Petite, Sed Non Accipietis, Quia Petistis.
The following document, which does honour and justice to its writer,
J. Basson Humffray, to 4500 of our fellow-miners of Ballaarat, who signed
it, to the state prisoners themselves, is now here transcribed as
necessary to the purpose of this book.
THE BALLAARAT DELEGATES, AND THEIR INTERVIEW WITH
HIS EXCELLENCY SIR CHARLES HOTHAM, K.C.B., &c
The public has already seen the written reply of His
Excellency to the petition from Ballaarat, signed by
nearly 4500 of the inhabitants of that important, but
'officially' ridden place.
We deem it our duty to the public, and especially to
those whose delegates we are, to state the main reasons
urged by us for a general amnesty, and to make some general
remarks thereon, and also upon the reply. We have delayed
doing this, as we expected to have returned immediately
to Ballaarat, and we did not wish to forestall our intended
statement at a public meeting, which would have been held
on our return; but as circumstances interfere with this
arrangement, we now give our report.
We were very kindly and respectfully received by His
Excellency.
We thought it right to state that we repudiated physical
force as a means of obtaining constitutional redress,
believing that the British constitution had sufficient
natural elasticity to adapt itself to the wants of the
age, and would yield under proper pressure. But the
arming of the diggers of Ballaarat, however reprehensible
it might have been in itself, claims to be judged on
special grounds, inasmuch as they had special provocation.
The diggers of Ballaarat were attacked by a military
body under the command of civil (!) officers, for the
production of licence-papers, and, if they refused to
be arrested, deliberately shot at. The diggers did not
take up arms, properly speaking, against the government,
but to defend themselves against the bayonets, bullets,
and swords of the insolent officials in their unconstitutional
attack, who were a class that would disgrace any government,
by their mal-administration of the law.
The diggers did not take up arms against British rule,
but against the mis-rule of those who were paid to administer
the law properly; and however foolish their conduct might
be, it was an ungenerous libel on the part of one of the
military officers to designate outraged British subjects
as 'foreign anarchists and armed ruffians.'
The diggers were goaded on to take the stand they did
by the 'digger-hunt,' of the 30th November, which, we
are sustained in saying, was a base piece of gold and
silver lace revenge. Facts will no doubt appear by-and-bye,
elucidating and confirming this statement.
We reminded His Excellency of the fact, that the public
had asked for or sanctioned a general amnesty; and although
we were prepared to admit that it was unbecoming the
dignity of any government to give way to what was termed
'popular clamour,' yet, in this case, the good and the
wise amongst all classes, forming a very large proportion
of the inhabitants, had asked for it, and we thought the
general wish should not be lightly treated. His Excellency
observed, "Certainly not." We argued that an amnesty would
restore general confidence, and secure support to the
government in any emergency; and, even supposing there
was any one in the movement who sought to overturn the
government, instead of overturning corruption, and establishing
a better system of administration, a general amnesty would
silence such, as the great majority of the diggers were
content to live under British law, if properly administered;
and every one knows there has been much to condemn in
the administration of the laws, on the Ballaarat gold-fields
especially; and we endeavoured to impress upon the mind
of the Lieutenant-Governor, that it was equally true
that the majority of those who were proud of being British
subjects, were growing tired of waiting for simple justice.
And if the executive wish to secure their confidence
and support, they must give better evidence of their
good intentions of making better laws, or laws better
suited to the wants of the people, and securing 'equal
justice to all.' Their recent conduct has created disaffection
amongst the ranks of the best disposed; in fact, those
who disapproved of the resort to arms on the part of
the diggers, condemn in the most unqualified manner the
conduct of the Ballaarat officials in collecting a tax
(obnoxious at the best) at the bayonet's point, and of
the late Colonial Secretary, who could unblushingly write
to Commissioner Rede (who superintended the digger-hunt
on the 30th November, and, no doubt, counselled the Sunday
morning's butchery), thanking him for his conduct on those
occasions! And that if His Excellency would allow us to
strip the matter of its official colouring, he would see
things in a very different light than they had been officially
represented.
That an amnesty would not only secure the confidence of
the people in the Governor, but it would show the confidence
of the Governor in the people--it would be looked upon as
a proof of the strength and vigour of the British constitution,
instead of weakness in those that administer the laws under
its guidance.
That His Excellency could well afford to be generous.
That, in asking for an amnesty, we were aware it was asking
for much, and what a statesman should not do without due
deliberation. But at the same time, we submitted we did
not ask anything inconsistent with the true interests of
the colony, or derogatory to the dignity and honour of
the throne itself.
That a general amnesty to the state prisoners would tend
much to consolidate the power of the British government
in this colony, and show that the representative of Majesty
here can afford to be just--to be generous; with the full
confidence that such an act would meet with the full
concurrence of the Queen of England, and the approbation
of the whole British empire. That in this he would act
wiser far in listening to the voice of the people than
to the short-sighted counsel of the law-advisers of the
Crown. Humanity has higher claims than the mere demands
and formalities of human law.
We forbear saying all that might be said as to the spies
being sent from the Camp to enrol themselves amongst the
insurgents, and who, report says, urged them to attack
the Camp, which was repudiated by the diggers--they
saying they would act upon the defensive.
That we believed the enforcement of the law in this case
would have the most pernicious effect, not only upon the
commerce of the colony, but would retard, if not prevent,
the accomplishment of those schemes of reform that His
Excellency had promised.
That if he valued the good opinions of the people--the
peace and prosperity of the colony, he would be giving
the best evidence of it by granting the amnesty we prayed
for; but that, if His Excellency punished these men, it
would be calling into existence an agitation which would,
we feared, end in civil commotion, if not in the disseverance
of the colony from the mother country.
That we thought there were reasons sufficiently important
to justify an amnesty, on the grounds of state policy alone.
But even supposing there were no legitimate grounds for
an amnesty, and that the government have been right in
all that they have done--which would be saying what facts
do not warrant--surely the slaughter of some fifty people
is blood enough to expiate far greater crimes than the
diggers of Ballaarat have been guilty of, without seeking
the lives of thirteen more victims. The government would
act wisely in not pursuing so suicidal a course.
His Excellency states, in his written reply, that the
diggers, notwithstanding his promise of inquiry into all
their grievances, had forestalled all inquiry.
On this head, we would wish to remark, that the fault
lies at the door of the government, in prostituting the
military, by making them tax collectors, and placing them
at the disposal of a few vain officials, who were not
over-stocked with brains, and ignorant of the functions
of constitutional government. But one fact they seemed
fully sensible of, viz.: That 'Othello' occupation would
indeed soon 'be gone,' and they were determined to 'crush
the scoundrels' who dared to question the policy, or even
justice, or a government keeping up such an expensive army
of La Trobian idlers as strut about in borrowed plumes
with all the insolence of office; who, in fact, have proved
themselves, with a few honourable exceptions, fit for
little else than bringing the colony into debt; creating
disaffection amongst the people, and stamping indelible
disgrace upon any government that would uphold the system
that tolerates them. One of these 'retiring' gentlemen
stated on the morning of the famed 'digger-hunt' of the
30th November, in reply to one of the refractory diggers:
"If you do not pay your licences, how are we to be supported
at the Camp?" and further, "There are some disaffected
scoundrels I am determine to arrest!" To crush! for what?
For daring to refuse to pay taxes except they had a voice
in the expending of them for the public weal; public taxes
are public property. Some of these 'gentlemanly' officials
made use of language on the occasion alluded to, that not
only gave evidence of considerable malignity, but of a
vulgarity that a gentleman would scorn to use; and we think
it not an unfair inference to draw from the foregoing facts,
that the digger-hunt of the 30th of November, and the cruel
slaughter of the 3rd December, were unmistakable acts of
petty official revenge; and, therefore, instead of the
diggers forestalling the Commission of Inquiry, appointed
by His Excellency, we advisedly say it was Commissioner
Rede and Co. who forestalled the inquiry by endeavouring
to crush the '500 scoundrels' he complained of--a scoundrel
in that gentleman's estimation seems to be one who thinks
that some 12 pounds per head per annum is rather too heavy
a tax for an Englishman to pay, especially if used in
supporting men so unfit for office as he has proved himself
to be. This gentleman was the arch-rioter of the 30th
November; in this we are confirmed (if confirmation of
well-known facts were needed) by the verdict of acquittal
of the so called 'Ballaarat Rioters,' partially on the
evidence of Mr. Rede himself.
In the latter part of His Excellency's reply, he very
properly lays it down as 'the duty of government to administer
equal justice to all;' which is no doubt the noblest principle
of the English constitution, and we certainly have no fears
for the peace of even colonial society, with all its supposed
discordant elements, so long as that principle is practically
carried out; but we are under well founded apprehension
if the reverse is to be the order of the day.
There is a paragraph in our petition to the effect, that
if 'His Excellency had found sufficient extenuation in
the conduct of American citizens,' we thought there were
equally good grounds for extending similar clemency to
all, irrespective of nationality; and that it was unbecoming
the dignity of any government to make such exceptions;
and if such have been done (and that something tantamount
to it has been done, there is ample proof), it is a violation
of the very principle enunciated by His Excellency in his
report viz., 'That it is the duty of a government to
administer equal justice to all.' What we contend for is
this:--If it be just to grant an amnesty to a citizen of
one country, 'equal justice' claims an amnesty for all.
We wish it to be distinctly understood by our American
friends, that we do not for a moment find fault with His
Excellency for allowing their countrymen to go free, but
we do complain, in sorrow, that he does not display the
same liberality to others--that he does not wisely and
magnanimously comply with the prayer of our petition by
granting a general amnesty.
But it is stated further in the reply, that 'no exception
had been made in favour of any person against whom a charge
was preferred.' With all becoming deference to His Excellency,
we think this does not meet the point. If the gentleman
were innocent, why guarantee him against arrest? And if
his friends (and we give them credit for good tact) anticipated
the 'preferment of a charge,' it does not create any special
grounds for an amnesty in contradistinction to a general amnesty.
Again, upon whom lies the onus of 'preferring charge?'
500 pounds was offered for Vern, 'DEAD OR ALIVE' and
400 pounds for Lalor and Black; and yet we presume there
was no charge, or charges, 'preferred' against them any
more than the gentleman alluded to. We yet trust that
the same good feeling that induced His Excellency to give
James M`Gill his liberty will increase sufficiently strong
to unbar the prison-doors, and set the state captives free,
that they may be restored to their homes, their sorrowing
families, and sympathising countrymen. By such an act,
the Lieutenant-Governor will secure the peace of society,
and the respect and support of the people, and be carrying
out the glorious principle he has proclaimed of 'Equal
Justice to All.'
J. BASSON HUMFFRAY,
C. F. NICHOLLS,
(of Ballaarat.)
Melbourne, 23rd January, 1855.