The district councillors had very little power; in some of the most important functions of local government they would have been mere agents of the central authority.

Thirdly, on the other hand, the councillors undertook a serious liability. They were liable, after the treasurer, to distress for non-payment of the police assessment, even though their own quota had been duly paid. A sparsely peopled district could hardly be expected to spare, in addition to its legislative members, six other men of sufficient public spirit to undertake an unpaid task, attended with considerable liability, and bringing very little influence. There was no leisured class in the rural districts, to aspire to the duties of government, which, in a newly-settled locality, are usually very heavy.

But fourthly, there was perhaps a deeper reason than these for the failure of the plan. Before a community can successfully work a scheme of self-government, it must possess a social unity and a sense of common interest. This was the secret of the vitality of the Teutonic village-settlement, from which sprang the English system of local government. The Teutonic settlers were bands of kinsfolk, knit together also by a sense of a common danger, and a common desire to ward off that danger.1 They were occupied chiefly with agriculture, a pursuit which demands steadiness of residence and permits of co-operation. The country districts of New South Wales were ranged over, rather than settled, by individuals having little sense of fellowship with their neighbours, fearing very little the dangers which did sometimes threaten them, and engaged mainly in pursuits which encouraged wandering habits and wide separation.

The history of the district councils is a striking example of the truth that an unsuitable institution cannot be forced upon a community, or, as it is frequently put, that institutions must grow, not be made. Gradually, as the country became more settled, the need of local government was felt, first in one particular, and then in another, and, in the end, the process came easily enough.

1 The same qualities, religion being substituted for kindred, were the secrets of the success of the New England townships of the United States.

CHAPTER XI

THE LAND QUESTION

No subject was more copiously discussed, nor more fiercely agitated, during the second period of the constitution than the Land Question. At first sight it seems hopeless for one who has not passed through the agitation, nor taken part in the discussion, to grapple with the intricacies of the subject. The mere physical difficulties of space cause endless confusion. For instance, during the time which must elapse between the despatch of a memorial or report from the colony, and the receipt of the reply of the Home government, we find that the whole question has changed front, and that the aspect of it which caused so much excitement when the memorial was drawn up, has ceased to be of interest when the answer arrives, while a new aspect is then being vigorously canvassed, and is giving birth to its own mass of documents.

Still it is possible that an impartial and disinterested. observer, though he views the agitation from a distance, may obtain as clear a judgment of the real facts of the case as the keen partisan who has lived through it, and knows all its details, so to speak, unconsciously. The latter may know all the details, but he may not have grouped them with strict proportionate accuracy. Sometimes the stranger in the distance, looking through his telescope, can judge the respective heights of the buildings in a town better than the citizen who daily walks its streets.

Our first attempt must be to sketch a plan. We shall never understand the Land Question if we attempt to master it all at once. There were three distinct (though sometimes converging) elements in the land agitation of the period. They

may be defined as the Sale question, the Squatting question, We must deal with these separately, though cross-references will sometimes be necessary.

and the Quit-Rent question.

A. SALE.

It

Almost contemporaneously with the new constitution, there came into force the first of a long series of Acts dealing with the sale of land in the Australian colonies. This was the Crown Land Sales Act of 1842, the 5 & 6 Vic. c. 36. was passed with the object of securing an uniform system throughout Australasia, and included in its provisions, not only New South Wales, but also Van Diemen's Land, South Australia, Western Australia, and New Zealand.1 It laid down the fundamental proposition that there should be no disposal of Crown land otherwise than by sale at public auction of surveyed blocks not exceeding one square mile, except in the following cases

1. Lands required for public purposes.3

2. Lands granted to military and naval settlers.3

3. Lands occupied under annual licence for depasturing or timbercutting.4

4. "Country" lots put up for sale and not sold.5 (The private sale, however, must not be for less than the highest bidding or the upset price at the auction.)

5. Unsurveyed blocks comprising 20,000 acres or more. (But these are not to be sold at less than the lowest upset price of lands in the colony.)

The sales by auction are to take place quarterly, upon due notice, and the lands sold are to be ranked in three classes of "Town Lots," "Suburban Lots," and "Country Lots." The first of these will include all lands within the boundaries of existing or contemplated towns. The second all lands within a distance of five miles from any boundary of a town, unless the Governor should see fit to exempt in any particular instance. The third comprises all other Crown lands. The lowest upset price at which any land may be offered is to be £1 an acre, and this sum may be increased at any time by the Governor, subject to the approval of the Home government, but no reduction can 1 5 & 6 Vic. c. 36, § 22.

8

2 §§ 2, 6.

3 § 3.
9 § 9.

CHAP. XI

THE CROWN LAND SALES ACT

95

be made at any time except by the Home government.' The Governor may also at any auction raise the prices of "special" lots in the third class, or of any lands in the other classes, provided that they are for the first time offered for sale, and that the special lots do not exceed, in the "Country" class, one-tenth of the whole offered in the class, and these raised prices may be reduced at any time by the Governor to the statutory minimum.2 At private sales the price is always to be paid in ready money, and at auction sales there must be a deposit of at least one-tenth, with a contract to pay the balance within a month.3 Purchasers are entitled to pay money in the United Kingdom and obtain certificates of the fact from the commissioners for the sale of Crown lands and emigration, which certificates must be accepted as cash by the colonial government. The revenue from the sale of Crown lands (after payment of expenses) is to be devoted to the public service of the colony furnishing it, one-half to be expended in assisting emigration from the United Kingdom to that colony, in manner directed by the Treasury, subject to the regulations of the Privy Council.5 The Governor of any colony is empowered by proclamation (subject to disallowance) to divide it into any number of parts not exceeding four, each part to be deemed a distinct colony for the purposes of the Act, except that no corresponding division of immigrants is to be necessary.

6

The moment that the provisions of the Act became known in the colony, there arose a strong protest against the policy of fixing the minimum price at £1 an acre. Even in the short session of the old Council which was held to inaugurate the new constitution, a petition was presented, which described the measure as unjust and injurious, and when the new Council met, further petitions came in.8 The new Council, at once, on the 15th August 1843,9 appointed a committee to inquire into the provisions of the Act regulating the price of land, and on the 5th December 1843 the report of the committee 10 was presented. It strongly deprecated the raising of the minimum price to £1 an acre, as tending to deter purchasers, both for agricultural and pastoral purposes, because neither

pursuit would yield a profit on the purchase money. It would therefore strengthen the already existing tendency towards squatting, which the report regarded as injurious to the permanent interests of the community. Being unable to buy land, immigrants would be forced into a roving life beyond the limits of location, and industry and revenue would alike suffer. The report founded its conclusions on this head upon the fact, that whereas during a period of nine years under the fiveshilling minimum (1831-1839) the Crown revenue from land sales had averaged nearly £60,000, on the increase to twelve shillings it immediately fell to £12,000, while the prospects from the few months at £1 threatened to reduce it to about one-third of that sum.

But the report goes on further to condemn the system by which the land revenue is employed to bring labour into the colony. This system was, of course, the pet theory of Mr. Wakefield, and was accepted in England at that time almost as gospel. But the committee point out that, to work land profitably, both labour and capital are required, and that a system which sends capital out to bring labour in is unsound. They add that the great land sales of the past years have been chiefly made to the colonists themselves, the latter having in many cases borrowed the purchase money from English capitalists. The net result has been that the capital which has been brought in by borrowing has been sent out again for labour, leaving the liability on the colony. But it is expressly noticed that this latter argument does not apply to Port Phillip.

The remedy proposed by the report is to induce immigrants to come at their own expense, and then to allow them a remission on the purchase of land equal to the amount of their passage money. In this way it was hoped that a superior class of immigrants, who would not be eligible for assisted passages, would be induced to come, possibly even in associated groups, which "would form, in fact, colonies within the colony."

But, in any case, the committee insist that the uniform price of £1 an acre is too high, even according to the Wakefield system. "That price would bring immigrants to the country at the rate of sixteen to the square mile,"1 and it is pointed out

1 This reckons the cost of each immigrant at £20. (It will be remembered that only half the land revenue was devoted to immigration.)