The demands of the Ballarat Reform League

The Eureka Rebellion was an uprising of miners against government troops and is popularly remembered as the birthplace of Australian democracy. The primary concern was the perceived corruption of local administration, particularly in Victoria. The questionable acquittal of Bentley, a publican whom was widely believed to be responsible for the death of miner Scobie, provided the momentum to form the Ballarat Reform League. The later arrest of three men involved in the burning down of Bentley’s hotel increased anti-government fervent within the movement.

The backdrop to such anger and frustration lies primarily in relation to harsh financial burdens that were placed upon the miners and later others whom exercised any trade or calling on the goldfields. Licence fees were 30 shillings a month and enforcement was not only rigorous but also inconvenient. The officials whom administered the goldfields were often corrupt. Hotham, acting under pressure from the London, increased licence checks from once a month to twice weekly.

This image displays the gold licences that miners (and after 1852 other workers on the goldfields) had to purchase. The cost of 30 shillings per month was significant considering that the average labourers' pay was only about 2 pounds per week. (Caelli, Leslie and Jason Benjamin, Rush to Rebellion: Victoria Gold Rushes 1851-1854, A Baillieu Library Exhibition, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 2004). 

The Reform League campaigned for democratic rights as stated in their November 11 Declaration including demands for representative government, manhood suffrages, no property qualifications of members of the Legislative Council, the payment of members and short duration of parliaments. Such demands were based on the declared inalienable right of man to be represented by the justice system that he is to abide by. Those whom were not part of the upper social strata that dominated the government system believed that laws were being made to accord nicely with ‘selfish ends and narrow minded views’. The League declared that the administration of justice was based on the ‘false assumption that law is greater than justice’ and instead sought to reform the law to incorporate justice within its core.

Lastly, the Reform League sought to pressure the government to ‘unlock the land’ to small farming settlement. Fahey contends that land was subject to an upper class monopoly, particularly for wealthy squatters. This further alienated the lower classes of society because private property was considered to be a means of self-realisation and freedom.

Whilst Hotham did concede to the introduction of a miners’ representative in the Legislative Council, he refused to free the men responsible for burning down the hotel. Confronted by this refusal, as well as the reinforcements of British soldiers that had been sent in, the League met on Bakery Hill on 29 November to burn their licences and swear allegiance to the Southern Cross to ‘fight and uphold [their] rights and liberties’. 

The image above is a Miner's Right as issued to I. Hayward. The Miner's Right was introduced after the Eureka Rebellion to replace the Licence, and provided the right to mine gold, the right to vote and the right to own land for a substantially cheaper cost. (Caelli, Leslie and Jason Benjamin, Rush to Rebellion: Victoria Gold Rushes 1851-1854, A Baillieu Library Exhibition, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 2004). 

The role of the frontier wars in the Australian War Memorial

The Australian War Memorial does not recognise the sacrifice of Australians whom died in the frontier conflicts. Proponents of the current state of the Australian War Memorial, such as Bill Crews, President of the Returned Services League, argue that the role of the Australian War Memorial is to commemorate the ‘sacrifice[s] of Australians on behalf of Australians’ rather than ‘skirmishes’ of the early colonial period. This argument relies on three main bases: that legally this was not a state of warfare, that the conflict was not directed by the government, and that evidence of such a conflict is not reliable.

What is at issue is the kind of history that is to be remembered by the nation. Those who advocate whitewash history, such as former Prime Minister Howard, argue that our past should be remembered with pride, though in light of this pursuit too much accuracy is conceded (Cowlishaw). Instead, the Australian War Memorial should not be used as an instrument of blame or acquittal – it should be a place for recognition and remembrance. 

The violence during the ongoing conflict was rampant, and though the death toll cannot be certain, estimates at around 20,000 for indigenous Australians and 2,500 for settlers are a considerable tragedy (Reynolds). Historian Coates contends that ‘brutal, bloody and sustained confrontation’ occurred throughout the continent.

No official policy of warfare was declared by colonial authorities, but vigilante groups were often assisted directly or indirectly by the government. Examples of state-approved violence include the infamous Black Line of 1830 in Tasmania that resulted in almost complete destruction of the indigenous community. Indirectly, it was largely futile for Aboriginal Australians to seek justice through the colonial judiciary because Aboriginal evidence was rejected for a considerable time.

Lastly, those who were involved in the conflict at the time considered it a war, despite that the term victory was rarely used (Ashenden). The ‘Great Australian Silence’ was not present during the period of the frontier conflicts.

Any recognition within the Australian War Memorial should be attentive towards the complexities of the war: the two sides were blurred and relationships between Aborigines and white settlers varied. Moreover, the temptation to victimise the indigenous inhabitants should be avoided. The indigenous inhabitants often demonstrated enormous resistance to white confrontations, and too inflicted an albeit lesser extent of hardship upon settler communities. Such a memorial would be consistent with the reconciliation process between white Australians and Aboriginal Australians. 

The wood engraving entitled 'A skirmish near Creen Creek, Queensland' shows a conflict between aboriginals and members of the Queensland Native Police after a telegraph station had been attacked. This engraving demonstrates the complexity of the conflicts and how they came about through different ways as well as an example of direct government involvement in the conflicts. (Picture Australia website, linked to the State Library of Victoria website, Image mp002534, http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/miscpics/gid/slv-pic-aab16520). 

In contrast to the engraving above, this painting by John Wesley Burtt shows Batman's treaty with the aboriginals at Merri Creek. Not all interactions between white settles and indigenous inhabitants were violent, and in cases such as this compromise could guarantee co-existence. (State Library of Victoria website, Image b28769, http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/gid/slv-pic-aab38641). 

'Slaves of slaves' - convict women in Australia

Until the feminist and civil rights movement in the 1970s, convict women were almost universally dismissed as less virtuous than their male counterparts. In reality, whilst the vast majority of male offenders had been convicted of multiple offences, the desire to balance the ratio of males to females within the colony meant that most women were transported after only one offence. Furthermore, the convict indents of the Pyramus show that most of the women on that ship were convicted only of minor theft, though this source is limited in the scope of its database.

Women in the colonies were regarded as ‘drunken and abandoned prostitutes’ (Molesworth Committee 1837-8) and were treated accordingly. Summers contends that this perception has its roots in the Judeo-Christian conception that prevailed at the time whereby women were either good or evil. The result was that virtually all women were categorised as evil, and thus as ‘damned whores’ (Lt. Ralph Clark). Feminist historians such as Summers contend that women were sent to the colony as objects of sexual gratification, and were that this was administered by the ‘imperial whoremaster’, the British government. Women were distributed to men and received as prostitutes rather than servants, despite that only a fraction of women were prostitutes in Britain. Women could not physically escape the colony, and so their fate of sexual subjugation was also inescapable.

The lithograph above is a representation of Portsmouth Point, circa 1800. The women in the photo are depicted as violent and sexual. To the bottom left of the picture a woman with her breasts revealed has taken a man's money, and to the bottom right there are promiscuous women involved in public intimate acts. The women in the background are drunk and/or prostitutes. This demonstrates the disparaging view towards women during this period. (Thomas Rowlandson, Image Library, State Library of New South Wales in Rees, Sian, The Floating Brothel, Hodder, Sydney, 2001).

Emancipation could not alleviate women of their convict status as it could men. Very few women could case aside their convict origins and acquire wealth and respectability – even in a society that was being transformed by convicts.

Re-evaluations of the role of women in contemporary society have translated into different views surrounding those women who created the fabric of colonial society. Summers argues that the whore stereotype was ‘devised as a calculated sexual means of social control’ within a patriarchal society. The effect was that men were absolved of any negative judgment in relation to their own sexual and other behaviour. The women in the new society were the ‘slaves of slaves’ – and even worse, had little hope of emancipation (Dixon).  

Foundations of settlement

The decision to settle Australia has been hotly debated and is inexorably intertwined with issues of national identity. Several theories dominate such debates, and this piece will seek to critically explore theories relating to ‘dumping grounds’, raw materials and imperial expansion.

The ‘dumping ground’ theory centres itself around Britain, and so even at the outset it lacks national support in an era of increasing separation with Britain and some remaining uncertainty in relation to Australia’s convict origins. Britain’s inability to manage and administer its convicted criminals was an issue requiring an urgent solution, particularly, as Fielding contends, in light of exponential population growth and perceived increasing organised criminal tendencies. Britain was governed by a draconian criminal justice system and those in power foresaw no respite for the prison system, particularly in light of the recent loss of the American colonies. Banks’ suggestion to settle Australia as a convict colony was supported by his promises of self-sufficiency after only one year of assistance, the easily subdued and minimally dispersed indigenous inhabitants, favourable climatic conditions and the difficulty of escape given the distance from any other land inhabited by Europeans.

This picture, 'A Convict Ship: A Relice of the Early Days of Australia' by Fred Hardie shows a prison ship like those used to transport the first fleets consisting largely of convicts to Botany Bay. The 'dumping ground' theory has legitimacy partly because there is reliable evidence to prove large numbers of convicts were transported, in contrast to the other theories which rely largely on piecing together statements from contemporaries in power. (Source: State Library of Victoria, Image: H83.342/2, http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/gid/slv-pic-aab83158).

Lord Sydney’s statement that flax and pine supplies ‘would be of great consequence to [Britain] as a naval power’ brings together the desire for raw materials and the context of the British empire. Access to such raw materials would ease naval concerns, provide a captive colonial market for free trade, and ensure that British prestige and power would not deteriorate (P.J. Marshall).

Fox has criticised Blainey’s raw materials theory as being too simplistic a history. This criticism is valid and should be applied to the debate surrounding the decision to settle Australia. No one factor can be conclusive and the need to provide a unified public history should not influence the writing of history. Though evidence is scarce, the documentation that is available suggests the need to accommodate prisoners needed to be acted upon as a matter of urgency, though that decision was perhaps solidified by the promise of raw materials and the advantageous impact upon the empire that settlement would provide. 

Captain James Cook's observations of indigenous Australians

Cook’s interaction with Aboriginal Australians took place within the context of European ‘civilisation’ preconceptions (Buchan). The 'Hints' Cook receives encapsulates the values of the Enlightenment in its assumption of European superiority when advising him of appropriate ways to demonstrate this to the inhabitants of the land. The rationale that Cook quickly developed was that Europeans had progressed further than the Aborigines, whom were underdeveloped but not entirely inhumane. Thus the myth of the ‘noble savage’ was created, where Aborigines were depicted as quite barbaric yet endearing beings.

M. Dubourg's painting shows an Aboriginal woman in a canoe containing fish and a fire, whilst another Aboriginal person is holding a spear and 'spotlighting' to attract fish. The two Aboriginals in this painting are depicted as primitive in their hunting, though their physiques are masculine and powerful. This is the image of the noble savage - very European-like appearance though innately savage. (Source: State Library of Victoria website, Image H2239, http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/71920).

Cook speaks of the indigenous inhabitants as child-like peoples with ‘soft and tunable’ voices and a way of living based on the mere ‘success of the present day for their subsistence’. This perception demonstrates British inability to comprehend alternative lifestyles as equal or arguable more advanced than their own in certain aspects. Cook’s tone is paternalistic and his observations suggest that the natives are passive. The failure to work the land or trade with either New Guinea or the British visitors is assumed to be the result of lack of innovation and appreciation of value (Buchan). The statement that the inhabitants appear to be ‘far more happier than we Europeans’ is not a concession of European inferiority. Instead, it is paternal; the happiness described is one of ignorance. The British, as benevolent imperialists, believed themselves to be observing firsthand the sole justification for colonisation – that certain peoples, without their help, have not progressed far enough down the line of civilisation. Instead of merely viewing the inhabitants are barbaric as Dampier did in the 17^th century, Cook couples vulnerability with such entrenched notions of barbarism.

This drawing, 'Out hunting for dinner - a run of luck' is an original by Tommy McCrae, an indigenous Australian. The title was inscribed by a white settler and reflects Cook's view that the Aboriginals survived on luck, with little planning. (Source: State Library of Victoria website, Image H141226/1, http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/93485).

Contrary to earlier mythologies of the native inhabitants of the Southern Land as Antipodes – large monstrous creatures – Cook describes the inhabitants as ‘a timorous and inoffensive race’. This portrayal of indigenous Australians as relatively acquiescent foreshadows the attitude that British colonists had towards the indigenous inhabitants during settlement and in more recent times the representation of indigenous Australians as victims in history.