Bentleys hotel destroyed1854 land stolen by the victorian government

Skip Nav
Bentley. Robert. Mithdat. Robert. Eugeine. webmasterhp. secretary. Editor. ByronB. admin.
scienceeditor. bud. Lannigan. Hanrahan. Anderson. Mary. public. History. familynews.
James. Fran. Maurice. Frederick. Reporter. newsreport.
Some cascading stylesheet layout features on this page requires a browser that supports
JavaScript™. Your browser either does not support JavaScript, or your browser preferences
are set to disable JavaScript™. To use the JavaScript™ features of this page, enable
JavaScript™ support in your browser's preferences or upgrade your browser to the most
recent version of Firefox, Mozilla or Netscape.
About : Access : Copyright : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7: Editorial : History : Home :
Legal : Links : Movies : Novels : Phone : Pictures : Psychology : Publishing :
Religion : Science : Search : Services : SiteMap :

Eureka Stockade Incident Saga 1854-2008

Contact Andrew O'Crowley. Andrew's Myspace profile. The author. Created 2nd July 2006.
Updated 17th June 2008. Printing Style.

O'Crowley Coat of Arms

The seizure wanton destruction and illegal sale of Bentley's Hotel
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●

Bentley's Hotel burnt to the ground at Eureka
Caveat Ballarat Real Estate Main Road Bentley Hotel site
Seizure Police seizure of the Eureka Hotel
James Bentley Declared Insane after the Eureka Hotel was destroyed
Financial Compensation except for Catherine Bentley
Ballarat Real Estate Property sold without a valid legal title
Manslaughter not an Escheatable offence
Escheatment not applicable to remove Bentley's title
Indolent Military allowed the Hotel to burn
James Francis Bentley 1818 - 1873
Victoria a Third World State No respect for law in Victoria
British land titles Pre-emptive real estate titles not recognised
Catherine Bentley's Petition to EPS Sturt for Compensation.
Notification. Ballarat Council and Victorian Parliament
Human Rights Appeals Property law case precedents. The Pretzil case.
The legal Claims for Compensation.

Injustices wrought on James Bentley
●
●

Motive Sunday trading motivation to harm the Bentleys
The conspiracy against Bentley

●
●
●
●
●

James Scobie How could it be Scobie who was killed?
The Eureka Stockade Battle The charge by soldiers at the miners
The Eureka Trials Trial for murder but a manslaughter conviction
The Petition for James Bentley to be released
The Question Who was killed?

Eureka Stockade Resources and Student questions
●
●
●
●

Student History Questions
Heretic Eureka Pages Other Heretic Press Eureka Pages
Eureka Stockade webpages
Hardcopy References books
Australian became a country separate from Britain in 1901 by an Enabling Act of the
British Parliament. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). The Bentley
Sarga predates the formation of Australia as a country, when Victoria was another British
colony. All images below are scans of original crown documents or letters regarding this
case which pre-dates the formation of Australia. Images are have not been altered with or
tampered with in any way, though some have been enhanced in Photoshop™ with unsharp
mask and despeckle filters to improve legibility. All pictures and images are © Andrew
O'Crowley and Heretic Press 2008.
The Victorian government has not honoured their contractual, moral, ethical or civil duty of
care to compensate victims of negligent, reckless or other much worse crown "errors" by
Police and Victorian MPs) which ultimately drove an industrious English man, James Bentley
to the point of suicide on the steps of the Victorian parliament. The Victorian government
has not compensated his wife Catherine Bentley for the illegal acquisition of her land and
the destruction of her profitable business, the most substantial building in Ballarat in 1854,
the Eureka Hotel.
If you were going to pick a scapegoat in early Australian colonial times, under the
political circumstances of Irish complaints about English rules and disagreements
among the miners themselves, an Englishman would be ideal. The Bentley family
property and Real Estate was illegally seized in 1854.

Ballarat in 1854 was a tent city

A town map of Ballarat in 1854 © Andrew O'Crowley and Heretic Press 2008.
By April 1854 some miners were building log huts to survive the Ballarat winters. In May
1854 Catherine and James Bentley started building an "imposing" Hotel, a grand
building covering half-an-acre in a city mainly then composed of tents. It could
sleep about 80 people, had a bowling alley, three bars, a billiards room and a Bagatelle
room with two large Waterford crystal chandeliers.
Catherine Bentley was never compensated for the taking of her Real Estate by Victoria
Police.
Image and authoring Credits: Andrew's painting shows the Eureka Hotel (Known as
Bentley's Hotel) on Eureka Street. Bendigo Street is on the left. To the right of the Hotel is
the Bowling Alley, Linquist's Livery Stables, the Bowling Salon, the tents on the Eureka Lead
Camp and Mt. Warrenheip is in the right background. All rights reserved and © Copyright

A.L. O'Crowley 2006. Andrew's painting is faithful to The Bentley's ground floor plan
immediate below of 1854 below which shows the three upstairs windows. The Sovereign Hill
re-creation of the Eureka Hotel was made from an inaccurate and unauthorized copying of
the floor plans without consulting the Bentley family descendants. It has one too many first
floor windows in the fire scene shown below. The Doubiet painting of the Eureka Hotel in
flames more accurately depicts the three upper story bay windows. The Sovereign Hill photo
is courtesy of and © Andrew O'Crowley and Heretic Press 2008.
The ground plans were drawn up by James Bentley for Catherine Bentley his wife in 1854 in
early July prior to obtaining the pre emptive leasehold from the Crown. They accompanied
Catherine Bentley's application to Crown lands and survey at Geelong and were then sent
on to Melbourne treasury and lands office with the fees charged at the time with the preemptive title as signed sealed and delivered to the Crown who returned a copy to Catherine.
When James was re-arrested after his first acquittal, Catherine wrote this on the back of the
Eureka Hotel floor plans. "James was honorably acquitted when tried at Ballarat. He
was rearrested and tried in Melbourne and got three years. That was illegal to be
tried twice for the same offence."
Those plans were also used later in 1854 in the application lodgement for compensation
in the EPS Sturt sittings at Ballarat as lodged by her solicitors Curwin Walkers and Co of
Ballarat central who sent them to the Crown to request repayment for her and her young
families losses referring to her young male heir son Thomas Bentley. The young boy was
the first born male and as such she Catherine could as his carer retain all assets owned by
him until he turned the age of 21 years in law. The child Thomas was in legal fact "the real
owner heir and fully entitled claimant by law" to all and any compensation due. And
then the mother was entitled to 25 percentum until he turned legal age as an adult.
Sturt had said in his findings that the Crown whom he acted for would not pay any claims
of Bentley referring to James Bentley. He did not know that Thomas their son was in fact
legally entitled to have been fully paid in accordance to the rule of the Canadian Rebellion
Losses Bill of 1838 as used as first precedence in the payment to all certain sufferers
who lost their properties in the Bentley's Hotel riots that day as caused by the police and
the military as it was admitted by Sturt in those findings to which he sent to Sir Charles
Hotham. However those findings were in error by omission of the son Thomas Bentley's
rights in that he too was a legally entitled claimant at the age of one year!
Evelyn Sturt in november 15 at Ballarat sittings of compensation deliberations for
reparations had in-fact ruled out nay consideration of James Bentley's claim for
compensation, not the claims of his son Thomas. Sturt erred in law to refer to James
Bentley as "the convict" on that date of the 15th well prior to his conviction and sentencing
in melbourne on the 18th for manslaughter. E.P.S.Sturt therefore had prejudged James (
and Catherine Bentley ) in a legal decision before the trial. Sturt erred on the 18th by the
wrongful presumption of guilt of the Bentley's in the matter of the death of the alleged
James Scobie in October of that year!
The Melbourne trials were tainted before they started because of Sturt's findings and prejudgments in that case in attaching blame to the Bentley's as the cause of the death of
Scobie. Therefore those compensation decisions are legality wrong to make an "estoppel"
over the Bentley's claims. It was illegal of Sturt, the Crown and State and it's Parliament
even today to deny the son Thomas Bentley those compensations and accrued funds due
and owing by the Crown since 1854.
Sturt's pre-judgements of the Bentley's breach the 1688 King William of Orange
Constitution Item 10. It is illegal for the Crown or it's courts and Parliament to prejudge
and jail a person prior to conviction. Sturt's references to James ("as the convict") and
Catherine at the sittings of inquiry at Ballarat on the 15th November makes the Crown

legally liable for compensation to Bentley's son Thomas automatic under the Canadian
Rebellion Losses Bill 1838/54. His claim rights stands, even to Andrew O'Crowley today to
recover all that is owing as a debt on discovery 2004/7!
That the legal precedent on this goes back to the Bristol riots in 1654 where a Hotel and inn
was attacked and burnt due to public indignations of Parliamentary and government Crown
policies because of oppressive laws in taxation across England. And The Bristol riots were
the parent laws of the Canadian Rebellion Losses Bill of 1838/54 inc. here under E.P.S.Sturt
as the citation precedent and payment mechanism of those certain sufferers who qualified
like young Thomas Bentley did in 1854.
The entitlement to Thomas should have been paid by the Crown, and are therefore accruing
to his deceased estate which must be paid by the Victorian government. Because that
small boy only died as late as 1915 within the Victorian Statehood era, the Premiers Steven
Bracks and now John Brumby and the Parliament are presently in debt to Andrew O'Crowley
to the tune of $19 million dollars. The Crown over looked the fact that a male heir child was
the rightful owner and claimant in 1854. James Bentley was not the owner of the hotel or
properties. nor was his mother but that innocent little boy was in British law!
Catherine was the care giver and legal care taker for the child's estate so Premier Brumby
and the Victorian Parliament now owe Andrew O'Crowley his heir and descendant $19
million dollars as a legal current debt to the heirs of the late Thomas Bentley who died in
1915.
Return to top of page

Caveat on Bentley Hotel site land
Weston Bate in Lucky City at page 138 wrote of JB Humffray who conducted the 1859 land
sales that due to financial pressure from relatives he "turned to sly-dealing in forfeited
crown land". Catherine Bentley's land was illegally disposed in these 1958 sales by
Humffray, but her lands were not forfeited crown land, nor were they legally escheated
crown lands.
The original newspaper reports of these illegal sales are contained in; The Age Newspaper
1862 (31st January 19th, 28th March and 22nd and 24th September 1862), The Victorian
Government Gazette 1861 Vol 2. page 2352 and The Ballarat Star newspaper, 3rd Aug 1867
page 3 and 13th May 1871 at page 9.
This first scan on the left is of the original title document signed by Catherine Bentley. The
second scan on the right is the Ballarat Crown Land survey of 1854 which provides further
evidence of the Eureka Hotel site land title.
Though Catherine is long ago deceased, she conferred property and real estate rights on
her one year old son and heirs, the right of Catherine Bentley's heirs and descendants to
redeem their lease has not been expunged by illegal sales, occupations and possessions
since 1854.
The Crown or State of Victoria should compensate these occupiers on Bentley's lands
today, as these lands were not Crown escheated taken away from her (or her son Thomas)
in the early stages during their Supreme Court trials held in Melbourne back in 1854.
The day of the riot on the 17th of October all of their private real estate, property and
buildings and chattels on the surface of that land was illegally seized by the Police
for the Government. In fact Catherine was still the pre-emptive owner until she died in 1906
through her son when he had turned 21 in 1874. Their ownership was illegally divested by
Humffray and Smith in 1859 at that illegal auction. The current occupiers in 2008 ignored all
the well known local history of the site in acquiring the Eureka Hotel land.

Those auctions were illegal, they hold no validity legally what-so-ever even to the current
occupiers residing there. The Crown legally speaking in 1854 did not ever seize those lands
from Catherine Bentley only those structures and dwellings and their contents on those
lands. JB Humffray in 1858/9 only thought that Crown had confiscated those lands from the
Bentley's in 1854, and that he and Smith thought they would financially clean up on them
to sell them that day at auction that's where this illegality lay. Smith purchased Catherine's
butcher's shop. These properties are Andrew O'Crowley's lands as inherited in unbroken
chain. The occupiers, the Ballarat Council and the state of Victoria hold no say over these
lands today, these illegal occupiers best find another place to live.
Nemo dat quod non habet. The precedent case law rule regarding property and Real
Estate rights is encapsulated in this latin legal maxim. It means that the purchase of a
possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any
ownership title. The Ballarat City Council is aware of this Caveat at least from 2005 and
also evidenced by server logs of them accessing the Caveat warning in this webpage on
4th, 11th, and 18th of July 2008. Many more visits on 7th August, but not once have they
accessed the Copyright and Access Conditions. The crown did not have a legal title to give
any purchaser a valid title. All subsequent sales of Catherine's land are null and void.

Caveat On Buying Land in Central Ballarat

Beware. Buyers of land in the central Ballarat area know as Bentley's Eureka Hotel Main
Road, (Eureka Street) are hereby notified there is a prior claim in law dating to that land
evidenced by the title of Catherine Bentley and on behalf of her heirs and descendants on
the 24th of July 1854. In 1854 Eureka Street was known as Eureka main Road, when it
was paved it became known as Eureka street.
The site known as Bentley's Eureka Hotel Main Road (Eureka Street) is one Real Estate
property of preemption in the 1854 land title and not 9 separate lands titles as shown
in latter null and void transactions.
There is no guarantee that current occupiers would be compensated by the government
when the land is returned to the Bentley family as any occupier would have been able to
discover the history of the land, Caveat emptor.
It is Andrew O'Crowley's land and he will not rest until it has been returned to him.
Inspirationally for the longivity and endurance of this quest for justice already involving 25
years of research, Andrew is related to Les Darcy the famous Australian boxer, who won 46
of his 50 professional bouts. Darcy was denied permission by his mother which he needed
to go to WWI war when he was only 17. 18 was the enlistment age. Darcy was already a
champion at 17, but he died tragically of a tooth problem which infected his entire system in
an era long before anti-biotics were invented.
Andrew inherited ownership of the Eureka Hotel lands going back to 1954 from Catherine
Bentley's nephew heir at law who inherited it in an "unbroken chain" from his uncle,
Catherine Bentley's son, Thomas Bentley who died in 1915 under the probate law of 1890.
The people who purchased it all knew that it was Bentley lands because it was well signed
as such by the Ballarat council going back to 1922.
They purchased it in "full knowledge of that history" and it was up to them to have
investigated title documents going back to 1854 and the "forced flight" of the Bentleys
from their Lands on the day on those riots to escape the lynch mob. This is public
knowledge which should have set alarm bells ringing to the current occupiers not to attempt
a purchase. The Bracks/Brumby government here wouldn't repay them on that basis in law.
They had full notice, but disregarded the real title holder.
The supreme court of Victoria since 2003 has acknowledged the fact that Andrew O'Crowley
is the heir at law of these deceased estates and all that goes with it in law in Victorian

probates administration and inheritances vested in him including his rights to these lands
from the date inherited under the 1890 to 1954 probates and wills Acts on Land as "real
estate" from the deceased relative.
He holds the legal rights to this land and to execute over them notices of eviction which in
legal terms he has already done so publically in 2005.
That these persons as illegal occupiers who have now over stayed their welcome and have
refused Andrew's offers to them to rent these dwellings because they have a false belief
as caused by Dianne Haddon and the Registrar of the titles office Barabara Fleet who sent
out to these occupiers a misleading letter that their titles back to 1859 under the Torrens
system were safe. Torrens title laws, especially regarding the validity of titles only applies
when the said auctions of any lands were lawful Auctions of Crown in 1859.
In legal facts Caveat emptor is in force here due to the illegal seizure and illegal land
auctions as said and proven did occur in these matters now at hand.
Of course Andrew is reluctant to have them put onto the street, he is concerned for these
people that they have obtained finance as home loans contracts with lending companies.
These mortgages contracts are not valid, the real estate agents who sold them Andrew's
land should have also checked the public history back to 1854 as well prior to advancing
loans or mortgages which has occurred to date.
It was misleading for Dianne Haddon and the Titles office to raise the hopes of these
occupiers that they have a valid legal title.
The Bracks/Brumby Government have ignored calls by these occupiers to the Attorney
General Mr Rob Hulls to answer their plight with a legal letter of proof from the state
government that those 1859 Humffray Lands auctions at Ballarat East were Legal ones.
The Ballarat Courier in 2005 covered this event and the Attorney General Hulls refused to
endorse these occupiers much less talk to them on the subject when asked by them and
in particular an occupier in George street if his ownership was safe. He made requests by
letter, fax and in person but his local standing Labor MP refused to even talk to him when
called upon to do so.
That local Labor MP asserted in the Ballarat Courier newspaper in 2005 "That he had spoken
with the Premier's office at Melbourne about the lands issue and was told that the Justice
Department had repeatedly told Andrew that he is not the rightful owner of these lands.
Coupled with the fact that the Supreme Court ruling was that it was deemed by the Court in
2005 that Andrew could take no further action in these matters should put the Real Estate
property owners anxieties at rest"
None of this as reported in the Ballarat Courier is correct. As at no time did the Victorian
justice department ever write to Andrew or contact him in any way saying that he was not
the rightful owner of these particular Lands in question. What lengths will this government
go to to deceive current occupiers that they have a valid title when they do not? Therefore
Mr.Geoff Howard had "lied" to the Courier Newspaper and the "illegal occupiers" residing
on Andrew's lands at Ballarat East. Further with direct regards to that same MP Howard
said about that he could take no further actions concerning these lands is also completely
untrue! Because what he was referring to at the Supreme Court was that Andrew O'Crowley
cannot take the State of Victoria back to the courts on charges of Tresspass to Lands back
in 1854. However the Catherine Bentley claims still stand as a claim against the Victorian
Parliament claims she and her son made already remain inforce and intact to be repaid to
Andrew O'Crowley. Therefore the State of Victoria is and remains in "contractual debt and
commitment" since 1854 in these matters accrue. Andrew's rights to lawfully evict these
occupiers remains as he is the lands lawful owner.
An email from Andrew O'Crowley to the Ballarat Courier.
Dear Editor, please be advised to read the latest updates on the following website: http:/
/www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/History/Bentley.html you should find it most interesting
and important to the Bentley's hotel Land issues now currently placed into the hands of a

senior law firm of Real Estate lawyers, in-order to physically evict these "illegal occupiers"
presently on my lands at Ballarat East!
Yours Truly,
Andrew Crowley
NB. Please note that the State of Victoria and the Ballarat City Council have no legal say
over these matters of my inherited lands of 1954 and I intend to evict in the near future!
Since 2005 no government MP or so termed "official" from the Bracks/Brumby government
has endorsed the head of the Titles office letter sent to reassure occupiers.
These people now Squatting on Andrew's lands must vacate those properties of his which
incidently are one real estate property of preemption in the 1854 title and not 9
separate lands titles as shown in latter transactions at the defective and tainted titles
office records of 1859 in whose corrupt and illegal land sales notice and deeds since, as
they are null and void transactions and valueless ever since 1856 when certain persons also
squatted on our lands in an illegal attempt to qualify for pre-emptive title status as first
improvers under the Hotels and Inns act of 1848/51 in Victoria.
They were not legally entitled to claim these lands as settled and first improved by
Catherine Bentley the Pre emptive first owner in 1854.

Police seize the Eureka Hotel
James Bentley had predicted the destruction of the Eureka Hotel and had written to the
Chief Magistrate of Ballarat on Oct 16th 1854 requesting Police Protection, but he did not
expect the Eureka to be seized by Police who would then let it be destroyed. A transcription
of this letter is below. What more could James do to try and protect his wife Catherine's
property? Notice that James Bentley writes of the said James Scobie. James knows it is
not Scobie who was murdered, that he is being set up and that the main investigate of
the whole matter is a person keeping a store on the Gravel Pits under the name of
the "Ballarat Stores" A Sly grog seller as Lalor was. The police had a duty to preserve law
and order, but instead of helping James and Catherine, they seized the Eureka to spy on the
mob and then allowed it to be destroyed by an angry mob.
To the Police Magistrate Ballarat
Eureka Hotel Ballarat
Oct 16th 1854
To the Police Magistrate Ballarat
Sir,
Inflamatory placards have been posted about the Diggings, to get up a meeting, on the
ground were James Scobie was murdered, near to my House, to enquire into the best
method of convicting the murderer of the said James Scobie, and to demonstrate public
feeling as to the manner in which the case has hitherto been conducted.
I have been informed that the meeting alluded to, is to be got up for the purpose of
Riot and violence upon any person and House, and that the main investigate of the
whole matter is a person keeping a store on the Gravel Pits under the name of
the "Ballarat Stores" a notorious Sly Grog Shop!

Dr. Mount is the person who gave me the first intimation that such was the case, advising
me to be on my guard as they intended to set Fire to my Place - Since I have been told by
many persons that it would be advisable to use great efforts in getting the assistance of the
authorities as it was expected that some thousands would congregate, and that there was
a feeling against the House, by persons who had heard the lying rumours that had been
spread - and the great probability would be an attack by the whole mob upon me and the
House, particularly if intoxication should exist to any extent.
I therefore request that a strong force of protection may be present at 12 o'clock Tomorrow
to see that the Law is in no way violated.
I spoke to Capt. Evans today on the subject and he kindly promised to be present at 11
o'clock with a Body of Police but as the matter assumes a very serious nature I consider
it my duty to acquaint you of every thing, in order that no discredit may afterwards be
reflected upon me, and alas that I may fully expect the protection of that I ought to have.
I am Sir,
Your Obt. Humble servant
James Bentley
A mob of around four thousand stirred up by Lalor to take the law into their own hands and
revenge against James Bentley assembled outside the Eureka Hotel. Rede reported that
he arrived at the scene within five minutes: "I tried to address the mob there were a great
number surrounding the place on all sides, I do not think less than four thousand persons
were assembled. I narrowly escaped several stones that were thrown at me. I then called in
the military, I ordered them to occupy the house" (VPRS 1189 Unit 1 Item 92 J54 12.471)..

James Bentley Declared Insane after the Eureka Hotel was destroyed
The handwriting of James Bentley in the above letters shows a man who was completely
in control of himself trying to deal with events outside his powers to influence, he did
everything possible to protect the Eureka Hotel from the aggression of the main instigator
and sly-grog seller trying to ruin his and his livelyhood. What hope did he have of
protecting himself and his family, when polcie seized the Eureka and let it be destroyed.
James had to escape the angry mob on horseback, just to save his own life. He had to leave
the angry mob of around four thousand miners to destroy everything.
Having already made good after being transported to Australia in chains, it was too much
for James to bear. He and his wife Catherine had achieved financial success through their
own hard work, not by any chance of fate or luck.
The stress of having the Eureka destroyed was too much to bear for James Bentley, he was
later legally judged as being of unsound mind and committed suicuide in 1873. Legally his
son and heir was fully entitled to all property of estate of the father under the British law
of escheatment, his son would have inherited his property even before the Crown could
escheat it as he was the male heir at law. The only time the Crown could seize assets of a
convict was after a conviction of murder or treason and only if there was no heir at Law.
The same rules applied in insanity/probate law.
A Coronial inquiry making a finding of death by suicide as in the case of James Bentley
dated back to the occurrences at Ballarat in 1854. The inquiry attributed his death to
being of unsound mind caused by a mental collapse going back to the destruction of the
Eureka Hotel on the 17th October 1854. The son was truly the lawful Claiment and owner
of everthing in British law. There was no Crown escheatment over James or Catherine
Bentley's property by the Crown then or the State of Victoria today.
Catherine Bentley and her son's petition in contract for compensation was set aside by

E.P.S. Sturt by omission by the Victorian Government because it tried to get away with
paying for what they were/are obligated to repay for what they the government had
intentionally "incurred and caused" as losses on these claiments in 1854 to date accrued.
This witness statement was made by Daniel O'Conner who owned a store opposite the
Eureka Hotel and also suffered losses on the day of the riot on the 17th Oct 1854. A claim
for compensation by Daniel O'Conner was paid in 1856 for 180 pounds for his losses
sustained nearby Bentley's Hotel was paid. Catherine seems to be one of the only Real
Estate owner denied compensation. Catherine Bentley's petition for compensation was
ignored.
The Daniel O'Conner letter was written in November 1854 and was sent to the Colonial
Secretary John Foster Esquire and mentions an affidavit sworn earlier in front of the Police
Magistrate John D'Ewes. It testifies that the Eureka Hotel was destroyed and the stock that
it contained while it was under police possession.
The police illegally seized Bentley's Hotel at 10:00 a.m. on the day of the Eureka Rebellion.
Twelve plain clothes police hidden from view of the public entered the Eureka Hotel at 10am
day of destruction. They refused the Bentley's requests to remove any of their properties or
possessions.
The officer in charge sub inspector Maurice Ximenes promised the Bentley's "All" was in
the custody of the police, the government but not myself personally will protect it. When
the angry mob came Ximenes repeated "The government will protect it". Now, Mister
Bentley get on your horse and ride to the police camp, let them see you go and
it might slow the worst of that lot. Please go. Those were his exact words to the
Bentley's on those two occasions, Ximenes promised that the government would protect
those properties no matter what it would take.
Despite what inspector Ximenes had stated regarding protection, the government had
another agenda in having police take over the Hotel. When the plain clothed police came
their very first objective was to install their own men into that structure from which to spy
on the expected mob that day and to "infiltrate that proposed meeting" to and "inorder to identify its speakers", and or the ringleaders of the Ballarat reform league who
organised it who had promised Robert Rede on the 16th of October "that it would be a
peaceful protest meeting", according to John Basson Humffray, Thomas Kennedy, George
Black and Frederick Vern, the organisers.
Robert Rede had informed the Military commander to stand his troops ready, but out of
sight so as not to inflame the mob, but to be ready should they be required to come in force
at his orders. These were the orders from the Officer in charge, Rede to Captain McMahon.
All of these orders were from the Goldfields Commissioner, Chief Commissioner Wright at
the Ballarat Police and Government camp on the 16th of October 1854. The orders were for
Ximenes and his twelve undercover police troopers to spy from those buildings and send
back the gathered intelligence to the Government camp and wait for further orders where
necessary, but to keep those men hidden in the Hotel but to "enter and exit" to view
those proceedings by those police in small numbers amongst that expected crowd. And so
the Government was well aware of those risks involved but chose to expend that hotel and
all within in order to gain intelligence to send back to Government House in "cyphered
messages" from Colonel Robert Rede to Hotham directly.
And therefore the Government of Victoria and now the State of Victoria hold full
responsibility for those incurred costs as losses accrued against Catherine Bentley and
her son incurred on that day in 1854. Since 1854 the Victorian government has tried to
quash out this debt over time by every and any means possible with a hidden agenda
against repaying the Bentley's just legal claim for compensation. And to this day the
Victorian government has even been trying to have Andrew O'Crowley up on false resjudicia

charges as it did against James Bentley on "phony and rigged outcomes" in the Victorian
Supreme Courts when Andrew has legally followed the Law and procedures for Claims
against the Crown. So nothing has changed since 1854 except the date on the calender.
But these claims still stand to be honoured by Victoria as now owing.
The Bentley's through their confectionery and other business had made a small fortune and
invested it all in the Eureka Hotel in 1853 £30,000.
Descendants of James Bentley report that police had illegally seized the Hotel known
as Bentley's Hotel at 10:00 a.m. on the day of the Eureka Rebellion. While illegally in
possession by the police, they did incite with spies in the crowd to burn the property. The
Real Estate property was owned by Mrs. Catherine Bentley, not James. They defend James
by pointing out that it was the "alleged" murder of James Scobie arose on the 6/7th of
October 1854. J.B. Humffray and Peter Lalor entered Parliament in Melbourne in 1856. The
elevation of Lalor to parliament drove James Bentley's suicide in 1873.
The person alleged to have been murdered James Scobie, aged 19 , was never killed or
injured that night near Bentley's hotel, at all! He died in 1917 at South Melbourne!
Catherine Bentley stated that Peter Lalor assisted James Scobie out of Ballarat during those
riots and had him hidden in the Catholic Abbottsford Convent until early 1855 (January)
from were he was secreted out of Victoria on a Merchant vessel bound for New Zealand.
There was never any funeral or burial of James Scobie in 1854 at all!

Financial Compensation for everyone except Catherine Bentley
While the miners were requesting compensation for the destruction of their property at
the EPS Sturt Hearing, Catherine Bentley also made a claim to the EPS Sturt hearing, but
she was held as a prisoner (pregnant) on HM Hulk Sacramento run by Superintendent
Alex Willis. The prison hulk was not a fit place for a pregnant mother who had done no
wrong. Catherine Bentley at no time abandoned her land, or gave up her right to the
standing improvements she had made to the land which were still standing, the guesthouse
which existed until the 1889 road widening forced its removal. Other store owners in the
stockade after a letter from a Scottish solicitor were compensated for the destruction of
their property, for example Patrick Curtain whose general store inside the Stockade was
destroyed was compensated £1,267 which included £800 owed to creditors. Miners were
also compensated for the destruction of their tents and any property. Catherine Bentley's
petition for compensation for her Ballarat Real Estate was denied
EPS Sturt had already decided to compensate victims who suffered financial loss. It was an
error of law to determine that the Bentley's could not receive compensation. It is legally
unnecessary for any further court cases to re-hear this case. The family will take their case
to UK courts if there is no ethical legally responsible Victorian government who will correct
the legal mistakes of the past by invoking the Canadian Rebellion Losses Bill 1838/54/2008,
so that Catherine's descendants are compensated for the wrongs wrought on their family.
Ballarat archives of Hotels also record that Catherine was the owner of the licence for the
Eureka Hotel Main Road Ballarat since 1854. She was also the owner of a feed and grain
store further up in Ballarat city and a Butcher's shop which was on land that is now vacant
in 2008. Catherine's husband James was a convict who made good on his early release
and built up a successful confectionery businesses before selling all he had in Melbourne
to invest in Ballarat. James and Catherine built a grand building in central Ballarat,
a city that was then mostly composed of miners tents. Many miners applied for and
were granted compensation for the destruction of their tents Connected patrons of the
administration in 1854 onwards seemed to receive more compensation than others. Some
innocent parties received nothing after having everything taken away.

Catherine Bentley had nothing to do with being a protagonist in the miner's dispute and was
an innocent party. Catherine Bentley's case for financial compensation was even stronger
than any of the miners. Catherine Bentley did petition Hotham for compensation, she was
jailed for even asking for compensation and sent to a filthy prison ship in Geelong.
● Her Real Estate property was put under police protection at 10.00am on the
17th October.
● Police were negligent or reckless in protecting it, burning it down.
● EPS Sturt recommendation
"parties who had lost property during the rioting should be compensated"
● A criminal act of the miners which destroyed the Eureka Hotel while in police custody.
● Nominal convictions for McIntyre and Fletcher for burning the Eureka Hotel down.
● Non discriminatory compensation? Miner's mates compensation £ 1,267 to Patrick
Curtain.
The bias against the English Bentleys was extreme even towards protecting criminal
arsonists. J.B Humffray had prepared the brief to defend the two miners accused of burning
down the Eureka Hotel, McIntyre and Fletcher. When they were convicted and sentenced to
short jail terms, Humffray sent a delegation to Melbourne of his Reform League members
to demand their release which Governor Hotham refused. Humffray did not respect the
criminal law and he later had his revenge on the Bentleys in the illegal sale of Catherine
Bentley's Eureka Hotel land site.
This handwritten note from Catherine in 1892 states that Scobie was hidden in a convent
by Lalor.
The deputation to Hotham was supposed to have been on the Friday 25th November 1854.
But Humffray, Thomas Kennedy and George Black were unable to keep that appointment
because they had taken James Scobie to hide him in the convent! That's the real reason
they missed that Hotham appointment which is stated in Catherine's own hand in 1892.
It was not until the following Monday that they get to see Hotham on the 28th November
by which time at Ballarat things were escalating with Lalor and his other cohorts taking over
the Ballarat reform league and mounting the stump at the gravel pits and then proceeding
to Bakery hill to be elected their new leader (un-opposed)
By the 29th they all began the construction of the Stockade itself. Humffray was aware that
Scobie was still alive and well and that Lalor and the others close to him had been involved
with that real deceased body they later claimed was that of James Scobie at the inquest on
the 9th of October 1854.
If Catherine were alive today, she would be compensated for abuses of the legal process
by rabble rousing corrupt ambitious colonial officials. After arresting James, Catherine was
effectively persona non grata. They took Catherine's land as if it were their own before
even James had been convicted of anything and yet he had already been acquitted once.
Catherine made a note of this at the time on the back of the Eureka Hotel Plans. Humffray
and others with legal training would also have known about the double jeapordy rule. The
Double Jeopardy rule would normally apply except when there is political interference in
the legal process, in this case by Peter Lalor. Peter Lalor lead a deputation of dissatisfied
diggers to Commissioner Rede in a quest to have the case re-opened and Bentley retried
after his first acquittal.
Land sales after the Eureka Stockade were completely illegal and biased against
the interests of a female land owner because of a supposed, but then unproved and
questionable wrong act of her spouse would be seen as sexist in the extreme in 2008, it was
incorrect in law in 1854. Some of the corruption was exposed, but compensation was not
paid to Catherine Bentley and her infant children who were totally innocent parties given
nothing but misery grief and they were forced in poverty by the Crown.

Catherine's Real Estate, though it was under the police protection of Inspector
Maurice Ximenes when it was destroyed was unjustly excluded from compensation
considerations.
The 1859 sale involved disqualified bidders including J.B Humffray, who was the lands
minister at the time who caused the illegal sale to another Victorian parliamentarian
W.C.Smith MP who purchased it at this phony and rigged auction.
They were illegal sales because normal lawful sales were advertised prior to any auction
date, but not 2 or 3 years after by 1862 Smith ran a grog shop from a tent where the
Eureka Hotel had been. Those involved were kicked out of the parliament for corruption, but
nothing has ever been done to redress the illegal sale of Catherine Bentley's land.

Other Ballarat Properties affected by illegal 1859 Sale
The involvement of Humffray was reported by Weston Bate in Lucky City The First
Generation at Ballarat 1851-1901 from newpaper and Parliamentary reports of the
corruption involved in the 1859 sales of land. Bates recorded that Humffray was sitting as
chairman over the sale of Catherine Bentley's land. He was selling off Catherine Bentley's
Eureka Hotel lands to parliamentary friends in secret un-advertised real estate auctions.
Humffray was on selling former Crown lands that he knew about at Ballarat East with his
cohort W.C.Smith, a land agent turned MP in 1856. Humffray was getting as much money
as possible to give to his brother in their failing book store venture in Ballarat central and
in 1859 he Humffray was expelled from the Parliament because of these shonky land sales
practices including the Bentley's Lands that year!
Their bookshop went into receivership and bankruptcy! He did all this while he was sitting
over the Bentley's compensation claim. So while Catherine Bentley's was waiting for her due
compensation, Humffray was selling off her land along with Smith to get sly payments from
his mates Cherry and Dwyer and others from Bentley's Lands as well as other prime parcels
of Lands in the area!
The Eureka Hotel land was not the only real estate property disposed of in 1859. Andrew
has identified other properties which where sold without a valid title being conferred on the
purchaser.
Andrew O'Crowley identified at least another 19 land properties at Ballarat east that were
sold through the two MP's Humffray and Smith in 1859. The original sales documents
and deed plans are still held in the Victorian titles office who is still trying to keep them
secret from the public, to avoid a rush of Ballarat east residents complaints to the State
Government and Ballarat City Council that they have no valid title. Andrew believes there
are a lot more yet to be identified as defunked illegal titles from those fraudulent auctions
of 1859, which in law are null and void today and not covered by the "Torrens title laws"
in Victorian real estate. Those sales were under criminal law and therefore hold no validity
in civil law or real estate law as valid titles to this which nullified all of them as land sales
transactions of 1859 to 2008. This means that any and all deeds held by third persons are
valueless deeds ever after.

A manslaughter conviction not murder
Many Australian history textbooks incorrectly state that Scobie was murdered, or that James
Bentley was guilty of murder, even the heritage Victoria website on egold! No-one was ever
convicted of murdering Scobie. If Scobie was murdered, (if it was even Scobie!), then it
was not by Bentley. Bentley was sentenced to three years hard labour working on the roads
for manslaughter. In 1854 English law, a defence of provocation to murder still existed.
It has since been abolished in Victoria by Premier Bracks after it was abused in a notorious

case of a man who wrongly claimed the provocation defence to a murder charge, saying his
wife taunted him about his inadequate physical capabilities.
Murder and manslaughter are very different criminal offences, the first requires a premeditation, malice aforethought, a planning to kill, the second manslaughter is more a
killing in the heat of the moment which brings into question elements of the mens rea such
as provocation or recklessness. A mental state is required to accompany the criminal act.
Manslaughter is not at all like the pre-meditated crime of murder and it cannot be treated
as if it were a crime of the same gravity.
It is wrong for historians to refer to James Bentley as if he were found guilty of murder
and it is wrong in law to refer to him incorrectly in such disparaging terms. If James were
alive he would a strong case for special damages for defamation of his character. killing is
not murdering Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 367 (1883). Imputation of a crime can be a special
form of defamation frowned on by the courts so much so that a person wrongly said in
the media to be guilty of murder could be awarded compensatory and punitive damages
without having to show actual damages. It is wrong in law to attribute the crime of murder
to someone convicted of a much less serious charge!

Escheatment not applicable to remove Bentley's title
An early English law in specific and very narrow cases allowed private real estate properties
to be taken by the crown as a means to allow foreign Norman Kings to confiscate English
lands. A conviction of Treason was one widely used criminal law that Kings used to take a
nobleman's land. Murder was another crime which allowed the state to take the convicted
person's real estate property.
Humffray in illegally selling Catherine's land and other properties may have had been
exploiting his false belief that the Bentley Eureka Hotel site was crown land under the laws
of escheatment. Escheatment is the process by which a deceased person's real estate
property goes to the state if no heir can be found, but escheatment laws also allowed the
crown to confiscate land from anyone upon conviction for treason or felony murder. To
legally escheat Catherine's land, she would have had to have been convicted of murder,
but she was found to be innocent! Though James was convicted (wrongly I believe) it was a
conviction for manslaughter and not a conviction that would allow the crown to escheat the
Eureka Hotel which James did not even own.
As well a criminal law breaches, Humffray made fundamental Real Estate property law
errrors in assuming that the crown owned the title to legally sell the Eureka Hotel Real
Estate lands. He treated James as if he was found guilty of murder which is not true
and he assumed that James and not Catherine owned the Eureka Hotel lands. These two
fundamental legal mistakes confirm that the Ballarat real estate property title is still vested
with the Bentley family.
Firstly, Humffray wrongly assumed that the land belonged to James Bentley and secondly
that they could take it off him as he was convicted of manslaughter, BUT, a murder or
treason conviction was required to confiscate lands.
Humffray was dishonest in selling Catherine's land to his friend and fellow MP Smith. They
did not get away with this corruption, they were expelled from parliament for these deals,
but the mistake for the real estate property owners was not corrected and the Bentley's
were in no position to be making representations when all they had was taken by police
and destroyed two hours after they took over. Maybe if the Police had left control with the
Bentleys, James might have said, free drinks on the house and diffused the whole situation?
He was not given any option when Maurice Xenemies took over. John Carroll a storekeeper
in Ballarat giving evidence at the Board of Inquiry into the burning of the Eureka Hotel
stated that, "If the riot Act had been read to the mob outside the Eureka Hotel, they would
have left and the subsequent burning of the building would not have taken place". The
police seized possession, but did nothing to prevent the burning of the Eureka

Hotel.
Weston Bate ibid page 59 wrote that, " The reading of the Riot Act might have turned the
crowd away from its destructive impulse and the mounted police might have gained control;
there were plenty of respectable men willing to respond to a call for order. Now it was too
late."

The military allowed the Eureka Hotel to be burnt to the Ground
Hotham had made public notices trying to restore order before the Eureka Hotel was
burned. His subordinate in the field, the Gold Commissioner, Robert Rede had ordered
Magistrate Green to read the riot act to the mob at the scene, which was his responsibility
to do without even being so ordered.
"Our sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being
assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their
habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made
in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies.
God save the King."
Penalties for ignoring the riot act were severe and well known, not less than three years jail,
or imprisonment with hard labour for up to two years. Green failed to discharge his duty
to the Bentleys and his superior. As the riot act was not read to the mob, they assumed
they were free to continue the wanton destruction. One miner named "yorkie" (Edmund
Westerby) thumped his fists on the Hotel walls shouting "I declare that this house belongs
to the diggers" The miners tore the Hotel apart with their bare hands to get to the grog. The
Military were around the back of the Eureka Hotel just standing around indolently, not even
stopping looters from running off with kegs of porter (wine) and armfuls of bottles of whisky
and rum.
Magistrate Green was watching when Rede yelled out "For god sake man read the riot
act right now!" But Magistrate Green was transfixed to the dreadful sight, in awe as the
flames started to take hold of the wooden structure as a huge black cloud and red to yellow
flames with red hot embers joined the thick billowing black smoke which spiraled high into
the air from the rear of the buildings.
A hot north-easterly breeze sprang up as if from nowhere, unusually non-seasonal for that
time of the year. The vortex of self sustained heat and ash and rushes of hot air gusts from
the burning beams in the roof began to ignite and catch everything alight inside, through
spontaneous combustion.
Magistrate Green frozen in fright and couldn't utter a single word to read the riot act as it
was his civil and professional duty to do so as well as to follow direct orders.
Inspector Rede bellowed from an open window to Green to bring in the Military ensconced
and hidden less than a mile away out of view from that riotous mob numbering up to 4000
hostile people surrounding the Eureka Hotel to be dispersed under that act.
What was most disconcerting was that the Military at the rear of the Eureka Hotel
had ignored Inspector Rede's orders to them to pull down the bowling alley
frame works to stop the fire spreading any further. Their officer was heard to remark
that "I'm not risking any of my men in such a dangerous act to get burnt or killed and
besides my officer in command has not signaled me to move from this position!"
There was no effective effort either in their duty of care to the Hotel owners or their
professional duty to follow orders from a senior ranking police officer in command in the
field that day. Some angered diggers and arsonists acted like ferrets who ran two-and-fro

passing the military ranks with armfuls of straw. The miners were placing straw under those
structures and then tipped barrels of pitch roofing tar into the entrance of the bowling alley
under the noses of the indolent Military stationed nearby.
The entire structure took less than 50 minutes to be totally and completely consumed with
the jeers of the crowd snarled at the troopers and the military alike on that black Tuesday in
1854.

A simulation of the burning of the Eureka Hotel at

Sovereign Hill

These Sovereign Hill simulations of the Eureka Hotel building in flames are not faithful to
the original floor plans.
Carboni stated that he had observed the British in London and they have a "Characteristic
to make fun of the calamity of fire." He seemed to miss the point that the Bentley Hotel fire
was not protecting the freedom and liberties the miner's had sworn in the miner's oath.
The Chartist JB Humffray looked upon the charred rafters of the Eureka Hotel as a "bundle
of crayons with which to write the black history of crime and colonial misrule"
There is a lot of irony in Humffray's statement here as he was later in 1859 involved in the
illegal sale of the Eureka Hotel lands, Humffray was later in 1859 to become himself an
integral part of the crime and colonial misrule.
That "bundle of crayons" is a sad indictment of government misrule and these crayons
are still writing the history as well as the current corruption of the Bracks/Brumby Victorian
government in 2008. An Email to Premier Brumby 13th September 2008.

The Eureka Stockade miner's oath
WE SWEAR BY THE SOUTHERN CROSS
TO STAND TRULY BY EACH OTHER
and FIGHT TO DEFEND OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
AMEN
It seemed to have been at least partially, an Irish inspired revenge attack against
a scapegoat for the British, the "sweeps"in the persona of the Bentleys (they were
disparagingly referred to as the "sweeps" as recounted to the court by a young witness
Bernard, in the trials of James Bentley). It was an attack by the miners against an easier
British target than the military, but the attack also violated fundamental rights the miners
were bound to uphold, the right to own personal property. Surely the European miners
represented by Carboni or the Americans would agree that all races had such a basic
right as to being able to own a real estate property without it being wantonly and illegally
destroyed.
Carboni spends half a page mesmerised on the "ashes" of Bentley's Hotel, but says almost
nothing about the arbitrary injustice of the revenge taken by the miners.
After the destruction of the Eureka Hotel, Catherine was treated as persona non grata and
James was vilified and harassed for minor debts and ended up taking his own life.
A well as their own criminal and moral culpability for the 1859 deals, Humffray and Smith
also made fundamental property law errors which Humffray as an article clerk and solicitor,
would have been aware of.

James Francis Bentley (1818 - 1873)
James Francis Bentley was born in Surrey England. Aged 25 after being convicted of forgery
he was sentenced to 10 years hard labour, he was transported first to Norfolk island aboard
the ship The Blundell which arrived at Norfolk Island on 12th July 1844. He spent 12 months
there before being sent to Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania).
He was granted a conditional pardon in 1851 and then started a business in Hobart
Tasmania, making and selling lemonade and ginger beer, a business he built up and sold
to an ex-Waterloo soldier. After moving to Melbourne he worked building up a successful
confectionery business in Elizabeth Street. He married Catherine in St. Francis church in
Lonsdale Street in 1853.
He moved to the Ballarat goldfields in 1853 and first established a general store. The
Bentley's application to establish a hotel was supported by some prominent men.
We the undersigned, residing within the city of Melbourne in the Colony of Victoria do
hereby certify that James Francis Bentley of Elizabeth Street in Melbourne, confectioner (
and who is about to proceed to Ballarat for the purpose of submitting plans of a building
intended to be erected by him for a hotel ) is a person of good fame and reputation, and fit
and proper to be licensed to keep an inn or public house for the sale therein of fermented
and spiritus liquor.
Signed
FP Stevens
John O'Shannassy MLC (Member leglislative Council for Melbourne)
A Character witness at Bentley's trial Premier of Victoria for one month in 1857 Condemned
the miners for using armed force.
J Badcock Manager Bank of NSW
Alex Willis Superintendent HM Hulk Sacramento

A Demand for Justice

A newspaper article on the 150th anniversary of the Eureka Stockade by James Button
introducing the quest for justice by Andrew to redeem his inheritance and clear his
ancestor's name.
Lalor did have a motive to remove Bentley from the scene, especially as he wrongly thought
Bentley was friends with the Policeman D'Ewes who had closed down Lalor's Melbourne sly
grog selling business.
Some local notables also involved in recommending the establishment of the Eureka Hotel
were, John Thomas Farrel, a former convict and John D'Ewes the same police Magistrate
who had stopped Lalor's sly grog shop in Melbourne from trading. Some Ballarat people
wrongly believed that J D'Ewes was a part owner of the Eureka Hotel.
D'Ewes never had any financial interests in the Eureka Hotel. He often borrowed a pony
and trap from Linguist's livery stables leased from Catherine on those premises. D'Ewes
also sold Crown waste lands out side the city limits in the bush to prospective hotel building
clients of his own procurement! All sly land deals though. Thats how he made his pocket
money! That's why he offered to tender his bank books at the EPS Sturt inquiry on the 15th
November 1854.

Payments were made in 1854 to certain suffers who lost their property because of the illegal
seizure and total destruction allowed by the police in-action to stop the riot which allowed
the burnings to go ahead.
This wanton destruction followed the illegal seizure of the Hotel at 10 am that day. The
Victorian government has been fraudulent and illegal in its handling of this case since
1854, therefore it is the responsibility of the original authority to make it good in a banner
headline type of way.

Victoria a Third World State
From left to right, Paul Mullett (Police Union Secretary), Premiers Steven Bracks John
Brumby and former Commissioner Noel Ashby on the right. The Premier Steven Bracks
made secret deals with Police Uniob Secretary Paul Mullett while Commissioner Ashby told
Brumby what new laws he wanted. Brumby subsequently ordered other police to not speak
with Paul Mullett who his predecessor had made secret deals with. Victoria is unable to be
transparent and honest in these matters since 1856, it is no better than a third world state
government when it comes to abuses of the Westminster democratic separation of powers.
Secret deals are made by this labor state government, they cannot be trusted to have any
dealings with financially in many ventures including tourism. A earlier government gave the
Sovereign Hill venture grants from parliamentary funds in 1992, a million dollars to build a
replica of Bentley's Hotel to burn on a nightly basis. How infuriating is this for the real
owner to see a grant go to making an inaccurate replica of his stolen Real Estate
to be torched on a daily basis, while he received nothing? The Victorian government
had then as it has now, the legal and moral obligation to restore this deceased estate to the
heir of Thomas Bentley.
Again it revived these matters in its currency to these estates of Catherine Bentley and her
son Thomas in parliamentary listings to fund a replica of Bentley's Hotel. In that funding
package, they used a design from Andrew O'Crowley's drawings in breach of his copyright
design in order to build it. The State of Victoria has yet again stooped so low to welch on its
long standing and current debt it owes to Andrew in restoring what it illegally presided over
since 1856 and funded again in 1992. Victoria cannot argue that these matters are old hat
nor and including those illegal land auctions at Ballarat East in 1859. Victoria is like a third
world banana republic which holds no ethical principles to the dictums of law and order it
espouses under the Premiers Steve Bracks and John Brumby.
When Steven Bracks resigned suddenly as the Premier of Victoria in late July 2008, he was
replaced by the Treasurer John Brumby who has been involved in the back rooms of power
to squash this former democracy. Worse still for justice in Victoria, the new deputy Premier
is none other than Hull's the former Attorney General who has presided over the injustice of
this case since 2002. John Brumby and especially Rob Hull's (the former Attorney General)
have always been behind "the dirty works department" in this rotten Labor government
and they have been the "MAFIA" like Government of crooked socialist lawyers involved in
under-hand tactics to dismiss these claims since they were lodged in the Supreme court in
2002.

Bentley land issues wider implications

Catherine Bentley had a right to pre-empt the land she had made improvements on under
the December 8th 1851 regulations. Her pre-emptive right was one of 43 granted in 1854.
The pre-emptive lands right British Law Acts common law did not require the Crown to
purchase land from indigenous landholders to grant land to others.
Pre-emptive titles were used as the legal foundation for many of the original large farm
properties and land holdings in the colony of Victoria.
Many titles continue to exist originating as pre-emptive titles. If the Bentley's pre-emptive
title is not upheld within Victoria, then all other pre-emptive titles such as farmlands
might not be valid legal titles either and could be taken away by the state without any
compensation which happened to Catherine Bentley!
The aboriginal native inhabitants were the Wathawurrung speaking clan and patri-clan
groups. Three locals were referred to as King Billy his trousers and the Ballarat Tribes.
Aboriginal names include Buninyong, Warrenheip, Burrumbeet, Ballarat, and Gnarr Creek.
Some oral history relates that Aboriginal people looked after some of the children of miners
during the rebellion, in caves at Black Hill. Descendants of the traditional owners and
custodians of this land could make a land claim citing the Bentley example as a precedent
case of pre-emptive title being disregarded as invalid, that white settlement is an invalid
and illegal occupation by the British of aboriginal lands.
The only logical and equitable solution is to make sure that early colonial errors of law
and criminal frauds are corrected. That Catherine Bentley did have a valid land title which
could not be taken from her by an arbitrary kangaroo court like the illegal auctions run by
Humffray for the profit of himself and his friends.
The Premiers of Victoria Steven Bracks and his assistant John Brumby the new Premier
have introduced many new laws to take private property off citizens in 2008, The Proceeds
of Crime Bill is abused. Police use the deeming laws to force suspects into pleading guilty,
for example to plead guilty to an extra two murders and then your parents can keep their
house. Hoon laws take cars off anyone caught speeding, even on hearsay evidence. The
new Premier Brumby said he was considering a "simple amendment" to driving laws
which would also allow hoon deeming laws to include cyclists on pushbikes after conferring
with the disgraced former Victoria Police Taffic Commissioner Noel Ashby. The ignornace
of the Brumby/Bracks government and their socialist disrespect for private Real Estate or
property knows no bounds.
It is a fundamental principle of any democracy that personal property cannot be
appropriated by the government without compensation. Legislation is almost never
retrospective, but the view of the Bracks/Brumby government is evident from their desire to
appropriate private property for breaches of minor offences like speeding.
The Eureka Hotel was not purchased through the proceeds of any crime! Many of the
miners who had their belongings destroyed by police (traps) were later compensated by
the Victorian government, why did Catherine Bentley get nothing and her claim is still being
denied in 2008 through a corrupted un-democratic, socialist anti lais sez faire ghost of a
Westminster government?
When private property and even Real Estate can be taken at the whim of an individual state
employee, where secret deals are made with police, the courts and the media, this is not a
free enterprise Westminster Democracy.
It is ultra vires for any Victorian Supreme or even the Australian High Court to even try
to hear claims under UK laws dating before the Commonwealth existed. Unfortunately
Victorian Premier Bracks and now Brumby either have no knowledge of, or respect for the
doctrine of separation of powers. What that means in a democracy. The Victorian Premier

has been caught out by leaks from good senior retired police that he has made corrupt and
secret deals with the police union.
In this case the Bracks/Brumby government has tried to influence the courts as well to bend
them to support his philosophy of appropriating private property. Government solicitors
should not be paid to try and influence civil cases or indirectly approach judges outside the
court room as they have done in this instance. The Attorney General faxed a letter after
hours to judge Wheeler! Premier Bracks acted against democratic fundamentals principles,
trying to influence courts to act against the interests of the real title owners of the Bentley
land. In court that following monday witnessed by Andrew and his father, council for the
Attorney General Minister Hulls, QC Fraser said! "Did you get my fax on friday Master
Wheeler"? A government lawyer Clausse Von Muller and his assistant went in the Court's
recess through the master of the courts rear entrance and had a private meeting with the
presiding Master Wheeler in a separate sitting in this Bentley lands case in 2002.
The state should not take personal Real Estate and private property without compensating
the owner as the Bracks/Brumby government is intent on doing in many areas of criminal
law not restricted to serious crimes which have traditionally allowed the escheatment of
personal property.
Politicians should not direct public money ideologically driven to prevent claims under
English law for damages due to crown error.
In exercising such a bias against personal Real Estate property ownership as in this case,
the Brack's/Brumby socialist agenda has challenged the validity of the pre-emptive land
titles of thousands of Victorian land occupiers.

A colonial legacy of corruption UK and Australian
Responsibility

You would have to say that Andrew O'Crowley is doing everything possible to restore his
rightful property.
This petition is still being considered by the UK Attorney General.
Is it a shame on Australia that the UK is even asked to consider such matters when Victoria
has existed as a state for over 150 years and the Australian federation for over 100 years.
Appeals to the UK Privy council were abolished in 1975, but this saga goes on in London due
to a lack of colonial will to implement just and binding English legal precedents.
If Catherine Bentley can be denied pre-emptive title to her Eureka Hotel land then all other
investments of titles under the British Acts can also be called into question.
The Victorian Government is again ultra vires in trying to stop this case dating from before
Victoria existed from proceeding.
The actual reason why Andrew can still make a claim upon the United Kingdom Parliament
in these matters is that when these claims were first lodged to the EPS Sturt Inquiries by
Catherine Bentley's solicitors Curwin Walker & Co at Ballarat on the 15th of November 1854.
These claims in particular were lodged during British colonial rule of law in this country here
in Victoria. The Victorian Parliament continually breaches the King William of Orange 1688/9
British Parliamentary Act and remains illegal in these matters under that constitution which
should be adhered to.

Andrew's claim is not effected by the 1975 removal of appeals to the Privy Council from the
Federal High courts because these matters predate its jurisdiction since 1901.
The Victorian government is and remains in contempt of Parliament since 1856 under
clauses (10) and (12) in this Constitution in our case at law! Not only that but their active
attempts to thwart Andrew's concerns and these claims being claimed under the CLAIMS
AGAINST THE CROWN ACTS 1858-2008 is also a breach of law where a person is entitled
under a contractual commitment of Crown which exists as in these matters because
in that illegal seizure the Colonial Government REQUISITIONED the entire properties
from Catherine Bentley for it's own use in occupation for Official use in insertion of plain
clothed police as SPIES on duty installed under orders of Colonel Robert Rede and Sir
Charles Hotham himself directly in orders to Rede on the 16th of October in their constant
communications in cypher.
The moment they the Government installed those "Spies as its Crown agents" it became
a Government "CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT" of the Crown with Catherine Bentley (and
her young son though to Andrew O'Crowley in 2008) in that even today because of those
numerous and "blatant illegal titles" involved in this case it "remains un-statute barred" in
laws of Parliament and claims against the Crown Acts 1854-2008 in the Courts in Britain, as
well as Victoria. Because "nothing shall or would be regarded or deemed as a claim
unless it is based on a "contract" entered into by or on her majesties behalf by her
or her agents"
This case could be proven in a court of law either here in Victoria or the United Kingdom
itself as "un-statute barred" because the Crown is and remains "completely illegal in
these matters". The State of Victoria has tried to usurp the rules of law which allow the
entitled legal Claims against the Crown to proceed in the Supreme Courts at Melbourne.
Andrew is entitled to go back to the originating Authority which committed itself in and
by contract to use those properties as government installations for public works as costs
incurred on the Government of Victoria as "a spy base" on the field that day of conflict the
Victorian government were having with those gold diggers and the Ballarat reform league
prior to Victoria being given its constitution in 1856.
The Queen's courts of justice in London are an option still open to Andrew for a remedy
and appeals to the UK are not statute barred because both of these parties the Victorian
Government and the Crown are and have remained ILLEGAL in these matters of local
government. The State of Victoria remains in contempt of Parliamentary law in this case.
Andrew is entitled to go back to Britain and to levy his contractual accounts claim on Her
Majesty and claim back all that is owed to him.
Andrew originally lodged these claims in 1994 to both houses of The Victorian Parliament
direct by his own hands in person to each speaker inside the Parliament building and they
accepted them in and took them in as served as they were also served by Catherine Bentley
in 1854 to EPS Sturt at Ballarat.
Events in 1854 were prior to Victoria's Constitution Bill being enacted which enables Andrew
to go back to the UK originating Authority in contract (1854) because Victoria has been too
corrupt to dispense proper unbiased judgement in this case and has acted improperly and in
continued "contempt" to the King William Orange Parliamentary Law. He levied these claims
in accordance with laws since 1854 and must be repaid.
Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was the Queen of Australia in 1854. This is a crown
responsibility, but more honorably one that should be assumed by the Victorian state
and National governments. English precedents in law apply over the whim of the current
Victorian Bracks/Brumby government to try and obstruct the legality of the UK legal
allocation of pre-emptive land titles and binding UK English precedents since the Bill of
Rights in 1688.
What does the Human Rights Act say about compensating land owners for the actions of
politicians who illegally appropriated private property?
Part 2 of the Human Rights Act, Section 20 states that, "A person must not be deprived

of his or her property other than in accordance with law". There was no law in the Bentley
case, just corrupted individuals who sold off land they did not own.
The Bracks/Brumby government has terminated other long held high country cattle
runs after 160 years of pastoral use for grazing, Bracks and Brumby are determined to
undermine all that was once thought secure. Pre-emption Lands in private hands known
as "runs" are very vulnerable because of this Bentley case.
The labor party member for Ballarat, Dianne Haddon resigned from the party citing another
land grabbing case where the previous Premier Bracks wanted to appropriate private Real
Estate to put a toxic waste facility on private agricultural land at Pittong.
As well as the Bentley case, there are other examples of the Bracks/Brumby socialist
approach to taking private land titles which demonstrates that where they take land, they
do not compensate the legal title owners 18 years of dithering legal owners cannot neither
get a fair market price. "The buy-back is not about compensation, only confiscation"
Andrew's land is and remains under federal jurisdiction, because it is under
Australian Federal protection as a heritage site on the Eureka 1854 site listings
at Ballarat East. The Eureka Hotel site is a protected heritage site and requires
the federal government to over-rule the current Premier Joghn Brumby, it is
significance to the nation and under-pins the pre emptive land laws of 1848. These
lands are under federal jurisdiction as they are already recognised as federal key
sites of national interest.

The dispossessed ancestors Andrew, Frank and Richard O'Crowley

When I was first contacted by Andrew O'Crowley about his claim of inaccurate information
I published on other eureka Stockade related pages, I was skeptical. I have since come
to admire the depth of Andrew's research as well as his perseverance and courage in
continuing a fight for the truth to prevail in the face of overwhelming distortions of the
truth that seek to venerate colonial individuals in the first Victorian parliament as founding
fathers. Some of them were self serving greedy men with no respect for property or criminal
law.
What is even more disconcerting is that in 2008 even when the truth of Catherine Bentley's
title is known and in evidence, the current Victorian Bracks/Brumby government refuses to
even address the injustice wrought on Catherine Bentley. This is an issue that could have
consequences for other land owners as well as being a denial of the rights in this instance
for Catherine Bentley to confer Real Estate rights to her descendants.

Catherine Bentley's Petition to EPS Sturt for
Compensation.
Catherine did everything she could to relieve the poverty stricken situation the destruction
of her Hotel caused her family. These two pages below are her petition to EPS Sturt in
1855 to compensate her for the destruction of her livelihood and to relieve her family
from financial stress. This petition was presented at Bath's Hotel to EPS Sturt on the 15th
November via her solicitors "Curwin Walker" even whilst she was in remand awaiting trial
in Melbourne set down for the 18th November. This Bill petition was drawn up prior to her
arrest on the 23rd of October 1854 as ordered by Sturt for Sir Charles Hotham. In 1855 it
was tabled into the Government in Melbourne and shows the received date.

Catherine always said to her family that "she was arrested because when she petitioned for
entitled compensations for her losses they arrested her and her late husband" Catherine
Bentley said it was because she dared to ask for compensation that she was held as a
prisoner while she was pregnant on HM Hulk Sacramento.
It was a long established English tradition to humbly petition and pray rather than
to demand anything from the crown. The miner's petition was rejected because they
demanded rather than petitioned. It did not seem to matter how respectfully Catherine
requested compensation, she was not only ignored, she was punished for even asking
for her legal right to compensation. Catherine had a fundamental legal pre-emptive land
owner's right to be compensated. The Victorian government continues to ignore this
injustice of the Eureka Stockade to this day. Catherine's heirs and ancestors in 2008 do
not petition and pray, they demand compensation for this injustice and the theft of
private Real Estate and private property by the Victorian government.

Ballarat Council and Victorian Parliament notification
EPS Sturt stated that victims who suffered financial loss should be compensated
and many of them were, except the Bentleys. The only obstruction to justice today is a
Victorian government without any respect for the truth which lacks any respect for personal
property and has no will to administer justice to correct the legal mistakes of the past. Any
reasonable Westminster government would invoke the Canadian Rebellion Losses bill 1838/
54/2008 so that Catherine's descendants would be compensated for the wrongs wrought on
their family by an earlier Victorian government.
Despite some parliamentarians being aware of the injustice and being in agreement
regarding compensation, the previous Premier Mr Bracks and the Attorney General, Mr
Hulls (now deputy Premier) have actively obstructed the Bentley's claims for justice when
they should have assisted it. The previous Premier Steven Bracks was at the Eureka 150th
Anniversary seeking publicity, but behind the TV cameras the injustice continues and it is
actively supported by the Bracks/Brumby government.
The Attorney General Hulls and former Premier Steven Bracks are totally uninterested in
justice in Victoria, abusing the doctrine of the separation of powers by trying to influence
police and the courts. They seem preoccupied with their own ego and preventing any
criticism, spending $500 million on advertising their own government to the people who
inadvertantly elected them to get rid of the previous Kennett government. Justice has not
been done and will be seen in a very public way to not be being done in this case.
Bracks, Brumby and Hulls have perverted and obstructed the Westminster system of justice
in Victoria, abolishing ancient legal rights and are trying to make the courts and police
answer to themselves personally, instead of to the people of Victoria.
Some commercial media outlets who receive many millions in government advertising funds
seem to be afraid to carry this Bentley story of injustice, probably through fear of upsetting
a major client, the Victorian Bracks/Brumby government.
It is the hallmark of good governance and ministerial responsibility to admit mistakes,
correct errors and compensate victims who suffer loss through government errors. In this
case it is a gross error that should be corrected immediately. Will the Bentleys have to wait
for the electorate to see through the half billion propaganda campaign of the current rottento-the-core Bracks/Brumby Victorian government. The Victorian liberal party leader Ted
Baillieu is an experienced real estate agent, he will have more respect for private property
rights than the socialist agenda of Bracks and Brumby. Steven Bracks has ignored many
other legal issues. The Victorian Greens party and Liberal Party were much more concerned
and responsive to accessibility tests of government websites. Ted Baillieu appears to be
more of a honourable and principled man than Bracks or Brumby. The matter however

goes beyond state politics, the Eureka Hotel site is a national heritage site, so the Federal
Australian government could also rectify this injustice on the Bentleys.
Documents below are notifications of Catherine Bentley's property claims to the Victorian
Parliament member for Ballarat and the Ballarat City Council. Dianne Haddon (ex-labour
party) who resigned from the party citing the case that former Premier Steven Bracks
wanted to appropriate private Real Estate to put a toxic waste facility on private agricultural
land at Pittong.

False reassurances by Haddon
Dianne Haddon's letter recommending
"contact Brabara Fleet Director of Land Registry and Registrar of Titles".
Director of Land Registry and Registrar of Titles Barbara Fleet's reply.
"No further contact will be entered into... no further assistance"
Dianne Haddon on 5th September 2005 was reported in the Ballarat papers as
stating that Catherine Bentley's descendants should be compensated from the
government assurance fund. In the scan of her reply above she states that she has be
misrepresented. But Haddon did state that the current occupiers of these properties had no
need to worry that they had legal title, which may sound reassuring to current occupiers,
but it is incorrect in law.
In contravention of the Westminster separation of powers doctrine, Haddon seems to have
convinced the head of the titles office to write to those who occupy Catherine's land stating
that they were legally safe from other claims on their land. Haddon should have made sure
that the legal owner is compensated first, because their legal right will prevail over the
current occupiers who are illegally squatting on Bentley land. Haddon did not even
provide a copy of the letter to the real legal title holder, Catherine Bentley's heir Andrew
O'Crowley. Catherine's lands has been clearly identified in subsequent sales since 1922 to
be the Bentley's Hotel site.
The false assurances given to occupiers by Haddon and the titles office have not
materialised with any support from the Bracks/Brumby government. Resident occupiers of
Andrew's land have been ignored when trying to contact the Attorney General Rob Hulls, the
reason being that the original assurances were wrong in law and unsustainable.
The current occupiers purchased properties with full knowledge of the Bentley's title claims,
they do not have a valid legal title due to the omission to compensate Catherine Bentley for
the destruction of her property and the subsequent illegalities involved in the 1859 sale of
her land.
The sale was illegal as the land was not crown land to sell, Nemo dat quod non
habet. Catherine Bentley had a good title to the Real Estate which included improvements
to the land still standing after the fire for many years, the Guesthouse. It will be proved
in one place or another with the jurisdiction that the current occupiers do not have
a valid title over the land. The first title in time and the only valid title is Catherine
Bentley's claim to the land.
The registered bidders for Bentley's Hotel lands and purchasers were Cherry, Dwyer and
Smith who all fraudulently purported to be hoteliers and entitled to purchase the property
committing a fraud to achieve their purpose. Those deals were illegal and null and voided
automatically. The lands stayed with the Bentleys as the only owners since 1854 and there
have been no legal torrens title transfers ever since 1859. The titles office in law cannot fall
back on indefeasibility of a Torrens title to support those now illegally occupying Bentley
lands. The Torrens title system provides a valid legal title except where:

The illegal sale of Catherine's land in 1859.
Formal notifications of Bentley land title to Ballarat Council
Email notification 2008

International Human Rights Claims
The Bentley descendant's claims are very similar to the precedent case law heard at the
Hage in Brussells, Pretzil V Cech Republic 1990/2 where her grand parent's castle was
seized illegally by the Germans during WW2 until the Russians drove them out. When Russia
handed back sovereignty to Cech republic the republic illegally kept possession of all the
family property stating that it was owned by the state? The family applied to the world
courts with assistance from the Human rights lawyers who won in her favour as the legal
inheritor and owner!
The Bentley family already have applications before the Victorian, Australian and UK Human
Rights Commissions for the restoration of their pre-emptive property rights. The Australian
Human Rights Commission dismissed the application without any due consideration of the
biased sexist behaviour of the Victorian government towards a female land owner Catherine
Bentley, but the case is within their jurisdiction, the motivation is lacking, but the legal
responsibility is a;so for the UK to provide a redress and remedy.
HREOC incorrectly stated that they "do not have authority" to investigate complaints
of human rights violations by a State Government which they certainly due in cases of
blatently sexist behaviour by the Victorian government. There is no separation of powers
in the Victorian democracy, the former Premier made secret deals with the most corrupt
police force in the nation and also influences court decisions. What hope is there that the
Victorian government which has already obstructed claims in the Victorian courts will allow
any independence of the Victorian Human Rights appeal in this case?
1. Prima facie valid legal claims obstructed in Victorian Courts False allegations of res
judica
2. Australian Human Rights Commission reply. A cursory denial no consideration of
sexism against a female
3. Victorian Human Rights Commission appeal Appeal pending 10th October 2008
You can see from the UK Petitions page that they have a Westminster democratic system
of open and accountable government, petitions are posted for the public to read, view and
make comments on. The complete opposite of the Australian Human Rights Commission
which does everything it can to deny any jusisdiction in other cases of discrimination that
prima facie warrant their attention. The Australian Human Rights Commission (HREOC) are
also uninterested in website accessibility for blind Australians. Consequently UK websites
sites are much better and the UK government is the home of Westminster democracy and
traditions like the separation of powers which is debased in Australia.
In this petition, the UK does have jurisdiction, it involves British pre-emptive land titles and
also because the original claimant was a British citizen, Catherine Bentley who made her
claim page 1 and page 2 to the Queen's Australian representative EPS Sturt before the state
of Victoria or the Commonwealth of Australian existed, in 1854.

Legal Claim Thwarted by the Bracks/Brumby government
Statement of Claim
Yet another example of the Bracks/Brumby government breaching the Westminster doctrine
of the separation of powers. Solicitors working for the Attorney General faxed the presiding
Master after hours at his home prior to a sitting the following Monday morning to hear

claims by the heirs and descendants of Catherine Bentley.
When Andrew lodged his claims in the Victorian Courts Steven Bracks Government took
action against him for res judicia, making out that he was a public nuisance! There has
been no final judgement in this case, no resolution or agreement between the parties. The
Master of the court did not agree with the Attorney General, Wheeler stated that Andrew's
claims were "well based in my historical knowledge in all these concerns"! Wheeler added
that he could not accept these claims into the court because they are/were not within it's
jurisdiction to hear or consider, but the Victorian Parliaments. Therefore, he rightly rejected
the Governments false res judicia assertions.

Notification Resumption of Land
These documents claim the Eureka Hotel land back for the rightful ownership of the direct
heirs of Catherine Bentley. The auction of the lands in 1859 was an error of the Crown to
sell this land as being "free" to auction, as it was owned by Catherine Bentley. Dealings of
the land in the 1859 auction and subsequent sales are illegal dealings due to errors by the
State Government of Victoria and breach the UK Bill of Rights 1688 as well as the Nemo dat
rule. The 1859 auction was illegal and conferred no valid titles. The real owner of the lands,
the Bentley heirs demands vacant possession of the land within 90 days.
Andrew is claiming 19 million dollars in compensation as the legal heir and descendant of
Catherine Bentley. Under Victorian law as well as the Canadian Canadian Rebellion Losses
Bill of 1838 the descendants and heirs are entitled to compensation for the loss of their
inheritance.
This state government is in breach of the probate laws of inheritances as well in all this
under the Acts 1873/1890/1892/1898/1922/1933 to 1958 wills and probate laws And under
the Claims against the Crown Acts 1858/1928 and 1958 Laws. So they aren't just in breach
of British laws, they are in breach of the current laws of Victoria as well.
The Bentley's DEMAND FROM THE VICTORIAN STATE GOVERNMENT AN UNRESERVED
APOLOGY 1854-2008

Anti-British sentiments and Sunday trading
The miners at the Stockade were generally anti-British, there was an all-in-brawl in Ballarat
on 9th and 10th December 1853 against British miners. Many of the miners involved in key
positions were Chartists many of them openly determined to force change through violence,
many of them would be arrested under modern terrorism laws for inciting violence. Peter
Lalor a wanted man.
The Bentleys had sold out their confectionery business in Elizabeth Street Melbourne for
a nice sum of money to an acquaintance from Carlton who brought it. Their shop was just
around the corner from Peter Lalor's wine and spirits ware house and liquor merchants store
prior to Lalor and his brother going into receivership in 1853 after a dispute with his partner
who took over most of their stock because the liquor licensing branch officer in charge of
the police was none other than John D'Ewes.
D'Ewes went to Lalor's premises after a tip off that Peter Lalor was importing liquors into
Victoria without paying taxes on it and as such sly grogging it undeclared. So D'Ewes
told them that their premises would not be relicensed for the next year whilst Lalor was a

partner even though D'Ewes couldn't prove it by catching him red handed with contraband
grog his threat was enough to cause a split between the two partners and both went their
separate ways. Lalor then took off to the Ballarat gold fields with a share of that liquor to
sell freelance there as a sly groger which contributed to the hatred that Lalor had for John
D'Ewes and then to Bentley.
Peter apparently saw himself as much "merchant as digger", since he bought from the
partnership over £800 worth of tobacco, spirits and other supplies; however, his departure
for the goldfields ended his career as a city merchant."

James Smith, a miner and associate of Peter Lalor's who kept a diary first published in
2001, wrote a critical and inaccurate account of the Eureka Hotel trading on a Sunday. "The
hotel was frequented by very bad characters. Several robberies were committed there, but
the proprietor knew a thing or two and fed the police so largely they took no notice of his
house and allowed him not only to sell poisons but to keep open all day Sunday about which
regulations were very strict".
The Irish miners did not appreciate that there was no corruption involved for the Hotel to be
open, the police were not corrupt in allowing it to trade, they had no say in the matter.
It may have appeared to be unfair from the miner's view because they could not prospect
for gold on a Sunday, the miners right demanded a "strict and proper observance of
Sundays".
It may be hard for us to appreciate this 1854 cause for anger at the Bentley's in 2008, but
Sunday was a Biblical sacred day of rest in 1854. Sunday trading had been banned from
906, there were violent riots in England the year after the Eureka Stockade in the Sunday
trading Riots of 1855. The Irish Catholics and miners resented the Eureka Hotel trading
on a Sunday, but the Eureka Hotel still opened on a Sunday because of ancient laws of
hospitality for travellers.
The reason why Catherine could trade on Sundays which the miners resented was that it
was legally permitted to trade on Sundays even if other shops were forbidden to trade.
The Eureka Hotel had a legal concession for travellers like Cobb & Co coaches who called
into The Eureka or stayed in the 80 bed accommodation guest house. To further anger the
miners the licence to open on a Sunday was only to serve travellers and not local miners.
In 1854 the Estafette line had coaches travelling between Geelong and Ballarat in a day and
Cob & Co's Concord wagons were much lighter wagons than the English style and were even
faster. Daniel and George Ford set up goods traffic so that Geelong and Melbourne papers
were available the same day in Ballarat.
Catherine Bentley's Eureka Hotel had a special licence to trade on Sundays. Ballarat could
normally be two days by horse from Melbourne with a stop over at the aptly named town
of Diggers Rest, 30Km north west of Melbourne where others inns could also trade on a
Sunday. The weary travellers after a long days journey, mostly from Melbourne or Geelong
to Ballarat could get a Sunday roast lunch in the comfortable Eureka Hotel instead of a
cold tent. Ballarat winters can be very cold with snow occasionally falling on nearby Mount
Buninyong. Summer can also be too hot.
The wife of the French Counsel Céleste de Chambrillan familiar with European luxury
visited the Eureka Hotel and had a different opinion that it was "a fairly well run inn,
but the master was brusque and disagreeable" Perhaps Mr Bentley was brusque and
disagreeable as a consequence of some of the drunk miners he had to deal with. Carboni

said of the local drinkers.
"Vandemonians" drinking at the Prince Albert hotel are "vulgar, foul conceits, naturally
cowards (drink gives pluck to cowards), through which Satan has produced so
many first-rate bullock drivers."
The hotel prospered under the control of Catherine and Mr Bentley's brusque guidance.
To summarise Lalors and the miner's possible causes to discredit and harm the Bentley's
and the Eureka Hotel.
1. Lalor's dislike for the Police Magistrate John D'Ewes seen as an ally of Bentley
2. James Bentley was an Englishman who the Irish detested as oppressors
3. James Bentley competed with the sly grog sellers but paid his liquor taxes
4. James Bentley was a Tall poppy an ex-convict who had made good
5. James Bentley was said to have had a brusque personality
6. Sunday trading of the Eureka Hotel was seen as a corruption
7. He was a ready made scapegoat for a miner killed in a claim jumping war

Setting up James Bentley
James Bentley the day before the Eureka Hotel was destroyed wrote that the main
investigate of the whole matter is a person keeping a store on the Gravel Pits
under the name of the "Ballarat Stores" a notorious Sly Grog Shop James was
referring to Peter Lalor who advocated the second trial of James after he had already been
acquitted once on the same charge.
Patrick Curtain was a former employee of Catherine Bentley's prior to the seizure and
destruction of the Eureka Hotel. He worked there on the night of the alleged killing and gave
contradictory evidence against the Bentley's in the Supreme Courts in Melbourne as a "key
witnesses" for the Crown. He and Mooney another employee, as a night watchman swore
false evidence that James Bentley, Harvey Hance and John Farrell had left the Hotel that
night armed with a shovel. As a result of this false testimony, Patrick Curtain received £250
along with Mooney for the total amount of £500 for changing their original stories to the
police under EPS Sturt on the swearing out by the Senior Magistrate.
Curtain and Mooney cleaned up financially on the setting up of James Bentley. They
even got the diggers reward offered by the Ballarat reform league by Humffray, Vern and
Thomas Kennedy of £500 as well as the Crown reward. Then Curtain gets a further £1,890
compensations from Lalor in 1857 while Lalor was the parliamentarian presiding over
compensation claims, at the same time Humffray was illegally selling the Bentley's Hotel
lands.
Sturt ordering the re-arrest of the Bentley's on the 23rd October 1854, and the arrest of
Hance and Farrell on that date for their retrial on the same charges as of the 12th October
at the police camp at Ballarat. Although ( the alleged ) Peter Martin was also a key Crown
witness of that incident on the 6/7th October in the alleged death of James Scobie, Peter
Martin absconded his bail and failed to appear at the planned Melbourne Bentley
trials set for the 18th. Peter Martin could not be located in a frantic search at
Ballarat by the police.
Little did they know that in-fact he Peter Martin was the real living "James Scobie" whom
had given his Police statement on the eighth day after absconding from the alleged crime
scene after Dr Alfred Carr had come to the spot where this body lay some seventy yards
north east from Bentley's rear yard entrance.
It took the police a whole nine hours on the 7th to locate this fellow Peter Martin to obtain
a statement from him which is still held on record at the state archives at Laverton, ( now
housed at Melbourne central archives ) Victoria.
The name "Peter Martin" is in fact a made up name from two peoples names given to James

Bentleys hotel destroyed1854 land stolen by the victorian government

Bentleys hotel destroyed1854 land stolen by the victorian government

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Bentleys hotel destroyed1854 land stolen by the victorian government

Similar to Bentleys hotel destroyed1854 land stolen by the victorian government (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bentleys hotel destroyed1854 land stolen by the victorian government