However it seems that most were not against capital, but against the monopoly of the squatters: they wanted to be property owners themselves (Note 46) - a new yeomanry (Note 47). However, there also seems to have been an element of Utopianism here in the stated desire for land, a dream of the Irish, amongst others (Note 48), seems contradicted by the refusal of many workers to quit the cities (Note 49). This is only partly explained by their willingness to face the hardships of the bush on their own account but not for the squatters.

There were others who supported the creation of a yeomanry. It was said that Rev. J.D. Lang aimed at attracting people from the over populous cities and towns (Note 50), yet his pet scheme was to set up virtuous Protestant yeomen on their own farms (Note 51). This apparently excluded most of the Irish, and probably many of the ex-diggers.

Lang probably had the traditional yeomanry in mind. In late 17th century Britain the yeomen (Note 52) were that class of countrymen between the gentlemen and the petty farmers, numbering about 120,000. Their yearly incomes were between £40 and £200, they lived in comfortable houses, and were traditionally supposed to be hard working, prudent, and often Puritan. They were educated, and socially responsible, acting as churchwardens, constables, overseers of the poor, surveyors of the roads, i.e. they were pillars of society (Note 53).

WAS "FREE" SELECTION REALLY FREE ?

The most significant contradiction between the terms of the free selection legislation and the rhetoric upon which the liberal middle class politicians seem to have ridden into power is that the land was expensive. This meant that few workers would have the capital necessary to establish themselves on the land. Robertson clearly intended this. He publicly stated in April 1861, six months before his legislation passed, that he expected men with £100 or £200 to go on the land (Note 54). Robertson expected them to have capital left over after the deposit with which to stock and work their selections (Note 55).

The size of an economic selection is discussed below. However, even on the basis of 40 acres, a worker required a substantial sum to make a go of it. For example, under Robertson's Acts, a selector needed £10 for a deposit, and had to make £40 worth of improvements in the first three years (Note 56). Provision also had to be made for food, shelter, tools, seed and livestock, including working animals. The cost of land clearing was also significant.

Table 2 gives some idea of the money involved. No doubt the amount needed varied from selection to selection, but it seems that Robertson's estimate of £100 to £200 was realistic (Note 58). The minimum cash outlay for a Darling Downs selector has been conservatively estimated at £221 (Note 59).

Most workers would be unable to amass that sort of capital.

The "fair and reasonable" wage set by Higgins J in 1907 at 7s per day or 42s per week was regarded as the minimum required to enable an unskilled labourer with a wife and three children to provide "the normal needs of the average employee, regarded as a human being living in a civilised community" i.e. "frugal comfort" (Note 76). This converts to £109 for 52 weeks. It is improbable that a worker would be able to put aside much of this in savings.

The standard of living gradually improved during the 19th century, but suffered a check during the 1890s (Note 77). It would seem reasonable to conclude that the wages earned by males during the 19th century (Table 3) were probably not sufficient to allow for huge savings, when compared with Higgins' "fair and reasonable" wage. I have been unable to find precise standard of living statistics for this period, however the evidence of unemployment and poverty around 1860 supports this conclusion (Note 78). Those on casual work may not have been employed all year (e.g. shearers), and without unemployment relief savings would have quickly eroded. Female wages were much lower (Table 4), making it even more difficult for them to save large amounts.

The high peak in wages during the gold rush period (see Table 3) was apparently offset to some extent by an increase in the cost of living at that time. The average annual earnings of the diggers has been estimated at between £200-£300 in 1852-3, between £100-£200 between 1854-7, and £80-£100 to 1861. However, even the earnings of the diggers were offset by exorbitant prices on the goldfields (Note 79). A tent full of stores was said to be second only to a tent full of gold (Note 80).

Few of the 1850s gold rush generation became rich (Note 81) and by the early 1860s the Victorian and NSW rushes were over (Note 82). Towards the end, unemployment and poverty was increasing, especially in the cities (Note 83), and, as with the immigrants of the 1830s and 1840s, many were from urban backgrounds and unsuited to country pursuits (Note 84).

Not only the inability of workers to save prevented their accumulation of capital. Many apparently lacked the inclination as well. There are stories of workers on rations going on a binge, spending accumulated cheques in grog shops until exhausted by drink or theft (Note 85). Purchasing extras from the boss's store i.e. "truck", at inflated prices, was another way of eroding accumulated wages (Note 86).

WHY EXCLUDE MOST WORKERS FROM THE LAND ?

A few reasons suggest themselves. First, making the land expensive meant fewer people would compete with men of capital for the land (Note 87). In hindsight, most squatters were able to protect their runs, by fair means or foul, and it was generally the larger selectors who were successful. Second, the resulting strengthening of the landowning classes would counterbalance the threat posed by the huge working population clamouring for land. This group had already demonstrated its potential at Eureka.

However, a third reason, less emotive and ideological than the first two, may have had greater influence. The land had to be worked economically or farmers were doomed to failure. Capital was required to take advantage of reaping machines, stump jump ploughs and similar technology (Note 88). Yet most workers would have stretched their resources just to get on the land, and would have had insufficient capital to work their selection. It seems clear that most of this group were not expected to select, or if they did, were not expected to succeed.

HIDDEN AGENDA ?

If free selection wasn't really aimed at the workers who was it designed to benefit ? Given the lengths to which squatters had to go to protect their runs, both financially and illegally, one doubts whether they were behind the changes, even though in the end many of them obtained the fee simple of large parts of the country.

Baker argues that free selection was the result of a class war between pastoral wealth and bourgeois wealth (Note 89). Many men of modest capital did in fact establish themselves on the land, and the squatters were placed on a more even footing with landowners (as opposed to land holders)(Note 90).

Back to the Hammell Home Page

Comments to shammell@tpg.com.au