Republicanism and the Eureka Rebellion

Upon the Ballarat Reform League charter becoming the first item added to the Victorian Heritage Register, Premier Steve Bracks claimed the document was a landmark in the history of Australia, making the comparison: "It is our Declaration of Independence. Our Magna Carta."[7] The editor of the Ballarat Times, Henry Seekamp, writing in 1854, would greet the formation of the League with the bold assertion:

"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."[8]

However, during the Eureka trials, it was put to Seekamp that he was a "radical" who was "rousing up the people," and he may have been prone to radical nationalist hyperbole. Raffaello Carboni would later say, "Indeed, it would ill become the Times to mince in a matter of such weighty importance. This League is not more or less than the germ of Australian independence."[9]

H. R. Nicholls stated, "some of the Irish took to rebellion as ducks to water, as did sundry foreigners who were fresh from European revolutions [of 1848]."[10]

The reform league charter contains a hint that the movement contained those who favoured independence, stating that:

"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 the 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."[11]

Although the charter was framed in these terms, no discoveries have been made, nor is there any clear and convincing evidence as to the existence of such a formal declaration of independence made at a later stage of the Eureka Rebellion.

Nicholls claimed, at the time of the death of Peter Lalor in 1890, that the already long deceased Alfred Black drew up a "long, very long, very flowery and decidedly verbose...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."[12]

William Bramwell Withers says such a declaration was made at the premises of shopkeeper Teddy Shannahan and in the presence of Black, Vern, McGill, Raffaello, Curtin, Lessman, Kenworthy, and others.[13] Throughout his 1855 novel, Carboni is concerned with correcting the historical record. He states that McGill described claims of such a declaration on the model of the American one being made as "a gratuitous falsehood," issuing an invitation to 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."[14] Nicholls had probably made pre-existing claims about a declaration of independence and was possibly the unnamed source in Wither's account, with Carboni saying: "I express the hope that H.R. Nicholls...will take notice of the above."[14]

There may have been a declaration of independence drawn up by someone associated with the Eureka movement but without official sanction and known only to a few people in one of the factions, which had been known to act of their own initiative without any other or even the central committee, being aware. However, the only other corroboration is also of questionable probative value. George Train, an American merchant, recalls in 1901 that McGill came to him seeking supplies of Colt revolvers, saying: "We have elected you President of our Republic." Train says he declined the opportunity to become involved but that he did help the fugitive McGill make his escape from Victoria. [15] It was said that starting in about 1873, Train became noted for his eccentricities, becoming known as the "champion crank of America."[16] Whilst Train may have assisted McGill to escape, claims that McGill approached him for weapons and offered him the "presidency" of the "Five-Star Republic" are to be treated with suspicion.[17] L.G. Churchward has judged that Train's story "is most improbable" and that:

"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 the battle is that he was sheltered by Train, and that Train and others of the merchant community interceded for him."[18]

Clive Turnbull concludes that Train's version of events "is probable enough." However, Turnbull then mentions Train's "strange statement that 'the miners about Maryborough' elected him as their representative in the colonial legislature."[19] Other historians have dismissed both Train's "presidency" and "colonial legislature" claims as "unsubstantiated."[20]

When asked what he stood for, Nicholls recalls Lalor would say,"'Independence!' Plump and plain."[21] However, according to an analysis of Lalor's record, "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."[22] Daniel and Annette Potts state that: "Lalor consistently denied that he had meant independence outside the framework of the existing government."[23] Nicholls reiterates by saying, "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."[24]

Peter Lalor's father, Patrick, who once represented Queen's County in the British parliament, supported Irish home rule. Older brother James Fintian considered Queen Victoria to be a "foreign tyrant" and was an influential leader in the Young Ireland Movement, which advocated a holistic approach to national revival, with certain other members making headlines after being involved in a car chase and shootout with the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1848.[25]

According to William Craig, the future Eureka man was already well-versed in politics at the time of his arrival in the colony. Lalor took a hard line on the Irish question, believing the people of his homeland were being denied nationhood and supporting their right to continue the armed struggle against British colonial rule.[26] Charles Currey's assessment of Lalor is that he generally "preferred to take the world as he found it, content if he was given a fair deal and not provoked by tyranny."[25]

The Australian Flag Society has advanced the theory that the Union Jack mentioned as flying over the Eureka Stockade during the battle by the first newspaper reports was the product of divided loyalties among the rebel garrison.[27][28]