EMIGRATION. [Emigration; New Holland. By Thomas Bartlett, 1
vol. octavo, pp. 312.]
This article is mainly concerned with British emigration
to the colonies, with the emphasis on Australia. The
author's main preoccupation is with the disposition of land
and he quotes both Bartlett and Colonel Torreus ("on the
Colonization of Southern Australia"), in his deliberations.
He makes occasional reference to the methods adopted in the
United States as can be seen in the following extract from
pp. 512-3:-
It is difficult to find two authors more at variance with
each other, both on matters of fact and on theory, than
Colonel Torreus and Mr. Bartlett. On the state of affairs in
South Australia the former seems as much too sanguine as the
latter is too desponding. The latter is entitled to no small
weight, inasmuch as he speaks from experience; while Colonel
Torreus labours under the disadvantage that the self-
supporting system which he extols so much has, even in his
own hands proved to be an utter failure.
As so much has been said and written of the self-
supporting principle upon which South Australia was founded,
and as the circumstances under which it failed must at some
future period occupy the attention of parliament, some of our
readers may not be displeased at our giving a brief account
of this colony. Everyone knew that waste land, while it
continued so in a colony, was perfectly useless to the colony
as to the mother country. It could become valuable only by
becoming private property, and being made productive by a
certain expenditure of capital and labour. The state
prescribed the terms upon which the unoccupied land should
become private property; and it was the duty of statesmen to
prescribe such terms, and to make such arrangements as would
lead to a sufficiently rapid and productive application of
labour and capital to the improvement of the colony. For this
purpose various plans were tried, which were generally the
result rather of circumstances than of much thought or
deliberation. One obvious course was, to give the land to
individuals on any terms - sometimes for a political or
personal job, and sometimes as a reward for merit, and to
trust for its cultivation to the private interests of the
owners. It was the application of private capital, guided by
private interests, and undirected by any public authority,
that led to the high cultivation of English soil. Why should
not the same effect follow from the same causes in Australia
or America, when once the land should become individual
#PAGE 2
property? The difference between the two cases is, that, the
old country possessed men, which the colonies wanted. In
order that land may be cultivated with profit, there must be
labourers to produce, and a population to consume, the fruits
of the earth. For want of inhabitants the most fertile land
in a colony may be valueless. Until a population springs up,
the owner of the most fertile land may have neither
inducement nor means to cultivate it. He will seldom find it
to be his interest to import a population sufficient to add
value to his property. Under such circumstances, the advance
of population and cultivation must be necessarily slow. The
early colonists of the United States were persons who fled to
escape the consequences of their own or their countryman's
crimes. Those who possess property in a country so
circumstanced, especially when they have been obliged to pay
any thing [anything?] for it, are content to let it remain unoccupied and
unproductive until the progress of population has made it
valuable. The possession of property thus circumstanced is
always felt to be an impediment to colonization.
Another plan has been tried, apparently were likely to be
successful is fairly carried into effect: this is, to give
grants of lands to individuals on condition of their
cultivating at least a certain portion of them within a
certain time. The chief objection to this is, the room it
makes for favouritism, and the difficulty or impossibility of
enforcing the conditions rigorously. Thus the judicious
disposal of waste lands in the British colonies has ever been
a matter of some difficulty, at the same time that in the
United States, the land is disposed of in a manner which at
once secures its cultivation and produces a revenue to the
government. This is effected simply by setting up the land
in lots for sale to the highest bidder. It is not likely that
any person would buy land at such an auction who was not
resolved to turn his purchase to account. This can be readily
done in America, where the settler is not obliged to cross
the ocean, but merely to go a few miles further west; but it
may be readily supposed, that if land were set up for sale by
auction in a British colony, there would be no purchasers
found willing to pay more than a merely nominal price for the
land. They may, however, be induced to do so by an engagement
that the purchase money should be employed in conveying
labourers to the colony.
The author is also concerned with 'the almost total want
of the means of religious advice and instruction in the
#PAGE 3
colonies. `This 'defect` in South Australia leads to an
account (pp. 519-60) of the provision of land made
to support the Church in the North American colonies and its
eventual failure:-
When an emigrant has been some time settled in a colony,
and becomes acquainted with the circumstances of the place,
ha ceases to have any peculiar claim upon the government for
advice or assistance, as his means of supporting himself are
in no respect worse, and in many respects better than if he
had remained at home. But in one point a colony is too
frequently immeasurably inferior to the mother country, and
from this defect most of their evils take their rise. This
one grand defect is, the almost total want of religious
advice and instruction in the colonies. In the colony of
South Australia the government appears premeditatedly to have
neglected its most important duty of making provision for the
establishment of a Christian church; in our North American
colonies, the best intentions have been frustrated by
mismanagement. Large tracts of land, equal to nearly
one-seventh of the country were in Canada set apart for the
support of the church; but waste lands support nothing, and
no provision was made for their cultivation. The church land
was permitted to remain waste until it might obtain value
from the cultivation of the surrounding country. Meantime,
the system was producing a double evil. It made no present
provision for the wants of the church, and its property was
generally felt to be an impediment to cultivation. Whenever
there was church land there was a desert waste. No one
wished to purchase land in its neighbourhood, knowing that
the vicinity of an unreclaimed waste must considerably retard
the prosperity of the district. Thus the existence of this
kind of property was necessarily unpopular; and some part of
this unpopularity not unnaturally fell upon the church
itself, which was thus injured by the possession of property
from which it derived no support. It is true that the injury
done to the colony by these church lands was not as great as
it seemed. They did not prevent emigrants from settling in
the colony, but merely compelled them to settle in the
districts not possessed by the church. This was only so far
injurious as those districts must sometimes happen to be less
productive, or less favourably situated than the church
lands. But the mischief appeared to be much greater; for the
inhabitants, observing that the church lands were unreclaimed
in consequence of their being church property, would justly
conclude, that if the church property was sold it would be
reclaimed like the rest of the country, and would not
#PAGE 4
consider that as much as was reclaimed must be by men who
would otherwise have been occupied in cultivating some other
lands.
The church property in Canada was unable to withstand
this unpopularity, and was sentenced to be sold, and the
produce applied to the support of the church. This measure
met with little resistance. The best friends of the church
could not but admit that the church lands were retarding the
cultivation of the colony, while the church was deriving no
present benefit from them. Many concluded, that in a new
colony the possession of land could never be an adequate or a
suitable provision for the church. We are of the contrary
opinion, and think that it is the only means by which the
church can be established in a satisfactory manner in any
country. We admit that waste unproductive land is an
improper, or rather is no provision for the church; but there
is no necessity that church lands should be permitted to
remain waste or unproductive. It is true that they cannot be
sold, and remain church lands; but agents could be readily
procured to oversee its cultivation, and there is no manner
in which the same sum of money could be invested to make so
large a permanent provision for the church as by employing it
in the cultivation of waste land. If a clergyman was sent out
to a block of church land, a glebe assigned to him in it, and
funds from home provided for building him a residence, and
completely clearing and improving his glebe, he would act as
a misionary for the surrounding country, and oversee the
clearing of the rest of the block; for which, when cleared,
by giving long leases, tenants could be readily procured to
pay reasonable rents. a settler from the old country would
always find it much more profitable to take a lease of a
large farm already cleared than to expend his little capital
in purchasing and clearing a small one. Were this done, and
the rents of the church property applied in the first
instance to supply church accommodation and a church
education for the districts in which church property was
situated, these districts would shortly be distinguished from
the rest of the country, not only by their superior
cultivation, but by the superior refinement and happiness of
the inhabitants, the property of the church would be felt to
be a blessing to the country, and the church would speedily
be enabled to provide for the spiritual wants of the
community, and spread the benefits of civilization and
religion through the land. It is not yet too late. It is true
that this , like every other duty, becomes more difficult
from past neglect. For several years to come perhaps the
state itself will not do much, but never was the liberality
#PAGE 5
of individual piety more strangely displayed than at present
in Great Britain. A chief part of all subscriptions for the
promotion of religion and the support of clergymen in the
colonies ought to be applied to the foundation of small
church colonies within them, which would be like so many
lamps from which light would be shed on the rest of the
country. At present nothing can be more lamentable than the
condition of some of our colonies, whose best gifts are
turned to poison by their spiritual destitution. High wages
instead of escalating the condition of the servant, give rise
to reckless drunken insolence; and high profits, instead of
producing liberality, create a sordid love of gain, and a
shameless indifference to the mode of acquiring it, until the
word colonial, even in the colonies, when applied to conduct,
is synonymous with the total absence of every restraint from
shame or honesty.
If Great Britain shall continue to neglect her most
serious duty, she will assuredly suffer a deserved
punishment, and will find her colonies a painful thorn in her
side; but if she walks in the plain path of duty, her destiny
is the most splendid that ever was allotted to any nation,
and thousands of millions yet unborn will speak her language,
and bless her name in gratitude for her sucessful efforts in
redeeming them from ignorance and sin, and impressing upon
them a knowledge of religious truth. Nor will she be
unrewarded by that temperal prosperity which statesmen feel
it more peculiarly their duty to promote. Her peaceful,
contented colonies, will be a market for her manufactures, a
refuge for redundant inhabitants; the wisdom of Solomon's
choice will be exemplified by her conduct, and she will be
prosperous in peace, and invincible in war.
