Eureka—Moving Force Of Tradition

 By Vance Palmer.

THE story of Eureka is well known. It is one of the few episodes of our past that have had the spotlight thrown on them, one of the few incidents of our history that have aroused our interest and curiosity.
In general we know less of our past than any people in the world. Perhaps it is the dulness of the way it has been presented to us; perhaps our usual national habit of looking everywhere for mental stimulus except to the particular world around us. At anyrate we are more familiar with other periods and other countries than with the special historical background out of which we have come.
But the story of Eureka has left a mark on our minds. It has obvious drama in it, even a touch of Hollywood. Redcoats, desperate men fighting behind a stockade, a rebel leader with a price upon his head. And to supply the proper school-book moral, the rebel leader being ultimately pardoned, raised to a high position in the State, presiding in bewigged splendor over parliament, and dying in the odor of sanctity.
What better example of liberal institutions and the way they work—Lalor as Speaker of the Victorian Parliament, Jan Smuts, the Boer guerilla chief, as a leader of the Empire!

•

UNFORTUNATELY the significance of Eureka has been largely lost in the personal story of Lalor, and the general air of romanticism that has come to surround it. Academic historians have been quick to seize on its picturesque points and to minimise its real importance.
To Professor Scott it was chiefly a rebellion of foreigners (a word that inferentially includes the Irish) and had no great effect on our social development. Even the self-government that was secured a few years afterwards had nothing to do with it. That was a generous gift from Downing Street!
It is a fad of academic historians to assume that popular movements have no influence on the course of history, which is, of course, shaped by wise and benevolent statesmen, sitting in council and making laws according to their inner light.
And so Eureka has become just a romantic incident to color the drab school books. But what meaning did it really have in our history? What was its cause? What was its general effect?

•

THE question won't be entirely answered by any statements of the men who gathered on that little hill at the base of the Melbourne road, 83 years ago, and fortified their camp with a rough stockade. They had certain definite things to fight for; but it is certain that the impulses that moved them were deeper than their demands.
In the nature of things they were mixed lot.
Apart from Lalor, there was certainly a strong foreign element in their leadership. Vera and Thonen were Germans; Ross, a Canadian-American; Raffaelo Carboni (who has left a brilliant and lively account of the episode) an Italian. And there was probably a fair sprinkling of French and Scandinavians.
These men were more familiar with the idea of armed rebellion than the others, for they had come from a Europe torn with revolution and counter-revolution. But it would be a mistake to assume that the English, Scotch and Irish were merely led into action by a lot of foreign hotheads. They had, after all, come from countries that had known the ferment of Chartism and the privations of famine. And the Victoria they found when they arrived here conflicted badly with the visions of a new Utopia they brought with them.

•

THE particular grievances the miners complained of were only part of a general oppression in the air.
It was bad enough for men to have to pay a heavy licence-fee for digging gold when the gold was nearly exhausted; it was rubbing salt into the sore place when officious "joeys" hunted them down and chained them to logs if they had not renewed their licences at the proper time.
Government on the goldfields was a form of martial law. The police took their cues from those in authority; and authority had never accepted the idea of Australia being a free community, with the equal rights for all men. Far from it; the traditions of the penal settlement were strong.
All over the country, stations were being run by pastoralists in a feudal way, with ticket-of-leave men and convicts as their chief supplies of labor. The general conception of Australia's future (on the part of those who had money and power) was that it should be governed by a rich landowning and official class with plenty of troops and police to keep the servile mass in order.

•

AND this image of a class-state had been thoroughly stamped on the country by a couple of generations of convictism. The pastoralist was supreme in his dominion. He exercised an arbitrary power in his own territory; he expected the officials and the police to play a similar role in the towns and on the goldfields.
All the records of the time show that the squatters were definitely distrustful of the crowds of free immigrants that were being attracted by the goldfields; they would have preferred their future labor supplies to continue coming to the country in chains.
The insolent troopers who hunted the miners like dingoes through the gullies of Ballarat would not have been so ruthless without the consciousness of a strong supporting power behind them.
It was this power that the rising at Eureka broke. I think it is no exaggeration to say that it liberated men's minds all over the country, creating a new spirit of independence, clearing the air of feudal tyrannies.
The masses in the towns were quick in their response. One of the rebels has said:—
"I could walk down Bourke Street with a price on my head, and no one would give me away."
And the "Not Guilty" verdict of the jury on the men charged with sedition was directed less by considerations of law than of justice and awakened sympathy.
This verdict, and the feeling aroused all over the country, is evidence that Eureka ended not in defeat for the men, but in victory. Something had been established when they took up their stand on Bakery Hill; it was not destroyed when they were overwhelmed in their stockade.
If it had not been for that assertion of will among the miners. Australia might have developed in the way the landowners desired, remaining for many years, like Mexico, under the cloud of a crude feudalism, with labor conditions not very far removed from the peonage.

•

EUREKA was a signal that the new masses who were populating the country meant to say goodbye to all that. It created a tradition that was to prove powerful later on.
A generation ago you could find all over the country—in shearing sheds, mining camps, political meetings—lively old men who claimed to have fought at Eureka. Probably there were a good many more of them than had taken the oath on Bakery Hill or gathered with their pikes behind the stockade. But their very romancings had an effect, carrying on the spirit of struggle and achievement. There is a moving force in tradition—even in myth.



Workers' Weekly (Sydney, NSW : 1923 - 1939), Tuesday 16 November 1937, page 2

A NEW THEORY OF SOCIAL EQUALITY. *

A work which professes to treat political questions in a scientific spirit is always welcome, and should receive the attention of all classes of the thinking public, no matter to what party they may belong. The author of this treatise is plainly a Conservative, but he takes his party to book for relying upon denunciations of democratic and radical schemes of reform for no other reason than that they upset cherished convictions and traditional principles. When the Conservatives criticise, for instance, any proposition that seems to tamper with property, they have practically but one way of denouncing it ; they call it a scheme of theft, and when they do so they seem to think that the last word has been said. The democrats do not care to deny that social progress requires some violation of rights that have hitherto been held sacred, and some of them even maintain that property itself is robbery, so that the bandying about of the word "theft" does no good, and makes no impression. There is a begging of the question on both sides. The Conservatives should, the author maintains, prove that property is a thing which should be respected before they can hope to secure a verdict against those who do not respect it. They must leave off appealing to old traditions that were once thought sacred, to moral principles that were once thought absolute. Instead of appealing to them they must defend them, or rather see how far they are defensible. He holds that it would be idle to show, in regard to any scheme of what they deem to be confiscation, how unjustly the few would suffer. The only reply would be "So much the worse for the few." If their position is to be defended at all, it must be defended on wider grounds, and in a very much deeper way. It must be shown that the attack would not injure the few only, but that it would equally bring ruin on the many ; and this can be done only by an accurate and scientific demonstration of the principles for which they contend. The inquiry which he recommends has, he asserts, never been attempted. The world is dividing itself into two hostile parties, the one denying and the other asserting certain social propositions. The propositions are distinct ; the assertions and the denials are vehement ; but if their scientific basis be asked for, both sides are equally unable to give an answer. He admits that there may be scattered arguments, each possessing separately a true scientific character, but that no writer as yet has ever dealt with them in a systematic manner. Though opinions on the subject are growing daily more marked and positive, they are opinions only — not scientific knowledge ; nor can one set of them definitely dispel the other. Each may satisfy the man who is not disposed to doubt it, but it cannot compel the reluctant consent of any one to whose passions or interest it would be likely to prove hostile. The science according to which social problems can be placed in a clear light is, he contends, a missing science, and it is his task to create or restore it. The allegation is a startling one, and his claim to be regarded as the first to under take the task is self-assertive to a degree which is not allowable. There is nothing objection able about his earnestness, however, and a little exaggeration may be pardoned.
His arguments are mostly directed against those extreme radicals and democrats who demand a re-distribution of property, and whose aim is to bring about a state of absolute equality, so that they do not touch the moderate class of reforming Liberals, who merely wage war against those abuses which tend to bring about a state of non-natural inequality. He does not attempt to illustrate his argument by reference to any of the burning questions of the day, although he, no doubt, has them in his own mind's eye. He deals with generalities, and many of his propositions may find general acceptance even among those who would differ altogether with him in regard to their application.
In discussing the principles of modern democracy, he takes as his text the memorable address of Mr. John Bright to an audience of working men, from which he selects the kernel :— " Just now, as I was on my way to this place to speak to you, I watched in the street a magnificent carriage pass me, and in that carriage were two splendidly dressed ladies. Who made that carriage? You did, Who made those splendid dresses? You did. Have your wives any such carriages to drive in? Do your wives ever wear clothes of that kind? I watched that carriage further, and saw where it stopped. It stopped before a stately house, with an imposing portico. Who built that house? You did Do you and your wives live in such houses as that?" It must be confessed that in this speech there is something that reminds one of Jack Cade, but our author does not say anything so harsh as that. He assumes that the meaning of it is that we re-distribute the existing wealth of the world, and yet not diminish the amount of it ;or, in plainer language, that if we can take from the wealthy the excessive wealth which they now consume annually, and divide it amongst the poor, there will still annually be the same wealth produced. He denies the truth of the proposition. He, moreover, boldly denies that labor is the ultimate cause of wealth, and maintains that apart from other causes it would be utterly powerless to produce it, consequently that that distribution of wealth is a scientific impossibility, and that no laws could accomplish it; that the structure of society does not depend on its institutions, but that, on the other hand, the institutions depend on the structure ; and that if material equality is ever to be secured at all, it will be secured only by the destruction of civilisation, not by any distribution of the finer existing fruits of it. In pursuance of his proposition, that labor is not the sole wealth-producer, he endeavors to point out that under conditions of equality labor would only be brought into play to secure the barest necessaries of life, and that no man would exert himself to create wealth of which he could only secure a unit. Mr. Bright did not mean that every man should have a carriage, dress sumptuously, and life in a palace; but he failed to see the opposite alternative, (supposing him to be an advocate for equality), that a distribution of existing wealth would prevent the creation of wealth hereafter. The house with the portico could not have been built without the aid of the architect. The essential characteristics of the wealth to which Mr, Bright referred could not have been given it by manual labor, and even as a factor in the creation of such wealth, the labor would never have been expended upon it. Mr. Mallock's contention is that the only incentive to labor in the production of wealth is the desire for inequality. Every man concerned in such production desires to better his condition, and that is only another term for the desire of inequality. Withdraw that incentive, and no wealth would be produced. This, we think, is a fair statement in brief of the author's views on this point. We are merely setting forth his theory, not discussing it. Labor in his eyes is merely a means in the production of wealth, the motive— the desire for inequality — being the chief factor. Labor is no more the cause of wealth than Shakspeare's pen was the cause of his writing Hamlet. Motive itself is the resultant of two things — a man's internal character, and his external circumstances — and the cause of wealth is to be sought for in these. The condition of its production can never be understood until in some way or other it is systematically connected with both of them. The case of Columbus and his discovery of the new world is referred to as an illustration of the desire of inequality acting as a powerful motive. Columbus stipulated for extravagant rewards as the price of his enterprise, and included hereditary rank in his own family, with a perpetual royalty on the trade he opened up. It was neither a love of enterprise nor of philanthropy that led him on."
 Our author admits the existence of these motives, but denies that they are ever indulged in for the purpose of creating wealth for others. Philanthropy, for instance, never rises above the alleviation of suffering. The theory is somewhat sordid, but the question is —Is it true ? We content ourselves with stating it, and refrain from further criticism. Our author, moreover, contends for the creation of a science of human character. Buckle sought to establish a science of history, and Herbert Spencer a science of sociology. Both these sciences point to a science of character, but do not include it. They say that Julius Caesar was the creation of the times in which he lived, but ignore the force of his individuality. On this point Mr. Spencer and Mr. Mallock are at direct issue. The former derides the "great man theory," while the latter maintains it. Mr. Spencer says that the great man merely does what society would, by other means, do for itself. Mr. Mallock, on the other hand, maintains that if Columbus had not discovered America society would have been powerless to supply the deficiency. No doubt much may be said on both sides, but a science of human character is nevertheless desirable. Mr. Spencer admits that the desire to rise into a higher rank of life has an average effect on the average man. Of course the science is not a new one, its materials having been the stock-in-trade of all the poets, novelists and historians that ever lived ; but its claims to the rank of a science have not been set forth or insisted upon. The same may be said of the sciences of history, and sociology before they were formulated by Buckle and Spencer. What Mr. Mallock aims at is to show that a study of the science of human character will demonstrate the absurdity of attempting to establish equality.
Having thus briefly, and necessarily inadequately; set forth the new theory, we would draw attention to the fact that it does not in the slightest degree affect the positions of the Conservative and the moderate Liberal. Each may pursue his way entirely unaffected by our author's views. To descend from the abstract to the concrete, we may ask what bearing they have on the question of the law of primogeniture. This law is unquestionably a stumbling block in the development of human character. It establishes an artificial inequality in favor of a few, and restricts the operation of the motive for exertion in the many. If the desire for inequality be the great stimulus to the production of wealth, here is a law which restrains and renders prohibitory the operation of a powerful motive by rendering the end unattainable. According to his own showing Mr, Mallock should be a strenuous advocate for the abrogation of that law. There is nothing in his book to indicate his opinion on this point ; but as this is one of the did traditions of Conservatism, which he implores the party to place on a scientific basis, we cannot help wondering how he would go to work to prop it up. There are many other questions of the day respecting which the Liberals might draw upon Mr. Mallock's book for arguments antagonistic to the position of the Conservatives. It is a question whether it will not prove an arsenal of weapons more valuable to the Liberals than to the Conservatives ; but whatever may be the result in that way, we have no hesitation in recommending its perusal to all politicians, whatever their convictions may be.

 *Social Equality: A Short Study in a Missing Science. By W. H. Mallock,   Living, London ; Richard Bently.

Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), Monday 27 November 1882, page 7