LAND, LABOUR AND COMMERCE. 143 



to the Government for the passage money, and Riley suggested 

 that it should be repaid in three yearly instalments of 10, de- 

 ducted from the man's wages. 1 There were not sufficient 

 colonists who recognised the great " indirect " cost of convict 

 labour to press this experiment upon the Government, and no 

 attempt was made to carry it out. Many contented themselves 

 by agreeing with Cox that after all the work of the convicts 

 during thirty-two years had been incredibly great and success- 

 ful, especially when it was called to mind that " a great many 

 of them never did nor could be made to labour in England ". 2 



From the first Macquarie attempted to make the occupation 

 of the land a real thing. All grants issued by him contained 

 three conditional clauses which had not been included before. 

 The chief one was the prohibition of any transfer or alienation 

 within five years of the receipt of the grant. If the condition 

 were violated, the transfer or alienation would be null and void 

 and the land revert to the Crown. The other two directed, 

 under the same penalty of reversion to the crown, the clearing 

 and cultivation of certain proportions of the whole area within 

 five years. 3 



Theoretically the conditions were admirable, in practice no 

 one paid any attention to them. Judge-Advocate Bent himself 

 sold his own grant and a grant made to his twin sons before five 

 years had passed, and his case was not an isolated one. 4 Many 

 emancipists being devoid of inclination and capital, sold their 

 farms immediately at about 5s. an acre. Sometimes a grantee 

 was allowed to occupy his land before it had been measured or 

 the grant made out. In such cases the land was frequently sold 

 and another owner in possession under the " permissive occupa- 

 tion " before the first grantee had completed his title ; and instances 



1 Riley, C. on G., 1819. 



2 Cox, Reply to Bigge's Circular. See above. 



3 This condition was suggested in letter of Plummer. See Chapter III. above. 

 Macquarie in his first despatch (3oth April, 1810. See H.R., VII.) wrote as though 

 he varied the proportion according to the circumstances of each grant. Bigge 

 ^Report III.), wrote as though the same proportion was named in each. In Town- 

 son's grant the amount to be cultivated was 167 acres out of 2,000, a rather odd 

 number (enclosed in one of Wilberforce to Cox, letter R.O., MS., 1817). This is 

 the only case in which the amount is mentioned. Probably custom regulated the 

 proportion, and, in any event, no attention was paid to the condition, and " an ap- 

 pearance of an attempt to cultivate " was considered sufficient compliance. 



4 D. i, 24* February, 1815. R.O., MS. 



