shearing time, when everything is once fairly set going. The toils
and pleasures of stock-riding on cattle stations, of which we read in
_Geoffrey Hamlyn_, are almost at an end in Victoria. For, alas! it is
found more economical to divide the runs into paddocks by wire fences,
and so to employ fewer shepherds or stock riders. And so, though you
can see the place you want to ride to, or at any rate know in which
direction to go, you must ask your way among the fences almost as if
they were rows of houses. The black-fellows, and the wild dogs, and
(except in thickly-wooded districts, where they are as numerous as
ever) even the kangaroos are gone, which is an unmixed advantage for
the Squatter, if not for idle and inquisitive friends who stay with
him. Near a forest you may see scudding about little white clouds,
which, on closer inspection, are discovered to be composed of white
cockatoos; but their sentinel is generally too wary to let you get
within shot, though you may get near enough to see them put up their
yellow crests in disgust. Of sport there is not often much to be had.
There may be some rabbits or some quail. On the plains there are
sometimes bustards, commonly called wild turkeys, and you may get a
shot at one with a rifle now and then, especially if you _drive_ after
them, instead of walking or riding, for they do not expect hostilities
from anything on wheels. Opossums are killed by thousands for their
skins, generally by hunting them up trees after dark and shooting them
there. But there is no sport to be got out of them; one might as well
shoot a lamb, albeit indignant with them for scampering about the roof
all night. I saw a large brown one one day looking at me from a bough
about ten feet off, apparently only waiting for an introduction to
offer me his paw to shake. I tossed a bit of clay on to his back to
make him move. He only moved a yard higher up, and taking hold with one
paw of a bough of the next tree, looked down with a countenance of mild
reproof, as if meekly and generously affording me the opportunity to
apologize before unwillingly quitting my society.
But a station is no bed of roses for a Squatter’s wife. Servants are
difficult to get and to keep up the country, and especially when there
are young children there is a good deal of work to be done by somebody.
Then perhaps the shepherds’ wives will not condescend to do any
washing, and there is no one else to do it. What with hot winds, hard
work, solitude and anxiety, a wife transplanted from English luxury to
the bush has a hard life of it, and too soon begins to look old and
worn. It is almost impossible for her to get any attention paid to the
little luxuries and prettinesses of life. Perhaps the cook persists in
throwing the sheep’s bones into a great heap just outside the garden
gate; or nobody can be spared to bury the cow that died in the home
paddock, and her white skeleton has been lying there for months. To be
sure, a hot wind is an effectual deodoriser, and there is only the look
of the thing to be considered; but that is something, and I don’t know
anything that strikes a person fresh from home more than the number of
carcases he sees by the roadside everywhere.
The Squatter party has been for some years powerless in the
Legislature. No Squatter has much chance of being elected for the
House of Assembly, and is derisively _bleated_ at on the hustings if
he offers himself as a candidate. Even in England I observe that a
writer speaks contemptuously about their ‘great ideal’ being to ‘cover
the continent with sheep-walks.’ Surely, as regards all but a small
proportion of the continent, this has been, and for some years to come
will be, the ideal of every reasonable person, whether Squatter or not.
What else is to be done with the soil? Somewhere about 300,000 acres,
which collected together would be equivalent in extent to a block of
land a little more than twenty-one miles square, ought surely to grow
enough wheat to feed the whole population of Victoria. For a quarter of
wheat for each head of population, which is, I believe, the ordinary
allowance in England, is probably much more than is consumed in
Australia, where meat is eaten in abundance by the labouring classes.
And eighteen bushels to the acre is about the average in Tasmania,
where there is certainly no superabundance of capital or skill employed
in farming; if Victoria cannot farm as well as that, it had better
import its corn. Something must of course be added for other crops, but
this amounts to comparatively little, for wheat may on most of the land
be grown year after year without any rotation of crops, and with the
help of subsoil ploughing without any present prospect of exhaustion.
It must be remembered that meat is in England chiefly a product of
agriculture, whereas in Australia it is a pastoral product. There
would be no use in growing turnips or mangold (even if the climate
admitted of it, which I believe it does not) in a country where there
is no winter, and where stock will fatten on pasture alone. In South
Australia large quantities of wheat have been grown for exportation
chiefly to the other colonies, and also in one or two years to England.
But in Victoria, till inland communication is very much more developed,
there is no probability of its being exported to any extent; indeed I
never heard of its being even suggested.
But even if this rough estimate be altogether too small, suppose that
a million acres, equivalent in extent to a tract of country nearly
forty miles square, or even double that quantity, were required,
it would still be but a small portion of the area of Victoria. And
Victoria is by far the most thickly inhabited colony. Its population
is in the ratio of about seven to the square mile. As for the rest of
the continent—which the Squatters are found fault with for wishing to
‘cover with sheep-walks’—New South Wales contains nearly a square mile
for every inhabitant, and South Australia about two and a half square
miles. In England and Wales there is less than two _acres_. In speaking
of the Squatters, it is only fair to remember that the colony owes
its origin and existence simply and solely to them. It was they who
opened up the country and made it habitable. In their hands the land,
if it does not produce much, steadily improves in quality. No doubt at
first they got the use of it for a merely nominal payment, but nobody
else wanted it at any price, and so they paid the market value. As it
become more valuable, this payment was from time to time increased.
Occasionally their stations were sold, and they had the power, if they
had the means, of purchasing them and becoming the absolute owners of
what they had hitherto held on an uncertain tenure. If they had not the
means, they had to submit to be turned out. All this was fair enough.
Where land is plentiful enough, everyone should have the opportunity
of purchasing it. It may be that at one time it was put up too slowly
for the requirements of the growing population; but if so, the reaction
was extreme. A cry was got up and fostered for party purposes that
everybody ought to be a landowner; placards were posted along every
road, stump orators vociferated, and there was a mania for getting
land. From that time legislation has been unfairly directed against
them. Instead of the simple plan of putting up Crown land in small
blocks to the highest bidder, which in the long run would have ensured
its getting into the hands of the man who would get the most out of
it, elaborate Land Acts have been passed, drawn with the intention of
preventing the Squatter from purchasing land at any price, even on his
own run, and of parcelling his run out to different purchasers without
any regard to his rights of previous occupation.
Shortly, the procedure is as follows. The district is surveyed, and
blocks of a square mile each (640 acres) mapped out. Notice is
given that the blocks will be put up, and numbers apply for them,
the applicants hoping, if they are lucky enough to get one, to make
a good bargain of it somehow, though they may not have a shilling of
capital to farm it with. Amongst the rest, the Squatter on whose run
the blocks are of course applies; and as amongst so many applicants his
chance is small, he often increases it by engaging any one he can to
make application ostensibly on his own account, but in fact as dummy
for _him_, and with a view to his transfer of his interest to him
should he obtain a selection. A ballot takes place on the appointed
day, and the successful applicants select each his block. The Selector
(or ‘Cockatoo,’ as he is nicknamed) thereupon obtains a seven years’
lease of his 640 acres on the following terms. He is to pay a rent
of one shilling per acre every half-year, in advance, to expend on
improvements not less than 1_l._ per acre within three years, and to
build a habitation on the land, and reside on it during his tenancy. He
also covenants not to alienate. If he has fulfilled these conditions,
he has the option of purchasing the freehold at the end of three years
at 1_l._ per acre. If he does so, therefore, he will have expended
altogether 1,472_l._ besides what his stock, &c., may have cost him.
Clearly, therefore, a Selector without any capital is practically a
man ‘without ostensible means of subsistence.’ Yet the chance of the
ballot brings many such, and how are they to live, except by stealing
the Squatter’s sheep and preying upon him in various petty ways? Often
a Selector may be a former servant of his discharged for misconduct,
who now has ample means of revenge. These additional annoyances are
often worse than the original one of being deprived of large portions
taken out of the midst of his best pasture. But in any case he is put
to the expense of fencing in the new comer, or else letting his stock
stray and feed all over the run. This alone costs about 55_l._ a mile,
or 220_l._ for each selected block. And so he is often driven to throw
up his run altogether, or to endeavour to evade the Act and buy out
the Selector at all hazards. And the hazards are very great, for by
the terms of his lease the Selector is interdicted from alienating
his interest in his land, so that any bargain he may make to do so is
legally void; and thus, if he happens to be a rogue, he may take the
price of his block from the Squatter, and at the end of the three years
refuse to give up the land to him, and snap his fingers at him. And
even if the Selector who sells be an honest man and anxious to carry
out the bargain fairly, the Squatter still runs a great risk; for
though he can perform the requisite conditions of paying the rent and
expending the 1_l._ per acre in improvements (probably a sheer waste of
money to him) he cannot fulfil the other condition of residing on the
block itself—for he cannot live in two or three places at once—and must
trust to the forbearance of the government inspector to overlook this
non-performance, otherwise the lease and the title at the end of the
three years will be forfeited and his whole expenditure thrown away.
And so, as time goes on, the Squatter of moderate means is being
(prematurely and needlessly, as it seems) ‘civilised’ off the face of
Victoria. Large blocks of land have been bought up by a few of the more
fortunate among them, and more often by rich merchants or speculators
from the towns. Politically, as well as socially, it may well be
doubted whether it is not a change for the worse. The old-fashioned
Squatters were many of them sons of English gentlemen, with less wealth
but with more education, knowledge of the world, and refinement, than
those who are supplanting them, and they fell naturally into a position
and duties in some degree resembling those of country gentlemen at
home. As for the ‘Cockatoos,’ they have little, if anything, to be
grateful for to their patrons. They have been tempted to embark in an
undertaking in which three out of four have small chance of succeeding
honestly. It is only in the neighbourhood of towns and markets that
they are likely to do well. Already, though the last Act has hardly
been three years in operation, a deputation of them has been to the
government, declaring their inability to pay their purchase-money and
petitioning for an abatement.
I am very far from pretending to possess a complete knowledge and
understanding of the land-questions and the land-laws in Victoria.
But the present system seems so patently and obviously bad that he
who runs may read that it is so. The possibility of obtaining land by
the chance of the ballot is unsettling and demoralising, just as in a
greater degree a public lottery is. Its tendency is to hand over the
soil, not to skilled and thrifty agriculturists, but to speculators or
to idle men who have failed at other trades, and who try their luck
at the ballot on the chance of making a good bargain somehow or other
if they draw a lucky number. The blocks are so large, require so much
capital, and are often at such a distance from a market, that they are
quite unsuitable for a peasant agriculturist, who can seldom obtain
any labour but his own and that of his children. The discretionary
power, which in certain cases is vested in the Executive, of selling
or not selling land on particular runs, gives it an immense and
undue influence, and is liable to lead, as experience has shown, to
gross corruption amongst members of the Assembly and others who have
influence with the Ministers for the time being. Eventually the system
will, it is believed, after great waste of labour, and after ruining
a number of Squatters, throw the land into the hands of the monster
capitalists far more certainly than if a much less extent, favourably
situated, had been put up to auction in much smaller blocks. In the
meantime, the class of agriculturists, or quasi-agriculturists, has
been artificially increased so as to be out of proportion to the rest
of the population. And as one political fault, unrepented of, soon
necessitates another, a protective duty on corn has been imposed, which
helps, as far as it goes, to prop up the land laws.
But neither Protection nor an artificial land system will do the
agriculturists much good in the end, not even if a clause could be
introduced and enforced obliging everybody to eat two quarters of wheat
a year instead of one. A few good big ships full of immigrants do more
for them than all the land laws in the world. For what they want is
more mouths for them to feed. And in the long run new mouths will go
most to countries where, _cæteris paribus_, industry and labour are
left, not only unfettered but unpampered, to find their own level in
their own way.
The present land laws savour of unjust class legislation, of tyranny
of the majority over the minority. Yet so little confidence is placed
in the present Legislative Assembly, that it is expected that any
change which may be made will be for the worse. Democracy has made a
bad beginning in Australia. At this rate, what with bad legislation and
the far worse and more fatal vice of corruption, it will be well if the
word ‘democracy’ does not in course of time earn for itself in this
part of the world a _special_ sense as derogatory as that which the
word ‘tyranny’ did in Greece of old.
V.
POLITICS IN VICTORIA.
Strange to say, it is a fact notorious in Victoria that a proportion
of the Legislative Assembly, sufficient to sway its vote on almost any
measure that may be introduced, is altogether corrupt and amenable
to bribes! How long this has been so I know not, or how long it has
been a matter of notoriety; but attention has been particularly drawn
in this direction lately by the scandalous disclosures made in the
case of _Sands_ v. _Armstrong_, which was tried in May. The plaintiff
was a member of the Assembly, against whom charges were made in a
local paper of so serious a nature that he was compelled to bring an
action for libel, to endeavour to re-establish his character. The
trial lasted several days, and resulted in a verdict of a farthing
damages—practically, of course, a verdict for the defendant—as nearly
all the charges against the plaintiff were fully made out. The
following extracts from a leading article in the _Argus_ of May 6,
1867, describe his operations:—
For years past there has been a prevalent belief that rank jobbery
and corruption infested our governing system, and from time to time
circumstances came to light which confirmed and strengthened this
belief. But outside political circles the facts were not known with
certainty, while as to the extent of the evil the general public
could not even form a guess. At last we have got at the truth, so far
as concerns the operations of one honourable member. For the first
time the veil has been completely lifted, and the life of a jobbing
legislator fully exposed to view. And the reality is immeasurably
worse than any but the initiated could have imagined. Scheme and
trick and dodge are proved to have been the constant practice of
the person whose conduct has been investigated, his public position
a mere agency by which he could work out, by means of wholesale
corruption, sordid plans of personal aggrandizement.... Using his
influence with the Government, and pretending to greater influence
than we are willing to believe they ever permitted him to exercise,
he seems to have meddled in every kind of public business transacted
in his locality, and turned it to account for his own pecuniary gain.
Nothing was above—nothing beneath him. If a poor labouring man wanted
a bit of land under the 42nd Clause, it was ten shillings to Sands;
if there was a returning officer to be appointed, that was an affair
of 30_l._ if it could be managed. Circumstances rendered one piece
of local preferment particularly desirable during the currency of
his operations, by reason of its great profitableness, and that he
apparently tried to keep in his own hands altogether, appointing a
dummy official representative (though on this part of the case the
evidence is necessarily incomplete, the only persons fully cognizant
of the facts having been accomplices in the transaction). But there
is no doubt of his having professed to be able to influence the
administration of the law.... Is the Attorney-General to be worked by
such as Sands? No one will for a moment believe so; but his claiming
to possess such influence shows how hardened he had become through
long immunity from exposure and punishment.... He has a newspaper,
and he has also a public-house, both of which seem to have served as
tolls for the collection of corruption-money. But in aid of these he
established an agency far more efficient than either. This was in
the form of a testimonial to himself, and the subscription lists
being kept open for a year and a half were a constant appeal to the
generosity of all who had anything to gain from the favour of the
Government or to fear from its displeasure.
If the case of Sands had been a solitary and exceptional one, it
would not have called for remark. But his course of conduct seems to
have been singular chiefly in having been found out. Opinions differ
slightly as to the number of Members, who, if not quite as bad as
Sands, nevertheless lay themselves out for bribes outside the House,
and are ready to sell their votes in the House for a sufficient
consideration. The _Argus_ (if I recollect right) reckons about ten
or twelve. But nobody, except a Member or two in a parliamentary and
perfunctory way in the House, seriously attempts to deny the existence
of such a set, most of whom are as notorious as if they occupied a
special bench to themselves. Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear a
well informed and moderate man, not specially connected with politics,
express his opinion that almost any measure might be carried through
the House for the sum of 15,000_l._ judiciously expended in bribes.
I repeated this with some hesitation, lest he should be sensitive to
such a reflection on his colleagues, to a Member. He answered by coolly
counting up the purchasable Members on his fingers, and concluded that
it could be done for a less sum, remarking that a clever, unscrupulous
man, possessing great wealth and popular manners, might obtain almost
unlimited power in the Assembly. Nor is the blame of this disgraceful
state of things to be laid specially to the charge of the present
Ministry. They have indeed been content to let things go on in the old
groove, and in the matter of the Sands scandal have not appeared very
anxious to promote an investigation. But their personal integrity, and,
on the whole, their ability, is well spoken of by men of all parties.
Even the Opposition, opposed as it is to their ultra-democratic and
protectionist policy, confess that their places could not well be
supplied, should they have to quit office, and that a change is more
likely to be for the worse than for the better.
Jobbing in Government patronage is one source of corruption. Under
the O’Shanassy Government (in some respects considered to have been
one of the best) it is said to have been almost impossible for any
but Irish and Roman Catholics to obtain any place. Even the porters
on the railways completed at that time are Irish almost to a man. But
this is comparatively a small matter. It is the Lands Office which is
the focus of corruption, and it is the unsettled state of the land
laws and regulations which affords such opportunities for roguery. For
instance, under a clause of the Land Act of 1865, any person residing
near the gold-fields may, subject to the sanction of the Lands Office,
select and purchase, at a fixed price, any portion of Crown land within
a certain distance, not exceeding a certain quantity. This clause the
Minister of Lands has seen fit to extend to Crown lands (which are in
general Squatters’ runs) at any distance from the gold-fields—in fact,
almost anywhere. Other clauses leave a somewhat similar discretion
with the Minister. Thus, he continually has in his own hands the
power of selling or refusing to sell Crown land, and practically he
generally gives or withholds his sanction in each instance according to
the recommendation of the Member for the district, or, if this Member
happens not to be a supporter of the Government, of some other who is.
Thus, a Squatter may sometimes be deprived of a block of land in the
middle of his run, if he prove troublesome to a Government candidate.
It is unnecessary to point out what a temptation this offers to a needy
Member, and how it almost forces the Squatter to illegal practices for
his own protection. I once heard a Squatter, an honourable and much
respected man, say that, wanting to purchase a part of his own run
which was Crown land, he had sent orders to a land agent at Melbourne
to apply for it for him, and that his instructions were to obtain it,
if possible without, but if not possible by, the help of _parliamentary
influence_. I innocently asked him what parliamentary influence meant.
He answered simply that it meant a fee of 5_l._ to one or more members
to urge and support the application.
People seem to resign themselves to the existence of a corrupt House
of Assembly as to a necessary evil, a thing inevitable. I have heard
the free-trade party blamed for not _buying_, as it is said they
easily might have done, sufficient support to enable them to establish
their policy. Such an opinion sounds horrible enough in the mouth
of an honourable man. It reminds one of the purchase of the Irish
Parliament in 1800, which few will say was not necessary to be done,
and which was done by honest men, though it would puzzle a casuist to
justify it. The judge who tried the case of _Sands_ v. _Armstrong_,
in his summing-up declared that the evidence had made him a convert
to the proposal of payment of Members, for that, as they gained no
credit or social distinction by their membership, they expected a
pecuniary consideration for their trouble, and it was better for them
to get it honestly and above-board than dishonestly. The House, it
seems, thinks so too, for by a majority of 22 to 10, the other day,
they patriotically voted that they ought to be paid. The Council will
probably throw out the Bill, for it may be doubted whether a moderate
salary would suffice to induce a rogue even to confine his rogueries
within the bounds of decency.