School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3
-
ItemDarwinism and Australia, 1836-1914( 1992)This thesis is an examination of certain themes and ideas surrounding the development of Darwinism as an intellectual concept in Australian culture. Beginning with a discussion of the manner in which Australian resources played a role in the formulation and growth of Darwin's ideas, it then moves to an analysis of a number of public controversies and debates around aspects of Darwinism which are seen by current Darwinian scholars as being of central importance. The work of a number of Australian scholars is explored to illustrate the way in which evolutionary theory found its way into the academic and public culture of Australia. Finally, discussion is given over to the way in which evolutionary theory became diffused through all areas of intellectual life. Among the chief claims made here are firstly, that, Darwinism played a significant role in the intellectual life of Australia in the last part of the nineteenth-century and that Australians made significant contributions to the development of evolutionary theory. Secondly, it is claimed that for the history of Australian science to have any real meaning it must be understood in its own terms, here on the periphery, and not as an adjunct to events and happenings at the centre. Finally, it is urged here that Australian science and its growth is not bound to a pre-determined and periodised historical development, but that insofar as it is tied to the history of Australia generally, it exhibits the stresses and tensions of the social context in which it exists. At all times this thesis should be seen as an attempt at intellectual history, but one seeking to embed that history within a specific social context.
-
ItemThe Victorian Land Act of 1862 revisited( 1992)There is an extensive historiography of the Land Act of 1862, usually known as Duffy's Land Act, after the then Minister of Lands, Charles Gavan Duffy. However, this historiography is remarkable for the divergent views of the various writers as to the causes of the Act's failure to achieve its ostensible purposes. I have, therefore, undertaken a detailed study of the period October 1861 to June 1863 which, together with some later material, provides, I believe, a firmer basis for judging the motives and actions of the chief "players" in this little drama. These include, in particular, Duffy, John Dennistoun Wood, the Minister for Justice and my great-grandfather Richard Davies Ireland, the Attorney-Genera1. After reviewing the work of previous writers, which I do in the next four pages, four questions seem to me to arise and I have used these as a basis for an exploration of events and in establishing the degree of blame each of the above should properly share for the Act's failure. The first signs of failure were not long in appearing. Within a week of its coming into force on 10 September 1862 it had already become plain that, so far as its provisions for settling small farmers on the land were concerned, the Act was achieving the exact opposite of what it apparently set out to do. For while purporting to facilitate the development of agriculture, on small blocks owned by yeoman farmers, on an idealised European pattern, it was actually facilitating the permanent acquisition of broad acres for sheep grazing. This was particularly so in the Western District, parts of which, by their proximity to existing markets or ports, as well as their excellent soils, recommended themselves to contemporaries as potentially the most suitable agricultural land of all. This led the Geelong Advertiser to ask about the Act's operation in the area ‘Is Mr Duffy a rogue? Is he a fool? or is he a compound of both?’ (From Introduction)
-
Item