to the Government for the passage money, and Riley suggested that it should be repaid in three yearly instalments of £10, deducted from the man's wages.[1] There were not sufficient colonists who recognised the great "indirect" cost of convict labour to press this experiment upon the Government, and no attempt was made to carry it out. Many contented themselves by agreeing with Cox that after all the work of the convicts during thirty-two years had been incredibly great and successful, especially when it was called to mind that "a great many of them never did nor could be made to labour in England".[2]
From the first Macquarie attempted to make the occupation of the land a real thing. All grants issued by him contained three conditional clauses which had not been included before. The chief one was the prohibition of any transfer or alienation within five years of the receipt of the grant. If the condition were violated, the transfer or alienation would be null and void and the land revert to the Crown. The other two directed, under the same penalty of reversion to the crown, the clearing and cultivation of certain proportions of the whole area within five years.[3]
Theoretically the conditions were admirable, in practice no one paid any attention to them. Judge-Advocate Bent himself sold his own grant and a grant made to his twin sons before five years had passed, and his case was not an isolated one.[4] Many emancipists being devoid of inclination and capital, sold their farms immediately at about 5s. an acre. Sometimes a grantee was allowed to occupy his land before it had been measured or the grant made out. In such cases the land was frequently sold and another owner in possession under the "permissive occupation" before the first grantee had completed his title; and instances
- ↑ Riley, C. on G., 1819.
- ↑ Cox, Reply to Bigge's Circular. See above.
- ↑ This condition was suggested in letter of Plummer. See Chapter III. above. Macquarie in his first despatch (30th April, 1810. See H.R., VII.) wrote as though he varied the proportion according to the circumstances of each grant. Bigge (Report III.), wrote as though the same proportion was named in each. In Townson's grant the amount to be cultivated was 167 acres out of 2,000, a rather odd number (enclosed in one of Wilberforce to Cox, letter R.O., MS., 1817). This is the only case in which the amount is mentioned. Probably custom regulated the proportion, and, in any event, no attention was paid to the condition, and "an appearance of an attempt to cultivate" was considered sufficient compliance.
- ↑ D. 1, 24th February, 1815. R.O., MS.
