Horror: Electoral Reform
The 19th Century Nobs' View Of The Risks Of Reform
The Path to Rebellion
Horrendous Suffering to Get the Vote
We live in a time and a place where democracy, at least in the form we've adopted, and vote equality are not only taken for granted, but sadly regarded as a pain in the arse. Of course, there are places around the world where people are still imprisoned, tortured, and murdered for calling for close versions of what we have. But, of course, in this place but in an earlier time the same things were happening here. Well, generally speaking, not as commonly brutal, except in Britain, but we became hosts to many unwilling guests who did no more than peacefully campaign for the right to vote. Universal Male Suffrage - The Red Ribbons The right for all men to have an equal vote was a request, no doubt called a demand by its opponents, of the red ribbon brigade from Bendigo, and in numerous petitions from several goldfields. We know that left out a very significant proportion of the population, women, but many proponents intended to gain the vote for women in steps. Sadly, it took a very long time. As it happens, not all of the miners' leaders believed in universal male suffrage. Nonetheless, it was one of the major requests made by the miners before Eureka, and was one of the major reforms within a few years of Eureka. The Connection Of Suffrage To Eureka So let's have a look at some of the background to this demand, and a rather surprising opportunity that could have headed off the Eureka rebellion before it was even thought of, the rebellion, that is, and why it was left begging, the opportunity, that is. |
The British nobs seriously believed reform would lead to the below French revolutionary outcomes, and their heads would be filling baskets all over the country.
It would have caused historians little surprise, really, if this had occurred, considering the way they treated poor people, and ignored the aspirations of the increasing numbers of urban lower middle class people. If it hadn't been for the overall docility of most English people heads may well have rolled. Goodness knows, at least some of them deserved to. Of course, it didn't occur to most nobs to treat the general populace and their workers better. |
Burke & Democracy
British Hatred & Fear Of Democracy
Democracy and democrats, and all that stuff about human rights and freedom, engendered considerable fear in the hearts of Britain's middle and upper classes, even some who held what were, for the time, daringly radical views. The language used is recognisable by those familiar with the McCarthyist United States of the 1950s, Australian Liberal Party pre-election slogans on"reds under the beds" from the 1940s-1970s, and the foolishly destructive kerfuffle about terrorists and moslems since 11 September, 2001. Inability To Analyse & Question The reasons for this fear included, first, the fact most English people couldn't analyse and question the balderdash fed to them by the nobs and their lickspittles. Most English had little schooling, if any. Even when schooled they were savagely discouraged from questioning anyone in authority, or anything such people said or did. The docility of most English for most of England's history while suffering gross infringements of the most basic of rights they should have had as fellow religionists verges on the unbelievable. Walloping In America Next, monarchist French troops and some American colonists walloped the British military in the American War of Independence. The former colonists then formed a partially democratic government (women, blacks, and the First People didn't get the vote). This turned the British, especially the nobs, against anything smacking of American-style reforms. They feared the spread of "American beliefs", which they believed would cause the overthrow of the natural and proper order of things. That is, where the nobs, ruled and got all the good things in life, and everyone else worked to continue this happy state. La Terreur (The Terror) Third, the terrible mess the French Revolution fell into fairly quickly after 1791. This revolution, ostensibly about winning freedom for the common person from the tyranny of a dictatorial monarchy, degenerated into cruel rule by the most savage and extreme of élitists, causing massive loss of life, and triggering a war with Britain that lasted, on and off, for more than 20 years. Fear Of The Poor Finally, the fact Britain was overflowing with what the middle class and wealthy Britons mostly regarded as innately criminally-minded and rebellious poor people who were increasingly being radicalised by the likes of Tom Paine, William Godwin, and the brilliant but terribly fated Mary Wollstonecraft. Of course, this was one reason for Britain's theft of Australia from its First People. The nobs realised even the English wouldn't accept the hanging of thousands of men, women, and children on a regular basis, so they had to find another way of getting rid of them. Teddy Burke A leading spokesman for these anti-democrats was Edmund Burke (1729-1797), an Irish philosopher who spent most of his life in England. Burke started out as quite the radical young thing. But towards the end of his life at least some of his views took a huge swing, especially as regards democracy. Why? Largely because of reason number three above, the Terror that followed the revolution in France. Some of Burke's writings on democracy and "democratists" follow. These views were immensely influential on nineteenth century conservatives and liberals alike. So, without further ado, here's Edmund Burke, mostly in later life, in none of his glory: |
Edmund Burke's Views On Democracy and Democrats
|
And Here Are Some Others
Separation
The Gold Export Duty
The Miner's Licence: A Problem
Along with wanting the vote, miners were also calling for the revocation of the miner's licence. Most of them made no money from mining, and certainly, when they arrived on the goldfields and started digging they had not yet found any gold and couldn't afford a licence. LaTrobe: Blocking Licence Reform? So, why was the licence introduced and why was it not revoked? The miners all thought it was LaTrobe's fault, and hated him for it. But they were wrong. LaTrobe was attempting to achieve change to the ways miners were dealt with, and the existence of the licence system. Gold Export Duty: What Was It? LaTrobe favoured something called a gold export duty, that is a tax paid on the weight of gold being exported, to be paid by the exporter. The Nobs & The Legislative Council The time came for the Legislative Council to consider the matter of how to pay for the upkeep of the goldfields and their infrastructure. And as they were the ones ultimately buying the gold, either directly or through companies they owned, and were therefore the exporters, if there was a gold export duty, they would have to pay it. But the nobs had no intention of forking out any of their own largely ill-gotten gains. Fortunately for them, they had control of the Legislative Council and could largely do whatever they wanted. They were enabled in this finagling by LaTrobe's reluctance to gainsay them, except by using his powers of persuasion. Unfortunately, we know from hindsight, were too slow. Why The Nobs Opposed Licence Reform The nobs' decision successfully put in place a money collection system, the miner's licence, that made those on low or no incomes meet the costs, even before they had actually found any gold. To the nobs, it was obvious what should happen. The miners were to pay the costs of the goldfields, and if they couldn't afford a licence, then bugger them, they should stay at home and work hard for their living like everyone else. Well, almost everyone else. But there was another very self-serving reason for the nobs' decision. Squatters and business owners were seriously peeved at how quickly their workforce was inclined to head for the goldfields. No workforce, no money for the nobs. The solution? The nobs thought they were very smart by putting in place a licence system that would make a prospective miner pay up before they had dug a hole of swished a pan. In other words, they had to have the cash in their pockets. So they tried to make the licence fee above the quantity of cash most working people would be able to carry with them. So, were the nobs successful? You might remember from an earlier page that the government, read Legislative Council, rather than LaTrobe, tried to up the licence fee substantially after a few months. It seems likely this was when they discovered they had underestimated the cash to which their workers appeared to have access. As we know, the workers objected so strongly, understandably so, that the government stopped the increase. The reality, however, is that the men were so desperate to better themselves, because their living conditions were so appalling, that they didn't give a stuff about the licence, and simply ignored the licensing requirement if they couldn't pay. Of course, if the nobs had treated their workers properly, and paid them better than a bare survival wage, and gave them some rights, and so on, some of their workers might have stayed. And people wonder why unions were invented! How did the nobs respond to their failure? As the licence didn't work on its own, the nobs increased salaries by five, reduced working hours, provided workers' compensation and superannuation, and gave workers bonuses based on 80% of company profits. No, don't be silly, of course they didn't. They employed a whole heap of nasty, violent former convicts from Tasmania to regularly beat the heck out of recalcitrant miners, to force them to either pay for licences, or get the hell back to their workplaces. And if you think all convicts were starving bread and hankie thieves, we're afraid we have to say you're sadly mistaken. Let's look at some of the stuff someone had to be taxed for.
A Response to the Chamber of Commerce
SATURDAY MORNING, SEPT. 24, 1853. |
The source of opposition to the export duty on gold:
The Argus, Saturday, 6 November, 1852 GOLD EXPORT DUTY BILL.
The following is the petition from the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce. To the Honorable the Legislative Council of Victoria in Council assembled. The Petition of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce. Showeth: - The Melbourne Chamber of Commerce called a meeting of the members to take into consideration the Export Duty on Gold Bill now before the Legislature of the Colony. The meeting was held accordingly, attended by a greater number of number of members than had met on any former occasion. On the question of whether gold is in Itself a proper object of taxation the Meeting was not unanimous and therefore on that point the Chamber will not express any opinion. But all those who attended the Meeting, and it is believed, all the other Members of the Chamber are unanimous of opinion that the proposed Export Duty is highly objectionable, and that for the following reasons: No tax or customs’ duty is paid voluntarily; therefore, in discussing the propriety of imposing an export duty on gold, it is necessary to enquire whether it is practicable to collect the duty on the whole of the gold exported, whether It can be collected in a manner not to trammel overmuch the operations of trade, or to offend the feelings or the prejudices of the people, and whether the expense of collection will be a small enough percentage on the gross revenue. It appears to your petitioners that it would be utterly impossible to collect the duty on the whole or even on any considerable proportion of the gold exported. It is well known to all engaged in the shipping trade of the port, that now large quantities of gold are exported by sea to the adjacent Colonies and to Britain, none of which is entered at the Customs, or pays freight, or is insured it is known that one vessel conveyed on one trip to Adelaide upwards of 10000 ounces unentered, and, it is believed, there have been many similar cases. When parties convey new, unentered gold, their chief inducement to do so is the saving of fourpence an ounce freight; and, if the saving to be effected were eight or ten times as much no doubt much more gold would be shipped unentered. Again, the gold could be so easily carried across the frontiers to New South Wales, or South Australia, that, in the absence of an export duty at the ports of those colonies, it cannot be doubted immense quantities would be so taken away, it is true that if an export duty on gold, not less than that to be imposed here, were imposed In New South Wales South Australia, and Van Diemen’s Land, the inducement to convey gold to those colonies for the purpose of evading the duty, would be removed. Still gold is so easily concealed, that there can be no doubt a very large proportion would be shipped direct to Britain without paying duty. But supposing duty could be collected on all the gold exported, it could only be by empowering officers of Customs to search the persons and the luggage of every person, male or female, leaving the Colony, by land or sea. Not only persons and luggage might be searched, but every bale of wool, cask of tallow, and package of merchandise being shipped, would be liable to be broken open and examined at the caprice of a Custom House officer. Such a power it would be most dangerous to confer upon any body of men. It would be most repugnant to the feelings of all classes of people to submit to it, and it would be found a most vexatious interference with the operations of trade. Were it for no other reason than this, your petitioners would deem the proposed duty most objectionable. The expence of collecting such a duty would of necessity be very great. Where à duty is extremely unpopular, as the proposed duty would certainly be, and where evasion of it is not difficult, it is well known that when expenses are deducted, the amount; paid into the Treasury is very much less than that paid by the public. The Colony of Victoria has, perhaps, the simplest and the best Tariff in the world; the introduction of such an unpopular and objectionable impost as the proposed duty, cannot be too strongly deprecated. and your Petitioners therefore pray, that your Honorable House will not pass any Bill imposing an Export Duty on Gold. What changed the nobs' minds?
Why was a gold export tax eventually accepted by the nobs? Was it Eureka? Well, maybe, according to some historians. But concurrently with the stirring of tempers in Ballarat, it was starting to become clear the days of individual mining were over. The days of swishing pans in the rivers and creeks were over, and the diggers could only go to relatively short depths, and the gold reefs went deeper. Future mining was going to have to be corporate. So, shortly there were not going to be any miners to pay for licences. It was probably no coincidence that this decrease in individual mining and increase in corporate mining occurred concurrently with Eureka. The diggers, once proud, independent men who served no-one but themselves, turned into employees of the mining companies, wage slaves, owned, naturally, by the nobs. |
Miners To Get Vote - Long Before Eureka
Why no real reform?
Well, one reason was probably because they didn't believe the miners could do what they (the nobs) did, because they (the miners) were all, of course, nincompoops, because if they (the miners) weren't, they (the miners) would already be rich. However, the real reason was probably, because we're just old leftist cynics, they didn't want to spread the take from government around any further. The nobs' protections? To make sure they held onto control, the nobs decided to create a bicameral parliament, with the Legislative Council as the upper house, and a new Legislative Assembly as the lower house. The increased number of the hoi polloi now able to vote would control the lower house, generally speaking. But no legislative change could occur, and no budgetary measures could be passed, without the agreement of the upper house, which had higher property requirements to vote, and higher requirements again to be a member. Get it? The nobs still completely controlled the state's government. Don't be mistaken into thinking the upper house then was as it is now, a daytime habitation of retired party apparatchiks. Well, with some minor party members these days. In those days, the nobs in the Legislative Council had real power, and intended to keep it. What about democracy? So, electoral reform was, of course, achieved because the wealthy of Victoria recognised it was time for genuine democratic reform. Not. Democracy was something to which most of them were bitterly opposed, and they regarded it as their patriotic duty to oppose it at every turn. And women and the poor? Oh, we should just comment that while the vote was being extended, while some of the reformers were very much in favour of universal suffrage, that is, all men and women would get the vote, practical reform had no intention of allowing women or non-propertied men to vote. |
No Consultation
We don't know what LaTrobe's attitude was to consulting with the hoi polloi over increasing access to the vote for and membership of Victoria's parliament, meaning the Australian state, not the English queen. Although, despite his liberal attitudes, he was still a nob of his times, and we suspect he wouldn't have even considered it, let alone have been able to persuade the Legislative Council it was an approach its members should take. The Consequence Frankly, that's a crying shame, because this was one of the last steps the government could have taken to prevent Eureka or something like it, and all its rotten consequences, from occurring. Surprising: Council Reform (?) Moves Believe it or not, the members of the Legislative Council established a committee to examine the extending of the vote. After great discussion (!), the Council's members finally agreed to both reduce the property requirement for the vote, and to allow a miner's licence held for at least 12 months to meet the requirement. Why, oh why? But before we get to that, why on earth were the nobs taking such action? Well, it rather looks as though LaTrobe and the rather more radical members managed to convince the reactionaries and conservatives to at least put up an appearance of electoral reform in order to offset the risk of violent rebellion. Although they didn't appear to know it, the Bendigo red ribbon people were winning concessions. Of a sort. But, of course, the lawmakers didn't think to ask the miners, let alone anyone else, just what they would accept in terms of electoral reform. And, especially, what the more radical miners would accept. Because if that wasn't what the nobs came up with the radicals might reach for their weapons, such as they were. But were they genuine? Although it looks like the nobs were reducing their power, and allowing the great unwashed to have a sniff of what it's like to have power, the truth was, of course, otherwise. And, as history has shown, the nobs failed to convince the radicals that they meant well. It was obvious to the miners the nobs didn't really intend to give them what they wanted. Criticism From Over The Border
Mon 13 Mar 1854 - The Argus, Melbourne |