LAND.
I have said that Adelaide has been called a city of churches. It has
also been nicknamed the Farinaceous City. A little gentle ridicule
is no doubt intended to be conveyed by the word. The colony by the
sister colonies is regarded as one devoted in a special manner to the
production of flour. Men who spend their energy in the pursuit of gold
consider the growing of wheat to be a poor employment. And again the
squatters, or wool-producers of Australia, who are great men, with
large flocks, and with acres of land at their command so enormous that
they have to be counted, not by acres, but by square miles, look down
from a very great height indeed upon the little agriculturists,--small
men, who generally live from hand to mouth,--and whose original
occupation of their holdings has commonly been supposed to be at
variance with the squatters’ interests. The agriculturists of Australia
generally are free-selecters, men who have bought bits here and bits
there off the squatters’ runs, and have bought the best bits,--men,
too, whose neighbourhood, for reasons explained before, has not been a
source of comfort to the squatters generally. In this way agriculture
generally, and especially the growing of wheat-crops for sale, has not
been regarded in the colonies as it is certainly regarded at home. The
farmers of South Australia are usually called “cockatoos,”--a name
which prevails also, though less universally, in the other colonies.
The word cockatoo in the farinaceous colony has become so common as
almost to cease to carry with it the intended sarcasm. A man will tell
you of himself that he is a cockatoo, and when doing so will probably
feel some justifiable pride in the freehold possession of his acres.
But the name has been given as a reproach, and in truth it has been and
is deserved. It signifies that the man does not really till his land,
but only scratches it as the bird does.
Nevertheless,--and in spite of any gibes conveyed in the words
farinaceous, cockatoo, or free-selecter,--South Australia is especially
blessed in being the one great wheat-producing province among the
Australian colonies. The harvest of 1870-71,--which was, no doubt,
specially productive, but is quoted here because it is the last as to
which, as I write, I can obtain the statistics,--gave 6,961,164 bushels
of wheat, which at 5_s._ 3_d._ a bushel, the price at which it was sold
in Adelaide, produced £1,827,305. In the same year, that is, up to
31st December, 1871, which would take the disposal of the crop above
mentioned,--for wheat, it must be remembered, in Australia is garnered
in our spring, and not in our autumn,--104,000 tons of bread-stuff
were exported, and sold for £1,253,342. So that the colony consumed
not a third of the breadstuffs which it produced. The population of
the colony up to 31st December, 1871, was 189,018 persons. So that the
value of the breadstuffs exported in that year was something over £6
12_s._ 6_d._ a head for every man, woman, and child within it. With
such a result, South Australia need not be ashamed of being called
farinaceous.
It must not, however, be supposed that the year above quoted shows
a fair average. The following table will give the amount of wheat
produced, with the area from which it was produced, the average crop
per acre, and the value per bushel, together with the amount of
bread-stuff and grain exported for the year above named, and the four
preceding years:--
WHEAT PRODUCED. | AREA UNDER WHEAT. | AVERAGE CROP PER
| | ACRE.
Year. Bushels. | Year. Acres. | Year. Bsh. lb.
1866-7 6,561,451 | 1866-7 457,628 | 1866-7 14 20
1867-8 2,579,894 | 1867-8 550,456 | 1867-8 4 40
1868-9 5,173,970 | 1868-9 533,035 | 1868-9 9 42
1869-70 3,052,320 | 1869-70 532,135 | 1869-70 5 45
1870-71 6,961,164 | 1870-71 604,761 | 1870-71 11 30
VALUE PER BUSHEL. | VALUE OF BREAD-STUFFS
| AND GRAIN EXPORTED.
Year. s. d.| Year.
1866-7 4 5 | 1867 £1,037,085
1867-8 7 1 | 1868 568,491
1868-9 5 0 | 1869 890,343
1869-70 5 3 | 1870 470,828
1870-71 5 0 | 1871 1,254,444
In the following year, 1871-72, the decrease of production was very
great. There were 692,508 acres under wheat-crops in the colony. The
produce was only 3,967,079 bushels, and the average produce per acre 5
bush. 44 lbs. What was the amount of wheat exported up to the end of
1872 I am unable to say. In reference to the above table, I must call
attention to the fact that the exported articles of which the value is
given are not only breadstuffs, but breadstuffs and grain, and the sums
named as their value are, therefore, in excess of the real value of the
wheat. But the other grain exported is very little. In the year 1871
the total value of the agricultural exports was £1,254,444, whereas the
value of the breadstuffs was £1,253,342, leaving the value of all other
grain at £1,102. The amount is not sufficient materially to affect the
comparison made in the above table. Of this wealth of wheat sent away
from South Australia, the other Australasian colonies, including New
Zealand, consume the greatest quantity, New South Wales being the best
customer. In 1867, when the average produce of the last harvest had
exceeded fourteen bushels to the acre, Great Britain was the largest
buyer. The price realised was only 4_s._ 5_d._ a bushel, and it was
worth while to send it home;--but, generally, South Australia is the
granary of the colonies around her. She sends supplies also, small
indeed in amount, to Cape Town, the Mauritius, and New Caledonia, and
even to India and the ports of China.
So far I have ventured to say what South Australia does in producing
wheat, but I dare not venture to say what she might do. English farmers
will not think much of a system of farming which does not produce an
average crop of above ten bushels to the acre,--nor will they think
much of an average price of 5_s._ 4_d._ a bushel. The English farmer
could hardly pay his rent, and manure and crop his land, and get in his
harvest and take it to market, with a total gross result of £2 13_s._
4_d._ an acre,--more especially as he would only repeat his wheat crop
once in every four years. The answer to this is, of course, that the
circumstances of the farmer in the two countries are very different.
In South Australia the farmer pays no rent, does not manure his land,
pays but little wages either for getting his crop in or out of the
land, and grows wheat every year, instead of once in four years. The
operations of the two men are distinctly different, and must continue
to be different. But it may be well worth while to inquire whether the
South Australian farmer might not learn a lesson in his business which
would greatly increase his profits.
There can, I think, be no doubt that the cockatoo of South Australia
is a very bad farmer,--and that he is so because he has hitherto been
able to make a living by bad farming. With reference to the amount of
produce, it must be admitted at once that the existing combination
of soil and climate in the colony, though it has shown itself to be
favourable to the growth of wheat in a country of vast area, is not
only unfavourable to heavy crops, but is prohibitory in regard to a
high average. Every now and then an average produce of fourteen bushels
to the acre may be obtained, as in 1864 and 1867,--and there are
districts in the colony in which the produce has on such years exceeded
twenty bushels to the acre. In 1867 the average in the Robe district
was twenty-three bushels to the acre. But there are, at any rate at
present, sources of injury to the wheat crop which make the business of
farming very precarious. In one year the red dust will almost destroy
the crop, in another year,--as happened during the harvest-time of
1872,--the year last past,--a cloud of locusts will come and eat up
wheat and grass throughout the country. That the red rust might be
conquered by skill in farming at some future time is probable. And
it is not impossible that altered circumstances of soil and climate,
produced by population and cultivation, may be unfavourable to the
locusts. With the drawbacks as they at present exist, the average
produce of wheat must continue to be small. But it might probably be
very much higher than it is.
Nearly two-thirds of all the cultivated land of the colony are under
wheat every year. In 1870-71 there were 959,000 acres under cultivation
in the colony; of these, 200,000 acres were under crops other than
wheat; 154,000 were fallow, or laid down with artificial grasses; and
605,000 were under wheat. So that every acre of cultivated land is
expected to bear wheat twice in three years. With us the best approved
rotation of crops requires the land to give wheat only once in four
years. But in fact the expectation and practice of the regular cockatoo
farmer demands a crop of wheat every year from his land. The figures
above given include, of course, cultivated land of all kinds,--and
in all hands. There are agriculturists in South Australia who are
endeavouring to give the soil a chance of being permanently productive,
and who sow wheat at any rate not more than every other year. There
are, too, growers of vines, of potatoes, and hay,--all of whom add
their quota to the total of cultivated acres, and deduct materially
from the favourable side of the above figures. The ordinary cockatoo
knows nothing of the word fallow, and attempts to produce nothing but
wheat. Year after year he puts in his seed upon the same acreage, and
year after year he takes off his crop. He is the owner of a section
of land which may be something between one hundred and two hundred
acres,--which is his own, though he has not probably as yet paid for
it the entire price. He does his work without any attempt to collect
manure, or to give back to the land anything in return for that which
he takes from it. He even burns the stubble from his field, finding it
to be easier to do so than to collect it, that it may rot, and then
be ploughed in. He ploughs his land, sows it, and then takes off his
crop by a machine called a stripper, which as it passes over the land
drags the corn out of the ear, leaving all the straw on the ground;--so
that the corn is, as it were, threshed as it is taken off the ground.
His labour, therefore, is very small. This last manipulation of the
grain,--which would be impossible in England, where the climate
demands that the grain should become dry before it can be taken from
the ear,--is made practicable in South Australia by the great heat
prevailing when the wheat is cut. The effect of all this is deleterious
both to the man and to the land. The man has but one farming
occupation,--that of growing wheat. He ploughs, and reaps, and sells;
and ploughs, and reaps, and sells again. He employs his energies on the
one occupation, with no diversification of interest, and with nothing
to arouse his intelligence. Consequently the South Australian cockatoo
is not a pushing or a lively man,--though it should be acknowledged on
his behalf that he is orderly, industrious, and self-supporting. But
the effect on the land is worse than that on the man,--for the land
clearly deteriorates from day to day. No practical farmer will require
figures to make him believe that it is so;--but the figures show it.
The yield of wheat in South Australia has always been poor, but it has
greatly fallen off. In six years, from 1860-61 to 1865-66, it averaged
about twelve bushels an acre, and in the six subsequent years it
averaged only nine bushels an acre.
The farmer usually owns the land. The system of tenant-farming is by
no means unknown in the colony, but it is not popular either with
tenant or landlord. The landlord obtains none of those side-wind
advantages from his position as owner,--advantages over and above the
rent,--which are so valued in the possession and are so dear to the
imagination among ourselves. There is neither political power nor
political prestige attached to such ownership. It has no peculiar
grace of its own as it has with us. The privileges of a squirearchy
are quite unknown in the colonies, or, if they exist at all, belong
to great graziers and squatters,--or to men who hold large tracts of
land in their own hands, and not to those who let their acres. There
are game laws,--for the protection of birds in the close season,--but
there are no game laws on behalf of the landowner. There is nothing
picturesque attaching to the receipt of rural rents, no audit dinners,
no dependency grateful alike to the landlord and to the tenant, no
feeling that broad acres confer a wide respect. What percentage can a
man get for his money if he let land to farmers, and what security will
he have for his income? Those are the considerations, and those only,
which bear upon the question. As well as I could learn details on the
subject,--as to which no accurate information can be obtained because
the arrangement is not sufficiently general to produce it,--a landlord
may let cleared and enclosed land, worth for sale in the market about
£6 an acre, for 10_s._ an acre;--and he may thus obtain, if he get his
rent, something more than nine per cent. for his money. This would do
very well as a speculation, if he were sure or nearly sure to get it,
as are our landlords at home. But when bad years come the tenants do
not pay. It is regarded almost as a matter of course that the payment
of agricultural rents is to depend on the season. If the land refuse
her increase, why is the loss to fall on the tenant harder than on the
owner? The owner, no doubt, has the law on his side; but the tenant
understands very well that when the land is barren, the law will be
barren also. Unless his rent be remitted in such years, or at least in
part remitted, he simply gives up his holding and goes elsewhere,--with
his children and his plough, or without his plough if the landlord or
other creditor should have seized it. The result is that the landlord
is satisfied to remit half the rent in bad years, and the whole rent
in very bad years. The further and final result is that the system of
letting land to tenant farmers is unpalatable and unprofitable,--and
therefore unusual.
The farmer therefore owns the land. He has bought it probably on
credit, beginning simply with savings made from two or three years
of labour, and owing the price, or the greater part of it, to the
government. I will presently say a word as to the system of deferred
payments for land which prevails. His homestead is too frequently
bare and ugly, without garden or orchard or anything like an English
farmyard around it; but it is substantial, and it is his own. The price
of the land has probably been something between 20_s._ and 40_s._ an
acre,--and he calculates that by growing wheat under the existing
agricultural circumstances around him, he can live, and bring up his
family, and free himself from his debt within ten years. If he be
steady and industrious he can do so,--and he does do so. He does not
confine his industry to his own farm; but in shearing-time he shears
for some large squatter, or he keeps a team of bullocks and brings
down wool to the railway station or to the city, or perhaps he takes a
month’s work at some gold-digging,--for even in South Australia there
are gold-fields, though they be not prominent among the resources of
the colony. In this way he lives and is independent;--and who will
dare to find fault with a man who does live, and becomes independent,
and makes a property exclusively by his own industry? His life is not
picturesque, but he cares nothing for that. His children go to the
public school,--at which he pays perhaps 2_s._ a week for three of
them,--and they have plenty to eat and drink. His wife has plenty to
eat and drink, and has a decent gown, and material comforts around her.
He has plenty to eat and drink, and a decent coat if he cares for it.
And he is nobody’s servant. Nevertheless he is a very bad farmer, and
unless he mend his ways soon the land which he now ploughs will cease
to give him the plenty which he desires. It may not improbably come
to pass that a considerable portion of the land occupied by farmers
for the purpose of growing wheat, will, under the present system,
cease altogether to give sufficient increase on the seed to pay even
for the labour of ploughing and reaping. In that case it will go back
to pastoral purposes and the farmer will remove elsewhere,--as has
already happened in certain districts of the colony. But, though the
area is immense, the area which will produce wheat is limited; and thus
the well-being of South Australia may be much affected, unless a less
wasteful use be made of the land.
The laws under which land has been sold in South Australia have been
altered frequently,--as has been the case in all the colonies. The
free-selecter, of whom I have been speaking, probably bought his land
from the Crown at some price varying from 20_s._ to 40_s._ an acre,
and was allowed four years,--or latterly five years,--to pay the sum,
being charged interest at the rate of five per cent. Before entering
upon his land he had only to pay one year’s interest in advance. He
has thus been enabled to buy his land with money produced by the crops
he has grown. In other words, he has paid simply a rent for a term of
years, and at the end of that term the land has become his own. And
this system, though never as far as I am aware clearly expressed in
words, seems to have been the ruling policy as to the alienation of
agricultural land in all the Australian colonies. If the new settler
will come and live upon the land, will till it and fence it, and pay
for its use, during a sufficient time to prove that he is in earnest
as to the use of it, the land shall be his. The idea of drawing from
the land the funds required for government, so that taxation should be
unnecessary, which was once dear to the minds of many colonists, has
gradually faded away. Great as has been the possession of the land,
it has not been a source of wealth available for any such purpose. If
only it could be used to attract serviceable immigrants, if only it
could be equitably distributed among men who would really use it,--not
take it for the purpose of bargaining and gambling with it,--if only it
could be converted into homes for people who would accept such homes
and thus become a nation, the land would then have done all that it
should be expected to do. This seems to have been the real gist of Mr.
Wakefield’s scheme, and to this theory all the land ministers of the
various colonies have been tending; though, as it seems, their progress
thitherwards has for the most part been an unconscious progress. But in
this attempt to bestow the land there has still been the necessity of
exacting Mr. Wakefield’s “sufficient price.” The land, if absolutely
given, would be worthless. If it were to be had for nothing, it would
be worth nothing. There must be a price upon it such as shall in some
degree fix its value, and induce settlers to use with some economy
and discretion that which can only be obtained for a stipulated sum
of money. But the fund so raised has never been a source of wealth
to a colony, and the colonies now cease to look for wealth in that
direction. If the money raised will suffice to pay for surveys, to
make roads, in any way to prepare the land for those who are to come
and take it, all will be done that should be expected. “For a term of
years you shall pay the colony such a rental as will enable the colony
to make its land serviceable to you;--and then it shall be yours.”
Such, in fact, are the terms offered to free-selecters.
When I was in South Australia a new land bill was under the
consideration of parliament,--as, indeed, I found new land bills
either just in operation or under consideration wherever I went in the
colonies. The matter has been one which has required many changes,
and as to which no two colonies have been able to agree. As I think
it probable that the bill proposed to the South Australian parliament
will become law, I will endeavour to explain that instead of referring
in detail to the law existing at this moment;--premising that here, in
this chapter, it is my purpose to refer to the proposed measure only
as far as it relates to the sale of lands to intending farmers, or
free-selecters.
I must first explain that South Australia is a country peculiarly
subject to drought,--more so than are the other colonies,--and
is especially so subject in the interior. This is a fact so well
acknowledged, that all who know the colony are aware that wheat can
only be grown in certain parts of it. In order that the government
might have some guide to tell it what portions of the land it would
be expedient to throw open to agriculturists, and from what portions
it would be expedient to exclude them as being unfit for agricultural
purposes, a line has been drawn. The surveyor-general, Mr. Goyder, has
drawn an arbitrary line across the map of South Australia, which is now
known as Goyder’s line of rainfall. It is anything but a straight line.
It runs from a point on the eastern confines of the colony somewhat
south of the city of Adelaide, in a direction north-west nearly as
high as to the top of Spencer’s Gulf. Then with irregular curves it
comes south half-way down the Gulf, which it crosses below Moonta and
Wallaroo, and then runs north by east till it loses itself in unknown
deserts. North of this line, or rather beyond it, no farmer should
locate himself. South of this, or within it, he may expect sufficient
rain to produce wheat. Of course Mr. Goyder gives no guarantee as to
precise accuracy, but I found it to be admitted in the colony that
the line had been drawn with skill and truth. North again of the dry
and rainless region is a tropical country, which is subject to the
usual conditions of tropical latitudes;--but on that Mr. Goyder’s line
has no bearing, and of that district I shall not speak in attempting
to describe the agricultural condition of South Australia as now
existing. All land within Goyder’s line not hitherto sold, will, by
the proposed law, which is called the “Waste Land Alienation Act,”
be opened to purchase, and on that land would-be farmers in South
Australia are invited to locate themselves. The lands will be thrown
open to selection, and will be purchasable on a credit of sixteen
years, at an interest which is computed to amount to 3⅗ per cent. per
annum for that term. The settlement of the price to be paid will be in
this wise:--The government will fix the upset price of all the areas
offered for sale at what is supposed to be the present maximum value of
the best land in the area,--which, for the sake of illustration, we may
call £2 an acre. I was informed that £2 an acre is in fact the price
at which the majority of the land will probably be first offered. It
will then be in the power of any would-be purchaser to take it at that
price. If there be no such purchaser, the commissioner of lands will,
on the part of the government, reduce his demand by 5_s._ to 35_s._,
and then to 30_s._, then to 25_s._, and if necessary to 20_s._,--at
intervals of perhaps a fortnight. Below 20_s._ an acre the price will
not be reduced. According to the nature of the land will be the desire
of purchasers to buy it at 40_s._; or to wait till it be offered at
30_s._ or at 20_s._ It is impossible not to see that even this plan is
open to the machinations of “land agents;”--land sharks, I have heard
them sometimes uncourteously called. The land agent, whose special
business it is to know who are disposed to buy this or that section of
land, will offer to renounce his own intention of buying, we will say
at 30_s._, on receiving 1_s._ or 1_s._ 6_d._ an acre on completing the
purchase for his victim at 25_s._ The victim will feel himself obliged
to pay the black-mail, as hundreds of victims have done, and the land
shark,--I hope he will excuse my discourtesy,--will receive a very
large payment, for which he will perform no service whatever.
And the payment of the money is to be arranged in this wise. On making
his application for the land, at any fixed price,--say 30_s._ an
acre,--the applicant will pay into the Treasury 10_s._ per cent. on
the whole purchase-money. Presuming the land in question to be 200
acres in extent, the price would be £300, and he would pay down £30 as
interest in advance for three years;--and would then be allowed to go
in upon the land, and occupy it. He must effect certain improvements,
and cultivate a certain portion, and must either live on it himself
or by deputy. If he have not done so at the end of three years, he
forfeits his £30. If he have done so, he pays another £30, and goes
on for another three years. These payments are in place of interest,
so that at the end of the six years he will have paid no part of the
principal. He may then pay the whole principal, if he has it, and the
land will be his; or he may postpone the payment for ten years, paying
2_s._ each year for each pound of the purchase-money, with interest at
the rate of 4 per cent. for the further credit given. The payment for
these last ten years would average something under £40 per annum, but
would recur yearly. The purchaser of the 200 acres would thus pay £30
as advance rent on entrance; £30 again as advanced rent after three
years; a rental of £40 a year annually for ten years further; and then
the freehold would be his own.
The selecter may buy under this bill any amount from 1 acre up to 640
acres;--but in cases in which the land lies untowardly for division
into exactly 640 acres, he may select as much as 700. If he should
attempt to select more, to make applications in other names, or to
defraud the land commissioner as land commissioners have been defrauded
in all the colonies since the alienation of public lands commenced,
terrible is to be the example made of that would-be free-selecter.
All the money advanced by him for first payment or payments will be
forfeited to the Crown.
The new land bill which I have attempted to describe does not vary
very much from that now in operation. Its chief objects are, perhaps,
to extend the area of land opened for selection, and to obviate the
existing necessity of personal residence. No doubt the proposed terms
are somewhat easier than the present to the proposed selecter. I think,
however, it is obvious that the terms offered are such as should be
attractive to men with small capitals, who are able to work with their
own hands. To such I say again, that the South Australian “cockatoo,”
though he be a cockatoo, is an independent man, living on his own
freehold in plenty, and knowing no master.
On the other hand, I would not advise farmers to try South Australia
with the intention of having their work done for them by paid
labourers. Wheat at 5_s._ 4_d._ a bushel will not pay for labour at
the rate of 22_s._ a week, which may be quoted as about the rate at
which rural labour may be obtained. When it is wanted throughout the
year, as it would be wanted by any grower of wheat intending to farm
his land as land is farmed at home, the labourer is paid about £40 per
annum, and also receives his diet, which is worth to the farmer about
£18 per annum, making a total of £58 per annum. Twenty-two shillings
a week throughout the year amounts to £57 15_s._ per annum. No doubt
the South Australian free-selecter does pay something in wages during
his harvest, unless he be specially blessed in the matter of sons who
can work; but he pays wages at no other time, and then the demand is
higher,--rising probably to 5_s._ a day, or 4_s._ with diet. For this
expenditure he provides himself by wages earned by himself in the
manner I have already explained.
In writing of the agricultural products of South Australia, I should
be wrong not to mention the vineyards of the colony. On 31st December,
1871, there were 5,823 acres under vines, which during that year had
produced 896,000 gallons of wine, being at the rate of 154 gallons
to the acre. I was informed that South Australia produces more wine
than any other colony, but have no figures by me which would enable me
to test the accuracy of the information. There can be no doubt that
the climate is admirably suited for the growth of the grape, but the
cultivation of it has not hitherto proved to be remunerative. It seems,
indeed, to be retrograding. In the year ended 31st March, 1871, there
were 6,127 acres bearing vines. In the subsequent year the number
had been reduced to 5,823,--from which it appears that 304 acres of
vineyard had been grubbed up.
I cannot say that I liked the South Australian wines. They seemed to me
to be heady, and were certainly unpalatable. I came across none that I
thought comparable to the Victorian wine of the country made at Yering.
I was told that I was prejudiced, and that my taste had been formed
on brandied wines, suited to the English market. It may be so;--but,
if so, the brandied wines suited to the English market not only suit
my palate, but do not seem to threaten that a second or third glass
will make me tipsy. The South Australian wines had a heaviness about
them,--which made me afraid of them even when I would have willingly
sacrificed my palate to please a host.
It must, however, be borne in mind that the making of wine is an art
which, as far as we know, has not been learned quickly in any country.
The perfection to which Spanish, German, and French wines are now
brought, has probably come as much from observation and experience as
from the peculiarity of soils or climate. There are many who believe
that Italian, Greek, and Hungarian wines will soon rival those of
France. If so, the wines of Australia and the United States will
probably do the same, when the cultivation and manufacture shall have
been long enough in existence for experience and skill to have been
created.
In the meantime the one thing desirable in reference to Australian
wines, is that the people of the country should drink the produce of
the country, not only because it is wholesome, but also because it is
cheap. The usual drink now consumed at public-houses is brandy,--so
called,--which is a villanous, vitriolic, biting compound of deadly
intoxicating qualities, and is sold at 6_d._ the glass. Though I
found the South Australian wine to be “heady,”--drinking it after the
fashion in which wine is drunk,--it is a beverage absolutely innocent
in comparison with the spirits which the publicans sell; and it can
be sold with profit at 2_d._ a glass,--the glass being a small,
false-bottomed tumbler, about as big as an ordinary claret-glass at
home. The wine can be sold by the grower fit for use at 2_s._ 6_d._
a gallon, and the gallon in the hands of the publican would run to
twenty-five “nobblers” of wine. This would give a profit satisfactory,
we may suppose, even to an Australian publican. A nobbler is the
proper colonial phrase for a drink at a public-house. It would be
very desirable that the men of the country should acquire a taste for
drinking their own produce. As men have done so in all vine-growing
countries, they will probably do so in South Australia, and when that
time shall come the growing of grapes will be profitable.
Already the acreage under vines is very large. It must be remembered
that grape-growing,--as is also hop-growing,--is an agricultural
pursuit requiring great capital, and that the produce from the acre is
very large. A grower with a hundred acres of vines on his hands has
probably as great a stake in his vineyard as a farmer with a thousand
acres of wheat has in his farm. In South Australia the acreage under
vines exceeded that devoted to gardens, orchards, potatoes, lucerne,
or artificial grasses. I annex a table, showing the number of acres
under cultivation in South Australia in the year ended 31st March,
1871, with the number devoted to each class of growth,--premising with
reference to the second mention of wheat, that cereals throughout all
the colonies are grown for forage for cattle. They are cut green, and
made into hay, and then stacked.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH, 1871.
Total average under cultivation 957,482 acres.
Acres.
Wheat 604,400
Barley 22,474
Oats 6,184
Peas 3,713
Hay 139,807
Wheat, cut green for forage 2,598
Lucerne 3,441
Permanent artificial grasses 3,712
Flax 182
Potatoes 3,370
Orchards 2,762
Gardens 4,330
Vines 6,127
Other crops 816
Fallow land 153,566
The proportion of wheat to that of any other crop grown,--which
is so great as to make all the other cereals sink into utter
insignificance,--shows very plainly what the South Australian farmer
regards as his special business.