Page:The three colonies of Australia.djvu/199

 force to that of Earl Grey—&apos;The most prominent of the evils with which this measure is defaced is the continuance of the hiah upset mice of land.'"

As we have before observed, Lord Grey was early a convert to the "sufficient price theory." In 1841, when, by the influence of the South Australian and New Zealand speculators, the committee on South Australian Insolvency reported on permanently fixing the price of land by Act of Parliament at £1 an acre, they came to this conclusion, without examining any colonial evidence, on the strength of a case carefully and ingeniously prepared and filled up by the evidence of the two principal witnesses, Mr. Gibbon Wakefield and Colonel Torrens. In that committee Lord Grey, then Lord Howick, proposed, although he did not succeed in carrying, a resolution to the effect that the price of land in Australia should never be less than £2 an acre, and that it should be from time to time increased in price until the want of labour, and the high price of labour then experienced, should be diminished.

It is quite clear that at that time he believed the price of land regulated the price of labour; and, considering the influences brought to bear upon them, he might fairly be excused for so believing. But in the five years which had elapsed since 1841, although a series of reports—to which we have already referred in Chapter XI.—from the Legislative Council, supported by a mass of evidence, had disproved the advantages anticipated, it seems that Earl Grey had either never read or totally disregarded the colonial authorities, and steadfastly adhered to his first impressions; for in Nov., 1846, he had addressed a despatch to Sir Charles Fitzroy, in which, "in justification of the policy pursued by Parliament in prohibiting the sale below its present price," he "recalled to recollection the grounds upon which that policy was originally adopted, and so far he considered that it ought to be chiefly adhered to. And he referred to the despatches of Lord Ripon," where the expediency of abolishing the system of free grants, and substituting one of sales by auction, at a uniform price, is stated, and the example afforded by the failure of Swan River is cited.

It would not now answer any useful purpose to quote this despatch at any length, especially as the contents may be gathered from the criticisms contained in the letter from which we are quoting.

The speaker observes, first, "That neither the council nor the colony have ever proposed to revert to the new grant system. Secondly, that Lord Ripon's system was 5s. an acre and not £1; that 1 an acre had only produced £57,104, while the low upset price had produced £680,000. Thirdly, that sales at 5s. an acre had abated the