The Land Was Never Free:  Myth and Reality of Van Diemen’s Land Grants

There is a persistent story told about colonial Tasmania: that British settlers came to Van Diemen’s Land and received free land. It appears in family histories, genealogical databases, and popular accounts of the colonial period. It is, at best, a half-truth. At worst, it obscures a system carefully designed to serve the interests of capital over labour, the powerful over the ordinary, and the Crown over everyone.

The land was never simply free. What was offered was something considerably more conditional, more calculated, and more revealing of how the colonial project actually worked.

The Grant System: Generous in Appearance

From the earliest years of European settlement in Van Diemen’s Land – formally established as a separate colony in 1825, though settled from 1803 – the British Government authorised governors to make land grants to free settlers. The broad outlines of this policy were in place from Governor Sorell’s time and continued until 1831. On the surface it looks simple: come to the colony, apply for land, receive it at no cost.

The reality was more complicated from the start.

Grants were not available to anyone who asked. Applicants had to demonstrate capital: money, livestock, farming implements, even a government pension counted, and the size of the grant was scaled to the capital declared. The 1828 regulations published in the Colonial Times set the formula explicitly: 640 acres for every £500 of capital, up to a maximum of 2,560 acres without purchase. A settler arriving with £2,000 in declared assets could expect around 2,560 acres; one with £500 received 640. The Land Board investigated each application, and the regulations were explicit that grants should not be made to persons “desirous only of disposing of them.”

This capital-scaling had a straightforward logic from the colonial administration’s perspective: unimproved land was useless to the colony. They wanted productive farms and pastoral runs, not speculators sitting on idle acres. But it also meant, from the beginning, that the grant system overwhelmingly favoured those who already had means.

The Conditions Attached

Even when land was granted, it came with strings.

Grantees were required to improve the land: specifically, to invest capital equal to at least one-quarter of the land’s assessed value in cultivation and development. Fail to do so, and the grant could be revoked. This was not a trivial requirement: it meant a new settler had to spend money on their grant before they had generated any income from it.

Grants also required a quit rent: an annual payment to the Crown acknowledging that ultimate ownership remained with the Crown rather than the recipient. The 1828 regulations set this at 5% per annum on the estimated value of the grant, deferred for the first seven years. This was not trivial on paper: a grant valued at £500 would attract £25 per year once the grace period expired. Grantees could redeem the quit rent entirely by paying twenty years’ worth in a lump sum, but those who neither paid nor redeemed remained legally liable. They were a perpetual reminder that what looked like ownership was in fact conditional tenure.

Most significantly, and most commonly overlooked in popular accounts, settlers who received grants were obliged to take on assigned convicts. The colony’s labour force consisted largely of transported convicts assigned to free settlers, who were responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing them. The “free” land therefore came bundled with an obligation to maintain a workforce at the settler’s own expense. The land was one side of a transaction; convict labour was the other.

As one observer noted in the House of Lords in 1846, it was in fact to the convicts that the prosperity of the settlers was largely owing: and those settlers had been bound, as a condition of their grants, to receive and maintain them.

The Conditions on Paper and the Conditions in Practice

Here is where the mythology becomes genuinely interesting: because the conditions attached to grants were not merely imperfect. They were, for the settler class as a whole, almost entirely unenforced.

The improvement obligation, the quit rent, the prohibition on selling land within five years of grant: all of these existed in law and were ignored in practice with near-total impunity. Settler William Barnes wrote to his brother in 1824 that it was understood you had to cultivate or stock your farm within five years, “but I believe this regulation is never enforced.” He was right. Barnes himself estimated he could sell his 1,000-acre grant for £800 in the same year he received it: a tidy capital gain on land he had done nothing with.

Barnes was far from alone. Hamilton Wallace wrote to his father in 1825 that he had been entitled to 500 acres but had “managed to get 1,280” — for which he was “repeatedly offered £700.” William Williamson, who told his sister he sought to “do my duty to all as a truly honest man,” simultaneously boasted of having given in “a fictitious capital” to secure his expected 1,000 acres. These are not isolated cases of individual dishonesty. They are evidence of a system in which misrepresentation was standard practice.

Governor Arthur recognised as much. He wrote to London in 1828 that “the schedule of property which settlers exhibit on their arrival in order to gain land is faithless to a proverb.” The historian L.L. Robson estimated later that probably half of all land granted in Van Diemen’s Land to 1830 had been obtained by evasion of the law.

Even quit rents, substantial on paper, went largely uncollected. When Arthur finally attempted to enforce payment in 1831, the solicitor-general advised him that any attempt to resume land for non-payment would be defeated by a jury. Since juries comprised other free settlers – men who had obtained their own grants on similar terms – no resumption was ever pursued. No land was ever taken back. The conditions proved unenforceable in practice, and by the time anyone seriously tried to enforce them, the land was already gone.

The scale of what happened in the 1820s is staggering in retrospect. From 1804 to 1822, a period of nearly two decades, only 132,550 acres had been granted in Van Diemen’s Land. In the eight years from 1823 to 1831, a further 1,899,332 acres were given away, almost all the profitable land in the colony, gone in less than a decade. By the time the Ripon Regulations came into effect in June 1831, there was very little good land left to sell.

Arthur ensured that. In the first half of 1831 alone, as the free grant system drew to a close, he handed over nearly 250,000 acres to new and existing settlers, including the long-coveted 100,000-acre grazing reserve near Ross, described at the time as “the finest tract of land in the island.” The beneficiaries were, predictably, members of the colonial elite.

The Privatisation of Crown Land: Who Really Benefited

The grant system as experienced by individual settlers, however imperfect, was a different creature from the deals struck at the top end of the colonial economy.

The Van Diemen’s Land Company, established by Royal Charter in 1825, secured over 400,000 acres, eventually settling at around 350,000 acres spread across the north-west, for a quit rent of £468 per year. That is not a misprint. Nearly half a million acres of Tasmanian land, some of the most substantial pastoral country available, transferred to a private company for less than the annual wage of a skilled tradesman. The Australian Agricultural Company in New South Wales received 500,000 acres outright, including coal mines at Newcastle, for nothing at all.

When critics of the land grant system complained that large grants had been the ruin of the colonies, they had a point – though not quite the one they meant. The problem was not generosity to settlers generally. It was the extraordinary concentration of land in the hands of companies and well-connected individuals who had the political leverage to obtain Royal Charters and governors’ favour. Individual settlers navigating the Land Board faced scrutiny and conditions. Chartered companies did not.

Governor Arthur, who dominated Van Diemen’s Land from 1824 to 1836, was particularly active in distributing land to members of his preferred social class. The pastoral elite that would shape Tasmanian economic and political life for generations was substantially assembled during his watch.

1831: The System Changes — and Why

In 1831 the entire framework changed. Lord Ripon, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, issued regulations ending land grants entirely. From that point, Crown land in the Australian colonies was to be sold at public auction, with a minimum price per acre to be set by government.

This was not a random policy shift. It was directly influenced by the ideas of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, whose theory of “systematic colonisation” had been gaining traction in London. Wakefield had identified what he saw as a fundamental problem with colonial land policy: land was too accessible. If labourers could acquire their own land too easily, they stopped being available as a workforce for established landholders.

His solution, which the Goderich/Ripon regulations effectively implemented,  was to set land prices deliberately high. High enough that a working man would have to labour for wages for years before accumulating sufficient capital to buy land of his own. The proceeds from land sales would then fund the immigration of new labourers to replace those who eventually graduated to landowner status.

Wakefield was perfectly candid about the intent. This was not an accidental feature of colonial land pricing: it was the explicit purpose. Keep land expensive; keep labour available; keep the social order intact.

What the Mythology Conceals

The “free land” narrative is not entirely without foundation. In the period before 1831, grants were made without direct cash payment, and for settlers of sufficient means the system did offer genuine opportunity. Many families who came to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s did establish themselves on granted land and built substantial properties.

But the mythology strips out the conditions, the capital requirements, the convict obligations, the quit rents, and the improvement covenants. It strips out the enormous disparity between what ordinary settlers received and what chartered companies and political favourites obtained. And it strips out the deliberate restructuring of 1831, which replaced imperfect generosity with a system explicitly designed to keep the majority of people working for someone else.

The colonial land system in Van Diemen’s Land was not a gift. It was a transaction, and like most transactions in colonial society, the terms depended heavily on who you were and who you knew.

---

Sources:

Colonial Times (Hobart), 18 January 1828 (land grant terms)
Hansard, House of Lords, 3 March 1846
R.M. Hartwell, The Economic Development of Van Diemen’s Land 1820–1850 (1954)
Stephen Roberts, History of Australian Land Settlement 1788–1920
James Boyce, Van Diemen’s Land (2008).