Part 53 (2/2)
The elder natives should be led as far as could be, to make articles of native industry for sale, as baskets, mats, weapons, implements, nets, etc., these might be sent to Adelaide and sold periodically for their benefit.
Such and many other similar regulations, would appear to be advantageous, and might be adopted or altered from time to time, as it should be deemed desirable.
Upon the subject of schools for the native children, it appears that much benefit would be derived from having them as far separated as possible from other natives, and that the following, among others, would be improvements upon the plans in present use.
1st. That the school buildings should be of such size and arrangement, as to admit of all the scholars being lodged as well as boarded, and of the boys and girls having different sleeping rooms.
2ndly. That the schools should have a sufficiency of ground properly enclosed around them, for the play-grounds, and that no other natives than the scholars should be admitted within those precincts, except in the presence of the master, when relatives come to see each other; but that on no account should any natives be permitted to encamp or sleep within the school grounds.
3rdly. That the children should not be allowed or encouraged to roam about the towns, begging, or to ramble for any purpose outside their boundaries, where they are likely to come under the influence of the other natives. This is particularly necessary with respect to girls, indeed the latter should never be allowed to be absent from school at all, by themselves.
4thly. To compensate in some degree, for what may at first appear to them an irksome or repulsive restraint, playthings should occasionally be provided for those children who have behaved well, and all innocent amus.e.m.e.nt be encouraged, and as often as might be convenient, the master should accompany his scholars out into the country for recreation, or through the town, or such other public places, as might be objects of interest or curiosity.
5thly. That a stimulus to exertion, should be excited by prizes, being given to children distinguis.h.i.+ng themselves at certain stages of their progress, such as a superior article of dress, a toy, or book, or whatever might be best adapted to the age or disposition of the child.
6thly. That parents should never be allowed to withdraw the children, contrary to their wishes, after having once consented to allow them to remain there.
7thly. That children of both s.e.xes, after having received a proper degree of instruction, and having attained a certain age, should be bound out as apprentices for a limited term of years, to such as were willing to receive them, proper provision being made for their being taught some useful occupation, and being well treated.
8thly. Encouragement should be offered to those who have been brought up at the schools to marry together when their apprentices.h.i.+ps are out, and portions of land should be preserved for them and a.s.sistance given them in establis.h.i.+ng themselves in life. At first perhaps it might be advisable to have these settlements in the form of a village and adjoining the school grounds, so that the young people might still receive the advantage of the advice or religious instruction of the missionaries or such ministers as attended to this duty at the schools.
9thly. The children should be taught exclusively in the English language and on Sundays should always attend divine service at some place of public wors.h.i.+p, accompanied by their masters.
In carrying into effect the above or any other regulations which might be found necessary for the welfare and improvement of the children. I believe that a sufficient degree of influence would be acquired over the parents by the system of supplying them with food, which I have recommended to induce a cheerful consent, but it would be only prudent to have a legislative enactment on the subject, that by placing the school-children under the guardians.h.i.+p of the protectors, they might be protected from the influence or power of their relatives; after these had once fully consented to their being sent to school to be educated.
[Note 114: ”The best chance of preserving the unfortunate race of New Holland lies in the means employed for training their children: the education given to such children should consist in a very small part of reading and writing. Oral instruction in the fundamental truths of the Christian religion will be given by the missionaries themselves. The children should be taught early; the boys to dig and plough, and the trades of shoemakers, tailors, carpenters and masons; the girls to sew and cook and wash linen, and keep clean the rooms and furniture. The more promising of these children might be placed, by a law to be framed for this purpose, under the guardians.h.i.+p of the Governor and placed by him at a school, or in apprentices.h.i.+p, in the more settled parts of the colony.
Thus early trained, the capacity of the race for the duties and employments of civilized life would be fairly developed.”--Letter from Lord John Russell to Sir G. Gipps; Parliamentary Report on Aborigines, p. 74.]
There is yet another point to be considered with respect to the Aborigines, and upon the equitable adjustment of which hinges all our relations with this people, whilst upon it depends entirely our power of enforcing any laws or regulations we may make with respect to them, I allude to the law of evidence as it at present stands with respect to persons incompetent to give testimony upon oath.
It is true that in South Australia an act has very recently pa.s.sed the legislative council to legalize the unsworn testimony of natives in a court of justice, but in that act there occurs a clause which completely neutralizes the boon it was intended to grant, and which is as follows, ”Provided that no person, whether an Aboriginal or other, SHALL BE CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENCE by any justice or jury upon the SOLE TESTIMONY of any such uncivilized persons.” 7 and 8 Victoria, section 5.
Here then we find that if a native were ill-treated or shot by an European, and the whole tribe able to bear witness to the fact, no conviction and no punishment could ensue: let us suppose that in an attempt to maltreat the native, the European should be wounded or injured by him, and that the European has the native brought up and tried for a murderous attack upon him, how would it fare with the poor native? the oath of the white man would overpower any exculpatory unsworn testimony that the native could bring, and his conviction and punishment would be (as they have been before) certain and severe.
Without attempting to a.s.sign a degree of credence to the testimony of a native beyond what it deserves, I will leave it to those who are acquainted with Colonies, and the value of an oath among the generality of storekeepers and shepherds, to say how far their SWORN evidence is, in a moral point of view, more to be depended upon than the unsworn parole of the native. I would ask too, how often it occurs that injuries upon the Aborigines are committed by Europeans in the presence of those competent to give a CONVICTING TESTIMONY, (unless where all, being equally guilty, are for their own sakes mutually averse to let the truth be known)? or how often even such aggressions take place under circ.u.mstances which admit of circ.u.mstantial evidence being obtained to corroborate native testimony?
Neither is it in the giving of evidence alone, that the native stands at a disadvantage as compared with a white man. His case, whether as prosecutor or defendant, is tried before a jury of another nation whose interests are opposed to his, and whose prejudices are often very strong against him.
I cannot ill.u.s.trate the position in which he is placed, more forcibly, than by quoting Captain Grey's remarks, vol. ii. p. 381, where he says:--
”It must also be borne in mind, that the natives are not tried by a jury of their peers, but by a jury having interests directly opposed to their own, and who can scarcely avoid being in some degree prejudiced against native offenders.”
The opinion of Judge Willis upon this point may be gathered from the following extract, from an address to a native of New South Wales, when pa.s.sing sentence of death upon him:--
”The principle upon which this court has acted in the embarra.s.sing collisions which have too frequently arisen between the Aborigines and the white Europeans, has been one of reciprocity and mutual protection.
On the one hand, the white man when detected (WHICH I FEAR SELDOM HAPPENS), has been justly visited with the rigour of the law, for aggressions on the helpless savages; and, on the other, the latter has been accountable for outrages upon his white brethren. As between the Aborigines themselves, the court has never interfered, for obvious reasons. Doubtless, in applying the law of a civilized nation to the condition of a wild savage, innumerable difficulties must occur. The distance in the scale of humanity between the wandering, houseless man of the woods, and the civilized European, is immeasurable! FOR PROTECTION, AND FOR RESPONSIBILITY IN HIS RELATION TO THE WHITE MAN THE BLACK IS REGARDED AS A BRITISH SUBJECT. In theory, this sounds just and reasonable; but in practice, how incongruous becomes its application! As a British subject, he is presumed to know the laws, for the infraction of which he is held accountable, and yet he is shut out from the advantage of its protection when brought to the test of responsibility. As a British subject, he is ent.i.tled to be tried by his PEERS. Who are the peers of the black man? Are those, of whose laws, customs, language, and religion, he is wholly ignorant--nay, whose very complexion is at variance with his own--HIS peers? He is tried in his native land by a race new to him, and by laws of which he knows nothing. Had you, unhappy man! had the good fortune to be born a Frenchman, or had been a native of any other country but your own, the law of England would have allowed you to demand a trial by half foreigners and half Englishmen. But, by your lot being the lowest, as is a.s.sumed, in the scale of humanity, you are inevitably placed on a footing of fearful odds, when brought into the sacred temple of British justice. Without a jury of your own countrymen--without the power of making adequate defence, by speech or witness--you are to stand the pressure of every thing that can be alleged against you, and your only chance of escape is, not the strength of your own, but the weakness of your adversary's case. Surrounded as your trial was with difficulties, everything, I believe, was done that could be done to place your case in a proper light before the jury. They have come to a conclusion satisfactory, no doubt, to their consciences. Whatever might be the disadvantages under which you laboured, they were convinced, as I am, that you destroyed the life of Dillon; and as there was nothing proved to rebut the presumption, of English law, arising from the fact of homicide being committed by you, they were constrained to find you guilty of murder. There may have been circ.u.mstances, if they could have been proved, which would have given a different complexion to the case from that of the dying declaration of the deceased, communicated to the Court through the frail memory of two witnesses, who varied in their relation of his account of the transaction. This declaration, so taken, was to be regarded as if taken on oath, face to face with your accuser; and, although you had not the opportunity of being present at it, and of cross-examining the dying man, yet by law it was receivable against you.”
<script>