And when our ship pulled in to Circular Quay
   And I looked at the place where me legs used to be
   I thanked Christ there was nobody waiting for me
   To grieve and to mourn and to pity.
   And the band played Waltzing Matilda.

Words and Music by Eric Bogle

Government

On 15 July 1915 the first wounded from Gallipoli arrived at Port Melbourne on the Kyarra, an improvised hospital ship of 6,953 tons. It had embarked 478 in Egypt of whom 58 were wounded, 102 had venereal disease, 4 were prisoners and the remainder were either medical or disciplinary cases. (1) The welcoming crowd of several thousand were unsure whom they should cheer and whom they should jeer:

  With befitting dignity, the seriously wounded cases, who were
  removed to the base hospital in St. Kilda road, passed through a
  respectfully silent crowd.

The Queenslanders and New South Welshmen received scarcely a cheer. However, the four prisoners, under military guard were 'heartily cheered'. (2) By August the welcomes had become more fitting.

By September reports appeared in the press of returned soldiers unsuccessfully searching for employment. The immediate pre-war years had seen general prosperity but the outbreak of hostilities had caused sudden economic dislocation. The day after the British Empire went to war the Sydney Morning Herald leader was headed 'War and Unemployment':

  Already one mine at Newcastle has closed down because the foreign
  export trade in coal has been dislocated. Broken Hill is in a
  similar plight ... two mines have suspended operations and two
  thousand men have been thrown out of work. (3)

The only measure of unemployment at the time, reported by some four hundred unions of their membership, showed an increase from 8 percent to 11 percent of members unemployed in the third quarter of 1914. (4) In the first burst of patriotic fervour, an estimated 20,500 enlisted during August 1914, a monthly total that was exceeded only on two other occasions. (5) It may well be that many of those volunteers had recently lost their employment. Many of the misfits who were sent back to Australia during 1915 were probably unemployed before enlistment and they soon became evident on the streets of the capital cities.

During the first few years of the war, comforts for men on active service and support for those discharged as incapacitated were provided by public contributions of 14 million [pounds sterling] to over one hundred different patriotic funds. It was not until 1917 that the government assumed responsibility for reinstating returned servicemen into civilian life. That function, together with the payment of pensions, acquired the term 'repatriation', soon contracted, but without affection, to 'the Repat'. Until August 1917, War Councils at the state level and War Service Committees in local government areas were the conduits through which the patriotic funds cared for the invalids, the incapacitated and their dependants. In addition, they assisted with vocational training, placement in employment and advice on rural settlement. In response to an unrepresentative survey containing loaded questions, approximately 25 per cent of soldiers sampled indicated a wish to settle on the land after the war.

This fitted well with state government policy of closer settlement. That policy can be traced back to the hunger for land of the disappointed immigrants as they moved away from the goldfields in the late 1850s. Visionaries saw the opportunity to create a yeoman class on the English model of small landholders who would shift the emphasis of rural production from pastoral activities toward agriculture. However, after fifty years of experimentation, closer settlement could not be described as successful. (6)

The young, self-reliant, returning soldiers, hardened by the rigours of war, were seen as natural material to achieve the yeoman ideal. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that the origins of the English yeomanry lay in their potential to serve as a militia should invasion threaten. As E. G. Theodore, Treasurer of Queensland remarked, 'What is now suggested is simply the making of arrangements to carry out our existing land settlement policies, applying them to returned soldiers'. Many state politicians had misgivings following their unhappy experiences with closer settlement. Throughout 1916 at a series of conferences between the states and the Commonwealth, it was established that the states, having the constitutional power, would administer soldier settlement schemes with funds advanced by the Commonwealth. Legislation was hurriedly introduced in each state.

The need to expedite the settlement schemes was not only on compassionate grounds. The large number of idle returned men to be seen on the city streets raised doubts about the promises made to encourage enlistment: '... the need to win recruits dictated the need to placate returned soldiers eager to establish themselves on the land'. As early as September 1915 employers' organisations were urging their members to find work for the returned men: '... they must be taken off the streets'. (7)

Concern was expressed also in labour circles. One member of the Labour Council suggested that men who had done their duty to the Empire should not be forced to do hard work. He moved that the government should establish an institution where they could become lawyers or barristers, or could learn some other light employment. The Council stood for preference to unionists and returned soldiers should not prejudice that right. He was supported by another councillor who said that:

  ... a large majority of the returned men would not be fitted for
  hard manual labour, but as no great amount of intelligence was
  required to fit a man to become a magistrate, or even a Judge, such
  a training should be made available.

When it was pointed out that 80 percent of those who went to the front were unionists the motion was withdrawn. (8)

Training camps of three months duration were established, not only for instruction, but to create a probationary period during which men physically or attitudinally unsuitable could be weeded out. However, the political pressure to accept the greatest possible number prevented these good intentions being fully realised.

Although the state land administrations were experienced in closer settlement, they lacked sufficient staff to handle the avalanche of applications for soldier settlement. A cursory perusal of some applicants' files shows that the bureaucratic process had no chance of coping with the number of acquisitions needed nor the volume of the applications received.

As a result of allegations by that zealous crusader for the diggers' cause, Smith's Weekly Mr P. W. Street, Chief Judge in Equity, was appointed a Royal Commissioner in August 1920 to enquire into a very wide range of questions bearing upon the administration of the Returned Soldiers' Settlement Branch of the New South Wales Department of Lands (the Branch). The terms of the Commission were so extensive that, after taking evidence for fifty-four days and submitting an interim report of 826 pages, the Commission was terminated without pursuing all the questions.

The Commissioner initially cleared the former Minister, Mr W. G. Ashford, but found that the Director of the Branch, Bryant, had acted fraudulently? What was more relevant was that the administration of the Branch left much to be desired as evidenced by:

  ... a good deal of dissatisfaction among the soldier settlers upon
  the different group settlements ... it is the soldier settlers for
  whom this branch of the Department exists, and the fact that
  dissatisfaction is so widespread among them is fairly cogent
  evidence that things are not as they should be. (10)

The first report of the Repatriation Department tabled at the end of 1918 acknowledged that land settlement was the most important branch of its activities, but also the most unsatisfactory. Nationwide, 5798 applications had been received, 3 208 had been approved but only 1754 blocks had been allotted. (11) This, of course, was the fault of the states.

The land was in no sense a gift to the settlers as sometimes has been suggested. It was sold to them--in the case of resumed land, at cost plus a small margin for administration, and in the case of Crown land, at valuation. The sudden increase in demand for land ensured that it was sold to settlers at inflated prices.

  The first signs of disaster were evident as early as 1920 but the
  magnitude of the crisis took longer to gel. The full extent of the
  debacle was apparent by 1923-24 in a flurry of state investigations
  and futile attempts to stave off financial ruin by deferring
  repayments and writing-down debt. (12)

The Commonwealth, as the financier of the states, was concerned at the prospect of financial loss. In 1927 Mr Justice Pike was appointed a Royal Commissioner to report upon losses sustained by the states in settling returned soldiers on the land. The Commissioner found that the losses totalled 23,525,522 [pounds sterling] of which more than half was attributable to concessionary interest charged at 3.5 per cent in the first year, increasing by .5 of a per cent per year until the full cost was being recovered. (13)

The terms of reference were not directed toward the human costs and suffering of the settlers but only to the financial losses and how they should be shared between the states and the Commonwealth. Pike considered the states should bear their fair share because:

  It is undoubted that each settler obtained by the States under this
  scheme of soldier settlement represents a valuable asset to the
  State--in fact, some of the statements made put down the value of
  such an asset as 1,000 [pounds sterling] per settler ... (14)

The irony is that the vast majority of settlers would not have had personal net worth of anything approaching that amount.

The Commissioner was asked to report upon the steps taken by each state to recover advances from settlers who had abandoned their holdings. (15) The report showed that 10,970 had left their holdings, equivalent to 29 per cent of all allotments. As the Great Depression gripped the economy the number of abandonments and evictions greatly increased. In Victoria more than one half had left the land by 1938. They were destitute after years of heart-breaking toil and must have felt punished rather than rewarded. 'In later years, many soldier settlers would make comparisons between the agony of the battlefield and that subsequently experienced on the land.' (16)

Although the terms of reference did not include enquiry into the causes of failure, the Commissioner felt obliged to comment on that subject. Foremost was the lack of capital. Settlers were charged for the assessed value of their land and since the great majority had little or no savings, they assumed debt for the whole value. In addition, they borrowed for improvements, equipment, stock and supplies. Pike pointed out that, under the closer settlement schemes, an average unassisted settler with an average mortgage of 66 per cent could just make a living. One hundred per cent encumbrance was an impossible situation.

Pike was assuming a holding termed a 'home maintenance area' which was defined as:

  ... such an area as, when worked by an industrious settler, will,
  under average seasons and circumstances, return him sufficient to
  meet his commitments to the State and to maintain himself and his
  family in reasonable comfort.

The problem with that concept is that seasons are rarely average and circumstances (such as market conditions) are never constant. If those variables were not enough to threaten failure, many blocks allotted were less than a home maintenance area due to the pressure to place as many settlers as possible on the limited land available.

The third factor leading to failure was disabilities from war service, which would have included psychological problems not always apparent. Also under this heading was inadequate training.

Finally, there was the fall in market prices of primary produce which was beyond control but was implicit in the flawed concept of a home maintenance area.

At least in 1929 Pike could still report that:

  ... in very many cases, particularly in the grazing and mixed
  farming propositions where the settlers have been given a
  sufficient area, the settlers are doing well and making quite a
  good living. (17)

Private repatriation projects

The public's response to the patriotic funds had been spontaneous and unbounded. However, the call in 1916 for contributions to a Repatriation Fund had been disappointing but explicable by poor promotion and distractions such as the divisive conscription question. At grass-roots level there had been deep sympathy and material help for the incapacitated returned men and their dependants as well as for the families of those who would not return. It was not uncommon for a community to build a cottage for a family that had suffered grievous loss. All levels of society opened their hearts and their wallets. The Baillieu family of Melbourne donated 25,000 [pounds sterling] to the Repatriation Fund and from Sydney the Horderns gave 20,000 [pounds sterling] .

Sir James Joynton Smith, Lord Mayor of Sydney, financier and co-founder of Smith's Weekly, converted his Coogee mansion, Hastings, into a 40-bed convalescent hospital for returned soldiers. He then donated 15,000 [pounds sterling] toward its operation.

The Manifold bothers, William, James and Edward, prominent pastoralists and benefactors of the Purrumbete area near Camperdown, Victoria, gave three thousand acres to the Repatriation Fund and James gave additional land in the Richmond River district of New South Wales. Their cousin, Walter Synnot Manifold, a member of the Victorian Legislative Council, on the other hand, delayed the passage of that State's Discharged Soldiers Settlement Bill, until having his way that, from each resumption, land to the value of 10,000 [pounds sterling] should be retained by the owner. (18)

Another pastoralist, Mr Hunter White, offered 3000 acres of his Havilah Estate worth at least 7 500 [pounds sterling] as part of Mudgee's contribution to the Repatriation Fund. (19)

In 1920, an appeal for help from a desperate war widow prompted A. H. W. (Harry) Cunningham to initiate a venture to provide support for ex-servicemen and their descendants. Cunningham was a North Queensland pastoralist who ran 50,000 head of cattle over three stations with an area of 2500 square miles. These were situated approximately 170 miles inland from the port of Bowen.

Cunningham was prominent as a leader in the pastoral industry and in horse racing circles. As a member of the Bowen War Council, he was empathetic to the needs of returning soldiers. He conceived the idea of establishing a station to be worked by returned men for the benefit of their necessitous fellows and their dependants. Ignoring the indifference of Senator Millen, the Minister for Repatriation, Cunningham obtained the support of Mr Hunter, Chairman of the Queensland War Council who was also Minister for Lands. Through Hunter he acquired by selection four virgin blocks subdivided from a closer settlement resumption. He named the property Scartwater.

To obtain funding, Cunningham personally guaranteed the bank overdraft. The original herd consisted of 200 shorthorn heifers from his own stock and 700 mixed breeds that he persuaded his friends to donate. They also donated cash, horses and plant but the greater part of the 12,000 [pounds sterling] improvements was financed by Cunningham. Hence, it was not possible to distribute any profits to beneficiaries until 1929 when 500 [pounds sterling] was donated to the Northern District Council of the Returned Soldiers and Sailors Imperial League of Australia (RSSILA). In 1932 the Scartwater Trust was created to handle the distribution of profits from Scartwater Station. When the history of Scartwater was written in 1956, 277,721 [pounds sterling] had been paid in repatriation grants or advances to ex-servicemen from both wars and to provide scholarships for their children. (20)

Although the property was sold in 1979, the income from investment of the proceeds still provides secondary and tertiary scholarships for children and grandchildren of returned ex-service men and women. However, the benefit area is limited to a clearly defined section of North Queensland extending roughly from Innisfail in the north to St Lawrence in the south and west to the Northern Territory border. (21)

The work of the Legacy Clubs in fostering the welfare of war widows and orphans is well known. The origin of Legacy was the Remembrance Club formed in Hobart in 1923 by Major-General Sir John Gellibrand, a veteran of the Boer War whose distinguished military career culminated as GOC of the 3rd Division AIF. With his encouragement, a club having similar objects to the Remembrance Club was formed in Melbourne later in 1923, adopting the name Melbourne Legacy Club. Three years later in Sydney the Legacy Club of New South Wales was formed. As the movement spread throughout the state the name of the original club was changed to the Legacy Club of Sydney.

In October 1925 it became apparent '... that a field of great importance was the care, guidance and encouragement of the families of those comrades who, through death, were themselves no longer there to give those benefits. (22) The movement developed over time to provide the young wards, the Junior Legatees, with free medical and dental treatment, physical training, holiday camps, advice in their education and eventual assistance in obtaining employment. The hundreds of clubs that sprang up across the nation operated autonomously so that they were best able to serve local needs. The smooth organisation of the movement was possible through the capable leadership that had marked the triumphs of the armed forces.

German Verge, son of colonial architect John Verge, bequeathed the residue of his substantial estate to establish a trust to assist the repatriation of ex-servicemen and for support of their dependants. When he died in 1920 an estimated 100,000 [pounds sterling]--200,000 [pounds sterling] was available to his trustees for those objectives. The assistance of the Supreme Court in Equity appears to have been necessary to translate Verge's wishes into a workable scheme. It was not until December 1924 that the Court approved a comprehensive scheme drafted by the Master in Equity. It rejoiced in the ostentatious title of 'The German Verge New South Wales Returned Soldiers Repatriation Trust'. To qualify for benefits a returned veteran must have been a resident of New South Wales when he enlisted. There were three trustees, at least two of whom could be nominated by the RSSILA and four other bodies representing returned men. The Attorney-General had a surveillance role. (23) He appointed one of the trustees, Francis Egerton Bryant, recently retired General Manager in Sydney of the Union Bank of Australia, as Managing Trustee. Bryant, the other trustees and their staff performed the work of the Trust from premises in 115 Pitt Street, Sydney.

The scheme commenced on 6 February 1925 and by May 1926 Bryant was able to report that during the first year, 12,500 of the 15,800 applications for benefits had been processed. Applications continued to flood in at the rate of 200 a week. Approximately 6000 applicants, mainly widows and widowed mothers, had been paid some 80,000 [pounds sterling] in benefits. In addition to pension payments, the cost of artificial appliances, medical, dental and optical expenses was being paid. (24) Other payments were of a more practical nature, such as sewing machines so that widows could earn 'a few shillings'. (25)

Miss Emily Claughton of Hay died in August 1926 leaving an estate valued at some 250,000 [pounds sterling] . Her will directed that the income from the residue, approximately 6000 [pounds sterling] per annum, should be applied toward the maintenance of hospitals and other institutions in New South Wales and Victoria that were treating blinded, disabled or incurable soldiers, sailors or nurses. (26)

The Elizabeth Kirby Trust Scheme

Only one privately funded scheme to settle returned soldiers on the land has been identified. It was established by a bequest from Elizabeth Kirby who, rising from an impoverished rural background, became a capable and prosperous businesswoman in the years before women were granted the franchise.

A directory of 1882 shows Elizabeth Barby as a tobacconist at the upper end of Hunter Street, Sydney. She was then aged 29. The next year she paid her neighbour, Patrick Kirby, 400 [pounds sterling] for a one-half interest in his undertaker's business. (27) Just several months after Patrick's wife died in 1885 Elizabeth married her business partner. However, the partnership was short lived because Patrick died a little over one year later. Elizabeth carried on the business very successfully, soon with the help of her only son William whose birth had been registered in 1875 of an unknown father.

Elizabeth had an eye for a bargain in real estate and did not hesitate to grasp opportunity. In 1895 at the height of the depression, she purchased from mortgagees of the Sydney Real Estate Bank Ltd the property at 7 Elizabeth Street that extends through to Castlereagh Street. It is significant that she was able to pay the full price of 4000 [pounds sterling] without recourse to finance. (28)

The continuing success of the undertaking business was largely due to the opening of branches in a number of inner suburbs. Elizabeth retired, possibly as early as 1914 but certainly no later than 1920, and the business was acquired by Wood Coffill Ltd. She continued to accumulate real estate including, by degrees, an acre of waterfront land at Cremorne where she built her substantial residence. (29)

Elizabeth died on 6 June 1934 aged eighty-one. Her estate was valued for probate at 177,660 [pounds sterling] 10s 11d, equivalent in present day purchasing power to approximately $13 million. (30) By then she had divested herself of almost all her real estate and was paying 30s a week rent for her home. Her main investments were shares in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd, Commonwealth bonds and a significant bank balance. (31)

Elizabeth left her 1928 Packard car valued at 200 [pounds sterling] to her only grandson and her jewellery and piano to her only granddaughter. The wording of the will indicates that the grandchildren were minors in 1933 when Elizabeth decided how to distribute her wealth. Elizabeth seems to have disapproved of her son's remarriage in 1922 for there is a curious provision in her will. The declaration that she had made 'proper and sufficient provision' for William during her lifetime was not altogether unusual. However, Elizabeth then went on to direct that, if her trustee (the Perpetual Trustee Company) considered that William's income was insufficient at any time, 10 [pounds sterling] per week (over three times the basic wage) should be made available for his support but only if he:

  shall reside at the Sports Club at Sydney or any similar Club at
  Sydney where women are not admitted ...

the 10 [pounds sterling] to be paid directly to the management of the Club. The trustee should also pay:

  any hospital and medical fees necessarily and properly incurred by
  my said Son on his own account but not on account of his Wife or
  any other person ...

In other words, if William fell on hard times, he would have to separate from his wife if he were to benefit under the will.

After making provision for modest annuities to two friends and for William's possible needs, the residue of the estate was to be applied to assist necessitous returned soldiers or airmen (but not sailors) to take up rural holdings on which they intended to live and work (the Kirby Scheme). Elizabeth had very definite views about the type of person who might benefit under her will and the type of land they should have. The beneficiaries would be the needy veteran, his widow and his descendants. Necessitous circumstances were defined as earning no more than the basic wage and having no more than 200 [pounds sterling]. In order to ensure that they were worthy of help, applicants needed to have had rural experience or at least their father should have been experienced on the land. Furthermore, they needed a certificate from the senior police officer of their district that they were sober and industrious. They could not look forward to an easy life because the land had to be virgin land, unfenced and unenclosed and at least 50 miles as the crow flies from Sydney GPO.

The cost of the land was to be no more than 500 [pounds sterling] in any one case. After purchase by the trustee, it would be leased rent free to the settler who had to pay only the holding expenses such as rates. Most trusts (although not charitable trusts) must have a termination date referable to the life of some person living when the trust is established. Elizabeth, or more likely her solicitor, decided that such date would be twenty years after the death of the last survivor of the returned soldiers who were receiving war pensions at the time of Elizabeth's death. When that date arrived, the freehold title would be transferred without cost to the lessees.

As in the case of the German Verge bequest, the Kirby Scheme was to be delayed by legal process. Not surprisingly, William was unhappy with his treatment and sued the trustee for 20,000 [pounds sterling] that he claimed his mother had promised to bequeath to him. When the matter was heard by the Supreme Court, William declared that the only provision Elizabeth made for him during her lifetime was a gift in 1923 of 2229 shares in Tooth & Co Ltd (then a blue chip investment) and the transfer in 1929 of a residential allotment in Cremorne. He claimed that he had never received 10,100 [pounds sterling], the agreed price for four properties he transferred to his mother in 1923. He had allowed this to remain unpaid because Elizabeth had promised to make him the bequest of 20,000 [pounds sterling]. The case dragged on until September 1937 when a jury decided in William's favour. (32) Death duty reduced the estate by a further 44,423 [pounds sterling].

No doubt because of the obvious practical difficulties in implementing the scheme as directed by the will, the Supreme Court was then asked to decide whether Elizabeth's will validly dealt with the remainder of some 110,000 [pounds sterling]. If that part of the will proved to be invalid, the law of intestacy would result in the substantial residue passing to the next of kin, William. When the Supreme Court decided that the will was entirely valid, William appealed to the High Court which, in November 1937, ruled that the scheme was a public charity and therefore there was no intestacy. (33)

Quite possibly Elizabeth had been moved by the many reported failures of the government schemes and believed she could improve on them. The need for applicants to prove sobriety and the experience qualification would have been her attempt to exclude unsuitable applicants. The effect of the long deferred termination date was that, in practice, only the descendants of the original settler could obtain freehold title, and then only if at least one of them remained in occupation. Perhaps it was Elizabeth's intention that the sons or daughters of the veterans be encouraged to remain on the leased blocks by the prospect of eventual freehold. Or perhaps the consequences had not been fully considered. Elizabeth seems to have been a single-minded and determined lady and perhaps her solicitor may have been reluctant to raise potential difficulties. In any case, he would have needed a detailed knowledge of repatriation law and practice to avoid the anomalies and practical obstacles to implementation that became enshrined in the scheme as set out in the will.

It is difficult to imagine that Elizabeth intended to exclude naval personnel. It is more likely the words 'returned soldiers' that were so prominent in the public consciousness caused the unintended omission of naval servicemen from the definition of the eligible class of persons. Then again, the widow and children of a soldier who returned but might have died soon afterwards might qualify but the widow and children of one killed in action could not. Such widows might have had extensive rural experience and, in view of the lapse of years since the war ended, it is quite conceivable that sons would have been old enough to have gained the necessary experience. But then, the objective of this and of the government schemes was the repatriation of the returned men. The widows of those that did not return had to survive on a pension of 1 [pounds sterling] a week plus 5s for each child.

A major impediment to the success of settlers under the Kirby Scheme was the omission of funding for improvements or working capital for equipment, livestock or farm supplies. The benefit not exceeding 500 [pounds sterling] '... shall be expended by my Trustee in the purchase of virgin land ...'. This was particularly unfortunate as the necessitous settler could have no more than 200 [pounds sterling] and his leasehold land would be unattractive security for a bank loan. The best accommodation he could hope for would be a tent.

Another potential difficulty would have been immediately obvious to the Perpetual Trustee Company (Limited). As it would be impossible for the Company to ascertain the date of death of the last surviving soldier who had been receiving a War Pension on 6 June 1934, the date of Elizabeth's death, it would be impossible to determine the termination date twenty years later. Indeed, it would have been expecting too much for the Repatriation Department to supply a list of pensioners as at Elizabeth's death.

Following the trustee's application to the Supreme Court, the Master in Equity formulated a scheme cy pres. That is a legal doctrine enabling a charitable trust, which might otherwise fail, to achieve its objective in a somewhat different way from that originally intended while still observing the wishes of the settlor or the testator. The Master in Equity would have been cognisant of the faults in the government schemes and would have had greater resources than Elizabeth's solicitor to formulate a practical scheme. Perhaps due to staff shortages caused by the war, it was not until 27 August 1941 that his version was finalised and approved by the Court. (34)

By then the condition of the economy was vastly different from that of 1933 when Elizabeth had made her will. By 1936-37 the economy was recovering from the Great Depression and the Second World War put that beyond doubt. The cost of living had increased 22 per cent between 1934 and 1941 (35) while the basic wage had been increased from 3 [pounds sterling] 5s 0d to 4 [pounds sterling] 6s 0d, an improvement of 32 per cent. (36) The Court had lifted the permissible income from the basic wage of 169 [pounds sterling] a year to 312 [pounds sterling] plus 26 [pounds sterling] for each child under sixteen and the applicant could own assets worth 500 [pounds sterling] rather than 200 [pounds sterling]. Rural experience was no longer necessary nor was a police certificate as to sobriety. The land chosen need not be at least 50 miles from the GPO and it could be cleared, fenced and even have a residence. The three-fold increase in the allocation limit to 1500 [pounds sterling] was partly a reflection of increased land values and it also released funds for improvements and purchasing plant, livestock and farm supplies.

The scheme would now terminate on 6 June 1965, the 31st anniversary of Elizabeth's death. Not only did this add certainty, but it shortened the period of administration with a consequent reduction in expenses. It would be interesting to know how the Master decided upon 31 years.

The anomaly of omitting former naval personnel was retained and there is knowledge of at least one such applicant being rejected. Perhaps the omission from Elizabeth's will was interpreted as intentional rather than an oversight.

Following extensive advertising by the trustee, over 2000 applications were received. (37) By then, the youngest veteran would have been over 40 and the oldest approaching 60. The passing of the years had taken its toll on their strength and determination to succeed and the trustee was not in a position to assess their suitability.

It appears that, in practice, each successful applicant sought a block that would suit his purpose, negotiated a price with the owner and then requested the trustee to purchase it. None of the land was subdivided from larger estates. During 1943 the first seven blocks were purchased. Presumably the settlers entered into occupation soon after, although it was a number of years before leases were signed. That delay may have been intentional, enabling the trustee to exclude occupiers who did not prove to be industrious.

Eventually, 48 blocks were taken up, most in 1943 and 1944 and the last as late as 1961. In four cases it was the widows who signed the leases but, because of the delay in that formality, it is not known whether their husbands had died before or after selection. In three instances the original occupants were the adult sons of veterans. The father of one had previously held a soldier settler block under the New South Wales government scheme. This possibility may not have been contemplated when drafting the scheme but presumably the applicant was able to prove necessitous circumstances. One settler managed to sell to the trustee land where he was already living and working, and then leased it back. He would have been in the fortunate position of using the proceeds to improve his leasehold and eventually regaining the freehold. Another successful applicant had previously held a government soldier settler block of 7000 acres on which he had run sheep and grown wheat but had abandoned it due to poor health.

One successful applicant was triply qualified, at least in respect of war service. He enlisted on 1 September 1914 and landed in Egypt with the first contingent. However, in 1915 he was also one of the first to be invalided back and on 2 May 1915 was discharged as medically unfit due to 'head injuries'. Three months later he re-enlisted, serving in France until the end of the war when he was returned and discharged again as medically unfit. Not deterred, he re-enlisted a third time on 8 August 1919 for 'Special Services' but upon arrival in England was classified as medically unfit and returned to Australia without having performed any services, special or otherwise. On all three enlistments he declared that he had not previously served in any of His Majesty's armed forces. Perhaps his determination was a factor in the success of his application for a settlement block.

Elizabeth would not have been pleased that fourteen settlers selected land in the County of Cumberland all of which is well within the 50-mile radius of Sydney's GPO. Because of the higher cost, the average area of these was only eight acres. Nine of the fourteen were in suburban areas, the nearest to the GPO being at Pennant Hills with another at Hornsby. There is no obvious reason for the removal of the 50-mile threshold. By contrast, Elizabeth's apparent wish to exclude naval personnel was observed.

After the metropolitan area, the next most popular district was the Central Coast, the choice of thirteen. Another fifteen occupied land on the eastern side of the Great Dividing Range, close to markets and with good rainfall. Only the remaining six blocks were in the wide brown land west of the range. Two families moved in the opposite direction to that intended by Elizabeth--one from the Central West and another from the Riverina, both to the Central Coast. The average of the 48 holdings was 40 acres and ranged from a suburban market garden of 2.4 acres to a rainforest of 338 acres above Coifs Harbour.

It has been possible to contact the widows of two of the settlers and sons or daughters of a further nineteen. Their recollections have enlivened the information available in the public record. As those settlers are spread randomly over the whole 49, they are considered a statistically valid sample depicting the condition and experiences of all the participants.

Some carried on several activities concurrently while others made a second attempt in another venture after the first one failed. Both the horticulturalists were on small suburban blocks and both also grew vegetables for the Sydney market. The only three known orchardists grew citrus on the Central Coast, as no doubt did some of the other ten in that area. One settler was a very experienced orchardist but chose poultry farming as an easier way of earning a living. The family also worked a market garden and a son later established a dairy on his father's land. There were three others engaged in dairying. The lessee of the rainforest block had been a bullock driver and forestry worker between the wars. He had a rich resource of coachwood, sassafras, tallowwood, brush box and blackbutt. As he felled the timber and cleared the undergrowth, he brought cattle onto the land.

The salient difference between the Kirby Scheme and the government schemes was that participants in the latter purchased their land, albeit with favourable finance, but had to pay off the interest-bearing debt. In addition, many had borrowed for improvements, stock and equipment and, in desperation, for sustenance. The Kirby settlers enjoyed rent-free occupancy and in due course obtained the freehold without cost. All seem to have had some form of existing residence on the land.

There were memories of outstanding efforts by the womenfolk, a number of whom had motivated their husbands to apply for land. When one market gardener could not obtain a loan to buy a rotary hoe, his wife took employment as a housekeeper on a distant country property until she had saved the cost of the hoe. Another settler, son of a veteran, unable to afford a rotary hoe, tilled his land with a horse-drawn single furrow plough. The farmer had to lead his fractious horse while his wife, the mother of three infants, handled the plough. She supplemented their meagre income by making and selling rag dolls. After selling some 1500 she was able to have the electricity connected and to buy a small car for 25 [pounds sterling]. In two instances, the wives of seriously ill men worked their properties single-handedly while many others were assisted by their children. An orchardist's wife set up a roadside stall from which she and her children sold their produce--fruit, eggs and homemade jams--enabling the large family to live in modest comfort. A daughter has happy memories of life there.

The limited ability of the trustee to identify unsuitable applicants has been noted. Only three of the sample group are known to have enjoyed good health and two of those were the sons of returned men. Eight were described as being handicapped by poor health resulting from their wartime experiences. One who had been gassed was able to milk their cow but was too weak to carry the pail to the house. One who lost a lung through a shrapnel wound worked as a shearer and fencer before moving to the relative ease of a citrus orchard. Three others suffered from their wounds but were still physically active.

Some had lost the drive necessary to succeed. For five of the sample group the scheme provided what were essentially retirement homes. One was aged 57 when allocated a lease of thirteen acres with a substantial three-bedroom residence. A son described his father's situation as 'comfortable' by virtue of a TPI pension, supplemented by the agistment of horses. Another retiree, despite war injuries, had worked as a bricklayer since returning to Australia. In 1961 at the age of 63 he took occupancy of the last block purchased by the trustee. His son said that by then '... the fire had gone out of him'.

By 1929 when Mr Justice Pike reported on the settlement schemes managed by the state governments, 29 per cent of the settlers nation-wide had abandoned their holdings. By contrast, only two of the Kirby settlers abandoned their leases. One had selected a newly planted orchard without realising how many years would elapse before it would be profitable. His property was resold by the trustee. The other settler was forced to leave an inland town because he could not withstand the summer temperatures due to his poor health. He was unsuccessful in his appeal to acquire the freehold before the termination date and the land was subsequently leased to another applicant. Thus, there were 49 settlers but only 48 blocks.

It would be misleading to judge the success of the Kirby Scheme by reference to the high percentage of abandonment in the government schemes. Even on properties that were not viable, the lessees would have hung on desperately until they obtained the freehold. All those contacted spoke of hard work and basic living conditions. Seven described poor outcomes, some husbands and/or wives taking part-time or full-time employment to supplement income. Nine told of modest success. A daughter of one said her father had never been happier than when tending his market garden. The remaining five of the sample group were 'retirees' who surprisingly qualified for land.

By the time the freehold had vested, nineteen of the 46 returned soldiers had died and the freehold was transferred to their widows. Obviously many were just holding on until 7 June 1965 because seven sold within a year. Others subdivided, sold some lots and used the proceeds to build a better residence on retained land. Particularly fortunate were those on land that is now zoned residential but in 1965 was Green Belt under the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme. As far as is known, only one property is being worked by one of the family although four others are still residing on part of land that was subdivided. At the date of writing, the son of a veteran still lives on the land he secured but does not work it. The daughter of another settler still owns intact the suburban acreage where her father had struggled to support his family.

The Kirby settlers did not enjoy an easy life and it was not the intention that they should. In retrospect, one wonders what their reward was meant to be. Perhaps they could count themselves fortunate that they had not participated in the government schemes that resulted in privation and heartbreak for so many of their comrades. For some, despite the hardship, it was a blessing beyond their expectations. A daughter wrote: '[My parents] were given an amazing gift, an opportunity to forge a better life for their family'. At the termination date, the 48 properties had a total value of 252,000 [pounds sterling] (38) and, remembering that some properties produced no income, that figure would have likely exceeded the total income derived by all the lessees. The children who retained the land longest reaped the greatest benefits.

Conclusion

To what extent did these schemes and direct contributions achieve their aims? The failure of the government soldier settlement schemes is well documented. They had two objectives. Firstly, to be a visible reward for the sacrifices the returned men had made and at the same time to remedy the unemployment in their ranks. The second objective was the more intensive use of rural land by extending the policy of closer settlement that had been pursued by the states for upwards of half a century with only mixed success. That there were not more closer settlement failures can be partly attributed to the requirement that settlers should provide about one-third of the capital. Furthermore, applicants for closer settlement blocks would have most likely been acquainted with the area where they hoped to settle and had rural experience.

Apart from the one exogenous cause of failure--the collapse of world prices--there were three inherent causes of failure of the soldier settler schemes. Unemployed returned soldiers were most unlikely to have had any significant capital. The fact that training camps were necessary indicates the lack of rural experience of many applicants. Thirdly, the desire to place as many returned men as possible on the limited land available resulted in many being sold less than a home maintenance area which, in any case, was an abstract notion. Hence, the failure of soldier settlement schemes was largely due to their two conflicting aims.

The Scartwater Scheme also had two objectives but they were not conflicting. Harry Cunningham brought to reality the vision of employing returned men in a pastoral enterprise to earn income for the repatriation and support of the families of their fellows. As with the Legacy Clubs, it succeeded and for the same reasons. In both cases, despite the significant organisation involved, the management was in the hands of motivated, capable business and professional men.

Sir James Joynton-Smith's and Miss Claughton's benefactions were straight-forward and had just one objective--to aid incapacitated ex-servicemen. There is no evidence of the results but it may be assumed that they achieved their purpose. Mr German Verge's bequest also had a single focus although its implementation involved considerable work for the three trustees and their staff. Its success is indicated by the rapid processing of applications and the payment of 80,000 [pounds sterling] to 6000 beneficiaries. Whilst the volume of work must have been daunting, the control was in the hands of a very capable businessman.

The Kirby Scheme had the same two aims as the government schemes. Although it was miniscule by comparison with even the smallest of the State schemes, the complexity of its terms and the level of administration required were comparable. Despite the evidence available to the Master in Equity from the many enquiries held into the failure of the government schemes, his modification was not flawless. The original limitation of funding only for the purchase of unimproved land was removed releasing some funds for improvements, plant or stock. On the other hand, there is no apparent reason why the distance threshold of 50 miles from the Sydney GPO should have been removed. The purchase of land within that radius resulted in a number of instances where the cost limited the size of blocks to ones that could not be worked economically--ignoring the lesson of the government schemes. A direction in the will that applicants should have rural experience was removed for no apparent reason.

Despite the settlers having obtained land without cost, there were still many memories of the most basic living conditions and some cases of hardship. On the one hand, the delay in implementing the scheme brought more favourable economic conditions, but on the other, reduced the remaining years of enjoyment of aging diggers. The results would have been very different on both counts had the scheme commenced in the 1920s.

With only one known exception, land that passed to the children of settlers is no longer worked by them, in most cases due to the greatly increased value of land as population spread from the city. Hence, Elizabeth's vision of soldier settlement was not realised. Her second objective, the repatriation of returned soldiers, was only partly achieved. As the sample group represents 43 per cent of the total, extrapolation from the known outcomes to the whole is easily justified. The 24 per cent of the sample group who were retired cannot be regarded as having been repatriated. Thirty-three per cent failed to a greater or less extent. Only the remaining 43 per cent reported modest success despite economic conditions being more benign than in the 1920s and the 1930s.

Rent-free land was obviously the greatest contributor to success. Had the Commonwealth subsidised the sale of state lands to the extent of its subsequent losses through defaults, the failure rate would have been considerably less and much hardship would have been avoided.

The complexity of a repatriation enterprise did not necessarily result in its failure as indicated by the continuing successful operations of the Scartwater Trust and the Legacy Clubs. However, the common factor in success seems to have been a single, clearly defined objective, even when considerable managerial ability was required.

Member RAHS

Hornsby

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the assistance of the Honorable Tony Kelly, MLC, Minister for Lands, who facilitated the identification at Land and Property Information of many of the titles held by settlers under the Kirby Scheme.

My thanks also go to Mr Chris Perrin, State Secretary of the Returned and Services League of Australia (NSW Branch) for permission to peruse correspondence relating to the same scheme.

I am again indebted to Dr Ken Knight for valuable advice on drafts of this paper.

Notes

(1) A.G. Butler, The official History of the Australian Army Medical Services in the War of 1914-1918, vol. 1, Part L Melbourne, Australian War Memorial, pp. 62-3, 426.

(2) Argus, 19 July 1915, p. 8.

(3) Sydney Morning Herald, 5 August 1914, p. 10.

(4) G.H. Knibbs, Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia 1901-1916, Melbourne, 1917, pp. 1050-1.

(5) Ernest Scott, Australia during the War, The Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, Vol. XI, Sydney, 1936, pp. 871-873.

(6) Sir Stephen H. Roberts, History of Australian Land Settlement 1788-1920, Melbourne, 1968 edition.

(7) Marilyn Lake, The Limits of Hope: soldier settlement in Victoria 1915-38, Melbourne, 1987, pp. 26-36.

(8) Sydney Morning Herald, 30 June 1916, p. 8.

(9) Upon further enquiry, the Commissioner found that Ashford and Bryant, both married men, had together been associated in liaisons with women with the result that Bryant acquired an 'improper ascendancy' over the Minister.

(10) P. W. Street, Royal Commission of Inquiry into the administration of the Returned Soldiers' Settlement Branch of the Lands Department, Report, Sydney, 3 March 1921, p. 809.

(11) Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 1918, p. 6.

(12) Clem Lloyd and Jacqui Rees, The Last Shilling: a history of repatriation in Australia, Melbourne, 1994, p. 223.

(13) Mr Justice Pike, Report on Losses due to Soldier Settlement, Canberra, 1929, p. 59

(14) Pike, Report on Losses due to Soldier Settlement, p. 9

(15) Pike, Report on Losses due to Soldier Settlement, p. 22.

(16) Marilyn Lake, The Limits of Hope, pp. 26, 137, 243-4.

(17) Pike, Report on Losses due to Soldier Settlement, pp. 22-25.

(18) Marilyn Lake, The Limits of Hope, pp. 41-43.

(19) Sydney Morning Herald, 25 September 1916, p. 4.

(20) The Story of Scartwater, The Scartwater Trust, 1956.

(21) J. A. Sherriff, Scartwater Scholarships, The Scartwater Trust, 2003.

(22) C. E. W. Bean, Forward, Ernest Hilmer Smith, History of the Legacy Club of Sydney, Vol. 1, Sydney 1944.

(23) In the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Equity, No. 8899 of 1920.

(24) Daily Telegraph, 25 May 1926, p. 2.

(25) Sydney Morning Herald, 15 May 1926, p. 14.

(26) Sydney Morning Herald, 7 June 1930, p. 12.

(27) Land Titles Office Book 269 No. 949.

(28) Land Titles Office Book 403 Nos 603 & 604.

(29) Municipality of North Sydney Building Application No. 193, 9 October 1913.

(30) 'Long-term price series', Appendix 1, Year Book Australia 1998, ABS, Canberra 1998.

(31) Probate packet 197601, Box 1841, Series 4. State Records New South Wales

(32) Deceased Estate File 84622, 20/1890 Series Pre A containing documents of Supreme Court of NSW No. 3840 of 193, State Records New South Wales

(33) Barby and Others v Perpetual Trustee Company (Limited) and Another, High Court of Australia 64; (1937) Commonwealth Law Reports, Vol. 58, p. 316.

(34) J. R. Hooton, Master in Equity, Scheme for the application cy pres of the income and capital of the residuary estate of Elizabeth Kirby deceased, 27 August 1941.

(35) 'Long-term price series', Appendix 1, Year Book Australia 1998, ABS, Canberra 1998.

(36) National Wage Case Outcomes since 1907, Australian Industry Registry, 2006.

(37) Reveille, 2 August 1965, p. 22.

(38) Reveille, 2 August 1965, p. 22