'From bullets to pullets': Bankstown Soldier Settlement.

New Zealand-horn Sydney Arthur Spooner enlisted in the Australian Imperial Forces (AIF) on 25 Match 1915, and joined the 18th Battalion on the Gallipoli Peninsula in August. That year, within weeks, and with three other members of his battalion, he went into Monash Gully, under Turkish tire, to retrieve two wounded soldiers and bring them back to the Australian lines. His contemporaries called him and his mates heroes. He was Mentioned in Despatches and awarded the Military Medal in recognition of his deeds. However, Spooner's war was short. He returned to Australia and was discharged from the forces as medically unfit in August 1916. (1)

Thomas Buckley, born in Wales, enlisted at Townsville in August 1914. He had previously served 12 years in the Royal Army. At a strapping five feet ten inches and aged 36, he landed at Gallipoli with the 2nd Light Horse on 12 May. Three days later, Buckley received a gunshot wound resulting in a compound fracture of his right leg. He was discharged in Australia as medically unfit on 29 March 1916. (2)

What could these two men have in common, other than being a part of the Gallipoli campaign? After the war both men were allotted Block 144 at Bankstown Soldier Settlement, and tried unsuccessfully to make a living for themselves and their families on the six-acre poultry farm. The first soldier settler on the block, James John Edwards, had already forfeited in September 1921. Edwards, a blacksmith before the war, with nine children to support and no capital, joined the settlement on its establishment in May 1917. The archival files do not record why Edwards forfeited, nor why he chose not to return to his trade. (3)

Sydney Spooner took up the block after Edwards and noted his occupation variously as a milkman, carpenter and a poultry breeder. Spooner stayed at Bankstown Soldier Settlement less than two years. Thomas Buckley, who stated his occupation as a saddler, labourer and fireman, took over from Spooner. Realistically, whether any of these men had farming experience or the incentive to make the venture succeed, is open to conjecture. The Buckley family lived at Bankstown Soldier Settlement for 13 years, and for much of that rime required assistance to work the block. All three men forfeited Block 144 leaving considerable debts. (4)

The story of these and other ex-servicemen's attempts at life on the land in the years during and after World War I forms part of our untold history, and reveals the struggles returned soldiers had to re-establish themselves in civilian life in the aftermath of the war.

This article focuses on Bankstown Soldier Settlement, a group purchase settlement in the County of Cumberland, New South Wales. It contained 48 poultry and eight vegetable farms, all on small acreage. One of the ideals of group settlement was that it would be a cooperative community. At least 95 men and their families lived at Bankstown settlement in its first six years. It will be argued that these men had little prospect of success as soldier settlers because of their war-related disabilities. Their options were limited after the war. A significant number had no capital, no experience, and no work prospects. They accepted this risk. Few succeeded.

The seminal work on Australian soldier settlement is Marilyn Lake's The Limits of Hope. Soldier Settlement in Victoria 1915-38. (5) While Lake's study was limited to Victoria, her findings have been used as representative of schemes in other parts of Australia. There has been little archival research undertaken to date on soldier settlement in New South Wales to gauge the success or failure of the scheme from either an individual's or a regional perspective. A major problem with New South Wales soldier settlement has been the difficulty of accessing relevant files from the Department of Lands, Returned Soldiers Settlement Branch, due to the way the records were established by region or area and not under the ex-serviceman's name.

Rosemary Sparkes' comparative study of soldier settlements after World War I and World War II reveals both schemes had enormous financial and social costs. Of the post-World War I scheme she concluded that it was 'a cruel experiment, certainly no reward, to place men with continuing health problems under rigorous working conditions'. (6)

Michael O'Sullivan, in his study of Kentucky, near Armidale in northern New South Wales, showed that high prices paid for land and stock and projected high returns for primary produce translated to large debts without guaranteed high return for soldier settlers. (7) This study also concluded that land for soldier settlement was often marginal owing to previous acquisitions under Closer Settlement Acts. (8)

From an Australian population in 1914 of less than 5 million, more than 330,000 men enlisted and served overseas in the AIF during World War I. (9) Casualties were high and between 1914 and 1918, nearly 160,000 men were wounded or gassed and 60,000 men died. (10) For a significant portion of working-class Australians, enlistment offered not only regular employment on a good wage, but the possibility of travel and adventure. (11) Few believed that the war would last four long years, or that its effects would continue to percolate through Australian society for generations.

At a combined meeting of State and Commonwealth representatives in Melbourne in February 1916, a report from the Federal Parliamentary War Committee, headed by former Prime Minister John Watson, recommended consideration be given to establishing a Soldier Settlement Scheme as one of the repatriation options to be offered to ex-servicemen at the end of the war. At this time the estimated cost was between 10 million [pounds sterling] and 20 million [pounds sterling]. The report emphasised the need for cooperation between all States and the Commonwealth to administer the land and establishment costs. It further recommended applicants should be carefully scrutinised, and a probation period for inexperienced settlers was suggested.' (12)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In offering soldier settlement, the government believed not only would it be taking positive steps to assist ex-servicemen to return to civilian life in a useful capacity, but it would also remove restless and unoccupied men on city streets who might potentially cause civil disturbances and affect enlistments. (13) It is probable that during the war there was little understanding of the physical and mental condition many men would have on their return and how their future working lives might be affected. However, as early as 1916, some politicians had reservations about the possible success of a soldier settlement scheme. The Victorian Premier, Sir Alexander Peacock, and the New South Wales Minister for Lands, William Ashford, both expected the plans would result in economic losses to their states. Queensland Treasurer Edward Theodore realistically believed that the effects of the war would make many men unfit to become farmers. (14)

New South Wales was the first state to introduce legislation and The Returned Soldiers Settlement Act, 1916 was assented to on 19 April, a popular measure across all party lines. It stated that any person resident in the Australian Commonwealth who had enlisted to serve overseas in either His Majesty's or the Australian navy or army, and received an honourable discharge, was eligible to apply for soldier settlement land. (15) The Premier, William Holman, announced at the Premiers Conference in Adelaide in May 1916 that his state expected to be able to provide land for only about 5 per cent of the expected number of returned men. (16) Soldier settlement proved to be a popular option for men returning from overseas service. Across Australia, 38,000 men became soldier settlers. In New South Wales nearly 8500 men were settled on land under the scheme. (17)

In October 1916, the New South Wales Minister for Lands created a Returned Soldiers Settlement Branch within the Department of Lands, and appointed J. G. R. Bryant as its director. Its initial function was to find suitable lands, both crown and private. Later its responsibilities included the selection of men for group settlements, training programs, the purchase of goods and stock for the farms as well as controlling financial advances made to settlers. (18) In February 1918, the New South Wales Government published Land for Soldiers, a document which described the types of tenure and assistance offered to ex-servicemen. The Minister for Lands stated in the foreword that this grateful nation had a duty to look after its volunteer forces, and encouraged returned soldiers to apply as 'there is no better outlet for personal effort and ambition than that afforded by settlement upon the land'. (19)

In New South Wales land was available under several different types of tenure--homestead farm, crown lease, returned soldiers' special holding, suburban holding, group settlement purchase and land available under the Closer Settlement Promotion Act. The closer settlement ideals of subdividing crown lands and large pastoral landholdings to provide both more land and spread the population base were incorporated into the scheme.

In group settlements the government provided the land and equipment, as well as a resident manager. They were small farms for poultry, fruit and vegetable production and mixed farming. Men were expected to work cooperatively to clear and prepare the land, and were required to work at least 48 hours per week. (20) A 1919 pamphlet distributed in London outlined what each state offered for soldier settlement, and stressed the governments' awareness of the wide range of abilities and needs of returning men. It stated that training would be given to men with no farming experience, and money to purchase stock and equipment was available on reasonable repayment terms. Men who were less fit were encouraged to apply for land, and to consider poultry farming or bee-keeping, as these enterprises required less physical stamina. (21)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Bankstown Soldier Settlement, established in April 1917, was the first group purchase soldier settlement in metropolitan Sydney. Later group settlements, including Chipping Norton and Campbelltown, were modelled on Bankstown. (22) The land was formerly part of the Georges Park Hall Estate, and 582 acres was offered for purchase to the New South Wales Government in September 1916 for 6000 [pounds sterling]. The agent, J. E. Ducker, recommended the land would be suitable for use for poultry farms or orchards, adding that about 80 acres was low-lying. In January 1917, surveyor S. F. Arnheim reported to the Returned Soldiers Settlement Branch of the Department of Lands that:

   ... this property is situated about 3 1/2 miles from Bankstown
   along the Georges River Road. It is 14 miles from Sydney. A motor
   bus plies from Bankstown to Georges River and passes within a
   mile-and-a-half of this land. The nearest post office and school is
   at Revesby 1 1/2 miles away. The city water is adjoining the
   estate. The water is shortly to be connected to one of the
   adjoining allotments ... The land generally is undulating sandy
   soils partly sandstone formation partly shale formation ... About
   84 acres salt swamp practically useless ... There is suckling
   timber generally on the land, with thick undergrowth ti tree scrub
   thorn tree scrub of the usual coastal variety. There are some
   matured trees of little or no value ... I would suggest that the
   land should be used for orchard and poultry farming. (23)

On 30 January 1917, J. G. R. Bryant reported that he had inspected the proposed Bankstown Soldier Settlement twice during November 1916 and believed the land to be suitable for poultry farming and vegetable growing. He recommended growing tomatoes for marketing in Sydney and the southern suburbs. He believed this settlement would be popular with men with family responsibilities but who could physically manage only a small acreage. (24)

The property was acquired on 11 April 1917 for 5506 [pounds sterling]. Soldiers' Group Purchase No. 14, Bankstown, had a total of 56 farms--48 poultry and eight vegetable farms." (25) The average size of the farms was five acres, but varied between four and 10 acres. (26) The settlement had only five roads, Bullecourt, Amiens, Fleurbaix and Pozieres Avenues, named after French towns and key battles of World War I, and Ashford Avenue, named after the New South Wales Minister for Lands. (27) Entry to the settlement was from Georges River Road along Ashford Avenue. The Bankstown Soldier Settlement Progress Association recommended in January 1919 that the naming of Georges River Road be changed to Milperra Road. (28)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The 1918 map of the settlement shows Blocks 109, 122 and 130 shaded out, indicating that these blocks were never intended to be farms. (29) Block 109 was used for administration, and by 1923 had two cottages for management, an office, bulk store, stables and sheds built on it. (30) Part of Block 109 was allocated as the site for the Church of England. Block 122 contained portions for the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches. The Roman Catholic Church advised they had no immediate intentions to build a church, but requested a site be reserved on the plans. Surveyor Arnheim noted in October 1918 there would be five allotments of a quarter of an acre each for churches and a school of arts, plus another two acres for a recreation area. (31) These memos show there was a genuine attempt by planners in the Returned Soldiers Settlement Branch to meet the social and cultural needs of this small community.

The demand for a school close to or on-site became obvious soon after the settlement was established. By March 1918, 30 families were living on the settlement, with this number expected to climb to at least 48 by mid-year. (32) The site for a public school, a part of Block 122, was gazetted in July 1918, and the Minister for Lands announced that its construction would begin immediately. (33) It was intended to name the school 'Jindoola', an Aboriginal word for iguana, but in September another Aboriginal word, 'milperra', was suggested. (34) The meaning of the word 'milperra' has been variously given as a company, welcome, a place of recovery for men injured in tribal warfare or initiation, or a gathering of people (spelt 'milpera'). (35) Not only was Bankstown settlement intended to be a community of people, but the meaning of a place of recovery for men injured in warfare is significant given that every original settler had been discharged for medical reasons. The opening of the school was delayed until 3 Match 1919 because of the influenza epidemic. (36) The original site of the school was on the corner of Bullecourt and Ashford Avenues, now part of the Bankstown campus of the University of Western Sydney. A new primary school was erected in Pozieres Avenue in 1975.

Because of high installation costs the Australian Gas Light Company decided not to connect the gas to the Bankstown Soldier Settlement. The community relied on kerosene for lighting and wood fires for cooking and heating. The first street lighting, at the corners of Bullecourt and Ashford avenues, was not installed until early 1927. (37) In January 1918, the Bankstown Soldier Settlement Progress Association applied for a post office on the settlement. An application was made for a public phone booth in 1920, but the Postmaster General's Department replied that there were insufficient telephone calls made from the settlement to justify a booth. (38)

Bankstown Soldier Settlement was established more than 18 months before the cessation of hostilities and more than two years before all Australian troops had returned home. All the men who arrived at Bankstown in May 1917 to begin clearing the land had been medically discharged from the AIF and declared unfit for further active service. Their disabilities included shell shock, loss of a limb, the ongoing effects of malaria, typhoid or tuberculosis, and physical limitations caused by a range of gunshot wounds. Few had farming experience. James Edwards, Sydney Spooner and Thomas Buckley were not the only unsuccessful settlers. At least 11 other blocks on this soldier settlement had three or more returned men as owners in the first 10 years. (39) For many of these men from a working-class background, enlistment in World War I had offered secure employment at good wages. After discharge, many were unable to return to their previous occupations because of their war experiences and injuries. The lives of these men and their families were changed forever. They had, however, to support themselves with dignity, so for many soldier settlement appeared to be their only viable solution.

At least 95 men and their families lived at Bankstown Soldier Settlement in the period 1917 to 1923. Twelve men stayed on the settlement less than a year and another 22 less than two years. The majority of the men were aged over 30, and nearly 20 per cent were aged over 40 when they came to Bankstown. Only 13 men said they had any farming experience, including seven who received a short course in poultry farming at either Hawkesbury Agricultural College or Grantham Soldier Settlement. (40)

There were serious problems with drainage and poor soil conditions for both poultry farming and market gardening on the settlement, but the primary reason why so many men at Bankstown were unable to succeed was due to the long-term effects of their war-related injuries. Many narratives have emerged from the archives and Department of Repatriation files about life and conditions at Bankstown Soldier Settlement and the following illustrations reveal some of these men's stories.

William John Fitzgerald, a labourer, was 30 when he enlisted in the AIF in February 1915. He joined the 13th Battalion at Gallipoli in July 1915 and less than six weeks later received a gunshot wound to the head. His next of kin were advised in September that he was dangerously ill. Fitzgerald spent five months in hospital in Egypt, undergoing six operations which left him with impaired movement in his neck and jaw. In December 1915, Fitzgerald was assessed as having a total incapacity to earn a livelihood, but this figure was adjusted to three-quarters at his discharge in May 1916. (41) On his return to Australia, William married a young widow, Jean Mary Carroll. On Fitzgerald's qualification certificate, dated 21 November 1916, he stated that he was formerly a train conductor. He had no capital, and his application for a qualification certificate reported that he intended to apply for residential land. (42)

In August 1917 Fitzgerald was offered Block 121 at Bankstown Soldier Settlement, a poultry farm of a little more than five acres. Fitzgerald hoped that he could regain his health and earn a living for his young family. More than 12 months after his discharge, in November 1917, the manager noted that his health was only fair. (43) On 29 August 1919 William Fitzgerald died at Bankstown Soldier Settlement from pulmonary tuberculosis. His wife now had three young children to support, had been widowed twice, and was just 24 years of age. (44) William Fitzgerald should never have been a soldier settler as his war-related injuries should have precluded his selection. He believed he had no other option but to support his family in this way. He had been advised poultry farming was not strenuous. Fitzgerald survived only two years after moving to Bankstown. His widow and children left the settlement five months later.

In just six years three returned men tried unsuccessfully to make a living on Block 117, a poultry farm of five acres fronting Ashford Avenue. William Weaire, Francis Rivers and Leslie Scott each stayed two years or less at Bankstown Soldier Settlement. William Weaire, aged 29 and an Englishman from Canterbury, had previously served for six years in the Army Ordnance Corps when he enlisted in the AIF in Match 1915. Weaire joined C Company of the 18th Battalion at Gallipoli on 16 August and was shot in the left foot less than a week later. He was discharged medically unfit in September 1916.

By March 1917, William had married and was living in Marrickville, an inner-Sydney suburb. (45) In August 1917 Weaire stated in his soldier settlement application that he received wounds to the head, left side and foot in the Gallipoli campaign. William Weaire, his wife and daughter, Amy, came to Bankstown Soldier Settlement raid-1917. The monthly report by the resident manager, Mr Crispin, noted in November 1917 that Weaire's aptitude was only fair, and his health unsatisfactory. Weaire had been receiving treatment in hospital for his leg for the previous three weeks. It is obvious that more than a year after his discharge William Weaire was still having medical problems as a result of his war service. The effects of these injuries obviously affected him physically and psychologically. His ability to work his block effectively was impaired, but he had to attempt to support himself and his family. Weaire found the challenge too difficult and forfeited in January 1920. (46)

Francis Rivers took over Block 117 the same month. He had been wounded at the Somme, resulting in only partial use of his left hand. (47) His soldier settlement application states that he had poisoned hands, probably the result of gassing. The injuries to his hands meant Rivers was unable to return to his pre-war occupation as a carrier. Marrying only a few months before coming to Bankstown, Francis and Kathleen hoped that life on a small poultry block would be suitable, given his disability. It was not. The final straw was heavy rains in May, when excess water from Ashford Avenue ran into his block. Francis was advised by the Returned Soldiers Settlement Branch that his request for a financial advance to drain the land was rejected because all monies had been expended. (48) Rivers forfeited his block in July 1921. He had stayed just 18 months. His disabilities increased with time. In November 1920 the examining doctor believed there would be little improvement in the mobility and flexibility of his hand. By 1930, Rivers admitted he had long periods of time when he was unable to work. (49)

A month after Francis and Kathleen Rivers left Bankstown Soldier Settlement, Leslie Scott took over Block 117. His brother, William, lived a short distance down Ashford Avenue on Block 120, and had been on the settlement since July 1917. (50) Although Leslie had no farming experience, he believed he would succeed with his brother's support. Scott enlisted in December 1915, was discharged the following February, then rejoined in June 1917. In April 1918 he received a gunshot wound to the left foot at Abbeville, France, and was finally discharged in March 1919. (51) There is no record of any other injuries in Scott's army files, but Repatriation files from the Department of Veterans Affairs show that he provided evidence of having been gassed in March 1918 at Le Touquet in Belgium from another soldier serving with him in the 20th Battalion. Scott also claimed that he had received concussion from a shell explosion on the same day he was wounded in action. (52)

Leslie Scott's block was declared forfeit for non-payment of the annual instalment in August 1923. (53) After he left Bankstown he worked as a casual labourer, and had long periods of unemployment. (54) Scott's capacity to work was affected by his war-related injuries, and he suffered the long-term effects of gassing and concussion. He was unable to make his living as a soldier settler, even with family members living close by.

The men on the vegetable blocks at Bankstown Soldier Settlement fared as badly or worse than many of their comrades trying to make a living raising poultry. Although eight blocks had been designated for market gardening, when Mr R. N. Makin, the Inspector of Agriculture, visited the settlement in late 1922, his report was damning.

   ... from a market gardeners' point of view, there is no block
   within the area suitable for commercial vegetable growing ... The
   low-lying nature of the country and the difficulty of draining,
   together with the heavy clay subsoil, are faults to be found on
   block 260 as well as those blocks on either side of it ... In
   regard to Block 260 ... from a market gardener's point of view I
   would not give it one moment's consideration. (55)

The soldier settlers who tried to farm Block 260 had little prospect of success given the conditions Makin describes. They had even smaller prospects of succeeding with their physical and mental disabilities that resulted from war service. For example, Walter Frost Johnstone, Arthur Roland Hutton and W. Price all tried to make a living from this block between October 1919 and October 1924. All failed.

Walter Johnstone applied for a soldier settlement block in September 1919. In a report from the Department of Repatriation dated 6 September the recommendation of the medical officer was that he was 'fit to take up land for market gardening'. Johnstone was discharged in May 1917 because of a disease in his left hip joint. He claimed considerable farming experience and had his own horse and cart when he came to Bankstown. He stayed 13 months. The manager noted the reason he left was because he was 'a cripple'. (56) At 29 years of age, unmarried and with a physical disability, Johnstone was unable to support himself on a small block of land.

Arthur Roland Hutton took over the block. He enlisted in October 1916 just before his 23rd birthday. In September 1917 he received a gunshot wound to the head near Ypres in Belgium. The medical report in his personnel files states that a 'missile went through his steel helmet and made a furrowed wound transversely across both parietal bones, causing compound depressed fracture'. He was later assessed as having a 100 per cent disability. (57)

A butcher before enlistment, by December 1920 when he applied for a soldier settlement block, Arthur was married and had a young son. He suffered from frequent headaches and vertigo as a result of his head wound. He had few options to support himself and his family. Soldier settlement seemed viable. Arthur and his family left after a year, with more health problems affecting his limited capacity to work. He suffered from bronchitis and pneumonia for several months before forfeiting and said the district was 'too damp and did not suit his health'. (58) The following soldier settler, W. Price, remained on the block for about 18 months.

Even though the stories outlined above may not have been general knowledge, returned men retained an ongoing public focus through publicity by the media and the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia. From its launch in March 1919, Smith's Weekly campaigned strongly for ex-servicemen and their dependents. It had a distribution of more than 200,000 in the 1920s, and politicians and the administration could not afford to overlook the issues it raised. (59) W. B. Dalley's column, Sailors' and Soldiers' Parliament, often addressed the plight of soldier settlers. The situation at Bankstown Soldier Settlement received attention on several occasions.

The experiences of Henry Herbert Collins were publicised in June 1921 when his story was headlined as 'Bogged, Bewildered, Broke. Settling a Soldier on a Saltwater Farm'. Collins was allotted Block 128 for vegetable growing, but lost his crops to wet weather and boggy soil. Two years after application was made to the Returned Soldiers Settlement Branch for re-assessment, an inspector deemed Collins' land totally unsuitable. He owed the Department 627 [pounds sterling]. His own money was all used and he admitted he was broke. (60) Collins was 46 when he went to Bankstown. In October 1917 he had gone before a medical board in Rouen and been declared unfit because of a hernia and being over-age. (61) Collins was considered to be 'unsuitable to work' by the inspector, and abandoned Block 128 four months after the newspaper coverage. (62)

The following week, Dalley's column was headlined 'Flooded Fowlyards. Bankstown Diggers Try to Evolve the Water-Proof Hen'. The article blamed the government and specifically the Returned Soldiers Settlement Branch for the predicament that so many of the settlers at Bankstown found themselves in. They had no crops or produce, no income and no prospects of any improvement.

   The Returned Soldiers Settlement Branch has made some big mistakes
   in the past. It made one in 1917, when it forgot to tell the
   unfortunate Diggers whom it sent to develop several farms in the
   Bankstown area that they were expected to buck in and try to breed
   a strain of amphibious fowls ...

   There can be no question that the men on the unworkable blocks have
   toiled hard. A man who will live in a tent, or take his wife and
   family into the corner of a brooder and live there with 500
   chickens to keep him company until he was flooded out the while he
   waited for a home to be built, must be given credit for an attempt
   to make good. (63)

Every man who went to the Bankstown Soldier Settlement from its establishment in early 1917 until at least the end of 1918 had received a medical discharge from the AIF. A small farm in a community-based settlement was considered suitable for a disabled family man who would, with assistance, recover his health to lead a fulfilling life. For most it proved to be an unrealistic expectation. Some men did succeed. From nearly 100 settlers, only 10 families stayed more than six years. (64) The men at Bankstown Soldier Settlement applied believing this was an opportunity for them to own their own land, and because they had no other viable option. Few succeeded. At least one-third of the men who lived at Bankstown in its first six years left because they were physically or psychologically unable to continue. (65) Their pre-war occupations were closed to them because of their war-related injuries. More research is required to determine if the Bankstown experience was similar or different on other group settlements. The World War I Soldier Settlement Scheme was considered to be a financial disaster. What this study has revealed is that the human cost was on the same scale.

Notes

(1) National Archives of Australia: B2455, First Australian Imperial Force Personnel Dossiers, 1914-20. NAA, Canberra. Spooner, Sydney Arthur, SERN: 1287.

(2) NAA, Buckley, Thomas, SERN: 484.

(3) State Records NSW: Department of Lands, Closer Settlement Promotion Files, CGS 8052, Bankstown Soldier Settlement [10/13714].

(4) SRNSW [10/13714].

(5) M. Lake, The Limits of Hope. Soldier Settlement in Victoria 1915-38, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.

(6) R. Sparkes, '"Forty Acres and a Crow." A Comparison of Soldier Settlement in Australia After the Two World Wars', MA Hons thesis, University of New England, 1996, p. 10, p. 90.

(7) M. J. O'Sullivan, 'A New South Wales Land Settlement Study. Kentucky Soldiers' Settlement, 1917-1975, with special emphasis on the period to 1940', M Litt thesis, University of New England, 1976, p. 43.

(8) O'Sullivan, p. 113.

(9) A. D. Gilbert, J. Robertson, R. Russell, 'Computing Military History: A Research Report on the First AIF Project', War & Society,, vol. 7, No. l, 1989, p. 106.

(10) J. Beaumont, 'Australia's War', in J. Beaumont (ed), Australia's War, 1914-18, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1995, p. 1.

(11) A. Thomson, Anzac Memories. Living with the Legend, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1994, p. 29.

(12) L. J. Pryor, 'The Origins of Australia's Repatriation Policy', MA thesis, University of Melbourne, 1932, p. 183: E. Scott, Australia During the War, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1936, p. 842.

(13) M. Lake, "The Power of Anzac', in M. McKernan, M. Browne (eds), Australia: Two Centuries of War and Peace, Allen & Unwin. Australia, 1998, p. 200.

(14) C. Lloyd, J. Rees, The Last Shilling. A History of Repatriation in Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1994, p. 48.

(15) Pryor, p. 191.

(16) J. Powell, 'The Debt of Honour: Soldier Settlement in the Dominions, 1915-1940', Journal of. Australian Studies, No. 8, June 1981, p. 67.

(17) Justice Pike, Report on Losses Due to Soldier Settlement, Government Printer, Canberra, August 1929, p. 59; New South Wales Parliamentary Papers, vol. 1: Report of the Director of Soldiers' Settlements, 1922, p. 23, stated that the New South Wales quota, reached under an agreement with the Commonwealth Government, was to settle 8405 men on the land.

(18) Pryor, p. 193.

(19) W. G. Ashford, Land for Soldiers. Special Terms offered by the Government of N.S.Wales, Government Printer, February 1918, p. 2.

(20) Land for Soldiers, p. 12.

(21) Australian Land Settlement for Returned Soldiers and Sailors. The Australian State Government Proposals, AIF Form No 547, Repatriation and Demobilisation Department, London, January 1919, p. 1.

(22) NSWPP 1922 vol. 1, 'Progress Report from the Select Committee on the Soldier Settlements', November 1922, p. 306, p. 308, p. 310.

(23) SRNSW [10/13713].

(24) SRNSW [10/13713].

(25) SRNSW [l0/13713], letter from Crown Solicitor's Office.

(26) SRNSW [10/13714], settlement map.

(27) L. Beckett, Bankstown Historical Society Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, July 1987, p. 23.

(28) L. Beckett, Milperra Memories, unpublished paper, 1984, 1986, p. 47.

(29) SRNSW, settlement map.

(30) SRNSW [10/13713].

(31) SRNSW [10/13713], correspondence no. 18.65, 23 October 1918.

(32) SRNSW [10/13713], letter from Bryant, 16 March 1918.

(33) SRNSW, correspondence from Bryant, RSS, 16 March 1918; gazetted 19 July 1918; Minister for Lands, Ashford, 25 July 1918.

(34) Beckett, Milperra Memories, pp. 177-79.

(35) Milperra Memories, p. 145.

(36) Milperra Memories, p. 119.

(37) Milperra Memories, p. 62, p. 239, p. 242.

(38) Milperra Memories, p. 218.

(39) G. Allison, 'Surviving the Peace. Bankstown Soldier Settlement 1917-1923', BA (Hons) thesis, University of Western Sydney, 2007, pp. 72-78, Appendix--Settler List.

(40) Allison, Table 1, p. 57.

(41) NAA, B2455, Fitzgerald, William John, SERN: 2047.

(42) SRNSW, Department of Lands, RSS miscellaneous files, c1916-39, CGS 8056.

(43) SRNSW [10/13713].

(44) Department of Veterans Affairs, Repatriation files C138/1, Fitzgerald, William John, NAA, Sydney.

(45) NAA, B2455, Weaire, William, SERN: 52.

(46) SRNSW [10/13713].

(47) NAA, B2455, Rivers, Francis Edward, SERN: 2667.

(48) SRNSW [10/13715].

(49) DVA, Repatriation files, C 138/1; R/M 28815.

(50) SRNSW [10/13713, 10/13714].

(51) NAA, B2455, SERN: 6834.

(52) DVA, C138/1.

(53) SRNSW [10/13714]

(54) DVA.

(55) SRNSW [10/13713], report dated 23 October 1922, Re: Market Gardening Blocks Bankstown Soldiers Settlement. Block 153 in original plan was divided into four vegetable blocks, Blocks 259,260,261 and 262. Block 260 was about eight acres.

(56) SRNSW. Files show Johnstone, Walter Frost, NAA, B2455. Johnstone, Walter Frost. SERN: 11348

(57) NAA, B2455, Hutton, Arthur Roland, SERN: 3089.

(58) SRNSW [10/13713].

(59) Lloyd & Rees, pp. 200-201.

(60) Smith's Weekly, 18 June 1921, p. 23.

(61) NAA, B2455, Collins, Henry Herbert, SERN: 12730.

(62) SRNSW [10/13715]. Collins abandoned mid-October 1921.

(63) Smith's Weekly, 25 June 1921, p. 23.

(64) Allison, p. 57.

(65) Allison, pp. 72-78.

Member RAHS

University of New England