Person
ContributeGeorge Strickland Kingston was born in Bandon, Cork, Ireland, in August 1807, the son of timber merchant and landowner George Kingston and his wife Hester (née Holland). His future in his native land was curtailed by economic depression and in the 1820s he worked in England gathering experience in civil engineering. He returned briefly to Ireland to marry Henrietta (Harriet) Ann Stuart McDonough on 5th November 1829 and then spent two years in Birmingham working for water engineers before he committed himself to the South Australian Colonization scheme. He worked as an unpaid assistant from 1834, hoping to secure a position from the Commissioners. Without influence or contacts, his position was tenuous during the parliamentary delays in establishing the new private enterprise colony, but eventually he was offered the post of Deputy Surveyor-General under Colonel William Light. He sailed on the Cygnet in 1836.
Although Kingston had no experience as a surveyor, he initially formed a good partnership with Light and was the first man to explore the inland plain where Adelaide was eventually sited. It was he who, with John Morphett and Lieutenant William Field, discovered the River Torrens. When Light returned from Port Lincoln in December 1836, Kingston recommended the new site and supported his superior against the opposition of Governor Hindmarsh, who wanted the capital to be closer to its port. An acrimonious dispute erupted and it was Kingston who returned to London with the report that resulted in Hindmarsh’s recall. At the same time, the Colonization Commissioners wanted Light to hasten the survey and authorised Kingston to supplant him if he was unwilling to expedite matters. Light resigned and Kingston, despite his lack of surveying experience, took over the task, until he too was replaced. Recent analysis suggests that it was Kingston who was the principal designer of the Adelaide town plan, although the acclaim has gone to Colonel Light.
Under the new Governor, George Gawler, Kingston became Civil Engineer and Inspector of Public Works and began work on Government House, the Adelaide Gaol and a customs house at Glenelg. Government employment stopped with the collapse of the South Australian economy in the early 1840s and Kingston barely survived on the few private commissions he received as a self-taught architect. Surviving examples of his work include Ayers House, the original section of Adelaide Gaol and ‘Cummins’, the home he built for John Morphett. He also designed his family’s seaside home at Brighton, now known as Kingston House, and the first monument to Colonel Light in Light Square.
Fortune smiled again when he became a shareholder in the ‘Monster Mine’ at Burra, which made him a wealthy man. He eventually became a long-time director of the company and went on to represent the Burra district in the Legislative Council in 1851. His strong democratic leaning led him to fight for a broad franchise for the Lower House and he won a seat in the new House of Assembly in 1857, becoming its first Speaker. Described as an irascible Irishman, he garnered enemies by his persistent opposition to State aid for religion.
His first wife died in 1839 and on 10th April 1841 he married Ludovina Cameron, by whom he had six children, including Charles Cameron Kingston. Ludovina died in 1851 and Kingston married Emma Lipson on 4th December 1856. He became an establishment figure in Adelaide, walking the streets of the city with a silver-topped cane. He received a knighthood in 1870 and held his position as Speaker of the House of Assembly until his death on 26th November 1880 on a voyage to India for his health. He was buried at sea.
Media
Add mediaImages
Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia, SLSA: B 350, Public Domain
Image courtesy of the State Library of South Australia, SLSA: B 2403, Public Domain
Comments
CommentAdd new comment
Deryck is certainly right about Kingston being a hopeless surveyor and redeeming his youthful follies (in part at least!) during his later Parliamentary career. However, Kingston's return to London was definitely _not_ instigated by Light. Light was relieved that Kingston had promised (albeit falsely) to not return as a surveyor but to come back as a civil engineer. Light was no doubt relieved to rid of him, but in the event Kingston used his London sojourn to usurp Light and entrench himself in the survey department as a 'supervisor' of others' work for which he was incompetent. Later contretemps over Kingston's typically "questionable" oversight of engineering works at the Port proved him to be no better at civil engineering - rather than piles for the wharf being driven in properly they were sawn off and 'rose like Banquo's ghost'. All of which is broadly consistent with Kingston being described as a derivative and mediocre architect.
The main purpose of Kingston's trip to London was to report against Governor Hindmarsh, because Kingston was a member of the Statistical Society that gathered evidence of Hindmarsh's abuse of, and contempt for, South Australia's founding principles, with a view to having Hindmarsh removed. As Kingston was an employee of the Commissioners' Survey Department which was headed by Light, the employee, Kingston, needed his superior's permission to take leave for what was likely to be a twelve month absence. As Light makes crystal clear, Light did _not_ send Kingston, he merely gave his permission for Kingston to be absent from the Survey Department. Light did not object because Kingston was useless on the survey, but another surveyor went further, attributing disharmony in the survey department to Kingston without whom they went along much better.As Kingston was being sent to London by others anyway, he was given the additional task of seeking additional resources from the Commissioners for the Survey Department which he self-servingly betrayed.
Kingston's long absence seems to have been an unlooked for boon to the rest of the surveyors, including Light, until the details of his heinous actions of sabotaging Light and his survey department whilst in London became known in South Australia.
The controversy over who actually selected the site for Adelaide will probably never be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. There is no doubt that Kingston, and his men, were the first to camp upon the site selected by him and introduced to Light shortly thereafter - to Light's approval.
Again the plan for the City is the subject of endless speculation, but there is no concrete evidence that Kingston, a hopeless surveyor, had anything to do with it, and it was certainly surveyed under Light's experienced eye.
The decision to send Kingston back to England was jointly made between Resident Commissioner Fisher and Light - almost certainly under the instigation of Light who was best placed to know of Kingston's shortcomings.
When the first Corporation was established under Fisher, now Adelaide's first Mayor, Kingston was appointed the first Town Surveyor and Engineer. In the latter role he was almost as hopeless as he was a surveyor - he was essentially an Architect. As the surveyor it was his job to assess the city properties and arrive at a rateable figure which he was then required to collect.
His questionable methods of collecting these rates led to a searching enquiry by those early Councillors who demanded his resignation. At this time it is almost certain that he earned the adverse epithets which were levelled against him.
His political career, however, did much to redeem him in the eyes of his peers, and his opinions in the House of Assembly, following the introduction of bi-cameral Parliament, were generally respected.
I note that his suitability for a Knighthood has come into question. The same query could be levelled at a number of colonists who were in receipt of that honour - at that period almost everyone who had any worthwhile hand in settling the colony, received one - even Fisher, who was for many years under a cloud of suspicion regarding his honesty while Resident Commissioner.
Thanks Deryck,
Kingston is certainly a character who inspires passionate reactions, good to know historical debate is alive and well. Your contribution much appreciated, and a good point about the knighthood.
Hi Kelly,
Many thanks for taking the time to document in greater detail the entry on GS Kingston. The above article originally appeared in the SA Greats publication which was brief by design. You will note that our Kingston entry on the Bound for South Australia blog is a somewhat more detail account and covers some of the points you raise here. We certainly think Kingston deserves a more detailed entry on Adelaidia and will work towards this in the near future.
Despite the assurance on 20/3/2014 that a more detailed entry on Kingston will be worked on, the errors and omissions have still not been corrected. When is this going to be done and why are HistorySA, ArtsSA and the State Government still puffing up the incompetent, bungling Kingston?
There is ample evidence the claims of an initial "good partnership with Light" and of "recent analysis" suggesting "Kingston (sic) was the principal designer of the Adelaide town plan" are utter nonsense. By virtue of its being presented/published to the world by them on this site it is HistorySA, ArtsSA and State Government sponsored nonsense and misinformation.
A raft of primary source evidence indicates Kingston had no role in the plan of Adelaide which was designed on site by William Light in January 1837. A raft of primary source evidence demonstrates that Kingston sabotaged Light and the survey department, falsely claimed credit for plans he did not create and survey work he did not do, and back-stabbed the survey team while in England (1837-38) to his own personal gain. Kingston repeatedly ignored Light's orders, including those awaiting him at Kangaroo Island sending him to Port Lincoln (where he did not go), and later to disembark at Holdfast Bay, and his incompetence and stupidity _delayed by two weeks_ the completion of the Adelaide town survey - the part performed so blunderingly by Kingston had to be abandoned by Light and was redone by Finniss and Ormsby (see Register 16 June 1838, extract below). By that time there was therefore not a single survey peg attributable to Kingston in the whole Adelaide town survey, and he was then absent for a year so he had no part in setting out the Park Lands nor the District of Adelaide Trig survey. Nor can there be credit for Kingston blunder's after usurping Light as these had to be corrected by Surveyor-General Frome who claimed to have half his men working on rectifying Kingston's mistakes.
"Every one knows that Mr. Kingston is totally ignorant of surveying, theoretically or practically ; and that he was appointed Assistant Surveyor merely because he bad been an old hanger-on about the Adelphi. Indeed so little is he master of the science that, the survey of a certain portion of the town acres which he had the assurance to undertake was so wretchedly executed, that Colonel Light found it would take more time to correct Mr. Kingston's blunders than to survey it again. The allotment of the town acres was in fact delayed for fourteen days till Messrs. Finniss and Ormsby had done the very work Mr. Kingston lacked skill to accomplish. And yet this is the man who sets up as Colonel Light's instructor.—Verily the shoolmaster is abroad." [SAGCR Sat 16 June 1838 p2].
Kingston was so incompetent he got a knighthood from the king and replaced Light. I'll remind you also that he was one of the first white men to stand on the present day site of Adelaide. A trail blazer really.
Actually Kingston was such a hypocrite that he accepted a knighthood, contrary to his prior protestations.
As his contemporaries well placed to know him had summed him up he was a ‘petty tyrant’, ‘liar’, ‘vaporising, empty-headed, hollow-hearted treacherous fellow’ and ‘an ignorant substitute for a surveyor’. [South Australian Register, 7 July 1851].
Hollow-hearted = insincere; false (www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hollow-hearted) which he'd repeatedly proven himself to be.
In any event Kingston was not acting on his own initiative, he was belatedly following Light's orders after shilly-shallying at Holdfast Bay in direct dereliction of his duty with insubordinate laziness. Light had ordered Kingston ashore and inland to seek the river that Light felt sure existed, and Kingston's dilatory eventual arrival on the inland site was probably due to the active, intelligent John Morphett who was the trusted agent of many absent land purchasers.
Kingston did not replace Surveyor-General Light. Kingston was never appointed as Surveyor-General of South Australia (he was a dunce at surveying - both theory and practice - hence such an appointment was impossible), but Light's able Assistant Surveyor George Ormsby acted in the post and Charles Sturt was briefly appointed Surveyor-General before being superceded by the London-appointed Surveyor-General Edward Frome.
To some extent Kingston can be said to have redeemed his youthful follies with his defence of the Park Lands planned and set apart by Light, later in life as Speaker of the House of Assembly - as Speaker Kingston spoke out, and publicly wrote, against government interference with, and misappropriation of, the Adelaide Park Lands.
As noted previously Kelly the SA Greats entries are shorter, and there are restrictions on using them which means we can not simply change what the authors have written. We will hopefully have a longer entry contributed on Kingston eventually, we're always looking for new contributions and authors, but to some extent rely on people like yourself contributing to build up the content of the site.
G S Kingston is my 3rd Great Grandfather. George's family is alive and well and still lives in Adelaide. To see this Government sponsored site allowing vicious scuttlebutt is somewhat disappointing. We love G.S. and my father is the proud owner of his wax seal presented to him by the King. As he cannot defend himself I suggest that you moderate this site with a modicum of integrity appropriate to your position.
I can sympathise with Baghead Kelly defending Kingston who, indeed, may have been a different person in the sanctuary of his home, but the historical facts remain that, in the public arena, in the formative days of the colony, he was seen as anything but a likeable person.
No doubt arriving in the colony as a young ambitious man, and, under Gawler, having been appointed to the triple roles of Colonial Architect, Colonial Engineer, and Inspector of Public Works, all responsible positions, he allowed it to 'go to his head.' Fortunately, with age, came maturity.
With the advent of the initial Municipal Corporation in 1840, Kingston was retained as City Surveyor, Assessor, and Rate Collector, at a salary of 500 pounds per year - a tidy sum then. However, in the succeeding two years, with the Corporation bereft of money, his salary was steadily reduced, first to 200 pounds plus 5% of rates he collected, then, in May 1842, to 100 pounds. It can easily be imagined how discontented this would have made him.
At the risk of appearing to promote myself, I would recommend Baghead Kelly to an unpublished work of my own compilation covering the first 15 years of the Corporation, available at the State Library, in which Kingston figures quite prominently.
He eventually found his niche in his parliamentary career, and, although he may not have been well-liked, he was certainly respected.
With the present age of digitisation, and the wealth of information now freely available to anyone it is scarcely possible to rewrite history, and much of Kingston's activities and attitudes are a matter of record.
Glad to hear that there are Kingston descendants still in Adelaide. My husband ancestors where Kingston from County Cork and cousins to your George Strickland Kingston. My husbands were born in Gurteeniher County Cork. not far from Bandon. My husband George Kingston ancestors immigrated to the United States in the 1890's Our daughter is on her honeymoon in Australia and I was telling her about George Strickland Kingston and Charles Kingston being related to her dad and herself.
Thanks for sharing that Gail, glad to hear your family have connected with the history.
Those who love G. S. Kingston can by justly proud of his defence of Light's Adelaide Park Lands, and his strong stand to protect Adelaide's figure-eight of Park Lands (including the Riverbank) from government misappropriation as Speaker of the House of Assembly, and must surely respect Kingston's own public acknowledgment / admission that William Light planned the City of Adelaide and its Park Lands, and accept that Kingston was reviled by many in South Australia for reasons which were, and are, matters of public record.
Why is the Adelaidia government website regurgitating and propagating errors and misleading material and carrying out _international_ publication of apocryphal out-dated material in the first place?
No doubt not only Kingston descendants but also others may have been misled in the past by apocryphal statements, including on government sites, wrongfully usurping Light of proper recognition for his genius, and erroneously attributing credit to the young, bungling George Strickland Kingston, when in fact there is, and always was, overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence, including authoritative first-hand eye-witness accounts and primary source evidence, that Kingston was not deserving of such attribution.
Researchers that are aware of the primary sources and evidence must speak out against such distortions of historical facts and records.
The public, along with members of Light's family who are still living, are entitled to ensure government does not lose sight of basic historical facts. This is particularly important for South Australia's economic development (jobs, jobs, jobs) as Light's achievement is worthy of inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List. Light's Plan of the City of Adelaide, Park Lands, Port and District is a technical masterpiece, a work of genius.
Although the genius was Light rather than Kingston, Kingston can be said to have redeemed his youthful follies with his defence of the Park Lands planned and set apart by Light, later in life as Speaker of the House of Assembly.
As Speaker, Kingston spoke out, and publicly wrote, against government interference with, and misappropriation of, the Adelaide Park Lands. That is Kingston's proper contribution in a potential World Heritage nomination.
While we do moderate the site Baghead we try to avoid censorship. Public figures of the past, particularly those who have played such a significant role in shaping our state, are always going to excite debate and passionate feeling. We encourage you to add your own perspective, and to flag historical inaccuracies, but we do not want to discourage anyone from sharing challenging arguments on South Australia's history.
This article on G S Kingston contains serious errors of fact, and omissions.
His contemporaries, with lengthy and close personal experience of him, described Kingston as a ‘petty tyrant’, ‘liar’, ‘vaporising, empty-headed, hollow-hearted treacherous fellow’ and ‘an ignorant substitute for a surveyor’. [South Australian Register, 7 July 1851]
Lieut. E. C. Frome, R.E., the new Surveyor General and Colonial Engineer, a man of undoubted ability, thought so little of Kingston’s ability as a civil engineer that he recommended that “No commission whatever should be paid to him on account of the harbour works at New Port (Port Adelaide)!” [The Register, 6 November 1924]
'The expense incurred by the Government ... [had been] ... all but rendered useless by the slovenly way in which they were executed, to say nothing of the actual dishonesty of sawing off 5 or 6 feet from the piles, instead of driving them into the mud to that additional depth, these “tops” have lately been fished up from the bottom of the harbour, thus rising like Banquo’s ghost in judgment ...'
G S Kingston was originally denied the position of Deputy-Surveyor, and only appointed as an assistant surveyor, then contested with B T Finniss for the position of Deputy-Surveyor for which Finniss was well-qualified, whereas Kingston was wholly unqualified and incompetent. Kingston sailed on the Cygnet in _March_ 1836, and caused it to be a very unpleasant and a very long voyage.
Kingston had no experience as a surveyor and was universally disliked long before his arrival in South Australia in part as a result of his contemptible disruption of the authority of the Captain of the Cygnet and his incompetence (already evident from his failure to perform basic duties in outfitting the ship). Kingston did _not_ form a good partnership with Light nor any of the other survey team, and Light had to positively order him ashore at Holdfast Bay.
Kingston was _not_ the first man to explore the inland plain where Adelaide was eventually sited. He went with a party uselessly looking about and needlessly exhausting other men and it was at the active John Morphett's instance that Kingston accompanied him towards the hills.
When Light returned from Port Lincoln in December 1836, Kingston pointed out a location on the River Torrens and supported his superior against the opposition of Governor Hindmarsh, who wanted the capital to be closer to its port.
An acrimonious dispute erupted and Kingston was sent to London (not by Light who merely agreed that he could do without Kingston) with the report that resulted in Hindmarsh’s recall. At the same time, the Colonization Commissioners wanted Light to hasten the survey and ordered Light to carry out an inaccurate 'running' survey, and authorised Kingston to carry out the 'running' survey if Light was unwilling to do so. In fact, by the time Kingston returned the survey had become well advanced, and a running survey was opposed by the holders of land orders, but Kingston refused to take responsibility and prevaricated until Resident Commission James Hurtle Fisher was forced to act.
Light resigned and Kingston (who was never Surveyor-General !), despite his lack of surveying experience, took over the task, and the Survey Department resigned on mass with 11 men refusing to work with Kingston. Of the three remaining, one was newly arrived, another resigned later, and the third said Kingston wasn't fit to assess his work.
Kingston botched the survey so badly that E C Frome was later to state that half his surveyors were employed correcting Kingston's errors.
Recent analysis suggests that Kingston almost single-handedly sabotaged South Australia. Spurious and unsubstantiated claims that Kingston 'planned' or 'designed' the Adelaide town plan have been authoritatively refuted by highly qualified experts (former Surveyor General of South Australia John R Porter; independent researcher and author David Elder; Professor Rolf Jensen, the Royal Geographical Society of South Australia, independent researcher Kath Crilly, etc, etc).
Acclaim for the design of the unique Adelaide town and Park Lands plan has rightly gone to Colonel Light.