HISTORICAL SKETCH. 465 



Act, in force in Australia. The execution of the provisions of the 

 Ordinance was entrusted to the Registrar-General's department. 

 Under the Act the Governor may appoint deputy registrars and 

 examiners of titles, also lands titles commissioners. Land 

 alienated in fee from the crown after the commencement of the 

 Ordinance was subject to its provisions ; but it remained 

 optional to bring under the provisions of the Ordinance such 

 lands as had been granted prior to the day it came into opera- 

 tion. It is indisputable that this Ordinance would have had for 

 its effect to facilitate the transfer of land and to fix titles, and 

 this would have been obtained at a very small cost to the 

 landholders, and yet the Ordinance, though passed some twelve 

 years ago, and declared as taking effect from the 1st of January, 

 1871, has never been put in force, nor has it been repealed, so far 

 as I know. How are we to account for this oversight ? It was 

 insinuated that great difficulties would be encountered in enforc- 

 ing its clauses in the case of lands granted before its passing ; 

 but such difficulties could not be anticipated as regards grants 

 made after the 1st of January, 1871, and how many acres have 

 been granted since that epoch ? But had the law been put in 

 force, the interests of the legal profession would have suffered, 

 and naturally enough lawyers show themselves antagonistic to 

 the measure. But as far as I can understand the economy of 

 the Act, the public would have gained substantial advantage had 

 it taken effect. Had not Sir Arthur Gordon left the colony 

 almost immediately after the Ordinance had been passed, he cer- 

 tainly would have put it in force. 



When Sir Arthur Gordon took the administration of the 

 colony, Governmental influence was in the hands of a few per- 

 sonages having exclusive views. The reforms projected by the 

 Governor were ill-received by the party, and they strove to ob- 

 struct his way ; but Sir Arthur was not the man to desist from 

 measures which he considered just and fair. Unable to tame 

 his opponents into acquiescence, he did not hesitate to crush 

 them. 



I shall not presume to pass a judgment on the administration 

 of Sir Arthur Gordon. If some of his reforms were hailed with 

 undisguised satisfaction by the majority of the people, fchey 

 were, on the other hand, censured and opposed by those who 

 must grieve at the loss of their influence. This, however, I can 



E E 



