Lalor shows his true colours
In 1857, Lalor greatly disappointed those who didn't look closely enough at the comment he made in the Legislative Council about what democracy meant to him. These people tended to worship Lalor as a great man of the people, a worker's supporter. But in that year he showed his true colours and shat in his hero-worshippers’ nest. Consequently, his cards were marked in Ballarat. But don’t worry, he found an electorate elsewhere which would be much more likely to elect a man who, surprisingly to many ever since, turned out not to be a radical, but a conservative one-armed former hero.
What happened in 1857? That was the year the Victorian parliament voted on a limited form of "universal" male suffrage. In other words, the right of all male adults (in those days, that was over the age of 21) to vote in Assembly elections, excluding women (obviously, we guess, from the use of the word "male"), non-whites (including both the colony's original inhabitants and the Chinese, but we're unsure about people like the black Jamaican and American miners arrested at Eureka, or the other black men on the goldfields - noting that another black American was killed at Eureka), and a few odds and sods.
Both Humffray and Lalor were ostensibly representing miners in the parliament that voted to pass that legislation, thus ensuring more men were going to get the vote than the conservatives wanted. One conservatively opposed violent revolt in 1854 and one led violent revolt. Both were elected with the huge support of the Ballarat miners. But they cancelled one another out: one voted against the legislation, in other words, against the property restriction, and the other voted for it. One was Lalor, the Eureka "revolutionary" leader. The other was Humffray, the Chartist. So, who do you reckon voted to retain the property restriction?
Well, it wasn't Humffray. Which leaves ... you've guessed it, Peter Lalor.
What happened in 1857? That was the year the Victorian parliament voted on a limited form of "universal" male suffrage. In other words, the right of all male adults (in those days, that was over the age of 21) to vote in Assembly elections, excluding women (obviously, we guess, from the use of the word "male"), non-whites (including both the colony's original inhabitants and the Chinese, but we're unsure about people like the black Jamaican and American miners arrested at Eureka, or the other black men on the goldfields - noting that another black American was killed at Eureka), and a few odds and sods.
Both Humffray and Lalor were ostensibly representing miners in the parliament that voted to pass that legislation, thus ensuring more men were going to get the vote than the conservatives wanted. One conservatively opposed violent revolt in 1854 and one led violent revolt. Both were elected with the huge support of the Ballarat miners. But they cancelled one another out: one voted against the legislation, in other words, against the property restriction, and the other voted for it. One was Lalor, the Eureka "revolutionary" leader. The other was Humffray, the Chartist. So, who do you reckon voted to retain the property restriction?
Well, it wasn't Humffray. Which leaves ... you've guessed it, Peter Lalor.