The Chartists
The time had come. At least some of the diggers, enough to form a military contingent, reckoned they couldn't take any more. On the afternoon of 30 November, another huge meeting was held on Bakery Hill. The great Southern Cross flag flew for the second time, after its initiation at the meeting on the 29th.
But before we get too far into a discussion of the further events of the miners meeting of the 30th, we need to consider why the men who had so far led the miners were not present at this crucial meeting. Most of these men, with a bloke called Humffray perhaps the best known, were followers of an English reform movement called Chartism. The charts referred to were great petitions to the English parliament, calling for a series of reforms. Many of the miner-reformers had been members of, or influenced by this movement.
The reforms called for included:
To us, or those of us who are not brainless, ignorant, reactionary, right wing scumbags (!? - whoops, our red undies are showing), this would appear quite reasonable, although overly male oriented. But to the nobs of England this was a threat to their very existence.
It all smacked of "democracy", that much hated political system used by those ghastly colonial upstarts in the United States of America. The language these people used about democracy and democrats in those days was remarkably similar to the mouth frothing humbuggery about leftists in the English language countries, at least, throughout the 20th century and Moslems in the 21st century.
The Chartist movement ran from the mid-1830s to the mid-1850s, but it was at its peak in 1838, 1842, and 1848. Why those years? They marked the three very impressive petitions the Chartists managed to put together.
The first petition had around 1.3 million signatures, the second around 3 million signatures, the third probably around 6 million, although government clerks claimed to have counted, in an unbelievably short time, 1.9 million, and also came up with a number of what they claimed to be false names. These are the bane of all petition-raisers, and it gives a government an idiot-sent cloud to cast over an entire petition.
The parliament, in its quivering, poo-stained trousers, refused to vote in favour of any of the proposed reforms, perhaps unsurprisingly considering its membership. Each rejection of this attempt to use constitutional means to achieve reform led to violent outcomes, both through frustration at always being fobbed off by grasping, wealthy thieves, and through some of those self-same thieves manipulating events to cause violence.
Dozens of people were killed, hundreds were imprisoned, and heaps were transported to Australia, many on the basis of what has since been admitted to be lying evidence of government agents. Quite a few factory owners are suspected, probably rightly, of purposefully closing their factories in order to steam up the people, cause violence, and thereby get rid of perceived trouble makers, and lose the movement the support they had among people who feared and opposed violence.
Most of the Chartists and their leaders were anti-violence, although some took to extreme means because of their frustration at the arrantly stupid pigheadedness of England's landowners and capitalists. But the Chartists leading the miners' reform efforts in Victoria generally, and Ballarat particularly, were of the former sort. When talk turned to the threat of violence being the only way to force Hotham and the nobs' hands, as all attempts at negotiations were met not just with brick walls but with contempt, the Chartists appear to have decided it was time to back out.
And this put Lalor in the invidious position of feeling that he had to step in to prevent any rebellion from getting hopelessly out of control. For, despite some miners wanting immediate violence in the form of a massed attack on the government camp which may, in fact, have been successful, several of their leaders, including Lalor, appear to have believed that the threat of violence would be enough. That it would never come to an actual fight. And that what the "rebellion" needed was a leader who would minimise the risk of any actual fighting. Instead, what they got was a bloke who would ensure they lost any fight.
Considering what had happened to reformers for centuries in the various nations of Britain and Ireland, it is beyond unbelievable anyone could possibly have seriously thought the nobs would give in because of threats of violence. Or that they would fight in any way but unfairly, dirtily, illegally; anything to win. Or that requests for reform would be greeted with anything but refusal, followed by an extreme reaction based on the fear of losing power.
And still, no-one told the miners that electoral reform was on its way, although perhaps not in quite the form they wanted. Events were rampaging towards madness.
But before we get too far into a discussion of the further events of the miners meeting of the 30th, we need to consider why the men who had so far led the miners were not present at this crucial meeting. Most of these men, with a bloke called Humffray perhaps the best known, were followers of an English reform movement called Chartism. The charts referred to were great petitions to the English parliament, calling for a series of reforms. Many of the miner-reformers had been members of, or influenced by this movement.
The reforms called for included:
- universal male suffrage - male suffrage because it was believed to be easier to get than full suffrage, and many believed they could follow on with female suffrage later;
- restructure of the electorates to gain equality between rural and urban voters;
- removal of the property requirement for voters, to reinforce that all men were qualified to vote;
- a secret ballot, so government spies couldn't tell who you voted for;
- payment for MPs, so poor members could afford to leave work and attend parliament; and
- annual elections, on the basis that rich men may be able to buy seven year elections, as the timeframe was then, but no wealth could buy an election every year.
To us, or those of us who are not brainless, ignorant, reactionary, right wing scumbags (!? - whoops, our red undies are showing), this would appear quite reasonable, although overly male oriented. But to the nobs of England this was a threat to their very existence.
It all smacked of "democracy", that much hated political system used by those ghastly colonial upstarts in the United States of America. The language these people used about democracy and democrats in those days was remarkably similar to the mouth frothing humbuggery about leftists in the English language countries, at least, throughout the 20th century and Moslems in the 21st century.
The Chartist movement ran from the mid-1830s to the mid-1850s, but it was at its peak in 1838, 1842, and 1848. Why those years? They marked the three very impressive petitions the Chartists managed to put together.
The first petition had around 1.3 million signatures, the second around 3 million signatures, the third probably around 6 million, although government clerks claimed to have counted, in an unbelievably short time, 1.9 million, and also came up with a number of what they claimed to be false names. These are the bane of all petition-raisers, and it gives a government an idiot-sent cloud to cast over an entire petition.
The parliament, in its quivering, poo-stained trousers, refused to vote in favour of any of the proposed reforms, perhaps unsurprisingly considering its membership. Each rejection of this attempt to use constitutional means to achieve reform led to violent outcomes, both through frustration at always being fobbed off by grasping, wealthy thieves, and through some of those self-same thieves manipulating events to cause violence.
Dozens of people were killed, hundreds were imprisoned, and heaps were transported to Australia, many on the basis of what has since been admitted to be lying evidence of government agents. Quite a few factory owners are suspected, probably rightly, of purposefully closing their factories in order to steam up the people, cause violence, and thereby get rid of perceived trouble makers, and lose the movement the support they had among people who feared and opposed violence.
Most of the Chartists and their leaders were anti-violence, although some took to extreme means because of their frustration at the arrantly stupid pigheadedness of England's landowners and capitalists. But the Chartists leading the miners' reform efforts in Victoria generally, and Ballarat particularly, were of the former sort. When talk turned to the threat of violence being the only way to force Hotham and the nobs' hands, as all attempts at negotiations were met not just with brick walls but with contempt, the Chartists appear to have decided it was time to back out.
And this put Lalor in the invidious position of feeling that he had to step in to prevent any rebellion from getting hopelessly out of control. For, despite some miners wanting immediate violence in the form of a massed attack on the government camp which may, in fact, have been successful, several of their leaders, including Lalor, appear to have believed that the threat of violence would be enough. That it would never come to an actual fight. And that what the "rebellion" needed was a leader who would minimise the risk of any actual fighting. Instead, what they got was a bloke who would ensure they lost any fight.
Considering what had happened to reformers for centuries in the various nations of Britain and Ireland, it is beyond unbelievable anyone could possibly have seriously thought the nobs would give in because of threats of violence. Or that they would fight in any way but unfairly, dirtily, illegally; anything to win. Or that requests for reform would be greeted with anything but refusal, followed by an extreme reaction based on the fear of losing power.
And still, no-one told the miners that electoral reform was on its way, although perhaps not in quite the form they wanted. Events were rampaging towards madness.