CHAPTER X

LOCAL1 GOVERNMENT

CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the introduction of the new constitution, two questions agitated the colony of New South Wales. One was the question of local government, the other the ever-important Land Question. Of these in their order.

It must never be forgotten that one of the greatest differences between the English and any Australian constitution is that the former has been built up, by a process of integration, from widely-spread local institutions, while the latter has evolved itself from a central authority. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the English statesmen of 1842 should have thought it most important to introduce local institutions into the colony. It is equally natural that the colonists, whose circumstances and history differed so much from those of England, should regard the attempt with coolness.

The local government clauses of the 5 & 6 Vic. c. 76 project a somewhat thorough scheme. They empower the Governor to establish "districts" in any part of the colony, irrespective of existing local boundaries, and to create by letters-patent a "District Council" for the local government of. each, under the following conditions

1. The council to be elective after the first nomination,2 with a membership varying from nine to twenty-one, according to the number of the population.

2. The franchise and qualification for membership to be the same as

1 Henceforward the term "local" will be applied to municipal (as distin. guished from central) government within the colony.

2 Any vacancies not filled by election within the proper time are to be filled by the Governor's appointment. § 46.

for the Legislative Council, till the colonial legislature shall make other provision.

3. No councillor is to hold paid office under the council, nor to contract with it.

4. The limit of tenure without re-election of a seat in the council is to be three years.

5. Each council is to have a warden, appointed by the Crown.

6. A district surveyor and other necessary officers are to be appointed by the Council subject to the approval of the Governor.

7. The details of the expenditure of each council are to be laid annually before the Governor.1

The district councils are empowered to legislate for several purposes, of which the following are the most important.

1. The making, building, or repairing of roads,2 bridges, and public buildings.

2. The acquisition of property for public purposes.

3. The raising of funds for the performance of the duties of the council, especially for the maintenance of schools, and the administration of justice and police.

But a by-law or order of the council may not impose imprisonment, nor a pecuniary fine greater than ten pounds, and every by-law must be transmitted to the central authority within fourteen days of its being passed, the Governor having power to veto it within two months after its receipt, and its operation being held in suspense during that time.*

The Act further provided that one half of the police expenses of the colony (exclusive of the convict establishment) should be paid by local taxation in the districts, and the other half out of the general revenue, and authorises the Governor, after apportionment of the levy by the legislature upon the various districts, by Act upon the estimates, to levy from the respective district treasurers the amount payable by their districts, with power to enforce payment by distress and sale of the goods of the treasurer, the members of the council, or, failing these, the inhabitants of the district." But the control of the police was not given to the local authorities, the Governor being merely bound to expend the sum raised in any district, plus a similar sum from the

2 The main roads were in the hands of the central government.

1 § 41.

3 § 42.

CHAP. X

FAILURE OF THE SCHEME

89

general revenue of the colony, for the police of that district, and the council being entitled to a credit for next year of any surplus.1

This was the Local Government scheme of 1842. It followed, in the main, the generally accepted principles of local government, allowing great autonomy to a representative local council, but keeping a veto for the central government on its policy. In one particular, however, it undoubtedly violated accepted principles, namely, in the matter of the police. The district had to raise police funds and hand them over for expenditure to another authority, the character of this arrangement being but partially mitigated by the contributions from the central government. This arrangement was perhaps necessary, but it was sure to be unpopular. It will be observed also that the incorporated district differed from the incorporated town, such as Sydney or Melbourne, in the franchise qualification, in the nominee character of its warden, and in the greatly smaller powers of the council.

As a matter of fact, the scheme was a complete failure. At first there seemed to be a faint disposition to welcome it. Petitions from Penrith,2 Murrurundi,3 and Illawarra, asked that the provisions of the Act should be carried out. But these were soon overweighted by petitions of an opposite import from Bathurst, Dungog, Maitland, Merton and Muswellbrook, Hartley, Raymond Terrace,10 and Jerry's Plains."1 The main grounds of objection to the scheme were the narrowness of the franchise and the police contributions. On the first ground the squatters of Port Phillip prayed that their stock might not be subject to assessment by the district councils.12

Nevertheless the Governor determined to attempt the introduction of the scheme. On the 21st July 1843 the District Council of Maitland was established. Its charter, after reciting the sections of the Act of 1842, incorporates the inhabitants of the district (which does not appear to coincide with the county boundaries), with a warden and council of six. Future councillors are to be elected in the same 2 Votes and Proceedings, 1843, p. 42. 4 Ibid. p. 213.

1

§ 50.

3 Ibid. p. 61.

6 Ibid. p. 73.

9 Ibid. p. 127.

7 Ibid. p. 77 (Petition in full). 10 Ibid. p. 127. 11 Ibid. p. 149.

5 Ibid. p. 51.

8 Ibid. p. 91. 12 Ibid. p. 201.

manner as members of the Legislative Council. The council is to meet quarterly, and at other times when specially summoned. Its officers are to give security, and their accounts are to be examined by the audit committee of the council, and then to be transmitted to the Governor.1

During the month of August charters followed one another in rapid succession, all reproducing the terms of the Maitland charter, except in point of numbers of the council. On the 17th August the districts of Bourke and Grant in Port Phillip received their charters, but the districts thus created did not coincide with the previously existing counties similarly named.3

The wave of opposition, however, soon rose strongly. The Governor endeavoured to smooth the situation by introducing a bill to widen the municipal franchise, and by agreeing with the Legislative Council to postpone the operation of the obnoxious 47th section for a year.5 But the measure was not carried, and when in the following year the Governor brought forward bills for the police assessment and for the reform of the district councils, the former was summarily rejected, and to the latter an amendment was carried, by a majority of two to one, that "in the opinion of this Council the District Councils are totally unsuited to the circumstances of the Colony." On the 9th August 1844 the Council carried an Address requesting the Governor to attempt to procure the repeal of the Local Government clauses of the Act of 1842, and suggesting that the police expenses should be defrayed out of the general revenue. On the 20th August the Governor replied that he would accept the sums voted, but declined to take any responsibility for this breach of the constitution." Apparently the assessment was never imposed on the districts, and the whole scheme was allowed to lapse. Occasionally a district council published its accounts. Those of the Parramatta Council for the year 1845 show that its only income was from government grants. It was the same in 1846.10 And

1 Gov. Gazette, 26th July 1843.

2 Gazettes, 1st, 15th, 29th August, and 5th September.

3 Cf. boundaries in Gov. Gazette, 1843, p. 1147.

4 On the 22d November 1843.

5 Ibid. p. 138.

Votes and Proceedings, 1843, p. 201. 6 Ibid. 1844.

7 Ibid.

8 Cf. accounts for the year 1843, in Votes and Proceedings, 1846 (1). 9 Gov. Gazette, 1846, p. 467.

10 Ibid. 1847, p. 443.

CHAP. X

REASONS FOR THE FAILURE

91

in the year 1847 the committee of the Legislative Council appointed to inquire into the state of the roads and bridges in the colony, after suggesting that the constitution probably contemplated the control of such matters by the district councils, added "but, by a sort of tacit consent, as well on the part of the District Councils themselves as of the Executive government, they have never for an instant been in full operation, although the Letters-Patent establishing and defining their several boundaries and jurisdictions were issued shortly after the promulgation of the Imperial Law which authorised their existence." 1 And the committee practically recommended the withdrawal of roads and bridges from the district councils, by the constitution of elective local trusts for maintenance and repair, the expenses of the trunk routes being first provided by the general revenue.2

This policy was virtually adopted for the neighbourhood of Sydney by the 11 Vic. No. 50 (N. S. W.), and subsequently became the general policy of Victoria, and the starting-point of local government for the rural districts. The district councils still dragged on a nominal existence. Illawarra went through the form of an election in 1849.3 But in 1848 the governor had had to fill up by nomination 14 councils, including those of the districts of Bourke and Grant. And it appears that the new Roads Trusts sometimes really swallowed up the older councils; for instance, in the case of Parramatta, whose council in the year 1849 handed over the whole of its small income to the local Roads Trust.1 Some of the district councils were in

solvent from the first 5

In

It is not difficult to see why the scheme was a failure. the first place, it was too ambitious. It aimed to introduce a full-blown system at a single step, its authors apparently forgetting that the art of government requires gradual education, and that there had been no opportunities for such education in the rural districts of New South Wales. Secondly, the scheme was not local enough. It was merely a reproduction, on a small scale, of the Legislative Council at Sydney, and it excited no special local interest, it appealed to no particular local feeling.

1 Votes and Proceedings, 1874 (2), p. 313. 3 Ibid. 1849 (1), p. 295.

2 Ibid. p. 334.

4 Gov. Gazette, 1850, p. 843.

5 Votes and Proceedings (Victoria), 1852 (2), p. 382.