The
fickle disposition of these people, in youth as in older years,
incapacitate them from any long continued exertions, whether of
learning or labour, whilst from the roving lives of the parents in
search of food, the children, if received into the schools, must
be entirely supported at the public expense. This limits the sphere
of our operations, by restricting the number of the scholars who
can thus be taken charge of. Through the kindly co-operation of the
Wesleyan Society at Perth, and the zealous pastoral exertions of the Rev.
Mr. King at Fremantle, the schools at both these places have been
efficiently maintained; but in the country, and apart from the large
towns, to which the Aborigines have an interest in resorting in large
numbers for food and money, the formation of schools of a lasting
character will be for some time a work of doubt and of difficulty."]
There are two other points connected with the natives to which I will
briefly advert: the one, relative to the language in which the school
children are taught, the other, the policy, or otherwise, of having
establishments for the natives in the immediate vicinity of a town, or of
a numerous European population.
With respect to the first, I may premise, that for the first four years
the school at the location in Adelaide was conducted entirely in the
native tongue. To this there are many objections.
First, the length of time and labour required for the instructor to
master the language he has to teach in.
Secondly, the very few natives to whom he can impart the advantages of
instruction, as an additional school, and another teacher would be
required for every tribe speaking a different dialect.
Thirdly, the sudden stop that would be put to all instruction if the
preceptor became ill, or died, as no one would be found able to supply
his place in a country where, from the number, and great differences of
the various dialects, there is no inducement to the public to learn any
of them.
Fourthly, that by the children being taught in any other tongue than that
generally spoken by the colonists, they are debarred from the advantage
of any casual instruction or information which they might receive from
others than their own teachers, and from entering upon duties or
relations of any kind with the Europeans among whom they are living, but
whose language they cannot speak.
Fifthly, that, by adhering to the native language, the children are more
deeply confirmed in their original feelings and prejudices, and more
thoroughly kept under the influence and direction of their own people.
Among the colonists themselves there have scarcely been two opinions upon
the subject, and almost all have felt, that the system originally adopted
was essentially wrong. It has recently been changed, and the English is
now adopted instead of the native language. I should not have named this
subject at all, had I not been aware that the missionaries themselves
still retain their former impressions, and that although they have
yielded to public opinion on this point, they have not done so from a
conviction of its utility.
The second point to which I referred, - the policy, or otherwise, of
having native establishments near a populous European settlement, is a
much more comprehensive question, and one which might admit, perhaps, of
some reasons on both sides, although, upon the whole, those against it
greatly preponderate.
The following are the reasons I have usually heard argued for proximity
to town.
1st. It is said that the children sooner acquire the English language by
mixing among the towns people. This, however, to say the least, is a very
negative advantage, for in such a contact it is far more probable that
they will learn evil than good; besides, if means were available to
enable the masters to keep their scholars under proper restrictions,
there would no longer be even the opportunity for enjoying this very
equivocal advantage.
2nd. It is stated that the natives are sooner compelled to give up their
wandering habits, as there is no game near a town. This might be well
enough if they followed any better employment, but the contrary is the
case; and with respect to the school-children, the restriction would be
the correction of a bad habit, which they ought never to be allowed to
indulge in, and one which might soon be done away with entirely if
sufficient inducement were held out to the parents to put their children
to school, and allow them to remain there.
3rd. It is thought that a greater number of children can be collected in
the vicinity of a town than elsewhere. This may perhaps be the case at
present, but would not continue so if means were used to congregate the
natives in their own proper districts.
4th. It is said that provisions and clothing are cheaper in town and more
easily procured than elsewhere. This is the only apparently valid reason
of the whole, but it is very questionable whether it is sufficient to
counterbalance the many evils which may result from too close a
contiguity to town, and especially so as far as the adults are concerned.
With respect to the children, if kept within proper bounds, and under
proper discipline, it is of little importance where they may be located,
and perhaps a town may for such purposes be sometimes the best. With the
older natives however it is far different, and the evils resulting to
them from too close contact with a large European population, are most
plainly apparent; in, -
1st. The immorality, which great as it is among savages in their natural
state, is increased in a tenfold degree when encouraged and countenanced
by Europeans, and but little opening is left for the exercise of
missionary influence or exertions.
