THE FIRST LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 343 



servant then resigning should ever be eligible for further employ- 

 ment by the State. They went by the score, some honestly resign- 

 ing, many not troubling about that formality, and the work of the 

 Departments was plunged into a confusion of arrears which were 

 really never overtaken. Meanwhile Mr. Latrobe saw an expendi- 

 ture increasing daily in a manner that defied all estimates, and in 

 the belief that he might not use the income from the gold licences 

 to meet the growing outlay without the sanction of the Home 

 Government, he soon found himself looking an ugly deficit in the 

 face. Following the lead of New South Wales, he had in August, 

 1851, fixed the licence fee for every gold digger at 30s. per month, 

 but his Executive held that this source of income was really based 

 upon the use of Crown lands, and, like the proceeds of the pastoral 

 licences, lay outside the control of the Council for general purposes. 

 So far as it was required for the direct management of the gold- 

 fields, it could of course be used to meet the cost of Commissioners, 

 survey of claims and other charges immediately connected there- 

 with. For such limited use the fund was more than ample ; so 

 when it was sought to charge the general revenue with the in- 

 creased cost of the Civil Service, and other expenses developing in 

 all directions as an indirect result of the gold mining, the Legisla- 

 tive Council formally refused " to vote from the general revenue 

 any additional expenditure caused by the discovery of gold ". 

 Money was urgently required. To increase the revenue through 

 the Customs was a work of time, and could not be done without 

 the concurrence of the Council. The land revenue was ear-marked 

 by the Constitution. Mr. Latrobe thought that he might at least 

 temporarily draw upon the gold fund until supplies were legally 

 available. And the time seemed to him opportune for largely in- 

 creasing this convenient income, and he found three good reasons 

 for suggesting that the licence fee should be doubled by raising it 

 to 3 per month. It must be presumed that he consulted his 

 Attorney-General before coming to this conclusion, and it is some- 

 what surprising .that the reasons should have found acceptance 

 with a man like Mr. Stawell. Firstly, he was of opinion that the 

 fee was a totally disproportionate contribution to the public revenue 

 compared with the amount of private gain. Secondly, the Legis- 



