Eureka - The Unfinished Revolution (50 page)

No, it is not the murder conviction the diggers wanted, but it is something alright. Sentenced for manslaughter to three years’ hard labour on the roads is a whole lot better for that bastard – and he probably
is
a bastard – than getting off scot-free. And it is vindication for the destructive action that the diggers took against the Eureka Hotel.

If the people had not reacted to the situation en masse and with outrage, justice would not have prevailed. United, they have shifted the course of the government and its judiciary!

And yet there is a rather troubling article in the edition of
The Ballarat Times
:

TRIAL OF

Fletcher, McIntyre and Westerby

for

BURNING THE EUREKA HOTEL

Supreme Court, Melbourne.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

GUILTY, WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY!

‘The Foreman of the jury appended the following rider to the verdict:
“The jury feel, in giving their verdict against the prisoners at the bar, that in all probability [the jury] should never have had that painful duty to perform if those entrusted with the government offices at Ballaarat had done theirs properly. His Honour said: “The sentence of the Court is that you, McIntyre, be confined in H. M. Gaol at Melbourne for three months, but I shall not subject you to labour. You, Fletcher, to four months and you, Westerby, to six months confinement . . .”.’

The diggers’ reaction is pure outrage. When a thousand of them had participated in meting out true justice to a real murderer that the judiciary had let off, these brave men had to spend time in gaol? When even one of the authorities, Commissioner Gilbert Amos himself, had wonderfully testified that McIntyre, for one, was not guilty of what he had been charged with?
Still
,
the judge found them guilty?

So heated is the feeling among the diggers that it would be the later testimony of Commissioner Robert Rede that on the very afternoon that news of the ongoing imprisonment of the three diggers breaks, he receives a credible threat that if they are not immediately released and have their convictions for arson overturned, the Government Camp would be burned down.

Clearly, the situation is getting out of hand.

All over the goldfields, posters printed by Henry Seekamp’s presses are nailed to every solid vertical surface available:

DOWN WITH THE LICENSE FEE

DOWN WITH DESPOTISM

WEDNESDAY NEXT

ON BAKERY HILL

As to the views of Henry Seekamp, he leaves little doubt as his prose in his newspapers reaches for the full revolutionary heights and sets the tone. Not for nothing would admiring digger John Lynch say of
The Ballarat Times
,
‘When hard hitting had to be done, it could deal blows like the hammer of Thor.’

It is not for us to say how much we have been instrumental in rousing up the people to a sense of their wrongs, we leave that to the public and the world. The coming Christmas is pregnant of change, for on next Wednesday will be held such a meeting for a fixed determinate purposes as was never before held in Australia. The Australian flag shall triumphantly wave in the sunshine of its own blue and peerless sky over thousands of Australia’s adopted sons. And when the loud paean of

NOW’S THE DAY AND NOW’S THE HOUR,

SEE THE FRONT OF BATTLE LOUR, shall have pierced the blue vaults of Australia’s matchless sky, from the brave men of Ballarat on next Wednesday at Bakery Hill, there will not be one discordant voice in the sublime and heroic chorus. Go forth indomitable people! Gain your rights, and may the God of creation smile down propitiously upon your glorious cause! FORWARD PEOPLE, FORWARD!’

What makes the whole issue of Fletcher, McIntyre and Westerby even more galling is that only four days earlier the Board of Inquiry, which interviewed 58 witnesses at Bath’s Hotel in the first weeks of November, released a public report heavily covered in the newspapers that went a long way towards acknowledging that the diggers’ outrage over both the collection of license fees and the Scobie case were justified! In the case of the Bentley trial, it said, ‘the Bench’s decision was opposed to the facts and evidence elicited’, the effect of which created ‘a unanimity in the popular feeling’ among the rioters.

But look what the Board said about the man in charge of that whole case!

‘A subject of deep regret’, it noted, is how Police Magistrate John Dewes ‘laid himself under obligation to a class of person whose conduct in their capacity of licensed victuallers brought them under the supervision and scrutiny of the Bench of which he was Chairman, thereby subjecting himself to influences unbecoming to his position as police magistrate and public officer’.

Exactly!

Among the report’s final conclusions is the observation that ‘hunting sly grog sellers and taking up unlicensed miners’ have made the police ‘very obnoxious to the diggers, and it had a most pernicious effect on the morals of the police force . . .

‘With regard to the employment of Police in arresting unlicensed miners, your Board believe that no duty in which the police are employed is so calculated as to render them hateful to the population as this . . . Your Board are therefore of the opinion that, were the license fee abolished, and the police released from the false position in which they are placed by being made collectors of revenue, their efficiency would be greatly increased, their moral influence with the community would be raised, and, as a consequence, the extent of the force which is now hardly adequate to the duties required would no longer be necessary.’

For the trouble Dewes has caused them, for the way he has conducted recent judicial proceedings in a manner that has subverted ‘public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Bench’, His Excellency has already directed that ‘the name of Mr Dewes be erased from the Commission of the Peace, and that he be informed that the Lieutenant-Governor has no further occasion for his services’. The government had even gone one better and announced the week earlier that another, more powerful Goldfields Commission of Enquiry would soon be set up to investigate the whole administration of the law at the goldfields.

Despite this tacit recognition that the administration of law was lacking and the official acknowledgement that Dewes had been corrupt – which had, after all, been the primary cause for the Eureka Hotel being burnt down – the government had
still
gaoled McIntyre, Fletcher and Westerby. Hopefully, the diggers’ delegation will be able to sort this out in person with Sir Charles Hotham.

Some on the goldfields, however, do not wish to wait and would prefer a more violent means of liberating the diggers. That evening Commissioner Rede is visited, as he immediately informs his superiors, ‘by a person in whose veracity I believe I can rely, but who does not wish his name to appear’, that in the event of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor refusing to liberate the prisoners McIntyre, Fletcher and Westby [Westerby], a large number of persons have pledged themselves to attack the Camp and drive the officials off this Gold Field.’ With every passing day, the mood at Ballarat is blackening.

Monday morning, 27 November 1854, Sir Charles receives some visitors

This way please, er . . . gentlemen.

The truth of it is that the three men who have just arrived at the government offices in William Street are of a breed not usually sighted within this heart of colonial power. For though they are well-educated men, nothing can disguise the fact that George Black, Tom Kennedy and John Basson Humffray – who has joined the delegation, uninvited, in Melbourne – are . . . miners . . . from the diggings. Large, weathered men with ruddy faces and rough hands, there is the look of unease about them, though whether it is because they are in such august surroundings or because they have the unpleasant duty of talking to him and his leading officials, Hotham is yet to determine.

For not only are they ushered into the presence of His Excellency himself, but also that of his two key executive officers in the persons of Colonial Secretary John Foster and Attorney-General William Stawell.

Gentlemen, please state your business and why you have requested this audience . . .

It is the startlingly blue-eyed George Black who takes the lead, addressing the Lieutenant-Governor directly, and from the first it is obvious that he is not shy.

‘We are here, Your Excellency,’ he states simply, ‘at the request of the diggers of Ballarat. We are requested to demand the release of Fletcher, McIntyre and Westerby, who are now in gaol under sentence for having been concerned in the burning of the Eureka Hotel -’

Sir Charles interrupts Black even before he is properly launched.

‘You have made use,’ he says with insistent iciness, ‘of one word which I think it my duty at once to allude to; and that is the word “demand”. You “demand”, you say, the release of men who have been convicted for burning the Eureka Hotel. Was that not what you said?’

‘That is the message,’ Black replies, ‘which we have been requested to deliver to Your Excellency. The word “demand” we were requested to use on behalf of the diggers of Ballarat to Your Excellency. They, from frequent disappointments, or from former disappointments, object to the use of the word “petition” now. It is not that there is any wish to hold out threats to Your Excellency . . .’

Sir Charles is not moved. Even if he might want to, he says, he cannot take the law into his own hands. The fact that the verdict was reached by 12 good men and true of a properly constituted jury, and the sentence imposed by a lawfully appointed judge, means he has no capacity to change either the verdict or the sentence arrived at.

If he were to intervene, he says, ‘I should inflict the greatest blow that could possibly be inflicted upon the welfare of the colony.’

(Besides which, as one who feels his true calling at this time would have been leading his men to naval battle on the Baltic Sea as part of the Crimea War, he is highly indisposed to be seen backing down to a bunch of rich, disgruntled diggers.)

No matter, the delegates continue to make their case. Together, they had spent the better part of the day before discussing the situation on the goldfields with Ebenezer Syme, the nearly 30-year-old Scottish journalist who is now working on
The Argus
,
and, together, they now push the points they had agreed would most likely resonate with Sir Charles.

Their point now is that even if the men in question had broken Her Majesty’s law, they had broken no moral law, and it is only right that this be recognised. Alas, the Lieutenant-Governor, backed by his Colonial Secretary and Attorney-General, reiterates that in good faith the results of the case in question cannot be altered, no matter what.

But now it is the miners’ turn to be insistent.

‘I solemnly implore you,’ says Kennedy to the Lieutenant-Governor, ‘to consider the position in which you are placed, and if it were no other reason than that of keeping back the spilling of blood, which must be the case with infuriated men, let us have peace, even if thought inconsistent with the dignity of the British Crown.’

But the man who represents that dignity is not inclined to cede, and does not hesitate in saying so. His Attorney-General is equally imitative of a stone wall when Black raises the subject of the Constitution Bill and the fact that ‘no digger can be elected to a seat in the Assembly unless he is worth one or two thousand pounds of freehold property. They object to this’.

William Stawell is nothing if not frank, saying flatly to Sir Charles, ‘The power does not exist, either in Your Excellency or in the Legislative Council to alter it.’

But Black will not back off.

‘I think you scarcely understand what I mean; it is this. The Legislative Council in framing that bill for the new Constitution could have enfranchised the diggers and could have given to them universal suffrage. Instead of having inserted a clause in the bill requiring the diggers to take out a twelve months’ license, they could have inserted a clause giving them the franchise without that qualification. That is what I mean. That was not done, and because it was not done, that is why they feel an injustice has been done to them.’

The Colonial Secretary, John Foster, is unmoved, saying, ‘The Legislature did not see any reason why the diggers should have universal suffrage more than any other class of the community.’

Then Black raises another issue that has the diggers worked up. ‘I am desired by the married men of Ballarat to make a request of Your Excellency. It is this, that every possible facility may be afforded by Your Excellency to enable them to settle and have their wives and families there. They are all anxious to settle upon the land, but at present the difficulties of their so doing are too great, and I am requested to bring that subject especially before Your Excellency’s notice.’

‘That is a point which presses very much,’ Sir Charles acknowledges, ‘but it is of such a very serious character that . . . I can give no answer at present further than agreeing with you in the necessity of some provision being made.’

‘I find by looking over the land that has been selected for sale,’ Black comes back, ‘and the sales that have taken place, that the very best land, or rather the land of the very best quality, is put up in the largest allotments, so that only men of capital can purchase the good land and the poorer land is cut up into small slices for the diggers.’

‘That shall be looked to,’ says Sir Charles, even as he looks at the clock, ‘and considered certainly.’

There is really nowhere further to go on the matter.

And yet Kennedy simply cannot help himself from having one more pointed go, telling His Excellency with some force, ‘Sir Robert Peel did not think it beneath him to change his mind, and we hope you will grant the diggers their wishes on this point of the release of these men.’