Part 3: How is Bramwell faring?
- deansimpson7
- 3 hours ago
- 5 min read
In the third of a four-part series, Salvos Online history writer BARRY GITTINS explores the tumultuous events of 1929, when General Bramwell Booth’s leadership of The Salvation Army reached a crisis point.
Throughout the Salvation Army and throughout much of the Western world, the future of Booth’s Army seemed up for grabs. Questions of loyalty, integrity and motivation were everywhere.
Refuting suggestions of unfair treatment of the General, and disloyalty, International Headquarters put out on 26 November 1928 a letter to the High Council participants.
Any adjudication to come regarding the General’s unfitness for his office, or his possible resignation, or death, would mean ‘electing a new General ... in this matter we were moved by deep and sincere concern for the Army, and not less so for the General, with whom we have been closely associated for the greater part of our lives. How could it be otherwise?’
Bramwell’s ‘prolonged and serious illness [and] progressive inability on his part to attend to the most vital – indeed the most trivial – duties of his office [meant] he is now so unfit as in fact to leave the Army without a Head and its immense Trusts without the only person legally able to administer them.”
In a circular published on 8 December, 1928, entitled ‘The Why and Wherefore of the High Council of The Salvation Army 1928-29’, the High Council’s instigators were publicly backed by retried commissioners John Carleton, William Ridsdel, Mildred Duff, Adelaide Cox, Fred Booth-Tucker, William Stevens, Clara Case, and William Iliffe; they were respected, big hitters. The circular noted that the retirees ‘considered that in the present circumstances the requisitioning commissioners could have taken no other course’.
The circular noted that Bramwell “can only with the greatest difficulty and on rare occasions sign his name to a few of the larger documents requiring attention … the General is now so unfit as in fact to leave the Army without a head”.
In hindsight, it seems overly ironic that the Salvationists wrestling for command of The Salvation Army should appeal for discretion, in a document that was always going to be made public as soon as it was printed and distributed.
The commissioners urged their fellows to pray and to “go on steadily with your work, whatever it may be, and quietly await the decision of the High Council … Don’t be drawn into controversy with anyone. It is believed that public confidence in the Army will be stronger than ever because of the exercise of wise provision made by the Founder when he executed the 1904 Deed under which the High Council has been called together”.
The Army, they decreed, is “greater than any one of the individuals who compose it”. Markedly, it went without expressly saying that this included Bramwell.
Word from the inner realms of the High Council was seeping out in private communications. One commissioner’s private correspondence on 17 January 1929 addressed “the atmosphere of deep emotion and spiritual feeling … in the midst of the proceedings of the High Council … The whole Assembly was moved to tears as one after another pleaded with Mrs Booth and the General’s family to persuade our Leader to relieve himself of the heavy burdens under which he collapsed.
“It was with an intense disappointment which affected practically every member of The Council that the General’s refusal to entertain our request was afterwards received … the General declines to consider retirement with all the honours and dignities attaching to his rank, [so we] could not avoid proceeding to the final discussion …”
Put to the vote, 55 of the 63 officers participating adjudicated the General “unfit” – eight voted against sacking Bramwell.
Faced with the High Council calling his competence into question and, in essence, ending his reign, General Bramwell Booth – almost 74 years of age, and in exceedingly poor health – listened to his supporters and resorted to the law in an effort to refute the High Council’s marching orders.
The choice to go against scriptural advice and contest the High Council in the courts to retain power was not a popular one.
Participants in the struggle for control were at pains to reassure Salvationists around the world that the practical matters before them were held alongside concern for their ailing leader and the deep grief and anger that were emerging through turbulent discussions and contentions. That said, prayer amidst the pain was the order of the day.
Brigadier Fred Fielding’s diary on 21 January 1929 reflects this controversy; his perspective was as a person in training, busily watching the Army wrestle with itself.
“Commissioner Jeffries, this morning at family prayers, read a statement of facts regarding the decision of the High Council. He made reference to ‘Orders and Regulations of Soldiers’, also to Local Officers Regulations,” he wrote.
“He seemed very upset, especially when he held up a Summons, and said that it was not like one of the General’s “love letters” which he used to send to his old and faithful officers.
“As he finished speaking, Staff-Captain Dora Booth [one of Bramwell and Florence’s daughters] jumped up from her seat on the platform and, in the midst of a very profound silence, while we all wondered what was going to happen next, she addressed the cadets with the remark that “there are two sides to this question”.
Major D. Purkiss immediately responded with the words that her remark was “a libel [slander, that is] on the fifty-five (the High Council)”.
“The incident closed quietly, however, and no more was said. These are very anxious days in the Garrison.”
Commissioner Higgins, writing as Chief of the Staff from IHQ on 7 February 1929, took Bramwell Booth to task for the General’s War Cry article, which the Chief believed was “contrary to the teaching and interests of The Salvation Army …
“In trying to justify the action of the General in going to Law [the piece] suggested that the Founder did the same and that The Army upon many occasions has had recourse to [the Law] … This is true, but the Founder never went to Law against his own people, nor did he resort to Law to nullify his own [legal] Deeds … the general’s action [is] really taken in the hope that the High Council will be declared illegal, and that he, in spite of his continued inability to act because of physical weakness, shall be reinstated without there being any power to remove him or any successor whom he might choose to appoint … What a catastrophe all this is!”
So, how was Bramwell’s health, really? Was he ready to get back to the office and get things ticking along?
In the confidential circular ‘The High Council – Sunbury Court 13 February 1929’, Commissioner Lamb recorded that “my judgment tells me the general is still a sick man – a very sick man… He has not been at Headquarters since May of last year … If we are told that the General’s health is so much improved that he is granting business interviews to certain people [we] cannot ignore the fact that while he may be fit to see ex-officers he is not well enough to see his sister (the Commander) or consult with his chief of the Staff. That is the present position … the General is unfit …
“I submit to you, then, with deep conviction but great regret, that General Bramwell Booth is unequal to the task …”
