.In 1906, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Moran published a book called ‘Discovery of Australia by De Quiros in the Year 1606‘. In this book, Moran puts forward a hypothesis that the bay of Quirós’s New Jerusalem is not Big Bay in Espiritu Santo, but in Port Curtis in Gladstone, Queensland. His main argument relates to the size of the bay as described by Quiros – that Espiritu Santo’s Big Bay is not grand enough.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence to the contrary of Moran’s hypothesis is Prado y Tobar’s map. Port Curtis looks nothing like it.

Moran discounts Prado y Torbar’s map as being vindictive – a result of the fallout with Quiros.

The map of the newly-discovered land, which was drawn by Diego de Prado y Tobar […] unmistakably presents to us the Santo Island. […] [Prado y Tobar] pursued De Quiros with singular venom and undisguised hostility. […]All through De Quiros’s subsequent career we find that this offender pursued him with unceasing enmity. […] That Santo was one of the islands discovered by De Quiros is unquestionable[…]; but when Prado y Tobar forwards the map of Santo as proof that the statements of the captain regarding his discovery of the great Austral Land were without foundation, I cannot but regard it as an additional argument in favour of my contention, that Santo cannot be the grand Austral continent of which De Quiros speaks and of which he claimed to be the discoverer.

Moran’s idea is that Quirós, Torres and Prado y Torbar had visited Espiritu Santo, and then subsequently went to Queensland/Port Curtis where New Jerusalem was established. Prado y Torbar then labelled a map of Espiritu Santo as New Jerusalem in order to discredit Quirós. Moran gives many more arguments to support his view that Port Curtis is the site of New Jerusalem. I won’t go through all of them, but it is not a long book if you would like to read his arguments yourself.

I think it’s fantasy that Quirós landed in Port Curtis. The description of the natives having houses with palm leaved rooves surrounded by fruit trees, pigs, black sand beaches and earthquakes sounds like Vanuatu and not like Gladstone/Port Curtis. The latitude of Gladstone also does not match, but Espiritu Santo in Vanuatu is spot-on. Occam’s Razor = Quirós exaggerated. This idea of Quirós having landed in Queensland was even taught in Catholic schools for some time, and still inhabits corners of the internet.

Moran also writes;

Another common difficulty against the opinion which I have adopted recalls to mind the fact that hitherto every writer on the geography of the South Seas has regarded Santo as the Great Southern Land discovered by De Quiros. It cannot but be presumptuous, it is said, to advance an opinion contrary to such a consensus of expert writers.

Like I wrote in part one, terra australis incognita and Quirós’s discovered land had together become synonymous with the great southern continent in the minds of Europeans. But Espiritu Santo is only a very small landmass on a globe.

Moran has attempted to transplant the legend of Quirós’s great southern land and it’s terra australis incognita label to New Holland. He is not the only one to try.

What would motivate Moran to try to transplant Quirós’s discoveries to Queensland? Perhaps because he is Irish and Catholic. Early on in the New South Wales convict settlement the Church of England was the only church allowed to practice. Many Irish political prisoners were also Catholic and initially forced to go to Anglican services – which would have made them feel even more persecuted. It would be comforting for Catholics to find that Quirós (a Catholic) discovered and claimed possession of “Australia” for the Catholic Church.

Moran’s book in 1906 was proceeded by his writings in The Australian Catholic Record in 1895 covering similar arguments. Keep in mind here also – this hypothesis is coming out around the time of the federation of Australia. Given the different statuses of the colonies – and the colony borders being strategically drawn up seemingly in anticipation of threat from other European challengers, forming an ‘indissoluble federation’ at this time helps bind it all together. By identifying New Holland as Quiros’s terra australis incognita helps erase the words New Holland off the map to replace with a British federation of colonies.

In the 1890’s Queen Victoria was getting very old, and federation may also have been a way to make arrangements less chaotic on her passing which happened only a few weeks after federation. I can’t help but see parallels with the situation today, with the Australian Catholic University playing a central role in the Uluru Statement through it’s support of Uphold and Recognise, and an aging Queen putting the finishing touches on succession plans.