“The other passage referred to is my addressing a letter to Lord Brougham, in April, 1834, on the subject of pauper education. The bill subsequently called the New Poor Law was then in progress through Parliament, and the intended changes seemed to me to afford an opportunity, not to be neglected, for improving the education of pauper children, then for the most part in a wretched state, the schoolmasters being very frequently themselves paupers. To suggest this improvement was the object of my letter.
“I pointed out that the union of parishes, combined with the proposed classification of paupers (a design unfortunately but very imperfectly realized), would bring together large numbers of pauper children, and thus facilitate their education. By reference to the report of the Commissioners, I showed that children educated in workhouses became for the most part paupers for life; while in the few parishes where good education had already been established, few remained chargeable beyond the age of childhood; that by making good education general, one great source of pauperism would be stopped; and that even as regarded immediate benefit, if industrial occupation were introduced into the schools, the expense of maintaining the children would be partly defrayed by the results of their labour, while such occupation instead of retarding would even promote their intellectual progress. After urging some further considerations, I concluded by offering any assistance that I could give in forming a complete plan. Perhaps amidst Lord Brougham’s multitudinous duties he had no attention to spare for the proposal; perhaps the difficulty with which the actual changes were made, and the outcry long maintained against them, may have indisposed Government to any further innovation. But whatever may be the explanation, I cannot avoid speculating on the amount of the benefit which might by this time have resulted from the suggestion, had it been adopted and efficiently worked. How much pauperism and how much crime might have been prevented![81]
“To return now to the subject of South Australian Colonisation. The main principles on which it was intended to proceed were, first, that the colony should from its very establishment be self-supporting (a condition hitherto unheard of); secondly, that means should be taken to keep the colonists from that dispersion which had so often produced grievous suffering and a fearful mortality; thirdly, that no convicts should be admitted into the colony; fourthly, that means should be taken for the immigration of a sufficient number of free labourers; and, lastly, that in the selection of these the numbers of the sexes should be kept equal. It is only necessary to add that, with a view to discourage dispersion and to supply an emigration fund, the price of land was to be fixed comparatively high, probably at one pound per acre. All these provisions will be found embodied in the Act of Parliament eventually passed on the subject (4th and 5th William IV., chap. 95).
“As I found Mr. Wakefield’s report relative to the high character of the association fully supported by the facts, I joined it with great satisfaction.
“Hoping to avoid the expense, difficulties, uncertainty, and delay of an application to Parliament, the association applied to the Colonial Secretary for a charter; which, however, was refused, partly on the alleged ground of want of precedent. As there was no remedy, we took the necessary measures for carrying a bill through Parliament. But here the obstacles were so many, that earnest and able as were those who undertook the management of the bill, viz., Colonel Torrens, Mr. Whitmore, and Mr. (now Sir William) Hutt, there would have been but small chance of success without some one to take upon him, as it were, the drudgery of the process. Such aid we were fortunate enough to command in the person of my brother Matthew, who had been elected to the first reformed Parliament as member for Hull. By the joint efforts of all, the bill was at length carried through both Houses.
“Commissioners to put the Act in execution were appointed by the Crown, May 5th, 1835; the chairman being Colonel Torrens, and Sir William Hutt and Sir John Lefevre being two of the commissioners. To this body I was appointed Secretary. To colonise, without any assistance from Government, an almost unknown wilderness, was a sufficiently difficult task; but the difficulties of the commission were increased by certain stipulations which Government, doubtless a little uneasy at the novel project of independent colonisation, had thought proper to impose.[82] One of these was the preliminary investment in Government securities of the sum of £55,000, £35,000 to be produced by sale of land, and the remaining £20,000 to be raised on the security both of further sales and of the colonial revenue; the investment in full to precede the exercise of any of the general powers and authorities under the Act. As no surveys had yet been made, the province indeed being very little known, and as even the site of the capital could not yet be fixed on, compliance with such requirements was obviously difficult, and the difficulty was increased by the want of funds with which to pay preliminary expenses; but by great effort the necessary means were secured before the close of November in the same year,[83] And here, in justice, it must be mentioned, that in the great work of founding the colony, the Commissioners were materially assisted by the formation of the South Australian Company, due mainly to the exertions of Mr. G. F. Angas.
“Under all circumstances, however, the early surveying of the land was very important; while, at the same time, economy restricted the choice of surveyors mainly to those embarking in the enterprise on other grounds. The selection having been made, however, and the staff sent out, we hoped for the best; but disappointment followed. The survey made slow progress, and demands came home for such an increase of force as in that early stage would have swamped the whole enterprise. These, fortunately, my previous practice in surveying enabled me successfully to oppose; but it was not until a new chief surveyor had been sent out, in the person of Lieutenant (now General) Frome, R.E., and a new governor with ampler powers than his predecessor, that matters were at length put right.[84]
“The payments to ship-owners and ship-surgeons were regulated by the number of emigrants conveyed; but as the occurrence of births and deaths produced considerable variation during the voyage, it became important to determine at what period the number should be ascertained. I advised that this should be done, not, as was customary, at the beginning of the voyage, but at its close, so as to supply a strong motive to the maintenance of the general health aboard ship. This plan being adopted answered so well, that the number that arrived in the colony often exceeded that recorded at departure; the births on board having outnumbered the deaths. Not thinking it well, however, to trust entirely to this arrangement, I took, under authority of the Commissioners, every care to have both ship and provisions effectually surveyed. On both points a controversy frequently occurred which it may be well to mention. I always took care that the requirements authorised by the Commissioners should be emphatically urged on the attention of the contractors, and constantly received assurance that they were fully understood, and should be fully acted upon; but when defects and blemishes were brought to light by the accuracy of the survey, and the stipulated consequences enforced, an outcry arose, as if the connection between promise and performance were an unheard-of and most unwarrantable innovation. After a time, however, as our practice became recognised, evasive attempts grew rare, the first expense being found to be the least.