Saturday, 31 December 2016

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1830-1882

First book for 2017

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1830-1882 is the second book in the Rebellion Quartet, a series looking at resistance and rebellion in the British Empire.  It examines the Irish dimension in Britain’s Empire, evident in Three Rebellions: Canada, South Wales and Australia, through attempts especially by the Young Ireland and Fenian movements to achieve Ireland’s independence through rebellion between 1830 and 1882 and by the populist and parliamentarian constitutionalist Repeal Association and campaign for Home Rule to achieved devolved government. 

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1830-1882 focuses on the nature and impact of the Famine in its global Irish context in Britain, the United States, Canada and Australia. Why, how and where Irish emigrated and how they settled into their new communities. How different approaches to Irish nationalism evolved in Ireland, British colonies in Canada and Australia and in the United States and why it failed to achieve its objectives between 1830 and 1882 and the political character of the Irish diaspora. It also explores the nature and differences in the character of Irish rebellion in Ireland, mainland Britain, Canada and Australia in 1848 and during the 1860s looking especially at its military character and failure. The role played by individuals such as Daniel O’Connell, Thomas Davis, John Mitchel, John O’Mahony, James Stephens, John O’Neill, John Devoy, Michael Davitt, Isaac Butt and Charles Stewart Parnell.

The first edition was well received by reviewers and this edition has given me the opportunity to revisit material originally researched and written between 2005 and 2009 taking account of the most recent research and publications. I have delved further into newspapers from Britain, Ireland and Australia and have added further references to them. I have also extended the starting point for the book back by a decade to 1830.

Wednesday, 28 December 2016

Reviewing 2016: A second stab

After Brexit came the election of Donald Trump as the US President.  If Brexit was a shock, Trump’s election was an earthquake…no one thought he would get the Republican nomination let alone win the election against the experienced if not popular Hilary Clinton.  The election campaign, especially its last weeks, was one of the most visceral I’ve ever seen with making promises that he will need to honour—though in some cases this is unlikely—with the FBI saying it was reopening investigations into Hilary’s private email server ten days or so before election day and then withdrawing from investigation a few days later when the damage to Hilary’s already fragile reputation was done.  With Hilary wining the popular vote but Donald gaining the electoral college votes and the presidency, the result was hardly a ringing endorsement of the processes through which American democracy functions.
One of the major criticisms of Trump in the election campaign is that he has little experience of Washington but this misses the point that it is precisely because he has no experience that he was elected.  His brand of authoritarian populism, his notion of ‘American First’ appealed to those Americans for whom globalism has paid no dividends and whose lives have been blighted by the impact of untrammelled global free trade and who see no real benefit from the United States acting as the arbiter of global affairs.  What Trump is is an extremely successful if ruthless businessman who tweets what he thinks and who had vast experience in running and particularly managing things and increasingly people believed that he had the skills necessary to bring an expanding federal state to heel by not being prepared to do things the way they’ve always been done.  For the electorate this is his greatest strength but it is also his greatest weakness as the whole panoply of the Washington establishment will be against him and will obstruct his changes.  For a US President to get his policies accepted by Congress, there needs to be a degree of consensus; without this he becomes a ‘lame duck’ with the Washington political elite—and it has inexhaustible patience and ability to ‘dig the dirt’--simply waiting for his term of office to expire. 

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Reviewing 2016

2016, the year that the ‘commentariat’ got just about everything wrong!  It was supposed to be a victory for ‘remain’ and Hilary Clinton preparing for her inauguration as US President half way through next month…well, no.  Britain was supposed to make a further…if perhaps reluctant…commitment to the European Union with an economic meltdown if this did not occur as companies abandoned what would become the Titanic of economies; that voting leave would result inevitably according to David Cameron and other ‘remainers’ in leaving the single market and the customs union, something now denied by the ‘remoaners’ and especially the Liberal Democrats who respect the referendum result—remember it was advisory not binding--but want to have another just to make sure and perhaps a third one for two out of three!!  The irony is that, although three out of four people eligible to vote did so, the percentage was lower amongst younger votes, some of whom are now complaining that the ‘baby boomers’ have stolen yet another part of their inheritance.  Brexit was not expected to happen and neither side in the debate had made any real provision for this eventuality…any sensible government would have taken steps to plan for Brexit even if they didn’t expect it to happen.  And when it did, instead of staying on to help with the transition to a new Prime Minister and to sort out the mess of his own choosing, David Cameron simply quit within hours of the result…it was a bit like, ‘well you didn’t take my advice, so I’m off!!’  Almost a hissy fit!!!!!
So why did England and Wales vote for Brexit?  Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain, though in NI’s case by a small majority.  This in itself caused problems as Scotland then demanded some sort of accommodation with the EU to recognise that it did not vote to leave.  This raised significant constitutional issues that have yet to be resolved…how do you accommodate a devolved, but not federal, structure within a unitary constitution?  The result is that Scotland demands that it has a special status under devolution in relation to the referendum despite the fact that the UK as a whole voted for Brexit by a significant if not enormous majority.  We may still be a ‘United’ Kingdom in theory but in practice that is clearly no longer the case.  This explains why the current mantra is ‘Yes, we accept the result of the referendum and the will of the people….but!!!!!’  The metropolitan elite cannot understand it and, if some of the recent comments in the press are a good indicator, some are still in denial about it all…they’ll wake up from a bad dream and the referendum won’t have taken place.  It’s the Peasants Revolt all over again but this time the peasants have got what they want…or have they?  Just as Richard II and his ministers betrayed the peasants in 1381 so constitutional niceties, legal arguments, practical politics and the realities of negotiation from March 2017 may well see yet another betrayal…this is what we’ve negotiated and Parliament’s agreed so that’s it whether or not there’s control over free movement of people or complete severance from the EU…it’s economics silly!! 
The reality is that because there was little planning for Brexit, the whole thing is a mess.  Whoever allowed a referendum bill to go through Parliament that did not specifically make the result binding was really incompetent…I cannot believe that nobody noticed that.  A conspiracy theorist might well argue that this was deliberate so that government could twist its way out of taking account of the result if it was leave…though I tend to the cock-up theory of politics.  And of course it’s also a mess for the EU…it has as little an idea of what Brexit will mean in practice as the government.  Yes it’s all…well don’t expect an easy negotiation from us but it then has to get through all 27 countries and how do you do that successfully? No one knows.  It’s almost a back of the cigarette packet situation. Yes it would have been easier to stay within the EU…certainly my own view…but that’s not how the people voted.

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

The West’s blame and the West’s shame

Watching Newsnight yesterday evening was one of the worst examples of a political post-mortem I think I’ve ever experienced.  The subject was the imminent fall of Aleppo to the Russian supported government of President Bashar al-Assad that commentators think represents perhaps not the end of the civil war but the beginning of the end of the civil war.  Aleppo itself may not matter much on Moscow's strategic chess-board. But the defeat of the rebel opposition there underscores the extraordinary turn-around in President Assad's fortunes. Before Russia intervened President Assad was on the ropes, his military power crumbling; now it looks as if he’ll win.  The West’s response…a fiery exchange at the UN, with US Ambassador Samantha Power accusing Syria and its allies of contributing to ‘a noose around civilians’ asking  ‘Are you truly incapable of shame?’

She is, of course, right. The civil war has been characterised by a total indifference to the fate of civilians who have been subjected to unspeakable atrocities, a new barbarism.  But the West is also culpable.  Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003—either an unprovoked assault on an independent country that may have breached international law or something authorised by United Nation sanction—the West has completely failed to stabilise the region and arguably has made the situation worse.  By removing despicable dictators in Iraq and then in Libya, initiating regime change and then failing to provide the mechanism to create a stable future, the West has been guilty of gross stupidity.  The scenario seems to have been…remove dictator, establishing a western style democratic government, let the liberated people get on with this and then act surprised when it all falls apart.  What this shows…apart from the hubris of the West…is that you can’t simply transplant democracy to countries with no real tradition of liberal democratic institutions.  The same applies to the so-called ‘Arab Spring’---I remember commenting on my blog at the time that the 1848 European revolutions came to mind…things that shone brightly and briefly and were then snuffed out by the forces of reaction…and so it was.  The West encouraged political aspirations and then expressed surprise when things did not turn out as they believed they ought.  The West’s interference in the region has largely been disastrous.

As the bombs continue to fall on Aleppo and its people, we sit well fed in our warm, comfortable houses and wring our hands at the inhumanity of man.  We moralise.  We call for the war to end, for the evacuation of civilians, for the feeding of the people starved for weeks.  We give words…words…words.  But we do nothing.  In fact, words are all we can give as the West has effectively abdicated any responsibility it may have felt for Syria.  I am reminded of Sir Humphrey’s words on the principles of foreign policy…’perhaps there was something we could have done…but it’s too late now!’

Wednesday, 30 November 2016


On Tuesday 12 December, the prisoners were quickly removed from Ballarat to Melbourne under heavy escort, to await trial in the Supreme Court. [1] They held at the Melbourne Gaol, where the cramped conditions and harsh treatment were, if anything worse than conditions had been in Ballarat. The prisoners were so appalled at their treatment they eventually submitted a letter to the Sheriff appealing for clemency.
We therefore humbly submit that, as the State only looks at present to our being well secured we ought to be treated with every liberality consistent with our safe custody, and that any unnecessary harshness or arrogant display of power, is nothing more or less than wanton cruelty. Some of us for instance, could while away several hours each day in writing, an occupation which, while it would fill up the dreary vacuum of a prison life, would lend elasticity to the mind, as would the moderate use of snuff and tobacco, cheer it and soothe that mental irritation consequent upon seclusion. But that system of discipline which would paralyse the mind and debilitate the body – that would destroy intellectual as well as physical energy and vigor, cannot certainly be of human origin[2]

The Crown needed to demonstrate object, design and intention. As well as levying war against the Crown, the definition of High Treason included acts preparatory to rebellion including drilling armed forces, stockpiling arms and ammunition and so on. The Attorney-General, William Stawell faced several difficulties in making the case for High Treason. [3] The rebels were organised in great numbers and in a warlike manner. The Stockade was an armed camp and drilling suggested a degree of military organisation. Whether this constituted an overt act of levying war against the state is debatable though it could be seen as preparatory. Lalor always argued however that the function of the diggers’ camp was defensive not offensive. Also the state needed to show that the diggers had a more general purpose by seeking subvert the authority of the Crown and force a change in established policy or law. The Crown suggested that there was a planned, prior conspiracy and that this was shown by three things. The meeting on Bakery Hill on 28 November and the swearing in of volunteers under the Southern Cross the following day suggested conspiracy. Drilling, the collection of arms, ammunition, provisions, and stores without payment, and the construction of the Stockade demonstrated planning. Since Stawell maintained that it was the rebels who fired first without challenge or parley, the resistance and attack on the troops and police, on 3 December was evidence of levying war. Even so, this proved difficult to sustain. Finally, treason was not necessarily proven if it could be shown that they intended to correct some local or private grievance: the rebels could argue that they were seeking to end the unfair administration of the goldfield.
On Monday 15 and Tuesday 16 January 1855, the prisoners were brought before Sir William a’Beckett, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, to answer the charges laid against them and to select their defence counsel. [4] The trials finally began on Thursday 22 February 1855 when Attorney-General William Stawell, who prosecuted at all the trials, commented:
…so long as we are interested in the maintenance of law and order, so long must we feel the greatest and deepest importance in the result of a trial of this kind. [5]
The daily proceedings of the trials were reported in both Melbourne newspapers, the local papers of Ballarat and Geelong and also in NSW. They were often the subject of scathing editorial and public comment, particularly in the Age in Melbourne that made no apologies for its criticism of the government. The prisoners were placed at the bar and answered to their names. [6] As they had already received a full written copy of the charges against them, a summary was read. Each of the prisoners was then required to enter a plea. Timothy Hayes was first to plead, but his defence lawyers delayed this due to a minor discrepancy on the indictment. He eventually pleaded not guilty later that morning, after the twelve other prisoners had responded similarly to the charges. The prisoners appeared in the order they were listed in the indictment. Timothy Hayes and then Raffaelo Carboni were to be tried first, but this was delayed by their counsel due to the absence of key witnesses. John Manning’s case was also delayed as his lawyer was reportedly too ill to attend. This meant John Joseph, the African-American from Boston, was the first to be tried. [7]
The charge against Joseph stated:
He had made war against our Lady the Queen in order to subvert authority, he had tried to injure her and force her to change her measures and counsels, he had attempted to deprive her of authority in this colony and, finally he had killed and wounded her soldiers and other loyal subjects. [8]
The first test of the legal process came with the selection of the jury. The Crown challenged the inclusion of Irish jurors, publicans and other questionable persons. Joseph brought the court to a standstill when he called out that he objected to the inclusion of gentlemen and merchants on the jury. It took some time for the laughter in the courtroom to subside and jury selection to continue. No Irishmen found their way into the ranks of the jury, although two ‘gentlemen’ and a publican were selected. Opening for the Crown, Stawell emphasised the monstrous nature of the offences and their wider implications for the newly formed colony. He also clarified the definition of treason for the jury, as it was the first case of treason to be heard in the colony. Stawell then provided an overview of the events leading up to the attack on the Stockade making particular reference to the drilling of diggers and the oath taken by them to fight for their rights and liberties under the flag of the Southern Cross.

Evidence was then heard from eleven witnesses. They testified to Joseph being drilled on the days leading up to the battle. Six witnesses said that Joseph had been seen ‘distinctly’ in the Stockade during the battle, armed with a double-barrelled gun and two witnesses claimed they saw him discharge his gun at the soldiers. One witness claimed he had seen Joseph firing this gun in the direction of Captain Wise, who later died of his wounds. Finally, he was arrested in a tent from which many shots had been fired; many persons having been found dead and wounded in it and several stand of recently discharged arms were found lying on the floor. The defence counsel, Butler Cole Aspinall and Henry Chapman, did not call any witness and based their case solely on the non-existence of any treasonable intentions. The Attorney-General concluded by arguing that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the prisoner on all counts and urged the jury to ‘hang a nigger for the governor’. However, after deliberating for half an hour, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. [9] The courtroom erupted, the cheering at the verdict so affronted the Chief-Justice, he singled out two members of the public (George Gordon and John Keogh) and jailed them for a week for contempt of court. [10] Joseph was placed on a chair and lifted above the crowd of possibly up to 50,000 people, over a quarter of Melbourne’s population in 1855 that then carried him through the streets of the city.
Four days later, on 26 February, John Manning, probable author of some of the seditious articles in the Ballarat Times, was also tried. [11] The evidence against him was largely circumstantial and there was little attempt to show he had taken part in the events in the Stockade. The jury promptly acquitted him. Hotham and Stawell were outraged and decided to delay the other trials to allow pro-digger public opinion to decline and then empanel new jurors.[12]  Stawell’s justification for this was:

He said, two prisoners had been already tried on a charge of high treason this session, and both acquitted. In neither case had any evidence been called for the defence, but the prisoners’ counsel had rested entirely on the case brought forward by the Crown. He did not wish to question the verdict of a jury-a verdict of twelve men solemnly sworn to decide according to the evidence; and therefore, although he held a strong opinion of his own, from the evidence adduced, and the verdict found, he would not now express it. The offence, however, for which the prisoners were arraigned was of so serious a character, and of such vital importance to the community at large, that he felt it was not safe to proceed to trial with the present panel. He would therefore ask His Honor to remand the prisoner until next Criminal Sessions. [13]

This manoeuvre was widely criticised, but did not have much effect. [14] On 12 March, a poorly attended public meeting of 150 people was held near St. Paul’s Church, Melbourne to protest about the postponement. [15] Nevertheless, in Bendigo, a resolution was passed by diggers on 13 March strongly condemning the government’s handling of the state trials and the ‘unbecoming desire for vengeance’ that this conduct demonstrated. [16] Judge Redmond Barry tried the remainder of the cases. [17] A week later, the trial of Timothy Hayes, rightly regarded in Ballarat as a ringleader in the whole movement, began but again the jury returned a not guilty verdict. [18] It is surprising is that Hotham and Stawell persisted with the trials after these rebuffs apart from their belief that even a single conviction would give a semblance of justification. Judicial process now turned to farce. Two further ‘foreigners’, Italian Raffaelo Carboni and Dutchman Jan Vannick, were acquitted on 21 and 22 March. [19] The following day, Irishmen James Beattie and Michael Tuohy were found not guilty and three days later Austrian born Thomas Dignum was suddenly set free without a trial. [20] On 27 March, the remaining prisoners, Henry Read, James Campbell, Jacob Sorenson, John Phelan and William Molloy were tried together and also all acquitted. [21] With each ‘not guilty’ verdict, the courtroom erupted into celebration, much to the annoyance of the Attorney-General and presiding judges.

The acquittals showed that it was impossible for the government to make a case for Treason. By prosecuting the rebels for High Treason rather than the more certain charge of sedition, an understandable position as it wished to make examples of some of the diggers, the Crown had weakened its stance from the outset.[22] Its case had been further compromised by its failure to call either Robert Rede or Captain Thomas to give evidence and its reliance on witnesses whose evidence was often shown to be questionable under cross-examination. There was frequent perjury and evidence that the Crown presented was often incoherent and inconsistent. For instance, Police trooper Henry Goodenough, who was extensively used by the government as their most effective prosecution witness, had acted as an agent provocateur, had infiltrated the Stockade as a digger and attended all the meetings, and apparently had urged the diggers to take a more aggressive approach in reaching their objectives. His reports on the diggers’ activities were exaggerated and frequently challenged by the defence. The way in which Stawell had manipulated the jury system evident in the unjustified postponement after Manning’s trial showed that the state was prepared to pervert justice to achieve its own ends. Lord John Russell summed up the situation when he maintained that it was inexpedient to charge the diggers with High Treason, a charge unlikely to convince a jury. [23] The state trials were as much political as legal in character and their failure was seen as further evidence of the authorities’ incompetence in dealing with the diggers.

Unlike in the Canadas where claims for compensation after the rebellions in 1837 and 1838 dragged on for a decade, those in Victoria were dealt with relatively quickly. The application by Patrick Curtain was typical. [24]  Curtain was in the Eureka Stockade during the attack leading the pike-men and was a claimant for injuries inflicted by the military or police, and for the destruction of his store. [25] A list of items from his store was listed of the claim, total £1,267 7s 2d of which £800 was due to creditors.[26] He declared in an affidavit dated 26 December 1854 that he took no part in the riot, directly or indirectly, any more than ‘protecting my own property’, in marked contradiction to other evidence. [27] Nonetheless, he was awarded £1,000 compensation in March 1856.[28] In total, the Select Committee of the Legislative Council dealing with compensation recommended paying £4,239 to sixteen of the nineteen claimants. Two years later, compensation was also paid to those who claimed to have incurred losses during the attack on Bentley’s Hotel on 17 October 1854 and the subsequent riot. [29] The final claim caused by Eureka Stockade was made by John Foster Vesey Fitzgerald, Hotham’s Colonial Secretary who had resigned in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Stockade. Hotham had promised recompense for the loss of his £2,000 salary and £1,000 pension but this never occurred. Hotham’s promise was twice rejected by the Legislative Council and once by the Legislative Assembly. [30] In 1867, he visited the colony to give evidence to a Select Committee that in vain recommended his compensation. [31]

[1] Evans commented that: ‘reports appeared in the papers that Sir Charles Hotham was determined to hang the poor unfortunate fellows in his power who were found guilty. If such a horrible scheme is carried into effect there will be such a universal rising up for vengeance that Sir Charles Hotham & his satellites with all their military force will not stand against –The people of Melbourne & Geelong, the diggers and the Press are all united in one cry for a general amnesty, & it will be well for the government if they reflect before they turn a deaf ear to the public voice’. SLV, MS 13518, Charles Evans, Diary, 14 January 1855, p. 169.
[2] The letter, dated 6 February, was printed in the Age, 14 February 1855, and in ibid, Carboni, Raffaelo, The Eureka Stockade, pp. 140-143.
[3] Bennett, J. M., Sir William Stawell, (Federation Press), 2004, pp. 62-74, considers Stawell’s role in the Eureka trials.
[4] Proceedings of the Supreme Court in the matter of Queen v. Hayes and others, PROV, 1189/P Unit 95, L55/958, ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 16 January 1855, p. 4, ‘Supreme Court, Criminal Sessions’, Argus, 16 January 1855, p. 5, ‘Supreme Court, Criminal Sessions’, Argus, 17 January 1855, p. 5.
[5] ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 23 February 1855, p. 4, ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 24 February 1855, p. 4.
[6]  ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 24 February 1855, p. 4.
[7] Potts, E., Daniel, and Potts, Annette, ‘The Negro and the Australian Gold Rushes, 1852-1857’, The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 37, (1968), pp. 381-399, gives valuable context for Joseph.  See also, Atkinson, Jeffrey and Roberts, David Andrew, ‘‘Men of Colour’: John Joseph and the Eureka treason trials’, Journal of Australian Colonial History, vol. 10, (1), (2008), pp. 75-98.
[8] ‘The State Trials, The Queen v. Joseph’, Argus, 24 February 1855, p. 5.
[9] Despatch No 38, Hotham to Grey, 28 February 1855, PROV, 1085/P Unit 9.
[10] ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 27 February 1855, p. 5, dealt with the petition of John Keogh who was sentenced to seven days in prison for contempt of court; it failed.
[11] ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 27 February 1855, p. 5, prints a transcript of the trial and acquittal.
[12] Hotham to Grey, 28 February 1855: ‘After these verdicts had been returned it was considered expedient to postpone the trial of the other prisoners until the next session, in order that in cases of such importance to the Country, the opinion of a Jury taken from another panel, might be obtained as to the guilt, or innocence, of the accused.’
[13] ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 28 February 1855, p. 5.
[14] ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 28 February 1855, p. 4, is highly critical of the decision to empanel new juries.
[15] ‘The Ballaarat Prisoners, Open Air Meeting’, Argus, 13 March 1855, p. 5.
[16] PROV, 4066/P Unit 2, March 13 1854.
[17] Phillips, John H., ‘A Black-Letter Lawyer’, La Trobe Journal, Vol. 73, (2004), pp. 23-28, and Ryan, Peter, ‘Sir Redmond Barry, (1813-1880)’, ADB, Vol. 3, pp. 108-111, provide contrasting succinct studies of Barry.  Galbally, Ann, Redmond Barry, An Anglo-Irish Australian, (Melbourne University Press), 1995 and Ryan, Peter, Redmond Barry, A Colonial Life, (Melbourne University Press), 1980, are unenthusiastic about Barry’s judicial qualities.
[18] ‘The State Trials, The Queen v. Raffaelo’, Argus, 20 March 1855, p. 5.
[19] ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 22 March 1855, p. 5. ‘The State Trials, The Queen v.Vennik’, Argus, 23 March 1855, p. 6.
[20] ‘The State Trials, The Queen v. Dignum’, Argus, 27 March 1855, p. 5.
[21] ‘The State Trials’, Argus, 28 March 1855, p. 6.
[22] The Crown would have had little difficulty proving sedition. It was a much broader crime than treason but less serious. It did not require participation in acts of rebellion; threatening the government by parading under arms or drilling under another flag was sufficient.
[23] Russell to Hotham, 2 June 1855.
[24] Claims for Compensation, Ballaarat, pp. 5-8, tabled 25 January 1856, in Anderson, Hugh, (ed.) Eureka: Victorian Parliamentary Papers, Votes and Proceedings 1854-1867, (Melbourne University Press), 1969.
[25] Ibid, Claims for Compensation, Ballaarat, p. 5.
[26] Ibid, Claims for Compensation, Ballaarat, p. 7.
[27] Ibid, Claims for Compensation, Ballaarat, p. 8.
[28] First Report from the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on the Ballaarat Outbreak, pp. iv, vi, ordered to be printed on 12 March 1856, in Anderson, Hugh, (ed.), Eureka: Victorian Parliamentary Papers, Votes and Proceedings 1854-1867, see above.
[29] Report from the Select Committee of the Legislative Council upon Ballaarat Riots—Bentley’s Hotel, ordered to be printed on 1 June 1858, in ibid, Anderson, Hugh, (ed.), Eureka: Victorian Parliamentary Papers, Votes and Proceedings 1854-1867.
[30] See, for instance the debate on the retiring allowance for Foster in the Legislative Council on 28 March 1855, ‘Legislative Council’, Argus, 29 March 1855, p. 5.  ‘The Gold-Fields Report’, Argus, 30 March 1855, p. 4, provides a critique of the document.
[31] Report from the Select Committee of the Legislative Council upon Mr J. F. V. Fitzgerald’ Case, ordered to be printed on 11 July 1867, in ibid, Eureka: Victorian Parliamentary Papers, Votes and Proceedings 1854-1867.