Another ‘omnishambles’!!

It’s easy to see why George Osborne included the changes in disability benefits in his budget last week.  By adding it to a ‘money bill’, he removed the possibility of the House of Lords, should it have got that far, of repeating its treatment of proposed tax credit cuts.  It’s also easy to see why, following the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith, why they have been abandoned.  This and the debate over Brexit probably now means that George will not succeed David in Number 10…for a significant number of MPs and an even greater number of Conservative Party members and for the broader public, George has now become a toxic brand.  With his reputation as a master political tactician—something I must admit I’ve always believed has been over-stated--now in ruins, he appears to have forgotten one of the most important rules in politics…you can push colleagues so far but eventually they’ll say right I’ve had enough.  For IDS, the change to Personal Independence Payments was that tipping point...the ‘quiet man’ bites back.

At the heart of the resignation is a growing tension within the Conservative Party between those who espouse a liberal Conservative position grounded in market enterprise—what might be called the ‘powerhouse Conservatives’—and compassionate One Nation Conservatives, many of whom were elected in 2010 or 2015, for whom a fair society is at the heart of their thinking.  You might say that George represents the first while David ‘hug a hoodie’ Cameron is more inclined towards the latter.  You could also argue that the reason why the Conservatives have done so well since 2010 is because of the creative tension between the two, unlike the tendentious Brown-Blair relationship.  Cameron had urged the Chancellor to avoid any major controversy in the Budget so as to avoid fuelling discontent among Tory MPs ahead of the EU referendum.  George listened over changing when pensions were taxed but then went for disability benefits presumably without recognising that it was equally controversial. And it could all have been avoided.  I don’t see why there couldn’t have been an uncontroversial mini-budget to keep thinks ticking over until November or until after the referendum.  Could this be a further example of political hubris…a belief in their invincibility?  Well, yes it is.  If you see a potential obstacle in front of you, you don’t march straight into it in the misguided belief that it will simply evaporate. Once the referendum is over George needs to be moved…Foreign Office I think…so that a new pair of eyes can look at the treasury brief if only because he’s been in the job for six years and, as he’s said on several occasions, there’s no Plan B. 

Do we spend too much on welfare and should this be reduced?  Across the political divide there is general agreement that welfare is disproportionately high compared to other areas of government spending and that reductions can be made.  The question is how should this be done and IDS’s resignation has again highlighted the view that the government’s approach is often deeply unfair as it juxtaposes cuts for the majority with tax cuts for the wealthy and that, in IDS’s words, the government is in ‘danger of drifting in a direction that divides society rather than unites it, and that, I think, is unfair’'.’  IDS also criticised the ‘arbitrary’ decision to lower the welfare cap after the general election and expressed his ‘deep concern’ at a ‘very narrow attack on working-age benefits’ while also protecting pensioner benefits.  

We all knew it was going to be fear, fear, fear

The Brexit debate has been going on for about four weeks and we have 99 days until the referendum on 23 June.  At this stage—and there’s a long way to go—the outcome appears to be finely balanced but the standard of debate was really been lamentably poor.  In fact, I would suggest, it has yet to have any real impact on the people who will eventually make the decision…you and I.  The debate, such as it is, appears to be based round the principle that when one side says that something will occur, the other side says no it won’t.  So when the Brexits said that our security would be strengthened and that we would be safe out of the EU, those in favour of staying simply said that’s nonsense.  The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, has said the UK will be taking a ‘big gamble’ with its security if it votes to leave the European Union.  However, former defence secretary Liam Fox, a prominent Out campaigner, has condemned the ‘project fear’ tactics of those who suggest leaving the EU could weaken the UK's security and its international standing.

The other strand in the debate is the fear factor and it’s been the dominant theme for the remain campaign. They are not without support from a range of different organisations that are all prepared to stand up and describe Brexit as the constitutional equivalent to the apocalypse.  For instance, If Britain votes to leave the European Union it could have a negative impact on the Nato alliance, a senior US military commander has warned. Lt-Gen Ben Hodges, head of the US Army in Europe, said he was ‘worried’ the EU could unravel just when it needed to stand up to Russia.  He acknowledged the vote was a matter for the British people, but said he was concerned about the outcome. Out campaigners say a leave vote would not affect the UK's position in Nato.  It’s the equivalent of: ‘Yes I know it’s your decision but you’ve been warned…’ Both sides need to become more ‘human’ and stop bellowing at each other about statistics. 

It seems to me that everyone from the US President to the Chinese Premier has an opinion about whether the UK should leave the EU—and that generally means they are in favour of Britain remaining in.  The problem is that their statements do little to enhance the debate; it simply smacks of interference.  It may be interesting to know what Obama thinks about the EU but he doesn’t have a vote and you can well imagine the reaction of Americans to British politicians telling them how they should vote.  The problem at present is that the debate has not really got out of the Westminster bubble…yes, politicians are beginning to canvass on the issue but they have not really begun to engage with the voters.

Moderate reformers lose control

On Wednesday 29 November, a poster printed at the Ballarat Times office appeared around the diggings and the township, advertising another ‘Monster Meeting’ at Bakery Hill at 2.00 pm. [1] It advised diggers to ‘bring your licenses, they may be wanted’. At Bakery Hill, flying for the first time, on an eighty foot pole was the flag of the Southern Cross. A rough platform had been set up and Timothy Hayes, the chairman was joined on the platform by the Reform League Committee, Fathers Smyth and Downing, the delegates Humffray, Kennedy and Black and some reporters.

The main purpose of the meeting was to hear the response of Hotham to the League’s petition ‘demanding’ the release of McIntyre, Fletcher and Westerby. Humffray was initially well received by the crowd especially when he said that the Governor was determined to put an end to their grievances. George Black informed the crowd of 10,000 Ballarat residents that the Governor was in favour of the people but being ‘surrounded by injudicious advisers he was entirely impotent in state matters’. He told the diggers that as Hotham had rejected their use of the word ‘demand’ and it was proposed to return with a petition that was more moderately phrased. Humffray, despite his disappointment at Hotham’s response maintained his call for peaceful resistance and was supported by Fathers Smyth and Downing. Despite Evans’ belief that that ‘better portion of the meeting were I believe well disposed towards him’, Humffray lost his authority when he spoke against the burning of further mining licenses at the meeting. He and other moderates had formulated the Charter with its demands and warnings, but they had not weighed up the consequences of the government refusing to negotiate. [2]

The Reform League committee was deeply divided between those who continued to believe in peaceful agitation and those who favoured more militant action and attempts at conciliation were howled down by the increasingly fractious crowd. This was reflected in the report from the Argus correspondent:

I endeavoured to write a report of the proceedings but…it was impossible. The scene of excitement and confusion on the platform precluded the idea of a competent and proper report...

Raffaelo Carboni, among others, addressed the crowd and told them how he had fled from ‘the hated Austrian rule’ and called upon all ‘irrespective of nationality, religion, or colour to salute the Southern Cross as the refuge of all the oppressed from all countries of the earth’. The turning point came when Peter Lalor, prominent for the first time, put a motion to the meeting that the Ballarat Reform League should meet at the Adelphi Theatre at 2.00 pm on Sunday 3 December. [3] He also proposed that a new central committee be elected, composed of a representative for each 50 members of the League. It seems the group that had run the Ballarat Reform League would be replaced by a radical committee more in line with the mood among diggers and they roared their assent. Vern called for the burning of licenses and with this, the meeting ended. Whatever the implications of Vern’s resolution, most diggers were not prepared to go further than passive resistance. No shots had been fired by diggers or the Camp and few words had been spoken in anger. However, Rede was not alone in seeing this meeting as a public challenge to the authorities.

Hotham and Rede were now communicating in cipher and Hotham was concerned that the diggers had a strategic advantage, as the diggings were a singularly unsuitable terrain for offensive military action. Decisive action was therefore required. On Thursday 30 November, a hot and blustery day, Rede used an already planned license hunt to test the feelings of the people. Johnston led the hunt on the Gravel Pits diggings, accompanied by a troop of mounted and foot police, with drawn swords and fixed bayonets. [4] His detachment was pelted with rocks as they entered the diggings. Rede read the Riot Act under a hail of stones and a detachment of the 10th and 12th formed near the bridge. Several arrests were made but when Benjamin Ewins, George Goddard, Duncan McIntyre, William Bryan, Donald Campbell and John Chapman were finally brought to trial in mid-January 1855 for breaches of the peace, they were acquitted. [5] Some accounts reported that the soldiers fired a volley over the heads of the crowd; others stated that random shots came from both sides. It was clear that any further attempt to enforce the licenses would be met with violence and troops and police withdrew to the Government Camp by noon.

Of the diggers, some went to the Eureka, some to the Red Hill, where they hoisted their flag—‘The Southern Cross’--while the Commissioners and commanding officers were holding a consultation on the new road, evidently nonplussed as to what were the intentions of the diggers, and what they were next to do. At length the military and police formed themselves into divisions on the Bakery Hill, throwing out their ‘light bobs’ as sharpshooters behind the heaps surrounding the holes. The position being thus taken up, Mr. Johnson asked what he was to do if, in the collecting of the licenses and the apprehension of the unlicensed, violence were used. The answer from the officer in command of the police was, ‘If a man raises his hand to strike, or throw a stone, shoot him on the spot.’ These were the orders given to the police…All this took up some time, of course, and the grand review having taken place on Bakery Hill, the Government force, for some reason which, though both an ear and eye witness, I cannot understand, retired towards the Camp, but not in peace, for hundreds of diggers had equipped themselves with revolvers and with weapons of all kinds, both offensive and defensive. Scattered shots were heard about this time, and one man having ‘scaled’ his piece was pursued by a party of the police, who, acting under orders, fired on him amongst the tents, but luckily missed, but eventually captured him.[6]

Rede had maintained the law but the license hunt only further alienated the diggers. What had been a largely peaceful protest movement now inexorably plunged into armed insurrection. Evans was not alone in thinking:

Among the many false steps our Authorities have taken recently none I think have reached in reckless foolhardiness the one they took this morning…A little forbearance on the part of the authorities and I believe all would have been well, but this morning’s disastrous policy has raised feelings of bitter animosity in the breasts of many who a little while ago were eager that the difficulties should be settled by moral means, and all now look forward with apprehension to the consequences. [7]

Who provoked whom between 27 and 30 November? The Argus reported that at the Bakery Hill meeting on 29 November:

The Resident Commissioner rode up to Mr Humffray...and said, ‘See now the consequences of your agitation’. To which Humffray replied, ‘No! But see the consequences of impolitic coercion’. I wish that our local authorities had but a little common sense. Was it right, was it politic to go on a license-hunting raid in such terms and under such exciting circumstances? [8]

Blame is normally placed at the door of the authorities. Hotham commented in his narrative despatch 162:

All cause for doubt as to their real intention from this moment disappeared; by the most energetic measures must order be restored, and property maintained; a riot was rapidly growing into a revolution, and the professional agitator giving place to the man of physical force. [9]

Rede was uncompromising in his insistence that law and order be maintained in Ballarat and has been regarded as the man responsible for the carnage when the Eureka Stockade was attacked. It was the authorities that reinforced the military presence at Ballarat, who rejected the League’s advances on 27 November and who initiated the license hunt three days later. This neglects the role of Captain Charles Pasley, Colonial Engineer to Victoria and a nominated member of the Executive Council from October and, after he arrived in Ballarat in late November, the unofficial government man on the spot. [10] He was quickly admitted to Rede’s council of war ensuring that Rede’s zeal for law and order was not diminished while not directly involving the government in Melbourne. In his daily letters to Hotham, sent through formal channels to John Foster the Colonial Secretary, he consistently made it clear that the burgeoning democratic movement needed to be snuffed out. In his correspondence Rede, by contrast had emphasised the need to restore law and order not protecting the status quo from democratic encroachments. It was only after Pasley arrived that Rede’s attitude hardened and he began to speak in terms that mirrored Pasley. [11]

However, the diggers’ deputation had given Hotham little room for manoeuvre and he felt, with some justification that he had already made important concessions. The crucial development in these four days was the failure of the moderates within the League’s leadership and the drift towards those with a more militant and republican approach. Yet many miners remained ambivalent in their attitude to the cause of the Eureka rebels. Faced, not simply by a threat to public order, but by full-scale rebellion as the diggers armed and established their Stockade, no longer prepared to negotiate. Fearing that the riot was growing rapidly into a revolution, Hotham and the authorities had run out of options short of military action.

---

[1] Ibid, Molony, John, Eureka, pp. 118-120, details the meeting.

[2] ‘Domestic Intelligence’, Argus, 1 December 1854, p. 5.

[3] Turner, Ian, ‘Peter Lalor (1827-1889)’, ADB, Vol. 5, pp. 50-54, provides a concise biography. Berry, A., From tent to parliament: The life of Peter Lalor and his coadjutors: history of the Eureka Stockade, (Berry, Anderson & Co), 1934; Turnbull, Clive, Eureka: The Story of Peter Lalor, (The Hawthorn Press), 1946, and Blake, Les, Peter Lalor: The Man From Eureka, (Neptune Press), 1979, are more detailed.

[4] ‘Ballaarat: Serious Outbreak at Ballaarat’, Argus, 2 December 1854, p. 5, gives a detailed account of this digger-hunt.

[5] Depositions against these individuals are in PROV 5527/P Unit 1, Item 10 (Ewins), Item 11 (Goddard), Item 12 (Bryan), Item13 (Chapman), Item 14 (McIntyre), and Item 15 (Campbell).

[6] ‘Ballaarat: Serious Outbreak at Ballaarat’, Argus, 2 December 1854, p. 5, provides a detailed account of this digger-hunt.

[7] SLV, MS 13518, Charles Evans, Diary, 30 November 1854, pp. 121-126.

[8] Argus, 2 December 1854, p. 5.

[9] Hotham to Sir George Grey, 20 December 1854, PROV 1085/P0, Duplicate Despatches from the Governor to the Secretary of State, Unit 8, Duplicate Despatch no. 162.

[10] Pasley hardly figures in accounts of events in Ballarat but Blake, Gregory, To Pierce The Tyrant’s Heart: A Military History of The Battle for The Eureka Stockade 3 December 1854, (Sydney Australian Military History Publications), 2009, pp. 98-100, considers his role to be fundamental to subsequent events. See also, McNicoll, Ronald, ‘Pasley, Charles (1824-1890), ADB, Vol. 5, pp. 409-412.

[11] Ibid, Blake, Gregory, To Pierce The Tyrant’s Heart: A Military History of The Battle for The Eureka Stockade 3 December 1854, p. 100. 

Breaking the Habit: A Life of History

Just Published

Historians, it has been said, are rather like a good bottle of wine…they mature with age. Being seen as a rather crusty claret may not be a bad thing and I’ve now reached the point in my life when I feel it right to air—as with the claret—my own reflections on the nature of History in an increasingly challenging environment. I do not claim that my own life has been anything other than ordinary but when you get to a certain age I suppose you start to look back on things. What follows is an otiose attempt to make sense of my own life by intermingling autobiography with materials on History, teaching and learning initially written often at speed as part of on-going debates on education and history but now revised in the more cloistered solitude of my study.

Breaking the Habit: A Life of History

• Paperback: 184 pages
• Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, (1 March 2016)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1530295238
• ISBN-13: 978-1530295234

Deliberate provocation?

Hotham increasingly shared Rede’s suspicions about the revolutionary aims of the diggers and decided to reinforce the regular troops in Ballarat. As events moved rapidly to their climax over the next six days, all Hotham could do was to wait for despatches to arrive in Melbourne with growing unease. On 27 November,[1] he deployed 70 soldiers of the 12th Regiment under the command of Captain Atkinson and a company of the 40th Regiment, 50 strong, commanded by Captain Henry Wise to Ballarat. [2] When Wise arrived at Ballarat the following day, he brazenly marched his men with bayonets fixed and muskets primed through the diggings to the Government Camp. In addition, the Argus reported that mounted police troops with two pieces of artillery and many of the police from Melbourne were also under orders to go to Ballarat.

In Ballarat, Father Smyth, acting as an unofficial mediator, secretly visited Commissioner Rede on Sunday night or Monday morning warning him of the potentially explosive situation on the diggings and that the Camp was in danger of being attacked. As a result, Rede reported his concerns to Melbourne having been informed that the diggers could muster 1,000 rifles and 900 men had assembled on one occasion to attack the Camp. This was fabricated either by Rede or Smyth since at no time were the diggers able to muster 1,000 riflemen in Ballarat. Rede faced a paradox: an attack on the Camp was daily expected and yet the diggers appeared as quiet and well-disposed as ever. There is no evidence that the Reform League had any intention of attacking the Camp and Rede was correct in telling Melbourne he was in charge of the fields in which good order prevailed. Despite this, he concluded that the only way out of this impasse was to crush the digger movement. Events now reinforced that conviction.

On Tuesday 28 November, a detachment of two officers and men of the 12th Regiment, accompanied by supply carts carrying ammunition arrived at Ballarat at dusk.[3] Unlike Captain Wise, the officer commanding did not order his men to fix bayonets or load their muskets; in fact many of the muskets were not being carried but were in the carts. Their route took them through the Eureka diggings, a difficult process during the day but even more so at night, where the last two carts were attacked by a group of diggers. A skirmish occurred, shots were fired and the wagons overturned. John Egan, the Regiment’s drummer boy was shot in the leg and an American driver seriously wounded. [4] It has never been determined who attacked the soldiers or who fired the shots but the attack may have been occasioned by the belief among diggers that the soldiers were bringing artillery to Ballarat. At the time of the scuffle, Rede was attending a function for the American Consul James Tarleton at the Victoria Hotel where Tarleton gave his support to the government and reminded American diggers that they should obey the law. [5] Once his reinforcements arrived, Rede had 435 officers and men under arms. Rede had, according to some sources ‘come to a state bordering on frenzy’. [6] He saw the mob as the potential source of rebellion but he was unsure who the mob was except that he believed that no true Briton was part of it. He was also unclear about what rebellion meant but feared a republican uprising. By Tuesday night, Rede had the military force to deal with anything the diggers were planning.

Public opinion was important to the diggers but this incident suggests that they were not going out of their way to cultivate it. The Argus had been forthright in its criticism of the government and in its support for the diggers but this incident led to a temporary shift in editorial perspective. It commented:

While the burning of the Eureka Hotel was condemned as a rash and inconsiderate action, the hope was entertained that the occurrence might give additional earnestness to the enquiry which has been instituted, and lead to real and permanent good....A wagon upset in the dark night, the soldiery, who have never yet struck a blow or fired a shot against the diggers, beaten with their own arms, a driver brutally maltreated and a poor drummer shot through the thigh - are these deeds that will enlist the sympathies of an intelligent people? Is the maiming of a drummer-boy a worthy triumph for a large mass of a British population, who wish to occupy a creditable position in the eyes of the world?’ With an eye to the future, the editorial commented ‘Now it must be evident to intelligent men that there is a point at which Government must take a stand. [7]

Evans was equally critical of the attack:

It is some relief to the feelings of Englishmen to know that the row was commenced & principally carried on by the worst portion of the digging community, old Convicts & Tipperary men, for no man however well disposed towards the diggers’ interests can disguise the fact from himself that it was a cowardly affair. [8]

---

[1] Argus, 28 November 1854, p. 4.

[2] Smith, Neil C., Soldiers Bleed Too: the Redcoats at the Eureka Stockade 1854, (Mostly Unsung Military History Research and Publications), 2004, lists the men of the 12th and 40th Regiments.

[3] ‘Domestic Intelligence’, Argus, 1 December 1854, p. 5, wrongly identified the troops as from the 40th Regiment. See also, Rede to Chief Gold Commissioner Wright, 30 November 1854, PROV, 1189/P Unit 92, J54/14460.

[4] John Egan or Eagan was not fatally wounded in this incident as was persistently believed until shown as myth by Dorothy Wickham. The people of Ballarat even erected a small memorial to him since he was thought to have died in the rebellion. Egan did not die until 8 September 1860 (Death Certificate: NSW 1860/002463) aged twenty-one at Victoria Barracks Sydney and was interred in the Roman Catholic burial grounds.

[5] Potts, E. Daniel, and Potts, Annette, ‘American Republicanism and the Disturbances on the Victorian Goldfields’, Historical Studies, Vol. 13, (1968), pp. 145-164, and Potts, E. Daniel, and Potts, A., Young America and Australian Gold, (University of Queensland Press), 1974, explore the American dimensions to Eureka.

[6] Ibid, Molony, John, Eureka, p. 118.

[7] Argus, 28 November 1854, p. 4, 1 December 1854. p. 5.

[8] SLV, MS 13518, Charles Evans, Diary, 28 November 1854, p. 117.

Fear, more fear and yet more fear

Although we will not know whether David Cameron has been able pull the proverbial rabbit from his hat until Friday and come back from Brussels with a settlement that he can put to the people, the campaigns for and against remaining in the EU started well before Christmas.  Some argue that what Cameron has negotiated is largely irrelevant to whether people are in favour of remaining in the EU or not.  This is a campaign that will be won or lost on the basis of fear.  This is already evident in the media with newspapers putting forward fear stories on an almost daily basis.  For instance, the Sunday Express says congestion charging could be introduced into towns across Britain under EU guidelines to reduce global warming…now that’s guaranteed to anger motorists and those who see the EU as simply interfering in people’s lives..while in the Sunday Times travel chiefs suggest that, in the event of Brexit, cheap flights are at risk…so no more cheap continental holidays. Eurosceptic Conservative Sir Bill Cash claims German MP Gunther Krichbaum told him the UK would not be able to survive on its own and could face crippling trade tariffs on its exports. Mr Krichbaum denies the claim and says he simply warned that Britain would no longer have access to the single market.

Although there is great enthusiasm either way for the referendum in the Westminster village.   The Independent on Sunday highlights a poll suggesting the prime minister's personal ratings have slumped amid dissatisfaction with his EU renegotiation efforts. The numbers who look on David Cameron favourably dropped seven points in the past three months to 31 per cent- although the same poll sees support for the Tories over Labour extend to 14 points.  I do not get any real enthusiasm from talking to people in Dunstable. In fact, if anything, it’s the reverse. Even those who say that they intend to vote in favour of the EU—and remember this is before the deal is finalised—do so with little enthusiasm…it’s a case of, on balance, I think we’re better remaining in but I can’t say that I have any real feeling for the EU.  Young people, especially if you’re 16 and 17, feel short-changed by politicians who gave them the vote in the Scottish referendum but deny them in the equally constitutional EU referendum.  That many would have voted to remain in the EU is perhaps why this was the case but that’s a political rather than constitutional decision.  Although the current polls suggest that the ‘leave campaign’ had a slight lead, it is a campaign that is incoherent, divided and leaderless with competing organisations seemingly unable to come together while the ‘stay campaign’ appears—with the exception of Alan Johnson’s Labour pro-EU organisation—to have really not got going at all…whoever thought that Lord Rose should be the face of the remain campaign really don’t understand the general public at all…a bucket of Fried Chicken would have greater appeal.

In fact, looking at the limited nature of the negotiations, the mess of the remain campaign, the internal divisions in the leave campaign and the lack of enthusiasm among the public for the whole thing…it’s all a big stitch-up as one person confided in me…it’s hardly surprising that it’s a case of fear, more fear and yet more fear. 

Trials and demands

Although the Riot Enquiry, which reported on 17 November, expressed general satisfaction with affairs in Ballarat, it recommended the dismissal of Police Magistrate Dewes, whose close links with James Bentley were exposed and Police Sergeant-Major Milne, whose activities included bribery and corruption, on which Hotham acted quickly on 20 November. [1] It also noted that the most important cause of alienation was the gold license. Hotham had already concluded that a full-scale investigation was needed after his visit to the goldfields in August and on 16 November had established a Royal Commission to Inquire into the Condition of the Goldfields of Victoria, something more wide-ranging than the Riot Enquiry. [2] Chaired initially by William Haines[3] and supported by fellow Legislative Councillors John Pascoe Fawkner, John O’Shanassy, William Westgarth and James Strachan [4] and by William Wright, the Chief Commissioner, its report proved to be a ‘document of crucial importance’. [5] Commissioner Rede was in Melbourne during the second and third weeks of November attending the trial of Fletcher, McIntyre and Westerby and took the opportunity to meet with both Wright and Hotham. He was increasingly convinced that problems in Ballarat were the result of a small group of ‘foreigners’ who wanted to overthrow colonial government and who were manipulating the other diggers. Hotham took a less serious view of the Ballarat incidents recalling most of the troops sent to restore order after the riot on 17 October though he agreed with Rede on limiting the influence of known troublemakers.

On Saturday 18 November, the trial of James Bentley, Catherine Bentley, John (or Thomas) Farrell and William Hance in Melbourne’s Supreme Court began. Judge Redmond Barry presided over the case; Richard Ireland acted as Counsel for the Bentleys, while A. Michie and Mr Whipman represented Thomas Farrell and William Hance respectively. Crown Prosecutor, Attorney-General W. F. Stawell, presented evidence that had been previously used in the inquests and magisterial hearings, but on this occasion called two new witnesses, who would alter the fate of the accused. [6] Michael Welsh, who lived at the Eureka Hotel, testified that on the night of Scobie’s murder he saw the victim arguing with William Hance through the broken window of the hotel. This evidence was supported by the testimony given by Mooney that revealed Bentley’s and Farrell’s attempts to conceal what had occurred in the early hours of that morning. The jury took only fifteen minutes to convict Bentley, Hance and Farrell of the manslaughter of James Scobie but Catherine Bentley, now heavily pregnant was acquitted. On 20 November, they were sentenced to three years hard labour on the roads. [7]

The same day, Redmond Barry began the trial of McIntyre, Fletcher and Westerby who were represented by Richard Ireland. During the trial, Ireland stated that had the authorities been more vigilant in dealing with the death of James Scobie, the diggers would not have felt compelled to seek their own form of justice. Stawell, taking great offence on the government’s behalf, retorted that the motive behind Ireland’s inflammatory statement was monetary, a claim the defence counsel vehemently denied, stating he was defending the three diggers pro bono. Despite evidence from Assistant-Commissioner Amos and others that McIntyre had tried to save property from the hotel and Fletcher was only a spectator, several witnesses against McIntyre had submitted depositions of his active involvement in the destruction of the hotel. [8] The jury retired in the afternoon to discuss its verdicts but returned two hours later claiming it could not reach a unanimous verdict seeking permission to take account of the ineptitude of the police on the day and the provocation experienced by the diggers. Redmond Barry emphatically refused the request. At around 9 pm after deliberating for five hours, the jury returned its verdict to the court. McIntyre, Fletcher and Westerby were found guilty with a recommendation for clemency. The jury expressed its opinion that ‘it would never have been their painful duty to give such a verdict had the Government officials at Ballarat done theirs’, a declaration well received in the community. The crowd in the courtroom asserted its jubilation with loud cheers, even though Judge Barry refused to accept the jury’s rider, itself an unorthodox decision. The following day, Redmond Barry handed down less harsh sentences than were anticipated: McIntyre three months, Fletcher four months and Westerby six month in Melbourne Gaol. Barry’s leniency may have been intended to avoid providing further grievances among the diggers and prevent further acts of civil disobedience. The Argus concluded:

In this trial, as in that of Bentley, the law has been upheld; but, in both cases, the Government has been disgraced. The verdict of the jury, in the case of the riot was as adverse to the Government as it was to the prisoners. [9]

On Monday 27 November, the Ballarat Reform League’s representatives John Humffray, Thomas Kennedy and George Black went to Melbourne to meet Hotham, but without success. [10] The deputation put the diggers’ grievances before Hotham, the Colonial Secretary and Attorney-General were also present, not as a petition, but as demands. Evans commented:

I never heard of anything more ridiculously absurd. No man in his senses can believe for a moment that the Governor will recognize the word demand in a petition. It is easy to guess the result of it. [11]

George Black ‘demanded’ the release of McIntyre, Fletcher and Westerby ‘in the name of the Ballarat diggers’. Hotham unsurprisingly took exception to the use of the word. Black pointed out that it had been requested by the Reform League Committee and reiterated that all the diggers felt that they were guilty of arson but were justified in their actions as the magistrates had failed to dispense justice. Hotham argued that he had set up the Board of Enquiry that uncovered corruption on which he had already acted and that he had also appointed a Royal Commission though Black objected that its members had been appointed without reference to the diggers. Although emphasis has been placed on the diggers’ ‘demand’, the minutes of the meeting suggests that it was more wide-ranging dealing with the broader constitutional and political issues raised by the diggers. Humffray emphasised the constitutional nature of the protest but intimated to Hotham that the ‘popular voice’ needed to be heard. Hotham appeared willing to make some concessions offering to admit one elected digger representative to the Legislative Council immediately but Black felt that this was insufficient. The delegates were reminded of the benefit to the diggers in the new legislation that was then en route to England and the meeting ended. The delegates, who found Hotham fair but certainly not conciliatory, left the meeting with only a vague hope that a formally prepared petition might bring success and returned to Ballarat to consult with their members. Hotham and the moderate reformers had lost their last opportunity for reconciliation.

---

[1] Riot at Ballarat, Report and Evidence of the Board of Enquiry into the Death of James Scobie and Burning of the Eureka Hotel, printed 21 November 1854, Votes & Proceedings, A.27/1854-55. See also, ‘Legislative Council’, Argus 22 November 1854, p. 4.

[2] ‘Legislative Council’, Argus, 17 November 1854, p. 4. Anderson, Hugh, (ed.), Report from the Commission appointed to inquire into the Condition of the Goldfields, first published 1855, (Red Rooster Press), 1978, pp. 116-120.

[3] Malone, Betty, ‘William Clark Haines (1810-1866)’, ADB, Vol. 4, pp. 315-317.

[4] Brown, P. L., ‘James Ford Strachan (1810-1875)’, ADB, Vol. 2, p. 492.

[5] H. V. Evatt’s introduction to Carboni, Raffaelo, The Eureka Stockade, first published 1855, (Sunnybrook Press), 1942, p. xxvi.

[6] The brief for the prosecution documents the ways in which it planned to conduct its case against those accused of Scobie’s murder, PROV 5527/P Unit 1, Item 5.

[7] ‘The Trial of Bentley’, Argus, 20 November 1854, p. 4.

[8] PROV 5527/P Unit 1, Item 8.

[9] Argus, 21 November 1854.

[10] Minutes of the meeting between Hotham and the diggers’ representatives: PROV 1095/P Unit 3, Bundle 1 no. 16. Ibid, Molony, John, Eureka, pp. 106-110, gives a riveting account of the meeting. See also, ‘Ballaarat’, Argus, 29 November 1854, p. 4.

[11] SLV, MS 13518, Charles Evans, Diary, 26 November 1854, p. 116.

A piece of paper!

In his review of  Peter Wilson’s recently published The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe’s History, (Allen Lane), 2016,  John Adamson began by stating: ‘Surveying the various models available in 1787 for governing the still-constitution-less United States, James Madison, perhaps the shrewdest of the Founding Fathers, was certain of one thing: the Holy Roman Empire, at that date the largest of all European states, exemplified the one type of federal constitution that he most wanted to avoid. The Empire was a body, he concluded, ‘incapable of regulating its own members; insecure against external dangers’, and with a history marked by ‘general imbecility, confusion and misery’. It is no coincidence that the Holy Roman Empire has acquired a new and topical prominence in Eurosceptic punditry as a mirror for the ills of the European Union. Like the Holy Roman Empire of old, the EU is hard put to regulate its own members, incapable of securing its internal or external borders, and beset with consensus-obsessed processes of decision-making that render decisive collective action all but impossible. The lessons of history are clear, it is claimed: supranational federalism has been tried before – and it doesn’t work.’

The coronation of Charlemagne

 

Yesterday, the draft settlement defining Britain’s relationship with the EU was published and a couple of hours ago David Cameron made a statement to the House of Commons.  It is an important document as a statement of principles about the future direction of the EU but whether it will have a significant impact on the referendum is more debatable.  As I have said before I think that people’s decision for or against Brexit  comes down to those who are, as yet undecided.  For those in favour of Brexit, what the Prime Minister was able to renegotiate really doesn’t matter as they have already made up their minds.  In many respects, the same can be said for those in favour of remaining in the EU.  Yes, they want reforms but are prepared to accept anything that David Cameron can negotiate.  It’s those who are not decided or who are persuadable either way who are the key to the result.  Jeremy Corbyn is in many respects right when he dismissed the negotiations as a ‘smoke and mirror sideshow’.  Despite his assertion that Britain could have the ‘best of both worlds’ by giving it access to the single market and a voice around the top EU table, while retaining its status as a ‘proud independent country not part of a superstate’, critics say that the draft deal, thrashed out with European Council President, Donald Tusk, fell far short of what Mr Cameron had originally promised.  Reading the draft settlement is a bit like reading a statement of intent rather than a clear statement of where Britain wants to go with the EU. 

The problem, and it’s been a problem since the 1970s, is one of the ‘democratic deficit’ at the heart of the whole EU project.  It is not a project that is based on a consensus of the European peoples but a consensus only among EU technocrats and officials who come hell or high water, political crises or referendums to push the principles of the Treaty of Rome into practice.  They have an ideological commitment to their cause that they are unwilling to compromise irrespective of what ‘the people’ say or how they vote in referendums insisting, as in the case of Ireland, that the country has a second referendum after its proposals were comprehensively rejected in the first.  What will be interesting is, should Britain vote for Brexit, whether the EU will suggest a second referendum after further negotiation?

The Ballarat Reform League

‘Monster meetings’ came late to Ballarat but series of increasingly large gatherings were held on Bakery Hill through October and November that were addressed by some with experience of Chartist movement. Catholics had held a meeting there on 15 October, followed by meetings on 17 October before the burning of the Eureka Hotel and the following day where Catholics restated their demands. There was a spontaneous meeting on 21 October after the committal of McIntyre and Fletcher and on Monday 23 October, Bakery Hill was again the focal point for digger action. This meeting decided to form a Diggers Rights Society to help curb future unconstitutional actions by the Camp. Ballarat was made up of many different nationalities but leadership of the diggers’ movement remained stubbornly in the hands of men whose allegiance was to Britain. Its three leaders John Basson Humffray, George Black and Henry Holyoake were strongly Chartist in outlook and their contribution to the formation of the Ballarat Reform League was crucial.

Thomas F. Flintoff, John Basson Humffray, 1859

Humffray, law clerk from Wales and proprietor of The Leader became the first president of the League. [1] George Black had been the owner of the Gold Diggers’ Advocate, a newspaper that represented the opinions of the disaffected in the goldfield.[2] Although the Advocate took a radical line, Black and his two colleagues favoured the use of ‘moral persuasion’ to achieve their goals. Lalor was still a minor figure standing aloof from organised protest. While the Riot Enquiry was taking evidence, protest meetings took on a more organised character and the Ballarat Reform League assumed an embryonic form at this time. [3] The leadership broadened digger protest beyond the unjust licensing system and corrupt administration by campaigning for digger representation on the Legislative Council and the opening of land for small farms. Vying with Humffray for leadership of the movement were Frederick Vern, a volatile German and Thomas Kennedy, a Chartist of Scottish origin who had become a Baptist preacher and took a more confrontational approach, necessary they maintained, to convince the authorities of the need for change.

On Wednesday 1 November, the committee gave an account of proceedings in the Fletcher and McIntyre cases.[4] Humffray as secretary had ended the meeting with:

…Diggers, be calm but determined, and then, with truth and justice on your side, the knell of the colonial tyranny will be rung.

Although already active for several weeks, the Ballarat Reform League began officially on Saturday 11 November 1854 with a meeting on Bakery Hill. Timothy Hayes was unanimously voted to the Chair with Humffray as secretary. Thomas Kennedy called on ‘Brother Diggers’ to be united advising them to obey the law while denying the legality of the license tax. In colourful terms, he spoke of the tyranny of officials and added by swearing that while he would die for the Queen, he would shed the last drop of his blood before paying another license fee. The crowd roared its approval and Kennedy was carried outside where he was joined by Vern and Humffray. By now the number of diggers had swollen to 10,000 and the Ballarat Reform League was officially launched with Humffray as President, Timothy Hayes as Chairman and George Black as Secretary.

The diggers’ grievances and the political changes contemplated by the League were recorded in the Bakery Hill Charter.[5] This had taken shape by early November 1854 in a note presented to the Riot Enquiry but it was not until 11 November 1854 that it was adopted as the diggers’ platform in language strongly reminiscent of the People’s Charter of 1838. The first proposal was for ‘full and fair representation’, the right of goldfield residents to stand for parliament and vote in elections. The others were manhood suffrage, no property qualifications for Members for the Legislative Council, payment for members and short, fixed-term parliaments. At local level, the League wanted the immediate ‘disbanding’ of the Gold Commissioners and the ‘total abolition of the diggers’ and storekeepers’ license tax’. They also intended to issue ‘cards of membership’ of the League, divide Ballarat into districts within ‘a few days’ and to commence ‘a thorough and organised agitation on the gold fields and in the towns’. [6] The Argus reported that separate unions for Irish and German diggers had been formed independently of the League and that ‘their objects are more specific as to the forming themselves into armed bodies to make resistance a sad reality.’ [7]

The principles of the Charter went to the heart of popular constitutionalism maintaining that every citizen had:

…an ‘inalienable right…to have a voice in making the laws he is called upon to obey…

It also stated that the goldfield communities had been ‘hitherto unrepresented’ in Parliament and had been subjected to bad and unjust laws. To that extent, they had been ‘tyrannized over’ so that they had:

…a duty as well as interest to resist and, if necessary, to remove the irresponsible power which so tyrannizes over them.

Not content with a statement of principles, the authors of the Charter moved to the ultimate source of their discontent speaking directly to Queen Victoria who was warned that firm action would be taken unless ‘equal laws and equal rights’ were ‘dealt out to the whole free community’ of the colony named after her.

The authors of the Charter were careful in their choice of words and there is no indication that they thought their demands were excessive or that the authorities had any right to reject them. The first action proposed by the League if demands were not met was to separate Victoria from Great Britain. Separation was not a declaration of independence from the Crown, but the League made it clear that it would take those steps if:Queen Victoria continues to act upon the ill advice of dishonest ministers and insists upon indirectly dictating obnoxious laws for the colony, under the assumed authority of the Royal prerogative.

It reminded the monarch that there was another and higher source of power in a prerogative that was ‘the most royal of all’ that lay with ‘the people [who] are the only legitimate source of all political power’ and proposed to use that power if forced to do so and supersede the ‘Royal prerogative’. This drew on a long tradition that the Royal Prerogative must be exercised only for the common good of the people. The prerogative singled out was the appointment of public authorities, including Hotham and his ministers. Although undertaken on the advice of the British Prime Minister and Cabinet, such appointments were technically made under the prerogative of the Crown. The Charter made it plain that, at whatever cost, the diggers would take all necessary steps to prevent the use of the Royal Prerogative in Victoria unless the reforms they demanded were introduced. This platform for change and especially its belief that all power resided in the people proved a ‘revolutionary’ proposition for Australia.

Henry Seekamp,[8] the fiery editor of the Ballarat Times, wrote that the League:

…was nothing more or less than the germ of Australian independence. The die is cast, and fate has stamped upon the movement its indelible signature. No power on earth can now restrain the united might and headlong strides for freedom of the people of this country… Bakery Hill is obtaining a creditable notoriety, as the rallying ground for Australian Freedom. It must never be forgotten in the future history of this great country, that on Saturday, Nov. 11, 1854, on Bakery Hill, and in the presence of about ten thousand men, was first proposed, and unanimously adopted, the draft prospectus of Australian Independence. [9]

Whatever he made of the Charter, Hotham was clearly concerned when he heard the League’s proposals and recognised the seriousness of the situation. What began as a conflict over the financial interests of diggers had been transformed into a struggle involving citizens’ rights and dignity. The business interest and the squatters were also anxious about events in Ballarat. They were given assurances by the government that it was in control of the situation, but doubts remained after the defiance of the mob at Bentley’s hotel. Squatters had already seen their control over the Legislative Council weakened by the business interest and faced increasing demands, especially from diggers to open at least part of their land. Diggers threatened their wealth and power and Hotham looked on them as firm allies in any potential struggle.

---

[1] Langmore, Diane L., ‘John Basson Humffray (1824-1891)’, ADB, Vol. 4, pp. 444-445.

[2] Pickering, Paul A., ‘Mercenary Scribblers’ and ‘Polluted Quills’: The Chartist Press in Australia and New Zealand’, in Allen, Joan, and Ashton, Owen R., (eds.), Papers for the People: A Study of the Chartist Press, (Merlin Press), 2005, pp. 200-204, examines the Gold Diggers’ Advocate.

[3] ‘Ballaarat’, Argus, 13 November 1854, p. 6.

[4] Argus, 2 November 1854, p. 4.

[5] PROV 4066, p Unit 1, November no, 69.

[6] Ibid, Molony, John, Eureka, pp. 94-97, prints the document.

[7] ‘Ballaarat’, Argus, 13 November 1854, p. 6.

[8] Sunter, Anne Beggs, ‘Henry Seekamp (1829?-1864)’, ADB, Supplementary Volume, pp. 355-356.

[9] Ballarat Times, 13 November 1854.

Arresting the murderers

Later on 23 October 1854, a large public meeting was held at 2.00 pm at Bakery Hill where the 10,000 to 15,000 diggers showed their support for McIntyre and Fletcher, established a Defence Fund for their trial and gave an ‘unqualified condemnation of the manner in which the laws are enforced at Ballarat’. [1] The Argus prophetically commented

In all this there is great danger. When large masses of chance-collected men assemble to listen to exciting harangues; when they know that they have many and good causes for complaint; and when some of the most urgent and most exasperating of these causes as enlarged upon, and represented in the most striking points of view; when the ready redress of a prompt appeal to physical force is placed in the scale with the tardy and uncertain remedies of petitions, remonstrances and resolutions, there is a great danger of collision…of the sacrifice of human life and the compromise of the great principles of liberty and progress. [2]

The meeting felt that had the laws been carried out impartially the burning of the Eureka Hotel would not have occurred and that the entire responsibility lay with the Camp officials. Its first resolution stated:

That the diggers look with feelings of alarm at the almost daily violation of the personal liberty of the subject, and hereby express their unqualified condemnation of the manner in which the laws are enforced at Ballarat. [3]

That evening, it was reported that a large body of men was making its way from Eureka to the Camp and soldiers and police were on alert all night. One consequence of this was that, by 27 October, Captain John W. Thomas, the Garrison Commander, had developed a detailed plan for the defence of the Camp. [4]

S. T. Gill, Site of Bentley’s Hotel, Ballarat

The problem of James Bentley remained. However, on 22 October, Police Commissioner MacMahon was given additional information by Thomas Mooney, Bentley’s barman that directly implicated Bentley, his wife and their employee Farrell in the murder of Scobie.[5] New depositions were collected, including an additional deposition given by mother and son Mary Ann and Bernard Welch. [6] Michael Welsh, a waiter at the Eureka hotel, also provided a deposition incriminating not only the Bentleys but also two of their staff, barman William Duncan and former Chief Constable Thomas Farrell, the hotel clerk. On 23 October, after he had studied the depositions forwarded by Johnston and the new evidence, they were arrested on the advice of Attorney-General Stawell. Evidence implicating a man named William Hance was also brought forward and he too was apprehended. Their trial was held in mid-November.

By late October, the goldfield had returned to normal and on 2 November, Rede sent 40 police back to Melbourne and Geelong though he took no action to reduce the number of troops. In an effort of quell unrest, on 30 October Hotham established a board of enquiry into the Scobie incident [7] and the actions of the Camp officials headed by Melbourne’s Police Magistrate, Evelyn Sturt assisted by William McCrae, head of the colony’s Medical Department, and C. P. Hackett, a Ballarat Police Magistrate. [8] The Riot Enquiry started sitting in Ballarat on 2 November. [9] However, underlying tensions had not been addressed and the events of the previous three weeks left the diggers with a heightened sense of injustice. The Ballarat Times caught this mood:

The corruption of every department connected with the government in Ballarat is become so notorious and so barefaced that public indignation is thoroughly aroused…Amongst other grievances under which the residents on the goldfields are suffering, there are three which ought at once to occupy the earnest attention of the government; and they are, first, the abolition of the present obnoxious miners’ license; second, the representation of the mining interests in the councils of the colony; and third, an unbiased and equitable dispensation of justice. These the miners must have and will have, one way or other, by fair means if possible, by foul if necessary, but have them they will… [10]

The authorities in Ballarat had badly mishandled each of the three incidents in October 1854. [11]

…he [William Mollison, a member of the Legislative Council on 31 October] did not believe that the outrage at Ballarat was caused by one error of judgement or one action of misconduct on the part of the magistrate or the other authorities, but that it had originated in a series of errors and a course of misconduct continued for some time… [12]

Both the murder of Scobie and the assault on Joannes Gregorius could easily have been resolved by the authorities: in the first case, if they had followed correct legal procedure and referred the issue to jury trial (as eventually occurred) and in the second if action had been taken against the inexperience Constable Lord, who was moved and against Assistant-Commissioner Johnston, who was not. Had this occurred promptly, it is possible that Bentley’s hotel would not have been fired. What, with justification, was seen as uncompromisingly biased attitude of the Government Camp simply aggravated the smouldering resentment of many diggers. Governor Hotham, though well aware of the deteriorating situation in Ballarat, did little to address the situation until he appointed the Riot Enquiry at the end of October other than reinforce the military and police presence in the community. In the next few months he consistently failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation and, when he did act, his actions tended to ratchet up the situation rather than calm it. Matters were further exacerbated by the worsening economic conditions in Ballarat as mining proved less prosperous on the Eureka Leads where no one had bottomed out for weeks. With both the Gravel Pits and Creswick Creek booming, some diggers moved elsewhere and the population on Eureka declined.

---

[1] ‘Ballarat’, Geelong Advertiser and Intelligencer, 25 October 1854, p. 4.

[2] ‘The Ballaarat Affair’, Argus, 26 October 1854, p. 4.

[3] ‘Ballarat’, Geelong Advertiser and Intelligencer, 25 October 1854, p. 4.

[4] A report, dated 27 October 1854, from Acting Chief Commissioner of Police Charles MacMahon for the information of Lieutenant Governor Hotham, discusses plans made with Captain John Thomas for the defence of the Government Camp: PROV 1189/P Unit 92, J54/12058.

[5] Mellor, Suzanne G., ‘Sir Charles MacMahon, (1824-1891)’, ADB, Vol. 5, pp. 189-190.

[6] PROV 5527/P Unit 1, Item 2.

[7] ‘Legislative Council’, Argus, 1 November 1854, p. 4, details the decision to establish the commission while ‘Management of the Goldfields’, Argus, 1 November 1854, p. 4, for editorial comment. ‘Class Committees and Closed Doors’, Argus 16 November 1854, p. 4, was highly critical of Foster’s use of committees of enquiry because those involved tended to be linked to the issue being examined: ‘The gentlemen sent to Ballaarat to examine the charges brought against the magistrates and Camp officials there are, or have been, either magistrates or Camp officials themselves’.

[8] Gross, Alan, ‘Evelyn Pitfield Shirley Sturt (1816-1885)’, ADB, Vol. 6, pp. 215-216.

[9] ‘Ballarat’, Geelong Advertiser and Intelligencer, 10 November 1854, p. 4, ‘Ballaarat’, Argus, 16 November 1854, p. 6.

[10] Ballarat Times, 28 October 1854.

[11] ‘Legislative Council: New Municipalities’, Geelong Advertiser and Intelligencer, 2 November 1854, p. 5.

[12] ‘Legislative Council’, Geelong Advertiser and Intelligencer, 2 November 1854, p. 4.

The Chartists, Regions and Economies

Like its predecessor volume it provides a characteristically illuminating, succinct and thoroughly researched regional and local perspective on this complex but fascinating movement. It identifies clearly the salient features of each geographical area under review, comparing and contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of Chartism within and between each region, and displaying a clarity and subtlety of analysis which will make this volume and its predecessors so valuable to both students and teachers…  John Hargreaves

This book looks at Chartists from the grassroots. It abridges and builds on the two separate volumes—Chartism: Locations, Places and Spaces--dealing with Southern England and the Midlands and The North, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The focus is on how Chartism played out regionally and locally reinforcing the point that local priorities and political agendas did not always correspond with those put forward nationally and that, although the national leadership developed principles and policies and who passed through Chartist communities on their never-ending peregrinations, daily operational details were left to local leaders and organisations. For those communities, individuals such as Peter Bussey and William Carrier were as much the leaders of the Chartists to local men and women as Feargus O’Connor or Bronterre O’Brien. Is it better to see Chartism as a network of semi-autonomous political organisations over which national control was limited rather than a unified political movement? Should we see Chartism as a national debate over the exclusion of the working-classes not simply from the parliamentary franchise but from playing any role in determining the future direction of society, the economy and cultural aspirations?

Although there have been many local studies since Chartist Studies was published in 1959, the question of how the movement relates to the changing historiography of local history has rarely been raised. In part this was a consequence of the historiographical focus since the 1980s on its role as a national political movement but also reflects the difficulty of drawing these studies together. Although there are inevitably omissions, this book is an attempt to do so. In doing this, I have summarised often unpublished theses to bring their insights to a wider audience. One consequence is that I have written more on those areas, such as Worcestershire, which are largely ignored in the current literature than, for instance, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire or Essex that have. Although the focus in the chapters on England is on how Chartism developed its county profiles, county boundaries--osmotic not immutable--are an artificial conceit since ideologically and organisationally the movement transcended them as trans-county and regional delegate conferences show. The influence of London and Birmingham went far beyond their geographical, constitutional and political limits. There are six chapters considering the nature of Chartism in the English regions and a chapter each on Wales, Scotland and Ireland and the Isle of Man. Each chapter contains a detailed analysis of social and economic structures as well as a consideration of Chartism. The book ends with discussion of people, places, classes and spaces. It considers the question of ‘who were the Chartists?’ and the difficulties in identifying who they were and why they became Chartists and how far class played a part in this process. It also examines Chartism within its geographical context drawing on points made in the regional chapters. Finally, it looks at the whole question of radical spaces and how these spaces were created and contested.

Loyalty, disloyalty and British politics

The question of loyalty has been important over the last few days in Westminster and it seems tome to represent the growing dysfunction at the heart of both Conservative and Labour parties.  For the Conservatives it is the long-running schism between those who want to stay in Europe and those who do not while for Labour, it’s arguably the even longer battle between the left and the centre for control of the party.

Ken Livingstone, who is co-chairing Labour's review of Trident, has insisted Jeremy Corbyn was right to get rid of Michael Dugher and Pat McFadden, saying: ‘You can't have shadow team going on telly and slagging off Jeremy.’  Why ever not?  This is precisely what Jeremy did on many occasions during his decades on the backbenches.  The outcome of what must be the longest reshuffle in history has been two shadow ministers being sacked and Maria Eagle being moved from defence to culture and Hilary Benn coming to an ‘agreement’ that, although he may disagree in private, he will toe the party line in public, something that his ‘friends’ appear to deny.  Jeremy’s calls for greater discussion and democracy within the party—something he trumpeted during his election campaign and subsequently—is beginning to look somewhat tattered.  This may have been a credible stance when you are oppositionist in attitude but it is increasingly becoming obvious that it is not a credible position to take in opposition.  Of necessity, Jeremy needs to be seen as the leader of the opposition not leader of the oppositionists and in that respect sacking Shadow Cabinet ministers for ‘disloyalty’ is perfectly logical.  This does, however, raise questions about what ‘democracy’ means in the Labour Party today and it increasingly appears that it is Jeremy who is the fount of all democratic wisdom, a reflection of his oppositionist career.  What I find interesting in the attitude of what is increasingly seen by Labour as an anti-Corbyn ‘commentariat’ is that their focus is almost exclusively on what is happening in Westminster rather than in the country.  How far, for instance, have the Corbynistas been able to influence the direction and position of local branches of the Labour Party?  This is something that appears little in the media and yet surely it is at least as important, and arguably more important, than the shenanigans in Westminster.  For Ralph Miliband, this was the source of his ‘parliamentary socialism’.

This morning Chuka Umunna has described David Cameron’s decision to allow ministers to campaign for either side in the EU referendum once a deal is reached on the UK’s relationship with the EU as ‘fairly ludicrous’.  Yet this is precisely what Harold Wilson did with his divided Cabinet in 1975.  Without this relaxation of collective responsibility, there would almost certainly have been resignations so the Prime Minister’s decision removes one of many possible problems those in favour of staying in have removed.  It was a purely practical solution to a problem.