Page:The three colonies of Australia.djvu/198

 price of land, and to retain the land until sold in the hands of the crown, to be rented to tenants at will, or on short leases, as in Turkey and Egypt, on such terms as would have left the fortune of every pastoral proprietor in the hands of the governor or his subordinates.

Eventually Mr. Scott was able to organise an opposition among the aristocratic and wealthy relatives of the squatters—the Elliots, the Trevylyans, the Edens—more formidable than had been anticipated. Among the other questions he was instructed to urge was the concession of the control of the casual revenues of the colony—claimed by the council and refused by Sir George Gipps; and assistance for establishing steam communication—a subject which had occupied the council since 1845.

Earl Grey commenced auspiciously by ceding the point as to the casual revenues. On the land question he adhered to the opinions of his preceptor in the art of colonisation, Gibbon Wakefield, and addressed a despatch to Sir Charles Fitzroy, containing a report prepared by his obedient, sympathising subordinates, the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners, the tenor of which may be gathered from the colonial documents we are about to quote.

In July, 1847, Sir Charles Nicholson, as chairman of the committee of correspondence, addressed a letter to Mr. Scott, in which, after recapitulating the circumstances under which the correspondence had commenced in 1845, and the discussion with Lord Stanley; the passing of a bill in September, 1846, for appointing Mr. Scott agent for three years at a salary of £500 a year; the reservation of that bill "for the signification of her Majesty's pleasure," "in consequence of the terms of Lord Stanley's despatch;" the absolute refusal of the council to submit to the "unconstitutional" terms suggested by Lord Grey as to the composition of the committee; the passing of a vote for 1,000 toward two years' salary of the agent; and acknowledging the receipt of several letters, including the one already quoted,—Sir Charles Nicholson proceeds to observe that "the provisions of the Australian Land Bill" introduced by Lord Stanley in July 18, 1845, "were framed in utter disregard of the repeatedly-expressed opinions and votes of this council. The vesting the executive with enormous and all but uncontrolled powers, in order to carry out its provisions; the reservation to the crown of the right of sole appropriation of the revenue derivable from the waste lands, and the continuance of the high upset price, are the most prominent, though not the only objections which characterise Lord Stanley's bill." He continues:—"Many of the objections urged against the bill brought in by Lord Stanley, apply with equal