Courtesy of TROVE Northern Star, Saturday 29 March 1947

SAGAS OF THE EARLY DAYS by WINDSOR LANG.

Black Market In Land – “Peacocks” Of The Mid – 80’s

THE LAND ACT of 1861 did good by opening up land to a greater number of individuals, but it also produced a class of men who made money by engineering with the land, rather than by settling down to a farming life. Clever selectors would “pick the eyes” out of an occupier’s leasehold, i.e., would settle on the choice patches with the intention of blackmailing the squatters – forcing the squatter to buy them out. This practice was known as “peacocking.”

Squatters frequently borrowed money for the purpose of buying out the intruders. An unfavourable season would leave them unable to meet the interest charges at the bank, and so they would be cleared of the land. If they survived, the big leaseholder was converted into a big freeholder.

To protect himself against the selector, the squatter would engage in “dummying”. He would arrange with other persons to take up (peacock) pieces of his leasehold, ostensibly for themselves, but in reality to hand it over to him (the squatter) then he was able to take it over. Such selectors came to be known as “dummies”. (Actually many of these developed into “double-crossers”). This prevented genuine selectors from securing these patches. (K. R. Cramp.)

To those with a knowledge of the successful, even if not entirely beneficial, implementation of Mr. John Robertson’s Land Act of 1861 in the Richmond River, district Mr. Arthur W. Jose’s adverse criticism in his “History of Australasia” presents’ an unfamiliar viewpoint:  –

“Few laws, one hopes, have done as much harm to the community as the Land Act of 1861. Its ostensible object – the settling of small farmers on the fertile patches of land – was rarely attained. It divided the country, into two hostile camps, each hating and suspecting the other. Its moral effect is best described in the words of a Royal Commission’s Report:  –

“It has tarnished the personal virtues of veracity and honourable dealing by the daily habit of intrigue by the practice of evading the law, and by declarations, in defiance of fact, universally made. Self-interest has created a laxity of conscience in all matters connected with land laws, and the strain attaches to men of all classes, and of all degrees.”

This seems to be over-caustic criticism rather than candid commentary. It might have had a measure of justification in its consideration of the “all-over” pattern of Land Settlement in N.S.W., but one cannot help but feel that Mr. Jose’s condemnation, coupled with the “finding” of a Royal Commission, was overwhelmingly influenced by a partisan outlook – considering that the pastoral interests had a controlling grip on the Legislature.

Certainly impressions, such as those given by Mr. Jose, do not present a true reflection of the immediate effects of “free selection” in the Richmond River district. The first “free selectors” here made their choice of selection from the rich brush lands on the river banks of the arms and main stream of the Lower Richmond, and in the expansive stretch of the Big Scrub. In those areas there was no conflict, between pastoral and agricultural interests. Certainly Mr. Clark Irving’s outposts touched points on the South Arm, but the Virginia holding on the North Arm, near Lis more, would not appear to have, at any time, seriously conflicted with the “free selection” in the Gundurimba and Wyrallah river-bank land areas.

Naturally, the scrub-covered river bank flats and the scrub lands did not carry a growth of grass. Otherwise, they would have attracted pastoral occupation long before. At a later stage selectors did invade the territory occupied by the squatters on the upper Richmond, and squatter and selector interests clashed, but not to the extent that would call forth, the caustic criticism of the Royal Commission.

Other troubles did arise, but they mainly concerned finance.

The story of land settlement in Australia, by way of “alienation” from the time of MacArthur’s land grant of 5,000 acres in 1803, and Ed ward Gibbon Wakefield’s scheme put into operation in South Australia in 1836, makes unhappy reading. It is a matter for sincere regret that the ideals expressed so convincingly by Mr. Henry George in America somewhere about 1867, and later embodied in his work “Progress and Poverty”, did not govern the minds of our fore most writers and statesmen in those early days.

Unfortunately Australia did not hear Mr. George’s message until some years later. It was unfortunate also that financial aid by the governments, as it exists today, through the Rural Bank, could not have been initiated side by side with the Land Act of 1861. The days of the pioneer “free selectors” on the Richmond River would have been happier ones.

It would be extremely difficult, at this late date, to determine who was the first “free-selector” on this river, so many of the old records are missing at the Department of Lands but many who were already resident here, in various spheres of occupation, seized the opportunity of securing possession of land through conditional purchases.

The bulk of the selectors, however, were newcomers from the South Coast. Practically every one of the first selectors on the river was a bona fide farmer. The majority of prospective selectors came to this river by way of the Clarence. The shipping to that river was more dependable than that to the Richmond, where one never knew to any degree of certainty when the bar might lock the steamer out.

In some cases a party of selectors had made provision for the continuance of their journey by bringing riding horses and pack horses with them on their sea voyage. With these they continued overland to the Richmond from the Clarence. These parties were rare unless they included some who were well-versed in bushlore, because they would have to face a trackless stretch bristling with difficulties in the way of unknown swamps, creeks, and scrub-blocks.

I have been told of some who purchased a rowing-boat at the Clarence, and had it conveyed by hired bullock dray and team to the Tuckombil Creek, from whence the journey could be continued by use of the rowing boat. As this was by no means either a regular or convenient route. I cannot imagine many strangers using it.

Most would utilise the regular bullock-team service between Lawrence Grafton, and Casino. This had been established for some time. It was used as a stock-route by the pastoralists, and for the carriage of supplies for the stations and other community centers in this district. No pleasure trip over well-maintained “speed ways” was this journey per medium of bullock-wagon between the Clarence and Casino.

Naturally travel was painfully slow. The journey would last for any length of time up to a couple of weeks, and that a normal one  –  without major mishap. As a compensation the semi-tropical scenery encountered enroute delighted the travelers. The way was often blocked by flood waters and the roadway had been deeply rutted by bullock-dray traffic of previous days.

(To be continued.)

Read more: Sagas of the Early Days