THE SQUATTERS' BATTLE 133 



Melbourne, should be allowed. In February, 1841, the 

 regulations were rescinded. Gipps, strong and capable, 

 had prevailed. Lord John Russell, who had seemed 

 to favour the big squatter, now scared him by a pro- 

 posal to raise both the licenses and the assesf-ment on 

 stock. He thought " the license might be raised to 

 five or six times its present amount " (from £10 to £50 

 or £60). The proposal threw them into a panic, for 

 times were bad then. Then came a new bill carried by 

 Lord Stanley, who decided that no more gratuitous 

 grants should be made (a superfluous decision), and 

 provided, instead, that land should be sold by auction 

 at a minimum price of £1 per acre, while special blocks 

 of 20,000 acres might be sold. Evidently, there was an 

 uncomfortable oscillation between large and medium- 

 sized domains. Governor Gipps was still against the 

 large squatters, but had not yet influenced Lord Stanley 

 as he influenced Lord John. He took measures to 

 heighten the panic Russell had created. He aimed at 

 limiting runs, say, to an amount that would suffice for 

 500 head of cattle or 5,000 sheep. The license for each 

 run (many of the squatters held a number of runs) was 

 to be separate. Improvement or cultivation would give 

 the occupier " a kind of right to purchase a portion of 

 his run, or otherwise to obtain secure possession for a 

 term of years after occupation as a tenant-at-will." 



After making official inquiries through 1843-44, Gipps 

 issued his Regulations for the Occupation of Crown 

 Lands. They do not now appear specially onerous. 

 He merely proposed to limit the extent of runs and to 

 exact contributions according to the area occupied and 

 the number of stock depastured. The right of the 

 Government to oust the squatter was to remain absolute, 

 and runs were to be resumable without compensation. 

 The whole colony rose against the new regulations like one 

 man. But it was by no means a rising on the side of the 

 squatters. Little sympathy was felt for the would-be 

 aristocracy, though much might be somewhat hypo- 

 critically expressed. It was a rising against arbitrary 



