing a later occasion. He did not remember his first meeting with his future wife, constant
companion, and unflinching conscience…12
Yet Hattersley did include the event of the recitation and thus gave it some significance. Larsson, as
Hattersley, claimed that “love at first sight” occurred at another time for Booth and Mumford.
Larsson too did not hold strong conviction that the incident did not occur as he still included the
occasion surrounding the recitation of the poem, although he did not give the event a specific
timeline.13
Two authors omitted the event in their first book but included it when they revised their work.
Stead and Trevor Yaxley & Carolyn Vanderwal, Through Blood and Fire, listed neither the
occasion nor the poem in their first work, but in their second work included full details of the
event.14 Stead’s later work, Mrs. Booth of The Salvation Army ignored the earlier account of
Mumford and explained that the incident which surrounded the recitation was the point at which the
romance commenced.15
The timeframe of Stead’s two works gives an insight into how and when the event
surrounding the recitation of the poem was introduced into the Booth and Mumford narrative.
Between Stead’s first work, published in 1891, which did not include the event and his later work,
published in 1900, which did, something must have happened for the event to be introduced or
become more important.16 One other author who published two works on Booth and Mumford
between the years 1891 and 1900 and they included the incident linked to the recitation of the
poem. This was Frederick St. George de Lautour Booth-Tucker and it was he who was responsible
for the event under investigation coming to prominence. Booth-Tucker had written a major, three
volume work, The Life of Catherine Booth – The Mother of The Salvation Army in 1893 and then a
much smaller work on Booth, William Booth – The General of The Salvation Army in 1898.17 Both
of these works included the occasion. The 1893 work not only outlined the event, but also included
a substantial quotation of the poem, which many later authors used to quote and analyse the work. It
should be noted that Booth-Tucker had Booth recite the poem to him for the book and it is highly
likely that while discussing the poem Booth revealed that this event had taken place and that it was
the time when he fell in love with Mumford. So it is from Booth-Tucker’s works the event and the
12 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 39.
13 Hattersley, Blood & Fire.; Larsson, Those Incredible Booths, 306.
14 See for example, Stead’s first work as compared to his second work and Yaxley & Vanderwal’s first work as
compared to their second. Stead, General Booth, 45.; W.T.Stead, Mrs. Booth of The Salvation Army, (London, UK:
James Nisbet & Co., 1900), 62-63.; Trevor Yaxley & Carolyn Vanderwal, Through Blood and Fire – The Life of
General William Booth, (Auckland, New Zealand: Castle Publishing, 1999), 27.; Trevor Yaxley & Carolyn Vanderwal,
William & Catherine – The Life and Legacy of the Booth’s, Founders of The Salvation Army, (Michigan, USA: Bethany
House, 2003), 66-67.
15 Stead, Mrs. Booth.
16 Stead, General Booth.; W.T.Stead, Mrs. Booth, 62-63.
17 F. De L. Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth – The Mother of The Salvation Army (3 Vols), (London, UK:
International Headquarters, 1893). This book was also published as a two volume and an abridged one volume edition;
F. De L. Booth-Tucker, William Booth – The General of The Salvation Army, (Hawaii, USA: University Press of the
Pacific, 2001 reprinted from the 1898 edition).
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 36
poem have appeared in the majority of biographies of Booth and Mumford as well as historical
studies into The Salvation Army.
There could be a number of reasons why Booth and Mumford, at times, forgot this event.
Hattersley gave two simple reasons this may be the case. Hattersley stated that neither person was
impressed with the occasion and that other matters were on their mind:
…The events of the afternoon might well have estranged William Booth from Catherine
Mumford for life, but it seems that they, and she, left William Booth absolutely unmoved….
The only possible explanation for William forgetting the occasion is that he had other things on
his mind. Principal amongst them was Rabbits’ suggestion, indeed insistence, that he should
become a fulltime evangelist…18
Another reason why authors may have neglected the event is due to the source they cited. If
the researcher viewed Stead’s first work they would read a different story from that in his later
work. It is also not difficult to explain both Booth’s and Mumford’s neglected memories of the
occasion. Stead would have been in close communication with Mumford during her final days,
while he worked with Booth on In Darkest England and The Way Out.19 Their communication
would have been through the pain and suffering of Mumford’s cancer and it may not have been
appropriate to discuss this event at that time. Further, Booth’s interview, which Hattersley used, was
not given until 1910, just two years prior to Booth’s promotion to Glory. Booth-Tucker, on the
other hand interviewed Booth nearly 20 years earlier, much closer to the event. In light of this and
even allowing for the fact that Booth did not always get the details of incidents correct20 it is safe to
conclude that the event surrounding the recitation of the poem is not a myth and that it did take
place. This means it is now up to historians to interpret this occasion and the poem itself.
Interpretations of the event
Each element of the event surrounding the recitation of the poem has been interpreted and
reinterpreted by historians; the reluctance of Booth to recite the poem, through to, how the
discussion commenced after the poem, and even what Mumford wore, have all been open to
interpretation. The wide continuum of interpretations concerning each element, motivation and
impact of the occasion will be discussed in the following section.
Booth’s reluctance to recite the poem
One element, which historians have given a variety of interpretations to, was the level of reluctance
and reason for any reluctance Booth displayed when requested to recite the poem. Authors
portrayed a continuum of reluctance; at one extreme, Booth needed to be bullied to recite the poem,
to the other extreme, Booth had no trepidation at all.
18 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 39-40.
19 William Booth, In Darkest England and The Way Out, (London, UK: International Headquarters, 1890).
20 One example of when Booth gave a different historical account of some events was in 1903 when a reporter
interviewed him. Although Booth gave an account of the recitation of the poem and meeting Mumford, he earlier stated
that the name of The Salvation Army was change from The Christian Mission not on the report of 1878 but on a poster
to advertise a meeting at a station. “Story of the Salvation Army told by its founder”, The Omaha Sunday Bee, The
Illustrated Bee Supplement (18 January, 1903), 3
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 37
Harold Begbie, Life of William Booth, David Malcolm Bennett, The General, David Bennett,
William Booth, Booth-Tucker, Catherine Bramwell-Booth, Catherine Booth, Roger Green,
Catherine Booth, and Yaxley & Vanderwal all believed that Booth had to be persuaded to recite the
poem. The earlier work of Bennett indicated a growing reluctance; as he stated, the more Booth
read the more he became uncomfortable.21 Hattersley pushed the idea of persuasion further, when
he claimed that Rabbits “either persuaded or bullied” Booth into this recitation.22 Helen Hosier,
William and Catherine Booth put forward a number of quite different interpretations. Her “Booth
refused” was the strongest in the level of Booth’s reluctance.23 In addition to this Hosier claimed it
was not Rabbits, but Mumford who seduced Booth to recite the poem: “It was the gentle, musical
voice of the dark-eyed woman pleading from the sofa that convinced him, albeit reluctantly…”24
Not all authors felt that Booth was coerced into reciting the poem. The other end of the
continuum are authors, although fewer, who claimed that Booth was either relaxed or had no
hesitation to recite the poem. Although, Hattersley claimed that Booth was initially reluctant, he
must have thought that Booth relaxed, as Hattersley went on to state that Booth initiated the ensuing
conversation. Yaxley & Vanderwal also supported this assumption.25 Yet, Barnes indicated that
Booth was not reluctant at all.26 The distance in history cannot give a clear indication of Booth’s
reluctance; however as Booth worked with Booth-Tucker on the biography of Mumford, this could
give some indication that Booth did indeed feel a level of trepidation in being requested to recite the
poem.
Each author also gave a reason why there could have been some reluctance on Booth’s part.
The first group claimed that the reluctance had to do with the matter of teetotalism. Bennett and
Bramwell-Booth placed Booth’s reluctance to an external source, his knowledge that, “few present
were abstainers.”27 Green concurred with the idea of Booth’s concern of others, then went further
and claimed that Booth too, at this point, was not a teetotaller:
…few persons in the room were actually teetotallers, and certainly Booth was not at this point in
his life – his mother having introduced him to drink at age thirteen for medicinal uses.28
Hattersley also stated that Booth was not a total abstainer at the point of this recitation, yet
interpreted this element differently. Hattersley claimed that Booth was known for his stand against
strong drink and his peers knew that Booth was “dangerously illiberal on the subject.”29 Neither
Green nor Hattersley gave any reference to their claim that Booth was not an abstainer, only that
21 Harold Begbie, Life of William Booth – The Founder of The Salvation Army (2 vols), (London, UK: MacMillan &
Co., 1920), Vol. 1, 129.; Bennett, The General, 1:80.; David Bennett, William Booth, (Minneapolis, USA: Bethany
House Publishers, 1986), 17.; Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 82.; Catherine Bramwell-Booth, Catherine
Booth – The Story of Her Loves, (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970), 55.; Roger J. Green, Catherine Booth – A
Biography of the Cofounder of The Salvation Army, (Grand Rapids, USA: Baker Books, 1996), 43.; Yaxley &
Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 66.
22 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 39.
23 Helen K. Hosier, William and Catherine Booth – Founders of The Salvation Army, (Uhrichsville, USA: Barbour
Publishing, 1999), 30.
24 Hosier, William and Catherine Booth, 30.
25 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 40.
26 Barnes, With Booth In London, 6.
27 Bennett, The General, 1:80.; Bramwell-Booth, 55.
28 Green, 43.
29 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 39.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 38
Booth took strong drink for medicinal purposes.30 Contradicting Hattersley’s claim, that Booth was
immovable on his belief against strong drink, Yaxley & Vanderwal, William & Catherine claimed
that Booth “was not a zealous advocate for total abstinence” and “did not want to make any of the
guests feel uncomfortable”.31 Although some authors did not provide any evidence to support their
claim that Booth was not, at this stage, a total abstainer it could have been easily verified by
reference to the Booth Letters.32 Yet in time, Booth would, under Mumford’s direction, become a
zealot against strong drink.33
Some authors gave a second reason for Booth’s reluctance, one that does not sit well with
character portraits of Booth. Begbie interpreted Booth’s reluctance from the idea that he did not
want to be forced into “prominence”; he stated Booth believed that “the piece was not in the key of
social festivity”.34 Hosier went further than Begbie and stated that Booth’s reluctance was because,
“He wasn’t a sociable person”.35 Brian Lunn, Salvation Dynasty and Yaxley & Vanderwal, gave a
similar reason to Hosier for Booth’s reluctance.36 Similarly, Yaxley & Vanderwal claimed that
Booth was used to larger congregations and was not at ease talking in front of smaller groups.37
These are problematic interpretations of Booth’s character for a number of reasons. Booth was
known for not adhering to social conventions; he once stated that, “If standing on my head and
beating a tambourine with my toes will win a soul for Jesus, I will do it.”38 In addition to this, the
interpretation that Booth could not preach to smaller congregations is not feasible, as he had been
preaching to small groups of people indoors and in the open-air since his first sermon in Kidd
Street, Nottingham.39
Booth-Tucker gave yet another interpretation, something that could be closer to the character
of Booth. Booth-Tucker claimed, although Booth understood that there were few teetotallers in the
room, he would only be reluctant to recite the poem if it would take time from more important
matters and cause unnecessary division.40 This sounded more like the task focused personality of
Booth; after all, Booth-Tucker showed that Rabbits asked Booth to recite the poem as Rabbits had
heard Booth recite it on an earlier occasion. This showed that Booth had no objection to the actual
poem or its recitation; only that it may have taken attention away from other matters.
The conversation that ensued
30 See for example, Green, Catherine Booth; Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 40.
31 Yaxley & Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 66.
32 The statement could easily be verified with a reference to the Booth Letters. Letter CM 11, 27 Dec. 1852, David
Malcolm Bennett (ed.), The Booth Letters, CD (Brisbane: Camp Hill Publications, 2011), 48.
33 Mumford urged Booth to stand against all addictive behaviours. In one letter she wrote, “I hope you don’t forget to
wage war with the drinking custom; be out and out on that subject. Am glad Mr. Shadford is a teetotaller; hope he is
also anti-tobacco & snuff.” Letter CM 7, 12 Dec. 1852, David Malcolm Bennett (ed.), The Booth Letters, CD
(Brisbane: Camp Hill Publications, 2011), 33.
34 Begbie, 1:129.
35 Hosier, William and Catherine Booth, 30.
36 Brian Lunn, Salvation Dynasty, (Great Britain: William Hodge & Company, 1936), 18.; Trevor Yaxley & Carolyn
Vanderwal, Through Blood and Fire.
37 Yaxley & Vanderwal have a number of inconsistencies in dates and events leading up to this event, Yaxley &
Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 66.
38 Cited in Sallie Chesham, Born to Battle – The Salvation Army in America, (New York, USA: The Salvation Army,
1976), 53.
39 Bennett, The General, 1:47-53.
40 Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 82.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 39
Another element, which differs in interpretation between the authors, was that of the conversation
that occurred after the recitation. The authors differ as to who started the discussion, when it
commenced and the focus of the discussion.
There has been no clear indication of who started the conversation, as groups of authors
believed it came from a different person. As stated earlier, Hattersley and Yaxley & Vanderwal
claimed that Booth commenced the conversation.41 Ervine, God’s Soldier: General William Booth,
would not have agreed with Hattersley and Yaxley & Vanderwal, as not only did Ervine see Booth
not commencing the conversation, but also not participating. Ervine stated, “Booth seems not to
have joined in the debate which came after the recitation.”42 Barnes, Booth-Tucker, Ervine and
Wilson, all led by their loyalty to Mumford and a female voice, declared that she commenced the
discussion as, she was, as Booth-Tucker stated, “in her element, and led off in an animated
debate.”43 After more research, in their later work Yaxley & Vanderwal, who initially claimed that
Booth commenced the discussion, did not state who started the discussion.44
Yet another element which authors have not agreed upon was when the discussion
commenced and the ferocity in which it was conducted. Some authors argued that the poem caused
an immediate debate or an intense debate; Hosier stated that there was, “Immediately a noisy
argument”;45 Stead, called it a “hot debate”;46 Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth stated,
“there arose a bit of a dispute.”47 The other extremity of this continuum saw a number of authors
claim that an uneasy silence fell on the group: Booth-Tucker called it “an awkward pause”; Ervine
and Wilson, General Evangeline Booth, an “Awkward silence”;48 and Barnes and Bennett stated an
“embarrassed silence” fell upon the group after the recitation.49 It was again Yaxley & Vanderwal
who gave a unique interpretation; they stated there was first applause then, “an awkward and
uncomfortable atmosphere.”50
The one thing most authors agreed upon was that the discussion that ensued was a debate on
the virtues of total abstinence and that Mumford was a strong advocate. Barnes, Bennett, Booth-
Tucker, Green, Ervine and Wilson all claimed that a push for the point of “total abstinence”
occurred against those for moderate use and over against indulgence of strong drink.51 Yaxley &
Vanderwal too stated that the discussion was very much a strong argument for total abstinence.52 Of
those who attempted to capture the topic of conversation only three authors, Bennett, Booth-Tucker
41 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 40.
42 St. John Ervine, God’s Soldier: General William Booth (2 vols), (London, UK: William Heinemann, 1934), 1:54.
43 Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 85.; Booth-Tucker, William Booth, 17.; Ervine, God’s Soldier, 51 & 54.
44 Yaxley & Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 67.
45 Hosier, William and Catherine Booth, 30.
46 Stead, Mrs. Booth, 62.
47 Roger J. Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth, Founder of The Salvation Army, (Nashville, USA: Abingdon
Press, 2005), 44.
48 Wilson had many of the items incorrect about this event. He stated that the event took place at the Mumford’s house
rather than the Rabbits’ and that it had been the Mumford’s rather than Edward Rabbit who heard Booth recite the poem
on a previous occasion. P.W. Wilson, General Evangeline Booth of The Salvation Army, (New York, USA: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1948), 17.
49 Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 85.; Bennett, William Booth, 17. Little changed in Bennett’s later recount
of the event. David Malcolm Bennett, William Booth and His Salvation Army, (Capalaba, Australia: Even Before
Publishing, n.d.), 8.; Ervine, God’s Soldier, 54.
50 Yaxley & Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 67.
51 Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 85.; Bennett, William Booth, 17. Little changed in Bennett’s later
recounting of the event. Bennett, Booth and His Salvation Army, 8.; Ervine, God’s Soldier, 51 & 54.
52 Yaxley & Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 67.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 40
and Green, attributed Mumford’s thinking to her intellect. These three attributed her stand against
strong drink to her reading habits, including such contemporaries as Charles Finney.53 Booth-
Tucker went further, however, and declared that Mumford’s knowledge came from a clear
understanding of the Bible.54 While most authors were in agreement that Mumford was a staunch
supporter of total abstinence they were not as clear about Booth’s loyalty to teetotalism. For one,
Begbie clearly stated that Mumford and Booth were of one mind: “Catherine Mumford, with a
downrightness of opinion, a logic unmatched in that room, and a searching analysis troublesome,
one imagines, at a tea-party, and sided entirely with William Booth.”55 On the other hand, Green
and Hattersley felt the recitation of the poem and the discussion estranged Booth from Mumford
and created awkwardness between them.56
What is surprising was that there were another three authors who, although they discussed the
event, focussed on other matters when it came to the debate which followed the poem. Lunn passed
over the occasion and did not include any information on the discussion which followed;57
Bramwell-Booth focused on the dress and look of Mumford, rather than the discussion;58 while
Green stated that it was not the discussion which was important, it was the meeting of two minds
and two hearts: “The importance of the occasion was not, however, in the conversation about total
abstinence but in the meeting for the first time of Catherine Mumford and William Booth.”59 Again
the fog of history has thickened with time and there can be little clarity as to who started the
discussion but it can be clear, as will be shown in the next paper, that the poem would have been
pleasing to Mumford’s belief and that if Booth had also believed the content then this would have
endeared Booth to Mumford, not estranged them as some have suggested.
The impact of the recitation
As has been stated, from Booth-Tucker’s initial inclusion of the event, many of the biographies
noted that the incident surrounding the recitation of the poem led to two important paths in the life
of Booth and Mumford and in turn that of The Salvation Army. Yet as with the other elements
already discussed there have been different interpretations on the outcomes of this event.
Recitation to romance
Green and Booth-Tucker saw that the most “important and lasting” outcome of the event
surrounding the recitation of the poem was, “the feeling of mutual respect, sympathy, and
admiration that it awakened in the hearts of Catherine Mumford and William Booth”.60 So
important was this in Booth-Tucker’s mind that it was the only outcome listed in his later work.61
53 Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 86.; Green, Catherine Booth, 43.
54 Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 86.; Ervine, God’s Soldier, 54. Bennett used this information for his
book. Bennett, The General, 1:82.
55 Begbie, Life of William Booth, 129.
56 Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth, 43-44.; Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 39-40.
57 Lunn, Salvation Dynasty, 18.
58 Bramwell-Booth, Catherine Booth, 55.
59 Green, Catherine Booth, 43.
60 Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine, 87. Also see the reference connected with footnote 53.
61 Booth-Tucker, William Booth, 17.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 41
Green also called this meeting “fortuitous” for Booth and Mumford.62 Bennett, in line with Green
and Booth-Tucker, stated that Rabbits became cupid to Booth and Mumford and therein, “That
evening the first signs of love stirred in their hearts.”63 Out of all the authors who claimed this event
as the commencement of the romance of Booth and Mumford, Bramwell-Booth listed the occasion
in the most romantic manner. She stated:
The recital over … for the first time, William heard Catherine’s voice. Their eyes met, and
while she, opposing, entered the discussion ‘with logic unmatched in the room’, William’s grey
eyes dwelt on her as if she were a point of light in surrounding dusk.64
Barnes and Bramwell-Booth agreed with Begbie, Barnes repeated some phrases65 while Begbie
described the commencement of the romance in a more clinical and procedural manner, he stated:
It was one of those fallings in love which are as instantaneous as they are mutual, which are
neither approached nor immediately followed by any formal declaration of affection, and which
manifest themselves even in the midst of conversations altogether absorbed in other matters.66
Not all authors were as reliant on the idea that “love at first sight” was connected to this event.
Some saw love as a process, others, that love occurred at a different occasion. Barnes, Stead and
Yaxley & Vanderwal did not go as far as the authors previous listed: Barnes did not declare “love at
first sight”, but stated that Mumford decided to attend the meetings arranged by Rabbits; Stead
described the incident as a beginning of a process, which from Mumford’s argument helped Booth
develop, “an admiration which soon deepened into love”;67 while, Yaxley & Vanderwal only stated
that a smile was shared between the couple.68
Hattersley, Larsson and Stead all down played the link between this event and love, as they
claimed, as has been previously stated, that when Booth and Mumford talked of “love at first sight”
they thought of a later occasion.69 Booth’s supposed reluctance to fall in love could have been due
to, as Ervine stated, Booth’s need to wait until finances became more available to him; “It was not,
however, until after he had accepted Mr. Rabbits’ offer to maintain him as a full-time preacher…”
that Booth could think of love.70 Green and Hattersley gave a very different perspective on the
incident as they interpreted that Mumford was displeased with the poem and therefore with Booth.
Green stated, “Catherine’s first close impressions of William were rather awkward because William
had been pressed by Mr. Rabbits to recite a rather absurd American temperance poem…”71 and
Hattersley argued that “The events of the afternoon might well have estranged William Booth from
Catherine Mumford for life.”72 This is an abstract line of thinking, as the poem showed how the
selling of strong drink was in cohorts with the devil and with Mumford’s stand for temperance, it
62 Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth, 43.
63 Bennett, William Booth, 17.
64 Bramwell-Booth, Catherine Booth, 55.
65 Barnes, With Booth in London, 5.
66 Begbie, Life of William, 130.
67 Stead, Mrs. Booth, 62-63.
68 Barnes, With Booth In London, 6.; Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth, 43.; Yaxley & Vanderwal, William
& Catherine, 67.
69 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 39.; Larsson, Those Incredible Booths, 7-8.; Stead, General Booth, 45.
70 Ervine, God’s Soldier, 54.
71 Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth, 43-44.
72 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 39-40.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 42
could only be stated that Mumford would have approved of the sentiments of the poem and
endeared her to Booth.
Recitation to preach
As with elements already discussed, authors have given different weight to how this event led to the
outcome of Booth’s introduction to fulltime preaching. Barnes, and to a lesser extent Begbie, wrote
that the recitation of the poem made Rabbits finance Booth, which in turn, led Booth away from his
pawnbroker career to become a full time preacher.73 Although Hattersley linked the incident to the
outcome of preaching, his socialist leaning compelled him to state that Booth’s motivation was not
the desire to preach, but the need to financially care for his mother.74 Other authors moved yet
further from linking the occasion to Booth’s move into fulltime preaching. Stead and Ervine only
placed the event with Booth’s move to preaching within a paragraph structure, not as cause and
effect.75 Bennett and Yaxley & Vanderwal did not link the two at all.76 However Bennett went
deeper and in fact was the only author to analyse the incident further and discussed deeper
outcomes, which arose from the occasion. He attributed other significant trajectories which arose
from this event: The Salvation Army’s stance on Alcohol; Mumford’s desire to change laws, which
were unchristian and unjust; and Booth’s lack of confidence in the parliamentary processes to
change lives, which could only be done through Jesus Christ.77 Although Booth’s ability to move
into fulltime preaching may have been important, many authors aligned with Green, as cited earlier,
stated that the major outcome of this event was, “the meeting for the first time of Catherine
Mumford and William Booth.”78 It could be true that Rabbits commenced to finance Booth as an
outcome of this event as he had previously asked Mumford to review Booth’s preaching and must
have felt that he ‘owned’ Booth enough to force him to recite the poem. However and whenever the
agreement of payment was received, there can be no doubt that this incident did play a part in
Booth’s move towards paid fulltime preaching.
The performance of the poem
Just as authors had differed on interpreting each element of the event and its significance, they too
had differed on how elements took place. The element discussed here is how Booth presented the
poem. At first glance this may not appear important; however, it identifies a previously undefined
ability Booth had exhibited. Barnes, Begbie, Green, Stead and Winter, Travel with William Booth,
all stated that Booth recited the poem, it should be added that Winter did so with no discussion or
evaluation on the poem or the event.79 Yet, there are other interpretations. While Bennett stated, at
first, that Booth recited the poem, he later declared, “On he read”. Then in a later publication,
73 Barnes, With Booth In London, 6.; Begbie, Life of William Booth, 130.
74 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 40.
75 Ervine, God’s Soldier, 54.; Stead, Mrs. Booth, 63.
76 Bennett, William Booth, 17.; Yaxley & Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 67.
77 Bennett, The General, 1:82.
78 Green, Catherine Booth, 43.
79 Barnes, With Booth In London, 5.; Begbie, Life of William Booth, 129.; Green, The Life & Ministry, 44.; Stead, Mrs.
Booth, 62.; Jim Winter, Travel with William Booth – Founder and First General of The Salvation Army, (Surry, UK:
Day One Publications, 2003), 63.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 43
Bennett had sourced Booth-Tucker and noted that Booth had both recited the poem at a previous
occasion and also recited it on this occasion.80 Hattersley, however, made a different and very
unique claim, he stated that the poem was a song and Booth sang it to the group.81 There is,
however, no doubt that the work is a poem. Despite both Hattersley’s and Bennett’s claims there is
evidence that Booth not only recited the poem, but could do so upon request, and did so on a
number of occasions.
Booth-Tucker and others gave evidence that Booth knew this poem by heart. Booth-Tucker
stated that Rabbits had heard Booth recite the poem a few days earlier.82 Then Booth-Tucker also
stated that “Forty years later”, when he collected data for his biography on Mumford, “… the
General was able to repeat the whole poem without error or hesitation”, thus adding weight to
Booth’s ability to recite the poem.83 Adding more weight to Booth-Tucker’s claim are other first-
hand accounts of Booth’s ability to recite the poem by memory. J. Evan Smith, Booth the Beloved,
wrote that while visiting Booth’s youngest daughter, Commissioner Lucy Booth-Hellberg, in
Denmark, he spontaneously recited the poem. The event, described by Smith was corroborated by
Booth-Hellberg in another publication,84 thus proving that Booth not only could recite the poem at
the commencement of his preaching career, but also up to 60 years later. It can therefore safely be
declared that Booth did not sing or read the poem, but recited the poem from memory.
Booth’s ability to recite this and other lengthy works showed that he had high levels of
verbal-linguistic intelligence. Although Hattersley thought it a song, he highlighted Booth’s ability
to remember such a long body of work. Yet, Booth-Tucker left no doubt of Booth’s ability to
remember and recite poetry, and stressed that Booth’s gift gave him the title of “the ‘John Gough of
England’”.85 To add more weight to this claim was another first-hand account of Booth’s ability to
recite lengthy poems. Smith stated that, “The Founder was fond of poetry and frequently tested his
memory by repeating to me well-known poems like Gray’s ‘Elegy,’ and some of his favourite
hymns…”86 Remembering and reciting the poetry specifically listed was no easy task as Thomas
Gray’s, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, ran to 128 lines,87 while the poem under
investigation ran to 192 lines. What is more astounding was that Smith continued with his account
of Booth’s ability and stated that, after he heard Booth recite the poem, Booth went on and recited
Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.88 A Christmas Carol was written in 5 Staves with some staves
covering 260 lines.
80 Bennett, William Booth, 17.; Bennett, Booth and His Salvation Army, 8.; Bennett, The General, 1:80.
81 Green, Catherine Booth, 43.
82 Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 82.
83 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 40.
84 Cited in Larsson, Those Incredible Booths, 306.
85 John B. Gough (1817-1886) was an American temperance orator and celebrity. Having trouble with alcohol he signed
the temperance pledge in 1842 and as he used his own experiences to warn others, he made a great impression on his
listeners; many of whom also took the pledge. Gough he was one of the best know public speakers in Great Britain and
the USA and made it a lucrative business. “John B Gough (1917-1886) The Temperance Orator as Revivalist”, Teach
US History, http://www.teachushistory.org/second-great-awakening-age-reform/approaches/john-b-gough-1817-1886-
temperance-orator-revivalist accessed on 9 December, 2015.; Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 82.
86 J. Evan Smith, Booth the Beloved – Personal Recollections of William Booth, Founder of the Salvation Army,
(Melbourne, Australia: Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1949), 56.
87 “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard”, Thomas Gray Archive, 2000 http://www.thomasgray.org/cgi-
bin/display.cgi?text=elcc accessed on 9 December, 2015
88 Smith, Booth the Beloved, 61.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 44
Booth’s ability to memorise and then recite by heart large pieces of poetry gives evidence of
his intelligence, something which often has been denied him. Authors have focused on Mumford’s
intellectual ability, often inferring that Mumford was the intellect while Booth was the
practitioner.89 One such case, from a feminist perspective, was Nicole Slee & Stephen Burns,
Presiding Like A Women who unfairly stated that Mumford was “long considered the superior
intellect of the two.”90 Yet Booth’s ability to memorise and recite poetry is indicative of the
cognitive intellect of verbal-linguistic intelligence.91 This intelligence explains much of Booth’s
skills and the reasons why people followed him. Howard Gardner, the theorist of Multiple
Intelligences, stated that; “Linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, your native
language, and perhaps other languages, to express what’s on your mind and to understand other
people.”92 Dario Nardi, Multiple Intelligences went further to explain this intelligence;
Verbal-linguistic intelligence includes reading, writing, speaking, and listening. At its simplest,
it means using and understanding words in order to communicate. Language use also includes
the multiple and subtle meaning of words and phrases, as well as the sound, rhythm, and style of
what’s conveyed. … People who excel in language enjoy debate, poetry, metaphor, puns,
storytelling, speech and essay writing, creative writing and many other sophisticated
expressions of language…93
Booth exhibited all these throughout his ministry and further investigation into Booth’s use of this
intelligence should be pursued.
The poem as the feature item
Identifying the name of the poem and the poet
The reader may have noticed that this paper did not make reference to the name of the poem recited
in the event under investigation. The reason for this was that the name had been slightly changed
between the authors; also after further research it was found that the name given to the poem was, in
89 For example: Bennett wrote that Mumford “was very intelligent and an avid reader”; Murdoch stated, “William’s
limited theological training… led Catherine to compensate for his deficiencies”; Parkin wrote, “Catherine was
intelligent and well education…”; Read stated that Mumford “was the visionary thinker, the principal architect of the
Army’s theology, the one through whom Salvationism was first formed, and the one who gave it coherent and eloquent
expression.” This showed that Mumford displayed intrapersonal intelligence and possibly one still being developed,
spiritual intelligence. Bennett, The General, 1;87.; Norman H. Murdoch, Origins of The Salvation Army, (Knoxville,
USA: The University of Tennessee Press, 1995), 2.; Christine Parkin, “A woman’s place?” in Clifford W Kew,
Catherine Booth – Her Continuing Relevance, (London, UK: The Salvation Army International Headquarters, 1990), 1.;
Read, Catherine Booth, 2.
90 Nicole Slee and Stephen Burns (eds), Presiding Like A Women: Feminist Gesture for Christian Assembly, (London,
UK: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2010), 26.
91 Booth was not strong in memorising historical facts (logical-mathematical intelligence) but not only could he
remember large sections of poems and hymns, above and beyond rote learning, but also gave lectures and sermons up to
two hours long without notes or prompting. He also wrote many articles for Salvation Army publications throughout the
world and wrote songs. Finally, which is often forgotten, Booth wrote a novel, all of these given evidence in the area of
being ‘word smart’ and therein showing verbal-linguistic intelligence. See for example Booth novel, William Booth,
Sergeant-Major Do-Your-Best of Darkington No.1 – Sketches of the inner life of a Salvation Army corps, (London, UK:
Salvationist Publishing & Supplies, n.d.).
92 As cited in Dario Nardi. Multiple Intelligences and Personality Types – Tools and Strategies for developing human
potential. Understanding yourselves and other series. (USA: Telos Publications, 2001), 54.
93 Nardi, Multiple Intelligences, 54.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 45
fact, incorrect. In addition to this, not one author gave an indication as to who the poet may have
been. Barnes, Bennett, Booth-Tucker, Ervine, Green, Hattersley and Hosier did not list the author;
they only stated it was an “American Temperance poem”, “American Temperance recitation”, or
“American Temperance piece”. Smith just referenced the poem back to Booth-Tucker and Bennett
stated it was an “American poem”.94 There were some authors who, while they described elements
of the event, did not give either the name of the poet or the name of the poem: Catherine Bramwell-
Booth only stated that it was an, “American temperance piece”;95 while Harold Begbie only referred
to it as an, “American poem”.96 Other authors, while they gave the poem a name, could not agree
upon its correct title. Barnes, Booth-Tucker, Hattersley and Wilson listed the poem as, The
Grogseller’s Dream,97 while Bennett, Hosier, Lunn, Smith and Yaxley & Vanderwal hyphenated
the title to, The Grog-Seller’s Dream.98 Green had a similar title, but failed to apostrophise, The
Grog-Sellers Dream.99 Ervine, Green, Le Feuvre and Stead hyphenated the name but did not use
title capitals for the entire name, The Grog-seller’s Dream,100 yet Winter separated the words,
without a hyphen, The Grog Seller’s Dream.101 Sadly, no author listed the name of the poet and, as
will be seen, not one of the authors discussed above had the name of the poem correct.
How the poem had been quoted and evaluation
Although not knowing the name of the poet, or the correct title of the poem, each author in turn
evaluated the poem and some did so by quoting a section. Most authors ridiculed the poem: Green
called it an, “odd American temperance poem”, and later that it was “absurd”;102 Ervine, labelled it
an “appalling poem”;103 Le Feuvre a “ridiculous poem”.104 Bennett too, although he stated that
Booth “was probably not uncomfortable with the poem itself” condemned the poem. Bennett stated:
“The poem, of course, is very Victorian if not quite up (or down) to the level of the great bad poet
William McGonagall”.105 Hattersley also did not mince words about his dislike for the poem, which
he called a song, as he stated that the:
…song which made up in moral fervour what it lacked in every other sort of merit. The
grogseller, in over 210 lines of doggerel, describes with contempt the customers whose lives he
has ruined by drink…106
94 Bennett, The General, 1:80.; Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 82.; Booth-Tucker, William Booth, 17.;
Smith, Booth the Beloved, 56.
95 Bramwell-Booth, Catherine Booth, 55.
96 Begbie, Life of William Booth, 129.
97 Barnes, With Booth In London, 5.; Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 82.; Booth-Tucker, William Booth,
17.; Wilson, General Evangeline Booth, 17.
98 Bennett, William Booth, 17. Nothing was added with the later edition, Bennett, Booth and His Salvation Army, 8.;
Lunn, Salvation Dynasty, 18.; Smith, Booth the Beloved, 56.; Yaxley & Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 66.
99 Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth, 44.
100 Bennett, The General, 1:80.; Ervine, God’s Soldier, 51.; Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth, 43.; Cathy Le
Feuvre, William and Catherine – The Love Story of the Founders of The Salvation Army, told through their Letters,
(Oxford, UK: Monarch Books, 2013), 34.; Stead, Mrs. Booth, 62.
101 Winter, Travel with William Booth, 63.
102 Green, Catherine Booth, 43.; Green, The Life & Ministry of William Booth, 44.
103 Ervine, God’s Soldier, 51.
104 Le Feuvre, William and Catherine, 34.
105 Bennett, The General, 1:81.
106 Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 40.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 46
It is not clear where Hattersley got the idea of 210 lines when the entire poem ran for 192 and each
publication did not include it in its entirety. Only Wilson gave praise to the poem, which could be
an evaluation consistent with views at the time when the poem was more widely known. Wilson
claimed it was, “quite popular in those days.”107 These evaluations were made without deeper
investigation into the poem, the poet or any declaration of the author’s own worldview. Different
views of the poem and an understanding of its author could have led some to a different point of
view; after all Booth felt the poem important enough not only to commit it to memory but still be
reciting it some 60 years later.
Not only did the authors feel that they had licence to evaluate the poem, but also to cite
sections of the poem without correct reference. It can now be firmly stated that not one of the
authors, who cited the poem, had done so in its entirety; many had just referenced sections of the
work from Booth-Tucker and even he did not include the entire poem. Booth-Tucker only included
the section, albeit an extensive section, remembered by Booth at the time of the research into the
biography of Mumford.108 Barnes and Green do not quote any of the poem, while Hattersley quoted
only five lines from the poem109 and Bennett only referenced four lines of stanza I.110 In his later
work, Bennett only included stanza I, and part of stanzas II and XX.111
Some authors used only some lines of the poem to suit their purpose. For example, Hosier did
not use any of the lines of an entire stanza, she only used the first and second lines of stanza I and
the second, third and fourth lines of stanza II which created a different structure from the original
poem.112 Stead only quoted the last two lines of stanza XXIII and changed the words from the
original. Yaxley & Vanderwal quoted lines one and two of stanza I, lines two to four of stanza II
and lines seven and eight from stanza XXIII; again this created a different structure and feeling
from the original poem.113 Wilson quoted only two lines and stated that they were the final lines of
the poem. In fact they were not but rather, were the third and fourth lines of the final eight-lined
stanza.114 Even those who attempted to include the entire poem failed to do so. Booth-Tucker,
Ervine and Smith deleted half of stanza IV and moved stanza V to a later position. These authors
also removed stanza XIV to the second line of stanza XIX. Near the end of the poem stanzas XXI
and XXIII are completely removed as well as a number of lines in the final stanza.115 It appears
from this investigation that when authors, such as Bennett, Ervine and Smith, included the poem
they sourced the poem from Booth-Tucker, not from an original source.
Further investigation into the poem
As there were no authors who identified the poet, a further investigation was undertaken. It was
found through searches that, outside Salvation Army focused literature, there were only two
107 Wilson, General Evangeline Booth, 17.
108 For a full analysis of the poem and what authors did and did not include see Garth R. Hentzschel, “A new look at an
old poem – The poem that changed William Booth’s life”, The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, 1, 1,
2016, 51-71.
109 Green, Catherine Booth, 43.; Hattersley, Blood & Fire, 40.
110 Bennett, Booth and His Salvation Army.
111 Bennett, William Booth, 17.
112 Hosier, William and Catherine Booth, 30.
113 Yaxley & Vanderwal, William & Catherine, 66-67.
114 Wilson, General Evangeline Booth, 17.
115 Ervine, God’s Soldier, 51-54.; Booth-Tucker, The Life of Catherine Booth, 82-86.; Smith, Booth the Beloved.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 47
references to the poem The Grog-Seller’s Dream or variations of the name. The poem appeared in
The Albany Patriot in the same year and month The Salvation Army commenced, July, 1865116 and
The State Temperance Journal and Home Visitor, 11 June, 1868.117 The poem was attributed in the
first publication to George S. Burleigh, the second publication, as in Salvation Army works, no
author was listed. Yet there was no more information to be found to link the poem to George
Burleigh. In addition to this, for Booth to have recited the poem in the event at Rabbits’ house, there
needed to be reference to the poem well before 1865, yet no poem by the title of The Grog-Seller’s
Dream could be found.
As the search continued, a few glimmers of information emerged. Gibson, who, in the poem
was said to have murdered his child:
There’s Gibson has murdered his chid, they say -
He was drunk as a beast here the other day!
I gave him a hint, as I went to fill
His jug, but the brute would have his will.118
also appeared in another poem, The Rum Fiend. More of Gibson’s sad story was told in this second
poem:
Bill Gibson has murdered his boy, they say-
A bright little lad – but his face was so sad
That it made one doubt if he ever were glad.
He was here with his father but yesterday,
And the poor boy was trying to coax him away,
But the bloody old bloat was determined to stay,
And he did, til at least he was tight as a fool,
All rum and tobacco, and drivel and drool;
And when I rebuked him, ‘Just stick to your trade,
Said he, ‘nor find fault with the thing you have made.
You and your master are very nice chaps,
But both may as well quit preaching, perhaps.’119
This poem, The Rum Fiend had other similarities to the poem under review, such as wives
coming to talk to the grog-seller with, “…stories of sorrow, and care, and wrongs”,120 the use of
phrases like “He! he! he! he! and “Ho! ho! ha! ha!” and the laugh “seemed to come from an iron
throat”.121 In this poem, too, the devil visited the grog-seller with similar descriptions of humanity’s
fiend and even takes entire lines from the poem cited in Booth-Tucker. For example from stanza
XVI is taken:
Having come from a warmer clime [climate] below,
To chat with a friend for an hour or so,122
116 “The Grog-Seller’s Dream”, The Albany Patriot, Vol. XIX, No. 22, (Albany, USA, 29 July, 1865), 1.
117 “The Grog-Seller’s Dream”, The State Temperance Journal and Home Visitor, Vol. 3, No. 24, (Hartford, USA, 11
June, 1868), 1.
118 Booth-Tucker, Catherine Booth, 83.
119 William H[enry] Burleigh, The Rum Fiend, and Other Poems, (New York, USA: National Temperance Society and
Publication House, 1871), 13.
120 Burleigh, The Rum Fiend, 15.
121 Burleigh, The Rum Fiend, 17.; compared with, Booth-Tucker, Catherine Booth, 83.
122 Burleigh, The Rum Fiend, 22.; compared with, Booth-Tucker, Catherine Booth, 83.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 48
Unlike The Grog-Seller’s Dream, however, the devil was joined by other phantoms who took the
grog-seller on a Dickensian ride viewing the people he had wronged; the mother and child, the
imprisoned murderer of a father, and others. When the grog-seller returned to his abode the poet
returned to the lines from The Grog-Seller’s Dream and much of the information and many of the
lines from this poem are used from stanzas XX to XXIV; however they are all expanded.123 There
are too many similarities and directly plagiarised lines for a coincidence; The Rum Fiend must have
some relationship to The Grog-Seller’s Dream; so this was further investigated.
The author of The Rum Fiend was William Henry Burleigh and upon further investigation it
was found that Burleigh had other poems published, one, in 1848 entitled The Devil and the Grog-
Seller, A Ditty for the Times.124 When a search was made for this poem data was found in many
publications and it was found that The Grog-Seller’s Dream was, in fact, Burleigh’s The Devil and
the Grog-Seller, A Ditty for the Times. The next paper introduces the poet, and for the first time,
publishes the full poem to The Salvation Army readers.
From the discussion of historical works listed above, it is clear that Booth’s recitation of the
poem, The Devil and the Grog-Seller by Burleigh, was a turning point in the history of The
Salvation Army. While there is evidence that Rabbits persuaded Booth, it is not clear if this event
turned Rabbits’ mind to funding Booth’s ministry. At the very least the incident did add weight to
Rabbits’ later decision and for this reason set Booth on his life long journey for souls. It is clearer
that the recitation of the poem brought Booth and Mumford into each other’s view and at some time
in the evening the two strangers developed admiration for each other, which later turned into love.
The love led to letters, discussions and a kiss, and as Evangeline Booth announced, “my father and
mother kissed each other and in that kiss was conceived The Salvation Army”.125
123 See for example Burleigh, The Rum Fiend, 35- 38.; compared with, Booth-Tucker, Catherine Booth, 84-85.
124 William Henry Burleigh, The Devil and the Grog-Seller, A Ditty for the Times, (Philadelphia, USA: Merrihew &
Thompson Printers, 1848).
125 Coutts, The Better Fight, 17.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 49
“The Grog-Seller.” This drawing appeared before William Henry Burleigh’s
The Devil and the Grog-Seller, A Ditty for the Times in Jewett’s book.1
“The Grog-seller.” This drawing appeared before William Henry Burleigh’s The
Rum Fiend, and Other Poems, the poem being inspired by his earlier work The Devil and
the Grog-Seller, A Ditty for the Times.2
1 Charles Jewett (Compiled), Temperance Lyrics. No. 1, (Boston, USA: Isaac Tompkins, 1845), 29.
2 William H[enry] Burleigh, The Rum Fiend, and Other Poems, (New York, USA: National Temperance Society and
Publication House, 1871), 6ff.
The Australasian Journal of Salvation Army History, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2016. Page 50
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
AJSAHistoryVol1Iss1 March 2016
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search