Anything but common: why Van Diemen’s Land never had commons

Imogen Wegman

Landscape History, 2022, vol. 43, issue 1, 87-104

Abstract: It is sometimes assumed that the concept of the ‘commons’ was transposed directly from Britain to the Australian colonies, and that the term is interchangeable with ‘Crown land’ to describe lands not yet claimed by European settlers. This paper compares British commons with those introduced in the earliest years of the New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land colonies, and asks why the latter failed to reserve land specifically for common grazing in its first thirty years. By comparing these two colonies, it becomes clear that each was driven by different environmental factors and priorities. Moreover, it shows that British commons and Crown lands in Australia were only comparable in a very shallow sense. This piece argues that calling unalienated acres claimed by the Crown in Australia ‘commons’ perpetuates the dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their lands by applying a framework founded in a thousand years of British common law and precedent.

Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01433768.2022.2064640 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rlshxx:v:43:y:2022:i:1:p:87-104

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rlsh20

DOI: 10.1080/01433768.2022.2064640

Access Statistics for this article

Landscape History is currently edited by Dr Della Hooke

More articles in Landscape History from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().