Peter Lalor
Peter Lalor


The Eureka Rebellion



Miscellaneous Notes


Who fired the first shot at Eureka?


There has been much controversy over whether it was the military or the diggers that fired the first shot at Eureka.

An American digger later wrote that "The Fortieth regiment was advancing, but had not as yet discharged a shot. We could now see plainly the officer and hear his orders, when one of our men, Captain Burnette, stepped a little in front, elevated his rifle, took aim and fired. The officer fell. Captain Wise was his name. This was the first shot in the Ballarat war. It was said by many that the soldiers fired the first shot, but that is not true, as is well known to many" (CF:60).

Charles Henry Hackett, a police magistrate (and, according to Carboni, the only government official at Ballarat who was not detested by the diggers) testified that "No shots were fired by the military or the police, previous to shots being fired from the stockade" (CC:68-69)

According to Ballarat historian W.B. Withers, one of the Eureka leaders later stated that "The first shot was fired from our party". (WW:109).

Desmond O'Grady claims that it was a sentry, Harry de Longville, who fired the first shot, although possibly he may be referring here to a warning shot. Indeed, a letter from a soldier at Eureka, John Neill of the 40th Regiment, says that "The party had not advanced three hundred yards before we were seen by the rebel sentry, who fired, not at our party, but to warn his party in the Stockade. He was on Black Hill. Captain Thomas turned his head in the direction of the shot, and said - "We are seen. Forward, and steady men! Don't fire; let the insurgents fire first. You must wait for the sound of the bugle".(DO:159; WW:123-124)



The Ballarat Reform League


It should be noted that the name of the league, as cited in various sources, has been given both with the old spelling of "Ballaarat" (with three "a"s, instead of two) as well as with the newer spelling of "Ballarat".

The Ballarat Reform League had been in existence before 11 November 1854, as can be evidenced by personal accounts, as well as by the fact that that a government board of inquiry received a statement dated 10 November 1854 from the committee of the Ballarat Reform League. The League possibly originated from a Bakery Hill meeting on the 1st of November 1854. However, although the League committee was previously in existence, the 11 November mass meeting of 10,000 diggers was the official, or public, founding of the Ballarat Reform League. As one historian noted, "on that day it became an organization supported by the whole of the mining community in Ballarat".(FV:10; HA1:19-20; HS:22,75; RG:28)

The Ballarat Times referred to the Ballarat Reform League in the following manner:
"This league is nothing more or less than the germ of independence. The die is cast, and fate has stamped upon the movement its indelible signature. No power on earth can now restrain the united might and headlong strides for freedom of the people of this country, and we are lost in amazement while contemplating the dazzling panorama of the Australian future. We salute the league, and tender our hopes and prayers for its prosperity. The League have undertaken a mighty task, fit only for a great people - that of changing the dynasty of the country. The League does not exactly propose, not adopt such a scheme, but know what it means, the principles it would inculcate, and that eventually it will resolve itself into an Australian Congress.
(Ballarat Times, cited in The Age, 23.11.1854, p. 6.)

Of course, this description of the Ballarat Times could be considered as simply a journalist's interpretation, or "slant", on events. The editor of the Ballarat Times, Henry Seekamp was said to be a "radical" who was "rousing up the people" and in such a light it would be possible that he would "pepper up" stories on the League. Carboni later wrote that "indeed, it would ill become the Times to mince in matter of such weighty importance. This League is not more or less than the germ of Australian independence".(RC:45; LB:50,60)

J.B. Humffray, the original secretary of the Ballarat Reform League, and other members of the "moral force" section of the Eureka movement withdrew from what was becoming an armed rebellion (on or before Friday, 1st December 1854), as they advocated constitutional means of obtaining the diggers' aims. In January 1855, following the demise of the Eureka Stockade in December 1854, Humffray and others founded the Victorian Reform League. In 1855 Humffray, along with Peter Lalor, was elected unopposed to represent Ballarat in the Legislative Council.
(ADB4:444; The Age, 4.12.1854, p. 5; The Age, 9.1.1855, p. 4.)



The Eureka Flag was commonly known
as the Australian Flag


"They assembled round the Australian flag, which has now a permanent flag-staff".
(The Age, 4.12.1854, p. 5.)

"The Australian flag shall triumphantly wave in the sunshine of its own blue and peerless sky, over thousands of Australia's adopted sons".
(Ballarat Times, cited in The Age, 28.11.1854, p. 5.)

"The disaffected miners... held a meeting whereat the Australian flag of independence was solemnly consecrated and vows proffered for its defence."
(TD:6-7)

During the Eureka trials, it was sworn that the flag was also known as the "digger's flag" and also as "the Southern Cross".
(The Age, 24 February 1855, p. 5)



Was the Eureka movement
a republican movement?


The Eureka movement was made up of many different kinds of people. As Clive Turnbull once wrote:
"The men whom came to the diggings were as various in outlook as in nationality - aristocrats and yeomen, artisans and clerks, European exiles, Irish patriots, English Chartists, American adventurers, varying in politics from extreme conservatism to open preaching of rebellion. In a very rough fashion they may perhaps be divided into three groups:
The majority, of no passionate political convictions but inclining to conservatism and angered, not by the political forms of the colony, but by being personally "pushed around" and the offensive methods adopted for collecting an inequitable licence fee;
The Chartists, and their equivalents from other countries, who wanted democratic reforms, most of which are now commonplace; and
A minority of rebels and revolutionaries who wanted to sever the British connection and to set up the five-star Republic of Victoria."(CT2:25)

A republic was not a stated aim of the Eureka Stockade diggers, nor had it been listed as an aim of the Ballarat Reform League.

J.B. Humffray and C.F. Nicholls wrote that "The diggers did not take up arms against British rule, but against the misrule of those who were paid to administer the law properly" (The Age, 25 January 1855, p. 5; RC:129-135).

Raffaello Carboni affirms that "amongst the foreigners.. there was no democratic feeling, but merely a spirit of resistance to the licence fee"; and he also disputes the accusations "that have branded the miners of Ballaarat as disloyal to their QUEEN" (emphasis is in the original).(RC:108,153)

The Argus newspaper, of 4th December 1854, reported that the Union Jack flag flew underneath the Southern Cross flag of the diggers at the Eureka Stockade. However, this claim is not substantiated by any other accounts, even by the testimony given by trooper John King who pulled down the Eureka flag, nor is it mentioned in any other personal account of the rebellion, or in any other newspaper article. It would seem, therefore, that this claim is not actually correct.(MC:278,301)


Notwithstanding the above points, it must be recognised that there was a strong undercurrent of republicanism within the Eureka movement. A hint is given in the principles adopted by the mass meeting of the Ballarat Reform League on 11 November 1854:
"That it is not the wish of the "League" to effect an immediate separation of this colony from the parent country, if equal laws and equal rights are dealt out to the whole free community. But that if Queen Victoria continues to act upon the ill advice of dishonest ministers and insists upon indirectly dictating obnoxious laws for the Colony under the assumed authority of the Royal Prerogative the Reform League will endeavour to supersede such Royal Prerogative by asserting that of the People which is the most Royal of all Prerogatives, as the people are the only legitimate source of all political power."(TD:10)

It should also be noted that the Eureka movement contained a significant number of Americans, and a great number of Irishmen, and it seems likely that many of these were of a Republican inclination.

Indeed, W.B. Withers stated that "There were among the insurgents men who hated British rule with a hereditary hatred. There were Irishman who felt that feeling, and there were foreigners who had no special sympathy, if any at all, with British government".(WW:159)

It was estimated by one witness, Mr G.C. Levey, that about 863 men had actually taken up arms, and that about half of these were Irish. H.R. Nicholls stated, regarding the Stockade on the morning of the day before the battle, that "the movement at that time seemed to have become almost an Irish one". According to W.B. Withers, one of the Eureka leaders later stated that "Most of our men were Irishmen". (HS:49-50,79; HRN:749 WW:109)

Many of the American diggers were Republicans. Clive Turnbull relates that "The temper of the large American colony in Victoria... was strongly Republican", and that "there was... a secret, foreign, largely American, movement for an Australian Republic". (CT1:82-83; EDP1:161)

A Commissioner from Ballarat, wrote to his parents that "Americans, here in great numbers, are commonly believed to have been the chief agitators with a view to institute independence", and some writers have postulated that "Possibly American involvement would have been greater if the move had been more clearly for independence".(EDP2:190,197)

While various accounts have referred to many "Californians", it should be realised that "Californian did not necessarily mean American" as those who had lived in California for a while, presumably part of the California Gold Rush of 1849, could also be called "Californian". Indeed, of the Californian Independent Rifle Brigade (part of the Eureka movement), one Scottish insurgent said that it "was formed of Californians and a number of Americans", while a Canadian police officer said that its members were mainly Irish immigrants that had been Americanised (he called them "Whitewashed Yankees").(EDP1:160; EDP2:189)

A letter from those involved with the Stockade stated that "of the Americans and Germans be it said, there were not more than twenty of the former and ten of the latter in the ranks of the disaffected". Peter Lalor said that "there are only about thirty foreigners in the movement". The term "foreigners" apparently was usually applied to those who were not British subjects, so that those born in Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales were regarded as "British" rather than "foreigners".(EDP1:160; LB:113; The Age, 4 January 1855, p. 5 - the letter to The Age was signed by two captains of the Eureka movement "E.W. and S.F.", but Frederick Vern, who was also at the Stockade, later claimed that he wrote the letter.(EDP1:160; WW:149)

It is interesting to note just who sometimes were considered "foreigners". The Age, of 12 December 1854, said that the "great majority of the "rebels" were neither Yankees, Irishmen, nor foreigners", which, in this instance, implies that neither "Yankees" or Irishmen were thought to be "foreigners". Indeed, Sir Charles Hotham referred to the Peter Lalor, born in Ireland, as a "British subject", rather than referring to him as being an "Irishman" or a "foreigner".(EDP1:161; TD:7)

The point remains that the Eureka movement included a great number that can be assumed to be disposed favourably towards republicanism.

That republicanism was had become part of the Stockade movement is evidenced by other instances. One writer stated that "the collapse of the rising at Ballarat may be regarded as mainly attributable to the password given by Lalor on the night before the assault. Asked by one of the subordinate leaders of the revolt for the "night pass", he gave "Vinegar Hill"... Many at Ballaarat, who were disposed before that to resist the military, now quietly withdrew from the movement... when the news circulated that Irish independence had crept into it" (the Vinegar Hill rebellion - also known as the Castle Hill rising - was a revolt, mainly consisting of Irish convicts, in 1804 in New South Wales). That "Vinegar Hill" was given as the password has been attested to by both Raffaello Carboni and H.R. Nicholls. (CC:93; DO:155; HRN:749; RC:90; WW:105)

Eureka leader George Black had made inferences towards American republicanism, and FrederickVern was noted as a republican. It has also been noted that "Attempts to stir up diggers at nearby Creswick Creek failed when talk moved from the abolition of the licence fee to separation from Great Britain". While this, and the situation of the Vinegar Hill password, show that many diggers were unprepared to support a republican rebellion, it does show that there was a strong republican impulse within the movement; in fact by the 3rd of December the republican element may have been quite strong if others had left because of it.(EDP1:152)

Nonetheless, that the diggers still were widely supported can be shown by several instances. One being that when the police sought to swear in special constables, only one man signed up; also, that later on, none of those sent to trial were ever convicted; as well as which both Peter Lalor and J.B. Humffray were both elected unopposed to the Legislative Council in 1855.(ADB4:444; WW:107)



The Declaration of Independence


According to W.B. Withers, the Ballarat historian, a "Declaration of Independence" was drafted in Teddy Shannahan's store, where "Black, Vern, McGill, Raffaello, Curtin, Lessman (a German), Kenworthy (an American medical man), and others being present". This list of those present seems unlikely as both Raffaello Carboni and James McGill denied any involvement is such a document.(LB:72-73; RC:88; WW:102)

The existence of a formal declaration of independence has been talked of many times, but the evidence is inconclusive. In 1890, after the death of Peter Lalor, H.R. Nicholls wrote an article in which he claimed that "Alfred Black drew up the Declaration of Independence... This declaration was read at night-fall on the Friday, I think, to a number of persons under arms, various kinds of arms, and was cheered very loudly". Alfred Black had already died in a mining accident many years before the article was written. (HRN:746-747)

Raffaello Carboni published in his book McGill's statement that claims of such a Declaration were "a gratuitous falsehood" and he repeated McGill's challenge for anyone to produce "the document in question, either the original or copy of it, of course with satisfactory evidence of its being a genuine article". H.R. Nicholls must have made an earlier claim about his Declaration of Independence (indeed, he possibly might have been the unnamed source for the Withers story) as Carboni, in his book, said of McGill's denial and challenge: "I express the hope that H.R. Nicholls... will take notice of the above".(HRN:746; RC:88)



It is possible that a declaration of independence was drawn up, however, this does not necessarily mean it was an official document of the Eureka movement, either sanctioned by Peter Lalor or the movement in general. It may have been something that was known only to a few of the Eureka diggers. It would not be the first time that one section of a rebellion carried out an action without other sections, or even the leadership, of the movement knowing about it. As has been mentioned before, the evidence is inconclusive (especially in the absence of such document).



The American merchant, George Train, claimed that he was approached by James McGill who asked for a supply of Colt revolvers and told Train that "We have elected you President of our Republic". Train said that he refused both requests, but that he did help deal McGill escape from Victoria. Train's claim of helping McGill escape is possible, but his claims of McGill asking for revolvers and offering Train the "presidency" of the "Five-Star Republic" are very unlikely. Indeed, it was said of Train that "About 1873, his mind seems to have become unhinged, and he became noted for his eccentricities. He came to the be known as the champion crank of America". Train wrote his claims about McGill in 1902. Historian L.G. Churchward says that Train's story "is most improbable" and "Apart from the singular unreliability of Train as a chronicler, a trait which was accentuated with age, it is hardly credible that McGill or any others believed anything could be done to carry on the revolt following the destruction of the Stockade. The one thing certain about McGill's actions after 3 December 1854 is that he was sheltered by Train, and that Train and others of the merchant community interceded for him". Clive Turnbull wrote that Train's story "is probable enough", but then Turnbull talks of Train's "strange statement that the miners about Maryborough" elected him as their representative in the colonial legislature". Other writers have dismissed both Train's "presidency" and "colonial legislature" claims as "unsubstantiated" (to say the least). Inded, Train's claims appear to be the product of his eccentricity. (CSR:132; CT1:85,87; EDP2:187; EDP3:xix-xx; GT:157-162; HS:84)

Peter Lalor later said that he was not a republican: "I would ask the gentlemen what they mean by the term "Democracy"? Do they mean Chartism, or Communism, or Republicanism? If so, I never was, I am not now, nor do I ever intend to be a democrat. But if democracy means opposition to a tyrannical press, a tyrannical people, or a tyrannical government, then I have ever been, am still, and I ever will remain a democrat."(LB:121)

H. R. Nichols wrote that "I, myself, asked Lalor what he meant and he answered, "Independence!" plump and plain", but one writer has said "if this were so, it would seem that the independence he wanted was from arbitrary rule, from encroachments by the Crown on "British Liberty", and that granted by access to the land, rather than the "independence" of a republican democracy". Yet another wrote that "Lalor consistently denied that he had meant independence outside the framework of the existing government". H.R. Nicholls reiterated his stance: "I repeat, that the late leader of the rebel forces went in for independence, with a very large I; although afterwards, when other prospects opened up, the fact was denied in a faint-hearted sort of a way".(ADB5:52; EDP2:197; HRN:746,747)

While in parliament, Lalor "aroused hostility among his digger constituents by supporting plural voting on a property franchise and a six-months' residency qualification for the franchise", as well as which he opposed payment to members of the Legislative Council.(ADB5:52)

Lalor was one of the directors of the Lothair mine at Clunes. It was the directors of this mine who decided to bring in Chinese from Ballarat and Creswick to use as scabs to break a miners' strike; but the European miners rebelled, and forcibly refused the Chinese (and their police escort) entry into the mine, and forced the company to capitulate. However, as Lalor was only one of several directors, no evidence has been brought forth as to whether Lalor was part of this decision.(ADB5:53; LB:130-132)

It is of interest to note that Lalor later declined a British Knighthood.(ADB5:53; LB:146)

Carboni, in his book, aimed to show that he was not disloyal to the British Crown; writing "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!", and "may it please HER MAJESTY to cause inquiry to be made into the character of such that have branded the miners of Ballarat as disloyal to their QUEEN" (the emphasis is Carboni's). It should be noted that Carboni was a cosmopolitan, and his cosmopolitanism shows up in his writings. He was primarily an Italian patriot, and lived in Australia for only about four years, therefore showing no commitment to Australia, unlike those Eureka leaders such as Lalor, McGill, and Lynch, who stayed on in Australia.(ADB3:353; RC:108,124)



Miscellaneous notations


1) The Eureka Flag was apparently first flown in November 1854. Various publications have referred to the Eureka flag being flown on Wednesday 29 November 1854 (HS:157; IM:195; LF:6; The Age, 24 February 1855, p. 5). However, the Ballarat Times of Friday 24 November 1854 (cited in The Age, 28 November 1854, p. 5) makes mention of the flag; so that we may therefore safely assume that the flag was being flown several days before the 29th of November.

2) It has been said that the Eureka Flag was sewn by three women on the goldfield: Anne Duke, Anastasia Withers, and Anastasia Hayes.(The Age, 24 November 1994, p. 3)

3) The sword that Peter Lalor used at the Eureka Stockade was later used by his grandson, Captain J.P. Lalor, at the Gallipoli landings during World War One. Unfortunately, Captain Lalor was killed and the sword was lost. (Australasian Post, 5 October 1991, p. 39)



White Australia and the Eureka movement


Some rabid multiculturalists have made much out of the fact that two of the thirteen men sent for trial over the Eureka Rebellion were Black: John Josephs (American Negro) and James Campbell (Jamaican). (JP:18)

However, it has been said that they were picked for trial so as to capitalise on the anti-coloured feelings of the general population, but in reality such a cheap ploy would be irrelevant since the upstanding men of the jury would not morally stand for convicting a man on the basis of his being Black, especially bearing in mind the vast sympathy held for the diggers.

At the trails, Andrew Peters (a trooper), swore that "There were some black men on the diggings" (i.e. "some", not "many"). Andrew Peters and Patrick O'Keefe (a private in the 40th Regiment) both swore that they had seen no Black men, other than Josephs, during the attack on the Stockade. Considering that there were only "some" Blacks on the entire diggings, it is highly unlikely that there would be even a handful of Blacks involved with the uprising. (The Age, 24 February 1855, p. 5)

It would also be pertinent to note here that the Eureka Stockade was actually constructed around an area of the diggings that encompassed existing mines, tents, and stores. Therefore, not everyone within the Eureka Stockade area was involved with the movement. (The Age, 24 February 1855, p. 5 and 26 February 1855, p. 5)

It is also interesting to note that, as historian Russel Ward has said, "The Chinese... were conspicuous by their absence at Eureka".(RW:73)

Considering that the Eureka movement consisted of thousands of men, the presence of a couple of Blacks is quite irrelevant. The point being made here is that one or two Blacks involved with a movement does not detract from the underlying basis of that movement as consisting of people committed to a basically White Australia. In this respect, while recognising that modern Australian nationalists do not fall into the category of "white supremacists", we could quote a relevant passage from Jean Raspail's The Camp of the Saints: "Every white supremacist cause - no matter where or when - has had blacks on its side"(JR:320). We could point to the involvement of Aborigines with the Australia First Movement in the 1940s, and the Australia First Party in the 1990s. As well as which we could mention the Aborigines who fought for Australia during World War Two (in effect, fighting for "White Australia"), some even being decorated for bravery.

C.N. Connelly, in the pro-multiculturalist book, Who Are Our Enemies?: Racism and the Working Class in Australia, makes the point that Maoris and Negroes were tolerated in White communities on the Australian goldfields because, unlike the Asians, they did not arrive in numbers that were perceived as likely to "swamp" Australian society: "While the Chinese remained almost as rare as Maoris and Negroes, they had little trouble. When they began to assemble in large groups... attitudes changed". (CNC:44)

When the Report of the Goldfields Commission was released, it made several major recommendations, one of which was to restrict Chinese immigration. John Humffray, the original Secretary of the Ballarat Reform League, wrote, regarding the Commission's report, that "The report is a most masterly and statesmanlike document, and if its wise suggestions are wisely and honestly carried out, that commission will have rendered a service to the colony... the wrongs and grievances of the digging community are clearly set forth in the Report, and practical schemes suggested for their removal". (The Age, 10 April 1855, p. 6; HA2:102-105)

Most diggers opposed mass Asian immigration. Indeed, in 1853 at Bendigo - not far from Ballarat - there was widespread agitation over the increasing numbers of Chinese on the diggings.

One Ballarat historian, Weston Bate, once wrote:
"Of all foreigners on the Victorian goldfields, none were as quaint, as numerous or as self-contained as the Chinese. And none posed as great a social problem... Of the fervour of Australian nationalism and the social aspirations which had brought Europeans in quest of gold they were ignorant... Because they came en masse as assisted migrants into an alien culture, the Chinese tended to live and work together and, mostly having been bonded in China to work in parties of ten or so for Chinese merchants, they lacked conspicuously the individualism of Westerners... They had crowded together at Ballarat by March 1854, over a year before official moves were made to segregated them... Few could speak English - and even fewer Englishmen understood Chinese... they were a threat to the independence of the diggers; they moved in swarms across old workings that Europeans reserved for bad times... They also offended by washing for gold at waterholes set aside by general agreement for domestic purposes. Their overwhelming numbers and the way they drew upon their national tradition as irrigators meant that they were anyway large users of water... Numbers alone made the Chinese a formidable economic and social threat."(WB:150)

Another Ballarat historian, William Withers, said:
"The Chinese were detested as an inferior race, as the harbingers of degrading pagan immorality, and as alien competitors for the bread which the miners required for themselves and families."(WW:214-215)



The fact is that the vast majority of Whites in Australia at the time of the Eureka Stockade would have been utterly opposed to the Asianisation of Australia.





References


(ADB3) The Australian Dictionary of Biography, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1969, Vol. 3: 1851-1890, A-C.

(ADB4) The Australian Dictionary of Biography, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1972, Vol. 4: 1851-1890, D-J.

(ADB5) The Australian Dictionary of Biography, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1974, Vol. 5: 1851-1890, K-Q.

(CC) C.H. Currey. The Irish at Eureka, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1954.

(CF) Charles D. Ferguson. The Experiences of a Forty-Niner in Australia and New Zealand, Gaston Renard, Melbourne, 1979.

(CNC) C.N. Connelly. "Miners' Rights", Who Are Our Enemies?: Racism and the Working Class in Australia, Hale and Iremonger, Neutral Bay, NSW, 1978, pp. 35-47.

(CSR) C. Stuart Ross. "Two American Types that left their Stamp on Victorian History", The Victorian Historical Magazine, July 1919, pp. 126-134.

(CT1) Clive Turnbull. Australian Lives, F.W. Cheshire, Melbourne, 1965.

(CT2) Clive Turnbull. "Eureka - Seal of Mateship", The Australian (edited by Bill Wannan), Australasian Book Society, Melbourne, 1958, pp. 23-26.

(DO) Desmond O'Grady. Raffaello! Raffaello!: A Biography of Raffaello Carboni, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1985.

(EDP1) E. Daniel Potts and Annette Potts, "American Republicanism and the Disturbances on the Victorian Goldfields", Historical Studies, April 1968.

(EDP2) E. Daniel Potts and Annette Potts, Young America and Australian Gold, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, Qld., 1974.

(EDP3) E. Daniel Potts and Annette Potts. A Yankee Merchant in Goldrush Australia: The Letters of George Francis Train 1853-55, William Heinemann, Melbourne, 1970.

(FV) Frederick Vern. "Col. Vern's Narrative of the Ballarat Insurrection. Part I", Melbourne Monthly Magazine, November 1855, pp. 5-14. (Note: There does not appear to have been a Part II published).

(GT) George Francis Train. My Life in Many States and in Foreign Lands, William Heinemann, London, 1902.

(HA1) Hugh Anderson (ed.) Eureka: Victorian Parliamentary Papers, Votes and Proceedings 1854-1867, Hill of Content, Melbourne, 1969.

(HA2) Hugh Anderson (ed.) Report from the Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Condition of the Goldfields, Red Rooster Press, Melbourne, 1978.

(HRN) H.R. Nicholls. "Reminiscences of the Eureka Stockade", The Centennial Magazine: An Australian Monthly, (May 1890) (available in an annual compilation; Vol. II: August, 1889 to July, 1890), pp. 746-750.

(HS) Historical Studies: Eureka Supplement, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1965.

(IM) Ian MacFarlane. Eureka: From the Official Records, Public Record Office of Victoria, Melbourne, 1995.

(JP) Jebbie and Dennis Phillips. "Her Majesty the Queen V. John Joseph: A Black American at the Eureka Stockade", Bowyang, March 1982 (no. 7), pp. 17-22, 47. (Note: This Black American has been named variously as John Joseph and John Josephs)

(JR) Jean Raspail. The Camp of the Saints, Sphere Books, London, 1977.

(LB) Les Blake. Peter Lalor: The Man From Eureka, Neptune Press, Belmont, Vic., 1979.

(LF) Len Fox. Eureka and its Flag, Mullaya Publications, Canterbury, Vic., 1973.

(MC) M. Clark. Sources of Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1966.

(RC) Raffaello Carboni. The Eureka Stockade, Currey O'Neil, Blackburn, Vic., 1980.

(RG) Robin Gollan. Radical and Working Class Politics: A Study of Eastern Australia 1850 - 1910, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 1967.

(RW) Russel Ward. Australia, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1969.

(TD) Three Despatches From Sir Charles Hotham, Public Record Office, Melbourne, (1981?).

(WB) Weston Bate. Lucky City: The First Generation at Ballarat 1851-1901, Melbourne University Press, Carlton., Vic., 1978.

(WW) William Bramwell Withers. The History of Ballarat, From the First Pastoral Settlement to the Present Time, (facsimile of the second edition of 1887), Queensberry Hill Press, Carlton, Vic., 1980. Note: Withers recorded many first-hand accounts of the Eureka rebellion, albeit many years afterwards (EDP1:158)



The National Heroes of Australia

Australian Nationalism Information Database - www.ausnatinfo.angelfire.com