and a connection, secured by the link of kindred origin and mutual benefits, may continue to bind to the British Empire the ample territories of its North American Provinces, and the large and flourishing population by which they will assuredly be filled." Equally strong is the language of a despatch written by Lord Grey to Governor FitzRoy at a much later date.1 "The waste lands of the vast Colonial Jan. 23, 1852. possessions of the British Empire are held by the Crown, as Trustee for the inhabitants of that Empire at large, and not for the inhabitants of the particular province, divided by arbitrary geographical limits, in which any such waste land happens to be situate. Otherwise the consequence would follow, that the first inhabitants of any of these vast provinces (if possessing those representative institutions which arise as of right in ordinary British colonies) are indefeasibly entitled to administer all the lands and land revenue of the great unexplored tract called a Province, of which they may occupy an extremity, wholly without regard to the nation which has founded the settlement, perhaps at great expense, in order to serve as a home for her own emigrants and a market for her own industry."

It was, however, when it became necessary to translate these admirable theories into practice that the real difficulties began. In the case of Canada these difficulties proved insurmountable. Two special causes were at work. On the one hand the reckless disposal of the public lands, which had taken place in the past, rendered almost hopeless the introduction of any new system, On the other hand, there was not the same practical need for an emigration fund in the case of Canada as in that of the Australian Colonies; the spontaneous immigration being on so great a scale. But, whatever may have been Wakefield's own opinion, there can be no question but that the furnishing of an emigration fund was, with practical men, the reason for adopting so much of his theory, as was in a confused and bungling fashion actually adopted.

With regard to Australia, the Act introduced by Lord 5 and 6

Vic., c.

1 Colonial Policy, Vol. II., Appendix A.

36.

Stanley in 1842 was an honest attempt to deal with the question. Under it all Crown lands were to be sold by auction, the minimum upset price being 20s. per acre. Subject to a charge for cost of survey, half of the gross proceeds were to be spent on immigration to the Colony in which the Revenue accrued. Power was given to the Governors to raise the upset price, and a distinction was to be drawn in fixing upset prices between town, suburban, and country lots. The Act applied to Van Diemen's Land and New Zealand. So far, the Act, which merely gave Parliamentary authority to the practice of successive Secretaries of State, seemed fair enough. It did not, of course, satisfy the claim of the colonists that the land belonged to them to deal with as they liked. But against this contention all English statesmen were combined. The real difficulty of the Australian land question arose out of the peculiar position of the "squatters." The penetrating mind of Wakefield had, from the first, seen to the roots of the question. He recognised1 that the theory of a sufficient price could in no wise apply to the use of natural pasturage. The prosperity of New South Wales was wholly dependent on such use of vast tracts. The putting of a price on this use he regarded as a most unwise and oppressive tax-unwise because it was a tax on the article of primest necessity in New South Wales, oppressive, inasmuch as it was imposed and maintained in spite of every kind of complaint from the colonists. It was one thing to maintain the abstract position that the regulation of the land was the prerogative of the Crown. It was quite another to find that the Governor was thus able, without consulting his legislative council, to impose 2" arbitrary and unlimited imposts for the occupation of Crown lands." The excitement over Sir G. Gipps' proceedings joined all classes 1 View of the art of Colonization, Letter LXIV.

2 See Rusden's Hist. of Australia, Vol. II., p. 328. The words quoted were used by Wentworth at a public meeting in Sydney. The date of the Regulations complained of was April 2, 1844. As Mr Rusden says, "their sting was more in the underlying principle than in the amount of the additional burdens proposed."

104.

in opposition, and thus served to render easy the alterations in the law which were to give rise to the fierce class. dissensions of later times. The Bill introduced by the Conservative Government in 1845 merely legalised the practice of squatting by allowing leases to the occupiers, and by introducing, in certain cases, compensation for improvements. Lord Grey's Australian Waste Lands Act 9 and 10 1846, while effecting this, went further, and mentioned Vic. c. among the subjects, on which rules and regulations were to be made by Orders in Council, "any right of pre-emption which it may be proper to give to the holders of any such demise or such licence." The enforcement of this power in New South Wales was the fons et origo of the troubles which afterwards ensued. It tended to 1" exasperate the remainder of the community against the squatters because it 'locked up the land.' . . . and in the end was to squander a magnificent territory which might have yielded untold millions for the construction of public works and the promotion of the public good." So little, however, was Lord Grey aware of the effect of his proceedings that he asserts that the regulations under the Act in the Australian Colonies were "different in form but the same in principle." Now in South Australia, the rule as drafted in the Colony and accepted by the Crown, was "Nothing in these regulations ... shall prevent the said Governor from selling any land comprised in such Lease." The New South Wales Order ran :—“ During the continuance of any lease of lands, occupied as a run, the same shall not be open to purchase by any person except the lessee thereof, but it shall be lawful to sell to such lessee any of the lands comprised in the lease." That a man of the ability of Lord Grey should have really thought that these clearly contradictory rules were the same in principle, affords a strong argument to show how unfitted a London office was to deal with the details of Australian land laws, and to vindicate the subsequent abandonment of the whole matter to the Colonial legislatures. The peculiar differences between the land Col. Pol., Vol. I. p. 305.

1 Rusden, Hist. of Australia, Vol. II. p. 420.2

questions in New South Wales and Victoria were, naturally, without the ken of English statesmen. Hence the able suggestions of Mr Latrobe, the Superintendent of Port Phillip, were neglected, and the seed sown of future troubles. So late as 1852 we have seen that Lord Grey maintained the old view as to the Crown lands, but already politicians of more teachable disposition were beginning to recognise that the discovery of gold and the consequent influx of immigrants had entirely altered the situation. The shrewd Wakefield 2 had from the first recognised that the time must come when the Colonies must be allowed to legislate with regard to the land as with regard to all other domestic questions, and in his dislike of the Colonial Office, looked forward with pleasure to that time. Sir J. Pakington was then probably wise in arriving 3 "after full consideration at the conclusion that, under the new and altered circumstances of New South Wales, the time is come at which . . . the administration of these lands should be transferred to the 18 and 19 Colonial Legislatures." The subsequent Acts passed by 55 and 56. the Whigs in 1855 were the formal embodiment of this policy.

Vic. c.

S. Aus

tralia.

But it was not merely on the land question that the new leaven worked. The foundation of the new Colonies of South Australia and New Zealand were due to the same influence. The Colony of South Australia, as at first projected, contemplated a Chartered Company such as those of the 17th century. It would have differed, however, from the Virginia Company, in not being started with a view of making profits, and the transfer of the government, after a certain period, to the Crown was from the first proposed. Mention has already been made of the intention that there should be a popular representative Assembly. The idea of a Chartered Company did not 4 and 5 commend itself to the English Ministers; so, instead, the Wil. IV., Act was introduced which created a divided authority, leaving to the Governor and Council the executive and 2 Evidence before Parl. Com. of 1836.

c. 95.

1 Parl. Pap., 1852-3.

3 Parl. Pap., 1852-53.

legislative power and the levying of taxes, but vesting in a Board of Commissioners the disposal of the public lands and the employment of the emigration fund raised thereby, along with the raising and the application of the revenue required for defraying, in the first instance, the colonial expenditure. In the words of the Parliamentary Committee of 1841,1 "the powers of administration were so parted between the two that they could not be effectually exercised by either." As Wakefield well put it, "according to the manner, I will not say the system, in which South Australia has been governed and colonized, everybody seems to have been relieved from responsibility to anybody." The Commissioners, having deposited with the Government the sum of £20,000, might then sell land within the Colony at a uniform price, which was not to be lower than twelve shillings an acre. The whole proceeds were to be devoted to the emigration of persons under thirty, as nearly as possible in equal proportion of sexes. After the sum of £35,000 had been received as proceeds of land sales, the Commissioners were empowered to borrow £50,000 as an Emigration Fund, to be charged upon future land sales, and a further sum of £200,000 for the general purposes of Government, to be charged on the general revenue. A further statute 1 and 2 amended the former by enabling the Commissioners to obtain money on more economical terms. Unhappily, upon a change of Ministry, the Commissioners who had been decided upon refused to serve, and a weaker body consisting of ten members under the chairmanship of Colonel Torrens, was appointed. The Commissioners remained in office from 1835 until January 1840 when their duties were transferred to the new Land and Emigration Board. At first, the Colony was a scene of strife between the Governor and the Resident Commissioners. A party defended either side, and the result was deadlock. This evil was remedied by the appointment of a new Governor who was also resident Commissioner. Fresh difficulties, however, 1 Parl. Pap., 1841.

T

2 Evidence before Com.

Vic. c.

60.