"Should a child be born," says Grey, "with any natural deformity, it is frequently killed by its parents soon afterwards. In the only instances of this kind which have come within my own knowledge, the child has been drowned."
On the evidence of Protectors and others, collected by a Colonial Magistrate, it is stated that children are often held over a fire by the mother, and stifled; that children dying a natural death are immediately eaten; and that in one case a mother and her children were discovered enjoying, as a sweet repast, one of the same family.[1]
Mr. Westgarth considers that the practice of infanticide is well authenticated.[2]
It is not necessary to inform the reader that infanticide is a crime which is not restricted to the Aborigines of Australia. In other countries where there are savage peoples the infants are killed and eaten. Whether this revolting practice has its origin in the superstitious belief that the elder child will be stronger and braver if fed upon the roasted flesh of the infant, or whether it is in some cases forced upon the parents by the want of animal food, or is simply a means of getting rid of an encumbrance, which to retain would embarrass the tribe and retard its movements, cannot be ascertained. On such subjects the Aborigines are usually reticent, or, if obliged to speak, do not always tell the truth. All the motives may, in some cases, operate in deciding the fate of a new-born child.
Is it possible that this custom is only common where the tribes have been brought into contact with the whites? Is it the half-castes only that are destroyed? One would willingly believe that it was only when demoralized by intercourse with the lower classes of whites that this crime was committed; but the facts I have cited, and the proportions of the sexes amongst the tribes in the interior, would seem to show that it is not due to intermixture with the Europeans, but is and has always been a recognised and approved custom. Though no less revolting because a custom, it ceases to be a crime if we make the members of the tribes themselves the judges.
It is not a rite—it is not a sacrifice. It is most probably a means of limiting the population: and, if this be the explanation, who can say that the murder of infants under peculiar conditions may not result in averting great calamities, and indeed be the prevention of other even more horrible offences?[3] Australia, as will be clearly shown in this work, is divided into districts beyond which members of tribes may not, except under certain circumstances, travel; a tribe
- ↑ Remarks on the probable Origin and Antiquity of the Natives of New South Wales, by a Colonial Magistrate, 1846, p. 19.
- ↑ A Report on the Condition, Capabilities, and Prospects of the Australian Aborigines, by W. Westgarth, 1846.
- ↑ "Then, again, their customs with respect to marriage probably originated in a strong necessity for repressing the numbers of the population. History teaches that in countries where polygamy is encouraged population seldom increases. The Australian Aborigines not only practised polygamy, and surrounded marriage with all possible difficulties, but their customs were such as were calculated
promise that the child's life should be spared. But an old savage named Katyirene, a relative of the reputed father, was offended at this forbearance; so he set the wurley on fire in which the mother and infant were lying, and very nearly accomplished the destruction of both. I soon after found that the child was suffering and pining from some internal injury, and in about forty-eight hours it died. I have no doubt that foul play was the cause of its death, for it was a fine healthy child when it was newly-born."—The Narrinyeri, by the Rev. Geo. Taplin, 1874.
