 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
been sent to him from Melbourne not to receive the rent. I have so far fulfilled my covenant with
the Government relative to the land, having paid the [?] and rent, and also erected a mile and
half of fences upon it. I shall feel obliged if you will favour me with an early communication to
inform me why the rent cannot be received, and have the honour to remain your obt servant,
William Honeycombe... My address is W Honeycombe Wharparilla PO nr Echuca.'
There is no reason to suppose that this letter was not in his own hand. All his children were
literate, and William's business as a builder in Bristol suggests an ability to write and draw.
His letter fired a flurry of notes and memos, all dated and initialled, over the next three months,
and Piffero's rent was also stopped while the authorities considered the matter.
On 14 April Mr Brook concluded: 'Piffero being the first to peg and Honeycombe having made
no improvements I would recommend that [the] first notice to occupy issued to the latter be
recalled & the necessary excision made out of his block.'
This was ratified and William was asked to return his original application (they called it his
'notice to occupy') for emendation. Mr Brook then asked a Mr Strong to 'prepare a cloth
tracing showing excision necessary from Honeycombe's selection.' This was done, and the
emended acreage on his application form, plus the tracing, were finally returned to him on 4
June 1875 from Melbourne.
This was William's written reaction on 21 June.
'Sir, I have received your letter of 4th inst with plan enclosed. I am greatly disappointed at the
reduction of my selection from 320 acres to 228 acres 3 roods 33 perches but have no
alternative but to submit to your decision. I am anxious to know if I am allowed to select an area
of land equivalent to that taken from me viz 91a-0r-7p [0=zero; r=rood; p=perch]; also to be
informed who will refund me for the improvements I have effected upon that portion...'
It was a sizeable piece of land that he had lost, nearly 100 acres, and William cannot have been
too happy with the local or Melbourne Land and Survey officials, nor with his neighbour, B
Piffero.
His second letter produced a further exchange of initialled notes and comments between the
officials concerned.
Mr Brook concluded on 16 July: 'He can apply for the area necessary to complete his 320
acres - the portion excised was inspected by an officer of this dept & there were no impts
thereon.'
William was informed of this the following day.
One wonders about the imagined improvements. What did William think he had done that
merited a refund? And how did the parcel of land (10A) that he now applied for happen to be
available? It lay on Piffero's northern boundary and on William's western one. Was it because
Piffero pegged out a horizontal block rather than a vertical one?
As it was, William paid £3-16-0 for a survey to be made and sent off a printed application form
on 15 October, which stated in part that at 2pm he had
126
'dug a trench not less than two feet long, six inches wide, and four inches deep in the direction of
the continuing sides, and placed conspicuous posts or cairns of stones with notices thereon at
the corners of the allotment.1 He also said he was a farmer and had been residing on the
adjoining allotment for 'about 2 years since'. The new land, he said, adjoined his present
 |