The attack on the Eureka Stockade marked the dénouement of
digger protests that began with the first protest meeting at Buninyong on 25
August 1851 when news arrived of a license fee being levied on all miners. The
Geelong Advertiser’s reporter Alfred Clarke who attended the meeting
wrote:
…there has not been a more gross attempt at injustice since
the days of Wat Tyler…It is a solemn protest of labour against oppression, an
outburst of light, reason and right against the infliction of an effete
objectionable Royal claim…It is taxation without representation. Tonight for the
first time since Australia rose from the bosom of the ocean, were men strong in
their sense of right, lifting up a protest against an impending wrong, and
protesting against the Government. Let the Government beware! [1]
This early agitation was followed by a number of protest
movements, beginning with the formation of a Miners’ Association at Mount
Alexander (Castlemaine) in December 1851. There were protests at the Ovens and
at Bendigo, a Colonial Reform Association was formed in Melbourne in 1853 and in
Bendigo the Red Ribbon agitation was led by the Anti-Gold License Association.
The Bendigo petition was couched in Chartist terms. Protest meetings were held
at Ballarat and a Chartist newspaper, the Diggers Advocate, was founded
in Melbourne in October 1853 by Henry Holyoake and George Black, with H. R.
Nicholls as an assistant editor.[2] Its editorials called the Victorian government ‘an
arbitrary despotism…which denied the right to assist in making the laws under
which they [the diggers] lived’. [3] On 3 November 1853, the Argus reported the
formation of a Gold Diggers’ Association. The volatility of the goldfields made
it difficult to organise the diggers and these political movements were
short-lived.
The arrival of Sir Charles Hotham in July 1854 saw the popular
movement re-emerge in Ballarat. Initially admired, he soon ordered that the
diggers must pay their licenses and that his police and military should conduct
regular inspections, if necessary, at the point of a bayonet. The political
climate in Victoria changed dramatically. A growing sense of injustice at the
failure of the courts to deliver fair verdicts and the persistent cancer of the
gold license led to the formation of the Ballarat Reform League in early
November. The failure of the local goldfield administration to defuse the
situation and growing digger militancy led to a direct attack on the authority
of the Crown with the construction of the Stockade at Eureka and the swearing of
an oath before the Southern Cross. The authorities acted swiftly and with
brutality on 3 December 1854 but the initial euphoria at their success quickly
evaporated once the tragic scale of the ‘massacre’ became known. Charles Evans
commented:
It is a dark indelible strain on a British Government – a
deed which can be fitly placed side by side with the treacheries and cold
blooded cruelties of Austria & Russia. [4]
With over 100 diggers in custody, the question was what would
Hotham do next?
In the immediate aftermath of the attack on Eureka Stockade,
public opinion was divided. Hotham’s initial call for support in maintaining law
and order was well received and was supported by the Legislative Council, the
city of Melbourne and its councillors and by bankers, merchants and landowners.
On 7 December, the ‘squatting community’ pledged their support for any measure
Hotham decided would further ‘the maintenance of law and the preservation of the
community from social disorganisation’. [5] However, the government’s response to Eureka and its
subsequent actions led to growing opposition. The Argus was concerned by
a ‘most formidable spirit of disaffection’ with the government and the open
assertion of ‘republican principles’ among the people. [6] Resolutions passed at a public meeting in Melbourne
on 6 December, while they did not directly support the diggers, expressed
concerns about the government’s use of excessive military force at Ballarat. [7] Its first resolution stated:
That the constitutional agitation at Ballaarat has assumed
its present form in consequence of the coercion of a military force, professedly
imported for the defence of the colony against foreign aggression; and that
matters would not have been precipitated to their present issue, but for the
harsh and imprudent recemmencement of digger-hunting during a period of
excitement.
While the second made further criticisms of the government:
That the citizens of Melbourne, while disapproving of the
physical resistance offered by the diggers to the Government, cannot, without
betraying the interests of liberty, lend their support to the measures of the
Government till they have a guarantee that steps will at once be taken to place
the colony in general and the goldfields in particular on such a footing that a
military despotism will no longer be required.
Instead of attempting to defuse the situation and despite the
recommendation of the Gold Fields Commission on 10 January 1855, Hotham
exacerbated matters by refusing an amnesty for those involved in the rebellion,
while granting it to officials. Digger disillusion with the government’s
behaviour over Eureka and specifically with the decision to try men for treason
was evident across the goldfields.
[1] Argus, 30 August 1851, p. 4, cit, Stackpoole,
Harry, Gold at Ballarat: The Ballarat East goldfield, its discovery and
development, (Lowden), 1971, p. 17.
No comments:
Post a Comment