Stamford Hill Monument Restored

Continuing his narrative on the broken and crumbled condition of the first monument erected at Stamford Hill, the writer states : — Holroyd blamed the elements for the disintegration of the outer covering of the obelisk, but as has been seen the workmanship in the original erection was very poor. In March, 1865, the Engineer and Architect (William Hanson) a position more or less corresponding with the Architect-in-Chief of today, verbally asked Mr. William Murray C.E., for a report on the monument and an estimate of cost for restoration, which report was given under date of April 10, 1865.

In the report he stated that the Hobart Town freestone was clamped on with iron over a core of rough local stone. From appearance he did not consider that the slabs had any kind of cement or grout to make them adhere to the inner core. All the freestone slabs were not off, some still remaining in position. If Murray's cardinal points are correct it was the north face that contained the marble tablet. The inner core was quite sound. One probable cause of failure was the long immersion of the freestone, the impregnated salt eventually causing the corrosion of the iron clamps. He recommended recoating the whole with white marble with brads of copper, well backed with cement and the provision of a lightning conductor, estimating the cost at about £400. He gave the dimension as, base 8ft square by 2ft, pedestal 6ft. 6in. by 9ft. high, plinth 7ft. 6in. by 6in. and the tapering 'needle' 6ft. at plinth level by 18ft 6in. high a total of 30ft. The Engineer and Architect recommended this scheme to the Government saying, " The monument must be kept up as a known landmark and should, I think be made complete as a memorial according to the inscription." Samuel Shepperd, a builder of Port Lincoln, submitted to B. Herschel Babbage an offer of £350 to do the repairs. Mr. Babbage outlined some of the cost to be incurred stating that hay at the hotels at Port Lincoln was being retailed at one penny per pound. Pack horses would have to be used to carry material half way up the hill, manpower having to complete the balance of the journey. Private offers could not be entertained by the Government, so Mr. Murray was requested to prepare plans and specification tor the work. A draft was submitted on September 23, 1865, and tenders were advertised for six days later. Three tenders were received, William Murray £525, J. Kellet; £550 and Samuel Shepperd £600. Murray's tender was accepted, but as he was almost immediately appointed "Resident Assistant Engineer" at Port Lincoln, the contract was transferred to J. Kellet at Murray's price.

MONUMENT RESTORED

Murray drafted out an ambitious addition to the inscription, but the Government are to be congratulated on refusing to accept, being content to state "Restored, with original inscription, by the S.A. Government. A.D. 1866." He also suggested sending the old tablet, size lft. 4in. by 2ft. 8in. to the Engineer and Architect Kellet got busy on his contract and towards the end of 1865, had most of the marble slabs ready. By January 2, 1866, nothing had been done at the obelisk and Murray was urging the supply of a boat so he could make frequent trips to the work. He also required the boat for his other duties. The non receipt of the boat gave him as he thought a good excuse for passing unsatisfactory work.

By February 10, no setting of stone had been done, Kellet was finding it difficult to get the blocks of marble to the top of the hill, but by February 24 Murray was able to report that Kellet was making good progress and expected to have the work completed the following week. He stated the work was being done in a most excellent manner, very sound and well put together. Murray was hoping for a visit from the Governor or some official to see the final completion of the repairs for Mr. Kellet's credit and honor of so honorable a monument."

It is evident that as a result of this visit of Murray's he passed the work, anticipating the balance would be carried out as faithfully as the bottom portion, but alas Kellet failed him. There should be a letter from Mr. Murray dated March 9, 1866, but cannot now be found, in which he adversely criticised the work of completion and as a result £10 was deducted from Kellet's final payment to make good. Kellet had taken away the scaffolding so that a close inspection of the top could not be made.

In December, Murray on another visit to the monument found the condition much worse than he had originally contemplated. He had taken over men to effect what repairs was considered necessary. He found many of the top slabs were loose and there were not any dowels to hold them in position. The top cap was placed in position without anything to hold it in position and the erection of the lightning rod was "scamped"; and even the "inscription is washed out for want of proper black paint in the cut letters " and he requested authority that immediate steps might be taken to repair the faulty work.

The report of the Commissioner of Public Works to Parliament for the year ended December, 1866, contains this scathing extract from one of Murray's letters : "I cannot but express my deep indignation at the discreditable way in which the contractor for this work, scamped it." For various reasons Wm. Murray's services were terminated about June, 1867. Whether he had been able to arrange for the repairs is not known, but on 7/11/1867, Mr. S. Carvosso r ported that Samuel Shepperd had completed the work at Flinders Monument in a satisfactory manner for £90. It is stated that Shepperd used two bullocks attached to a sledge for hauling material to the summit. The cost of repairs was stated to have been £704 14/2.

"NEFARIOUS VANDALISM."

A wrathful writer about 1897, after visiting the mount wrote : — " Flinders Monument . . . . . is another scene of nefarious vandalism. This was a beautiful polished white marble monument replaced by the S.A. Govern ment .... now the lower part is literally destroyed by the idiots who have chipped their puny insignificant names on the monument sacred to the memory of the discoverer of South Australia. May the rising generation of South Australia be taught to revere the few historical monuments we possess." The writer of that article fell into the same trap as many others, by saying the obelisk was erected in 1841 instead of 1844. At that time the archives had not been formed and much historical matter was not available to him. The Register correspondent frequently referred to in the article on the Memory Cove tablet, also wrote on the vandalism "and the vandal was not stoned to death as he ought to have been, with pieces of the stone he has desecrated. Now (1904) the monument is in capital preservation, though afflicted in parts with autograph of many people in general and few in particular."

Every writer praises the work done by Lady Franklin but probably Nathaniel Hailes' opinion would be the best to quote: "This instance of the wife's attachment to her then living but absent husband was quite in unison with subsequent acts of untiring devotedness which deserve to hand her name down to posterity among the name of distinguished females whose conjugal heroism has cast lustre on their sex." Mr. A. H. Beesly another biographer of Franklin said of him: "Never was a man more fortunate in his marriages than he. His first wife devoted her dying hours to his fame ; his second wife consecrated her whole life to his memory."