Читать книгу History of Tasmania - John West - Страница 37

Table of Contents

Sir Thomas Brisbane,[172] to facilitate the employment of prisoners, required that the grantee should, for every 100 acres of land granted, enter into bonds to employ one convict for the term of his transportation, or the average, ten years. By receiving a second convict for one year, he was promised a bonus of a second 100 acres.

This condition was a serious obstacle to the ready sale of location orders. It was not, however, unnecessary: many casual visitors and masters of merchantmen obtained grants, which they sold instantly and cleared a considerable sum. Land speculators were greatly disconcerted by the incumbrance: many were anxious to throw up land orders, and attempted to recover money for the goods given in exchange. A trial (1825), in which Mr. Underwood, of Sydney, was the plaintiff, is a curious example of this traffic. The defendant had given in payment for 21 cwt. of sugar, an order for 200 acres of land; but when the convict clause was promulgated, the land was deemed worthless, and the plaintiff sued for £59, the price of the sugar. The judge, however, resisted the claim, and declared that the order had paid for the sugar, although its sale was clandestine and illegal.

The occupation of land was considered a sufficient proof of ownership, if not disputed within a short period, or negatived by written evidence. To resume a location, as the courts were then constituted, required the issue of a special commission, and could be only effected through a jury. On a trial, in which the Rev. Robert Knopwood was defendant, Judge Field stated that the conditions of early grants were practically void. Knopwood had agreed to sell the estate of Cottage Green for £2,000, to Captain Jones, who paid £1,000 in hand, and entered into bonds for £1,000 for payment of the residue. Knopwood bound himself in a similar penalty to give up the premises when the whole sum should be paid. The widow of Jones sued for release from this bond (1821). The lawyers urged that Knopwood had violated the clause against alienation, and was liable to forfeit the whole. The judge refused to entertain this plea; but set aside the forfeiture as unequal: the estate, according to witnesses, was not worth more than £1,000. The judge strongly condemned the unclerical rigour of the defendant. The celebrity of Cottage Green, now occupied by extensive mercantile establishments, gives special interest to the judgment.

Efforts to resume land, not properly conveyed, were successfully resisted; and jurors appear to have determined, at all times, to deny a verdict to the crown. In 1824, in an action for intrusion (Rex v. Cooper), the jury delivered a verdict, that "the defendant had obtained possession in the usual manner." The judges asserted that no title was good, except such as passed under the great seal. A locatee, in an action of ejectment (Birchell v. Glover), who possessed from 1811 until 1823, was supplanted by a person in 1824, who obtained a grant: the judge directed for the defendant, but the jury found for the plaintiff. A similar case (Martin v. Munn, 1833), was tried three times with the same issue. The judge directed, that although long occupation by the plaintiff were proved, the grant to the defendant was a virtual resumption by the crown: this the jury considered inequitable, and found for the original occupier.

The trial of a cause in Van Diemen's Land (Terry v. Spode, 1835), led to the exposure of a fatal error in land titles throughout the colonies. Spode had claimed and taken possession of a portion of land occupied by Terry, who brought an action of ejectment: the jury gave a verdict in his favour; but it was stated by counsel that both grants were "defective and void in law."

This error had been discovered by Mr. Alfred Stephen (1829). The secretary of state was consulted, and authority received by Arthur to amend the form. The royal instructions had authorised the governors to grant lands, which they had always issued in their own names, instead of in the name of the king. The judges stated that in every case, whether of a subject or the king, a conveyance must be made in the name of the owner, and not of the attorney. These grants were, therefore, utterly void. In New South Wales the defect was cured by special legislation; but in Van Diemen's Land every grant was subject to an ordeal. Those already issued by Arthur had been legally worded after the defect was discovered; but the government of New South Wales continued the invalid form, until the judgment of the court led to its revision.[173]

The importance of settling the titles to land was universally felt, but the difficulties were not easily overcome. Prior to 1826, the Van Diemen's Land grants were drawn up in New South Wales. They were full of errors of all kinds: the boundaries, quantity, and names were mis-described; the land intended for one man was conveyed to another; inaccurate charts, on which grants were marked, multiplied mistakes; the surveyors ran their chains over the land, and marked off five or six farms in as many hours. They erased and altered their descriptions: accurate measurement discovered that many were without a title to the land in their possession, or that their grants were partly occupied by a next neighbour. The dates of these instruments were often arbitrary, yet they bound to cultivation and non-alienation, and often within years already past. Some printed forms contained stipulations not applicable, and became inoperative on the face of them: they described hundreds of acres in excess, but stated that those beyond the king's instructions, should be taken as not granted at all.

When Mr. Alfred Stephen pointed out the defect in form, the government concealed the mistake until the king granted authority for correcting the error by royal warrant, received in 1830. It now became necessary to ascertain disputed titles. It was proposed by some to establish them by a general act: against this course Mr. A. Stephen protested, and pointed out consequences, that proved his objections were just. Many of these illustrate the idle and fraudulent manner in which the public business is often transacted. A grant issued in 1823, gave one side-line 32 acres, written over an erasure. An investigation took place: a record book kept in Hobart Town shewed a similar erasure. The same entry had been preserved at New South Wales, and there it was 22 acres: the holding party was innocent; but his title was invalid. Still more extensive erasures were discovered in a valuable property; the entire description had been changed and another substituted. At Richmond, two persons selected land adjoining each other: their grants had been exchanged, and he who was thus deprived of the most valuable, resorted to a chancery suit for its recovery. At Norfolk Plains a great many farms were located and occupied for a number of years. They commenced their measurements from opposite points, and each farm gradually approximated. When their lands were surveyed by the grant deeds, every owner found that his side-line advanced upon his neighbour, until at last the central proprietor saw his estate absorbed. In Oatlands, two properties were measured according to the common practice: the side-lines were guessed at; one cultivated, and the other sold his property; but when measured, the improver of his estate discovered that his homestead, and nearly one hundred acres of his land fell by description to his neighbour.

At Bagdad Rivulet, a surveyor measured eight grants adjoining. All the bearings given in the grants were mistaken: to adjust them, one would lose the back of his farm and take his neighbour's, who would go on the next location and obtain a well cultivated farm.

To have confirmed all former titles would have been obviously unjust. In 1823, a location was given, but abandoned. Sorell advised a settler that came after to take the land, which he did. For fourteen years he lived there, and spent £3,000: the original owner re-appeared with a Brisbane grant, as a claimant of this property.

Colonel Arthur adopted Stephen's recommendation in 1831, and announced in the Gazette, January following, its approval by the secretary of state.

All existing grants being invalid, the settlers depended on the justice of the crown to perfect their titles. The royal warrant of the king authorised the renunciation of claims founded on the informality, and deeds drawn in the king's name, containing the same conditions as the governors' grants, were offered at 5s. Now, however, the grants contained a true description of the land, and the name of the rightful possessor. The loose system of conveyancing, formerly expressed rather the intention than the act of transfer. Property had been subdivided, especially in the town: these parcels, however small, were now conveyed direct to the actual owner, subject to their proportion of quit rent. Possession and reputed ownership, were taken as a title. Those whose property was in excess, or less than their description, had their proportion of quit rents adjusted. The governor threatened with resumption lands obtained by exhibiting false pretensions to capital, or alienated before the period prescribed, or by collusive sheriff's sales. Oblivion was granted to breaches of conditions, when not fraudulent, on payment of 6d. per acre fine. Commissioners, James Simpson and George Frankland, Esqrs., were appointed to carry out this admirable plan (1832).

An act, constituting the caveat board a court of equity and good conscience, was passed in 1835. The gentlemen who framed it held the board, "in the sacred light of a court," although the concurrence of the governor was necessary to render its decisions valid. Commissioners were appointed to examine on oath. They were empowered to obtain a verdict from a jury in a special case: by appealing to the judge of the supreme court, they could submit a feigned issue for trial. In clear cases, however, after three months' notice, they were permitted to adjudicate. The decisions of this board have usually satisfied the public: they have been nearly always confirmed, and have prevented boundless litigation.[174]

Many surveyors were employed, who acted in the several districts (1838). The survey of 100 acres was effected for £5, of 2,000 for £20. The list of locations being published, the surveyor-general held a movable court, to identify and arrange the boundaries. It was part of his duty to mediate between the contending parties. These preliminaries being settled, the commissioners issued grants to such as made good their claim.

The proof of intention on the part of any officers, by custom entitled to grant occupation, has commonly barred the rights of the crown; but for this, a large amount of practical injustice must have been inflicted. Such was the only form in which grants could be distributed, when the country was just occupied, and the science of mensuration and accounts almost unknown.

To this, the case of the heir-at-law of Major Abbott is nearly a solitary exception. Being about to retire from office, Major Abbott applied for a reserve of 210 valuable acres at Launceston, and 3,000 acres elsewhere. On the recommendation of Sorell, then lieutenant-governor, who stated minutely the land desired, Sir Thomas Brisbane ordered the ground to be marked off as "crown reserves:" and Sorell, being just superseded, wrote on the order with a pencil the name of Abbott. Several persons at Launceston regretted the alienation of land useful to the township, and petitioned accordingly. Their views were favored by Arthur, and the claim of Abbott was supported by Sorell. Lord Bathurst ordered the grants in question to be given. Arthur, however, again appealed, and the decision in favour of Abbott was cancelled; but the 3,000 acres, reserved in the same terms and at the same time, were confirmed. Major Abbott through life maintained his right to the Launceston reserve, and devolved its prosecution on his son; for twenty years he contested his right with the agents of the crown. During the litigation its value has ranged from £2,000 to £8,000.

On an appeal to the secretary of state, Lord John Russell referred the claimant to trial by jury. He erected a house on the ground: this a chain gang was employed to destroy. He brought his action for trespass, which the law officers met by a demurrer. On his application for a deed of grant, a caveat was entered by Major Wentworth. Two of the commissioners decided in Abbott's favour, and the third, Dr. Turnbull, against him. The usual course was to issue grants on the decision of the major part: this the governor refused, and the case was once more referred to the secretary of state. In 1849, Earl Grey declared that the governor had exercised a sound discretion in refusing the advice of the caveat board,[175] and thus finally negatived the claim.

The intention of Sorell in favour of Major Abbott is clear: the provisional reserve of the land in his behalf is clear also. The views of Sir Thomas Brisbane are not so indisputable; but they probably changed on a remonstrance being offered by Arthur. The official answer to Sorell's application was a description of the reserve solicited, unaccompanied with demur or question: it was understood by Sorell to mean approval; and, but for subsequent interference, a grant would have issued of course. Where no corruption can be suspected, actual or ultimate value is certainly no equitable objection to perfect a claim founded on the custom, and created by the authorities of the time.

Except the grants claimed under the Downing-street regulations, lands were bestowed at the discretion of the governor, to the extent of 2,650 acres. Many received still larger quantities at different times. The arrest of robbers, the cultivation of flax or hops, the capture or conciliation of the aborigines, and losses by fire, were occasions for the governor's benevolence: other and less respectable causes were attributed, and scarcely require enumeration.

The large discretion of the governor was asserted by Sir George Murray. Mr. Hall, the editor of the Monitor, had been refused a grant by Darling, while others were freely indulged. He complained; but was told by the secretary of state (1829), that the governor could judge most correctly of an applicant, and that his decision would be usually held final.

The collection of quit-rents has baffled the agents of the crown: at first, the amount was too small to repay the trouble of collection, and for both colonies, in 1824, did not exceed £400 per annum.

A large number of grants in Van Diemen's Land became liable in 1831, and notice was given that payment would be enforced. The settlers of Cornwall, led by Messrs. Bryan, Joseph Archer, and Gleadow, signed a petition to the crown, which complained that the exaction was partial and oppressive. The governor promised to forward the memorial, but stated that he had no ground to expect that the claim would be ever relaxed.

Notwithstanding, in 1834, Arthur proposed a composition. He offered a release at ten instead of twenty years' purchase, if accepted within one year; without, however, allowing any set-off "for convict maintenance"—equal, in some cases, to the whole sum. In 1836, he proposed to intercede with the crown to relinquish all claims up to that year, a bond being given by the debtor for the arrears, if required: these offers were but little successful.

To prevent a return to this topic, it may be added, that in 1841 Sir John Franklin offered to mediate for a remission of accumulations prior to 1835, provided all from that date were liquidated by yearly instalments. The total amount of quit-rent is estimated at £15,000 a-year, including the towns.

The collection of quit-rents is a curious instance of dodging—the government to obtain, and the settlers to evade. Those debtors drawn into payment, could demand in equity that the indulgence granted to defaulters should be communicated to them: they were allowed a set-off in future payments. Those who redeemed their quit-rent were less favored.

The extinction of uncertain obligations would be a public boon, if only for their tendency to produce discontent and habits of evasion. The reservations of timber and material, and right of road-making, are hardly less impolitic. If the law should oblige a proprietor to accommodate his country, equity prescribes his fair indemnity. A functionary might cut through a settler's estate in malevolence, and destroy the approaches to his dwellings, under terms without tangible limitation. In 1831, the government authorised a party to go through an orchard, planted on a Macquarie grant, to enlarge a road to the ferry at Risdon. The owner brought his action, and the assessors gave him a verdict. The lawyers pleaded the general invalidity of colonial titles, and thus the right of the crown to resume! In 1824, the roads were thirty feet: in 1827, they were increased to sixty; and the attempt was made to take from a location given under the old rule, the increased breadth stipulated by the new.[176]

"A strange rumour," said a colonial editor, "has reached us, that free grants of land will be conferred no more." Lord Ripon's regulations were published in London, January 20th, 1831. They were framed to obviate the theoretical and practical evils attributed to the easy acquisition of land; to terminate the prodigality of governors, and the frequent quarrels occasioned by their favoritism; and above all, to prevent laborers from becoming landholders, and the tendency of colonists to scatter over territories they can not cultivate. This important change, which excited alarm or exultation in the colonies, was only noticed in one London newspaper: with such indifference was a system regarded, destined to produce the most important national consequences.

Except reserves intended for public use, crown lands were offered for sale to the highest bidders, at the upset price of five shillings, and for the first time, to the usual reservation were added precious metals.

Arthur, who greatly disapproved the application of these rules to Van Diemen's Land, where no tendency to dispersion had been displayed, and where free grants of land formed the basis of the convict system, manfully employed the last hours of patronage. The lands in the towns were rapidly disposed of, and all who could prefer a reasonable claim, were readily indulged. A few grants were bestowed by the special favor of Arthur: 205,000 acres were alienated chiefly in grants of extension, due by the terms of the original grants. Those whose expectations were satisfied, were not displeased with a measure which gave a definite value to estates, and when once the principle was established, the higher the price of crown lands, the greater the nominal value of their own.

A large number of persons, by neglect of the conditions, were liable to forfeiture; but among them were several favorite officers of the governor, or members of his own family. It was stated, without contradiction, that the surveyor-general sold his maximum grant for £1,700, when none of the conditions were fulfilled. An attorney-general not only parted with his property, but obtained afterwards a grant in extension for improvements he never made; and a gentleman, who had not visited the country, but was related to several persons of influence, obtained both a country and a town allotment.[177]

Lord Ripon's regulations disappointed many officers intending to settle in the Australian colonies; but against this a provision was made (August, 1831), which entitled them to a remission of from £150 to £300, according to rank. They were, however, to give bonds for residence on the land so obtained.

The ready sale of waste lands seemed to justify their valuation by the crown. In 1832, £44,000 were netted, at nearly twelve shillings per acre. This high average was occasioned by the sale of valuable reserves: those of Ross were sold, some portions at 29s. per acre. The governor complained that the sale of town allotments led to speculation and limited improvements; he therefore offered land on three years' leases, except at Hobart Town, at the usual quit-rent, and exacted the promise to erect buildings of brick or stone. The absence of competition for the country allotments threatened to limit the proprietorship; but this precaution was forbidden by the secretary of state in 1835, when the system of granting lands at quit-rents finally terminated.