FOOTNOTES:[197]Ross's Almanack, 1837.[198]Mr. Meredith, of Swanport, captured bushrangers; but after their trial was anxious to intercede for their lives. He applied to the police clerk, a ticket-of-leave holder, for a copy of his own deposition, and that of his servant: this, not uncommon, was called a breach of trust. The clerk was punished, and Meredith warned that he would receive no more servants, except he could explain his conduct. A report reached the government, that himself and Mr. Amos set the magistrates of the territory at defiance, and he was told his servants would be probably recalled. This was a practical application of Arthur's views, before expressed to the same settler. The governor maintained, that when the secretary of state authorised a grant of land, it did not confer a claim on the government for the assignment of servants (Letter to Mr. Meredith from the Colonial Secretary, 1828). It was alleged, that the conduct of Meredith had been inimical to the government, and to the maintenance of internal tranquillity.[199]At p. 148 of this volume, it is said, that an attorney-general (Stephen) received an additional grant for improvements he never made. This, Mr. Stephen contradicted, and stated that when he obtained his maximum grant he was not in office. The statement was made by Mr. Bryan before a committee of the House of Commons.[200]Backhouse's Narrative, p. 15.[201]"At the time to which he (Mr. Hall, of theMonitor) refers,—we say it with the deepest regret—we suffered ourselves to be influenced by a set of heartless, self interested beings, whose opinions we blindly adopted, and to whose objects we were the dupe. Other circumstances produced a state of excitement which can never again exist here, because it can never be again endured."—Tasmanian(Mr. R. L. Murray), June 25, 1833."We were forced into opposition by what we conceived to be an act of unmerited, unprovoked injustice, which we resented; and the perpetration of which led us to listen, and to be influenced, by the opinions of those into whose intimate associations we were drawn. We thereby provoked persecution, which we resented: we were prejudiced by these persecutions, and our opinions and the expression of our feelings were influenced by this feeling of unmerited suffering, and by the opinion of those into whose association we were driven." ... "If we have, in our editorial capacity, wronged any man, we sincerely ask their forgiveness; and wishing health and prosperity to every man in the colony, we now bid adieu to our editorial pen for ever."—Mr. Gilbert Robertson's legacy:True Colonist, December 28, 1844.[202]Speech, 18th of April, 1837.[203]The legislative council adopted an address, which expressed a warm admiration of his character."The members immediately proceeded in a body to the great entrance of the government-house, where they were received by a military guard with presented arms; and the procession, headed by his honor the chief justice, Pedder, were conducted to the grand room, where they were received by his excellency, surrounded by the officers of his staff. The chief justice addressed his excellency in a short but very handsome manner, to the effect, that the members of the late legislative council waited upon his excellency with an address which had been voted unanimously, and which, engrossed on vellum and signed by each individual, he then held in his hand, and would proceed to read. His honor did so, in a most distinct and impressive manner. Having concluded, his excellency commenced to read his reply, in which he had proceeded but little when his feelings—the agitation of which was evidently pressing strongly upon him with each word—so overcame him, that he was unable to continue, and burst into tears. There was not a single individual present who did not enter warmly and sincerely into his excellency's feelings, and, perhaps, no governor ever received a more affectionate testimony of regard and attachment than was then elicited. The following is his excellency's reply:'The address which you have presented to me, I most highly appreciate, every member, without exception, having expressed his sentiment in terms so acceptable to my feelings, is the most satisfactory testimony I could receive—that my endeavour to direct the important business which has devolved upon this council in a conciliatory spirit, has been successful. Whilst the utmost liberty of debate has been exercised, undeviating harmony and good feeling have prevailed.'The testimony you have spontaneously borne to the successful result of my labours in administering the affairs of this government, complicated and embarrassing as they have often been from the peculiar character and circumstances of the colony, is most gratifying to my feelings.'To carry into the most complete effect the great object of transportation, which has rendered the introduction of some unpopular laws absolutely necessary, to suppress the depredations of convicts illegally at large, to form a secure and efficient penal settlement, to conciliate the aboriginal inhabitants, and to protect the settlers from their fatal attacks, to encourage pastoral and mercantile pursuits, to foster religion and morals, and to provide for the education of the poor, to maintain the laws of the country, and firmly to carry into effect the regulations of the government, have all been measures which have required the most laborious supervision.'Yet all these have been far less embarrassing than the anxious duty which devolved upon me for so many years of apportioning the lands of the crown amongst the settlers according to their respective means of improving them, and of impartially considering their claims in the disposal of assigned servants, for these were measures which affecting directly every settler's personal interests, almost daily brought his personal feelings into action in approving or condemning the policy of government.'In all these matters, I have felt the full weight of responsibility in contending with the extreme practical difficulties which have almost daily presented themselves, and which I never could have successfully withstood, but from the support I have uniformly received, not only from the members of the executive and legislative council, and from the officers of the government, to whom I am greatly indebted, but from the great mass of the community, to whom through you, on your return to your several districts, I request I may be permitted to convey my most grateful acknowledgements, and sincere thanks, requesting them to be assured, that I shall ever most highly appreciate the encouragement I have ever received at their hands, the strength which my government has derived from it, and the gratifying testimonies which I have received of their feelings towards myself personally, since I received the intelligence of his Majesty's intention to appoint my successor.'None but those who have had personal experience of the extreme delicacy of adjusting conflicting interests—of maintaining the just rights of the crown without encroaching upon the reasonable expectations of the people, can fully appreciate the value and importance of the support of the community as a body. If my labours have been great, so has been my reward. I have witnessed the most extraordinary rise, perhaps ever known within so short a period, in the value of property. The foundation is now firmly laid, enterprise and the desire to improve have full scope, and their results will be, I anticipate, increasingly developed every year.'Having presided over the legislative council from the period of its constitution, now ten years ago, I cannot take my leave of you without the most lively emotions, and whilst I am most deeply sensible of your invariable kindness and forbearance towards myself, permit me to request for my successor a continuance of that support which you have so cheerfully and zealously during so long a period extended to me.'Gentlemen, with the most sincere wishes for your future prosperity and happiness, I now bid you farewell.'George Arthur.'To the Members of the Legislative Council.'"—Tasmanian, August 19, 1836.
[197]Ross's Almanack, 1837.
[197]Ross's Almanack, 1837.
[198]Mr. Meredith, of Swanport, captured bushrangers; but after their trial was anxious to intercede for their lives. He applied to the police clerk, a ticket-of-leave holder, for a copy of his own deposition, and that of his servant: this, not uncommon, was called a breach of trust. The clerk was punished, and Meredith warned that he would receive no more servants, except he could explain his conduct. A report reached the government, that himself and Mr. Amos set the magistrates of the territory at defiance, and he was told his servants would be probably recalled. This was a practical application of Arthur's views, before expressed to the same settler. The governor maintained, that when the secretary of state authorised a grant of land, it did not confer a claim on the government for the assignment of servants (Letter to Mr. Meredith from the Colonial Secretary, 1828). It was alleged, that the conduct of Meredith had been inimical to the government, and to the maintenance of internal tranquillity.
[198]Mr. Meredith, of Swanport, captured bushrangers; but after their trial was anxious to intercede for their lives. He applied to the police clerk, a ticket-of-leave holder, for a copy of his own deposition, and that of his servant: this, not uncommon, was called a breach of trust. The clerk was punished, and Meredith warned that he would receive no more servants, except he could explain his conduct. A report reached the government, that himself and Mr. Amos set the magistrates of the territory at defiance, and he was told his servants would be probably recalled. This was a practical application of Arthur's views, before expressed to the same settler. The governor maintained, that when the secretary of state authorised a grant of land, it did not confer a claim on the government for the assignment of servants (Letter to Mr. Meredith from the Colonial Secretary, 1828). It was alleged, that the conduct of Meredith had been inimical to the government, and to the maintenance of internal tranquillity.
[199]At p. 148 of this volume, it is said, that an attorney-general (Stephen) received an additional grant for improvements he never made. This, Mr. Stephen contradicted, and stated that when he obtained his maximum grant he was not in office. The statement was made by Mr. Bryan before a committee of the House of Commons.
[199]At p. 148 of this volume, it is said, that an attorney-general (Stephen) received an additional grant for improvements he never made. This, Mr. Stephen contradicted, and stated that when he obtained his maximum grant he was not in office. The statement was made by Mr. Bryan before a committee of the House of Commons.
[200]Backhouse's Narrative, p. 15.
[200]Backhouse's Narrative, p. 15.
[201]"At the time to which he (Mr. Hall, of theMonitor) refers,—we say it with the deepest regret—we suffered ourselves to be influenced by a set of heartless, self interested beings, whose opinions we blindly adopted, and to whose objects we were the dupe. Other circumstances produced a state of excitement which can never again exist here, because it can never be again endured."—Tasmanian(Mr. R. L. Murray), June 25, 1833."We were forced into opposition by what we conceived to be an act of unmerited, unprovoked injustice, which we resented; and the perpetration of which led us to listen, and to be influenced, by the opinions of those into whose intimate associations we were drawn. We thereby provoked persecution, which we resented: we were prejudiced by these persecutions, and our opinions and the expression of our feelings were influenced by this feeling of unmerited suffering, and by the opinion of those into whose association we were driven." ... "If we have, in our editorial capacity, wronged any man, we sincerely ask their forgiveness; and wishing health and prosperity to every man in the colony, we now bid adieu to our editorial pen for ever."—Mr. Gilbert Robertson's legacy:True Colonist, December 28, 1844.
[201]"At the time to which he (Mr. Hall, of theMonitor) refers,—we say it with the deepest regret—we suffered ourselves to be influenced by a set of heartless, self interested beings, whose opinions we blindly adopted, and to whose objects we were the dupe. Other circumstances produced a state of excitement which can never again exist here, because it can never be again endured."—Tasmanian(Mr. R. L. Murray), June 25, 1833.
"We were forced into opposition by what we conceived to be an act of unmerited, unprovoked injustice, which we resented; and the perpetration of which led us to listen, and to be influenced, by the opinions of those into whose intimate associations we were drawn. We thereby provoked persecution, which we resented: we were prejudiced by these persecutions, and our opinions and the expression of our feelings were influenced by this feeling of unmerited suffering, and by the opinion of those into whose association we were driven." ... "If we have, in our editorial capacity, wronged any man, we sincerely ask their forgiveness; and wishing health and prosperity to every man in the colony, we now bid adieu to our editorial pen for ever."—Mr. Gilbert Robertson's legacy:True Colonist, December 28, 1844.
[202]Speech, 18th of April, 1837.
[202]Speech, 18th of April, 1837.
[203]The legislative council adopted an address, which expressed a warm admiration of his character."The members immediately proceeded in a body to the great entrance of the government-house, where they were received by a military guard with presented arms; and the procession, headed by his honor the chief justice, Pedder, were conducted to the grand room, where they were received by his excellency, surrounded by the officers of his staff. The chief justice addressed his excellency in a short but very handsome manner, to the effect, that the members of the late legislative council waited upon his excellency with an address which had been voted unanimously, and which, engrossed on vellum and signed by each individual, he then held in his hand, and would proceed to read. His honor did so, in a most distinct and impressive manner. Having concluded, his excellency commenced to read his reply, in which he had proceeded but little when his feelings—the agitation of which was evidently pressing strongly upon him with each word—so overcame him, that he was unable to continue, and burst into tears. There was not a single individual present who did not enter warmly and sincerely into his excellency's feelings, and, perhaps, no governor ever received a more affectionate testimony of regard and attachment than was then elicited. The following is his excellency's reply:'The address which you have presented to me, I most highly appreciate, every member, without exception, having expressed his sentiment in terms so acceptable to my feelings, is the most satisfactory testimony I could receive—that my endeavour to direct the important business which has devolved upon this council in a conciliatory spirit, has been successful. Whilst the utmost liberty of debate has been exercised, undeviating harmony and good feeling have prevailed.'The testimony you have spontaneously borne to the successful result of my labours in administering the affairs of this government, complicated and embarrassing as they have often been from the peculiar character and circumstances of the colony, is most gratifying to my feelings.'To carry into the most complete effect the great object of transportation, which has rendered the introduction of some unpopular laws absolutely necessary, to suppress the depredations of convicts illegally at large, to form a secure and efficient penal settlement, to conciliate the aboriginal inhabitants, and to protect the settlers from their fatal attacks, to encourage pastoral and mercantile pursuits, to foster religion and morals, and to provide for the education of the poor, to maintain the laws of the country, and firmly to carry into effect the regulations of the government, have all been measures which have required the most laborious supervision.'Yet all these have been far less embarrassing than the anxious duty which devolved upon me for so many years of apportioning the lands of the crown amongst the settlers according to their respective means of improving them, and of impartially considering their claims in the disposal of assigned servants, for these were measures which affecting directly every settler's personal interests, almost daily brought his personal feelings into action in approving or condemning the policy of government.'In all these matters, I have felt the full weight of responsibility in contending with the extreme practical difficulties which have almost daily presented themselves, and which I never could have successfully withstood, but from the support I have uniformly received, not only from the members of the executive and legislative council, and from the officers of the government, to whom I am greatly indebted, but from the great mass of the community, to whom through you, on your return to your several districts, I request I may be permitted to convey my most grateful acknowledgements, and sincere thanks, requesting them to be assured, that I shall ever most highly appreciate the encouragement I have ever received at their hands, the strength which my government has derived from it, and the gratifying testimonies which I have received of their feelings towards myself personally, since I received the intelligence of his Majesty's intention to appoint my successor.'None but those who have had personal experience of the extreme delicacy of adjusting conflicting interests—of maintaining the just rights of the crown without encroaching upon the reasonable expectations of the people, can fully appreciate the value and importance of the support of the community as a body. If my labours have been great, so has been my reward. I have witnessed the most extraordinary rise, perhaps ever known within so short a period, in the value of property. The foundation is now firmly laid, enterprise and the desire to improve have full scope, and their results will be, I anticipate, increasingly developed every year.'Having presided over the legislative council from the period of its constitution, now ten years ago, I cannot take my leave of you without the most lively emotions, and whilst I am most deeply sensible of your invariable kindness and forbearance towards myself, permit me to request for my successor a continuance of that support which you have so cheerfully and zealously during so long a period extended to me.'Gentlemen, with the most sincere wishes for your future prosperity and happiness, I now bid you farewell.'George Arthur.'To the Members of the Legislative Council.'"—Tasmanian, August 19, 1836.
[203]The legislative council adopted an address, which expressed a warm admiration of his character.
"The members immediately proceeded in a body to the great entrance of the government-house, where they were received by a military guard with presented arms; and the procession, headed by his honor the chief justice, Pedder, were conducted to the grand room, where they were received by his excellency, surrounded by the officers of his staff. The chief justice addressed his excellency in a short but very handsome manner, to the effect, that the members of the late legislative council waited upon his excellency with an address which had been voted unanimously, and which, engrossed on vellum and signed by each individual, he then held in his hand, and would proceed to read. His honor did so, in a most distinct and impressive manner. Having concluded, his excellency commenced to read his reply, in which he had proceeded but little when his feelings—the agitation of which was evidently pressing strongly upon him with each word—so overcame him, that he was unable to continue, and burst into tears. There was not a single individual present who did not enter warmly and sincerely into his excellency's feelings, and, perhaps, no governor ever received a more affectionate testimony of regard and attachment than was then elicited. The following is his excellency's reply:
'The address which you have presented to me, I most highly appreciate, every member, without exception, having expressed his sentiment in terms so acceptable to my feelings, is the most satisfactory testimony I could receive—that my endeavour to direct the important business which has devolved upon this council in a conciliatory spirit, has been successful. Whilst the utmost liberty of debate has been exercised, undeviating harmony and good feeling have prevailed.
'The testimony you have spontaneously borne to the successful result of my labours in administering the affairs of this government, complicated and embarrassing as they have often been from the peculiar character and circumstances of the colony, is most gratifying to my feelings.
'To carry into the most complete effect the great object of transportation, which has rendered the introduction of some unpopular laws absolutely necessary, to suppress the depredations of convicts illegally at large, to form a secure and efficient penal settlement, to conciliate the aboriginal inhabitants, and to protect the settlers from their fatal attacks, to encourage pastoral and mercantile pursuits, to foster religion and morals, and to provide for the education of the poor, to maintain the laws of the country, and firmly to carry into effect the regulations of the government, have all been measures which have required the most laborious supervision.
'Yet all these have been far less embarrassing than the anxious duty which devolved upon me for so many years of apportioning the lands of the crown amongst the settlers according to their respective means of improving them, and of impartially considering their claims in the disposal of assigned servants, for these were measures which affecting directly every settler's personal interests, almost daily brought his personal feelings into action in approving or condemning the policy of government.
'In all these matters, I have felt the full weight of responsibility in contending with the extreme practical difficulties which have almost daily presented themselves, and which I never could have successfully withstood, but from the support I have uniformly received, not only from the members of the executive and legislative council, and from the officers of the government, to whom I am greatly indebted, but from the great mass of the community, to whom through you, on your return to your several districts, I request I may be permitted to convey my most grateful acknowledgements, and sincere thanks, requesting them to be assured, that I shall ever most highly appreciate the encouragement I have ever received at their hands, the strength which my government has derived from it, and the gratifying testimonies which I have received of their feelings towards myself personally, since I received the intelligence of his Majesty's intention to appoint my successor.
'None but those who have had personal experience of the extreme delicacy of adjusting conflicting interests—of maintaining the just rights of the crown without encroaching upon the reasonable expectations of the people, can fully appreciate the value and importance of the support of the community as a body. If my labours have been great, so has been my reward. I have witnessed the most extraordinary rise, perhaps ever known within so short a period, in the value of property. The foundation is now firmly laid, enterprise and the desire to improve have full scope, and their results will be, I anticipate, increasingly developed every year.
'Having presided over the legislative council from the period of its constitution, now ten years ago, I cannot take my leave of you without the most lively emotions, and whilst I am most deeply sensible of your invariable kindness and forbearance towards myself, permit me to request for my successor a continuance of that support which you have so cheerfully and zealously during so long a period extended to me.
'Gentlemen, with the most sincere wishes for your future prosperity and happiness, I now bid you farewell.
'George Arthur.
—Tasmanian, August 19, 1836.
Before the departure of Colonel Arthur, the brigade-major of the military district, Lieutenant-colonel Kenneth Snodgrass, C.B., arrived at Hobart Town from Sydney. He was sworn in as acting Lieutenant-governor on the 31st October, 1836. He had attained a military reputation in the Burmese war, of which he published a narrative. He was cordially received, and his temporary relations were too brief to leave any impression on colonial affairs.
The appointment of Sir John Franklin, Captain in the Royal Navy, and Knight of the Guelphic Order of Hanover, was announced by Sir George Grey in the House of Commons, April 13th, 1836. He was presented to the king by Lord Glenelg, on the 20th August, and embarked in theFairlie, on the 27th. He was accompanied by Captain Maconochie, late secretary of the Geographical Society, and one of the professors of the London University; and by the Rev. William Hutchins, in whose favour Van Diemen's Land was erected into an archdeaconry. Sir John Franklin assumed the government on the 6th January, 1837.
The nomination of Franklin was acceptable to the colony. His profession, his career, and character, were considered auspicious. He had accompanied the illustrious Flinders on his voyage of discovery, and was at Sydney when the first party left that port to colonise this island. During thirty-four years, he had himself obtained great nautical renown: his intrepidity, his sufferings, his humanity and piety, had been often the theme of popular admiration, and were not unknown in Tasmania. The colonists were resolved to give him an appropriate welcome. He saw with astonishment the signs of wealth and activity, in a country which he only remembered as a wilderness. Crowds followed him with acclamations: addresses, couched in language of eulogy and hope, poured in from every district. The progress of the governor through the colony was attended with feasting, balls, and public festivities. On his entrance into Launceston, he was escorted by three hundred horsemen and seventy carriages: the streets were thronged; the windows were crowded by fair spectators, who shared the general enthusiasm. The private settlers received him with unsparing hospitality: he was both oppressed and delighted with the signs of popular joy. The hearty frankness of his replies was contrasted with the official coldness ascribed to his predecessor. He repeatedly reminded the colonists that, although ambitious of their favour, the duties of his station would probably oblige him to disappoint their desires. He assured them that he came among them without prejudice, and determined to "see with his own eyes, hear with his own ears, and judge with his own judgment."
On his return to the seat of government, Franklin addressed a despatch to Lord Glenelg, containing an exulting description of his tour. He had seen the colony in its holiday dress, and all parties had mingled their acclamations. He depicted, with expressions of astonishment, the easy circumstances and general intelligence of the settlers, and especially noticed their exertions to acquire religious and educational advantages. His lordship replied that this report confirmed his estimate of Franklin's predecessor. In his first minute to the legislative council, Franklin pronounced an eulogium on Arthur's services, and laid on the table a despatch of the secretary of state, of similar import.
The admirers of the late governor were gratified by these flattering tributes; but they were not without risk to Franklin's general popularity. The party of Arthur was dreaded by the opposition, and was still powerful; nor was it difficult to perceive that past animosities had lost but little of their vigour. Captain John Montagu had been recently confirmed as colonial secretary, and Captain Matthew Forster held the office of chief police magistrate. Most details of government were transacted in their offices. They were both clever men: they exercised considerable local influence, especially Montagu, in connection with the Derwent Bank. Their advice Franklin could not easily evade. Thus the policy of their distinguished relative survived in his nephews. Franklin was scarcely seated, when the press professed to discover that he was an instrument in the hands of the "Arthur faction."
Arthur, anxious for the welfare of his relatives and friends, commended them to the confidence of his successor. Many unsettled claims were left to his final decision. Colonists aggrieved by the late governor, when their appeals for redress to Franklin (not unfrequently inequitable) were unavailing, fancied that their former antagonists still turned the course of justice. The sanguine hopes excited by an auspicious name, gradually gave way, and the governor was assailed with remonstrances, which enlarged into reproaches by a rapid growth. A design was commonly imputed to the advisers of Franklin to render him unpopular, and thus the late ruler an object of regret; they slighted, however, the reproaches they had been accustomed to despise.
"The lingering traces" of discord, were distressing to Franklin. In answer to an address from Richmond, which deplored the absence, and invoked the restoration, of social peace, he expressed his anxiety with touching ardour:—"With my whole heart I agree with you. Let us be divided then, if we cannot be united in political sentiments, yet knit together as friends and neighbours in everything beside. Let us differ where honest men may differ; and let us agree, not in undervaluing the points of political dissent, but in respecting the motives which may produce it; in cherishing domestic virtues, which will be found to characterise individuals of every party, and in making the generous sacrifice of private feelings for the general good, rather than aggravating the importance of grievances, which must render such forbearance impossible." These sentiments, not less charming for their amiable spirit than happy in expression, are important as maxims of political life, and they depict the main difficulty of the governor's position.
To promote the harmony of parties, Franklin considerably added to the list of magistrates: persons, discountenanced by Arthur, were placed on a level with their late antagonists. But selection is difficult where many are candidates. Free settlers of all sorts were equally eligible by their wealth, and made equal pretensions. Thus when the list was issued, it was received with mockery and laughter; and, said the scorners, all the "coat tails,"—rarely worn, except by free men—contain a commission. They were certainly numerous—large, in proportion to the emigrant adult population; but who can extinguish the flames of envy without kindling contempt! To further his conciliating policy, Franklin nominated to his council Mr. W. E. Lawrence, a gentleman of wealth and intelligence, and greatliberality of opinion. An early disagreement with Arthur had been aggravated by frequent irritation, and excluded Mr. Lawrence from a station, for which his qualifications were many.
But the government was disquieted by internal discord. Judge Montagu and the attorney-general had quarrelled in open court: Mr. Stephen had eaten sandwiches in the judge's presence, so it was said, and had delayed a trial. Montagu assailed him with a virulence scarcely tolerated even at the bar. Without awaiting his defence, the judge poured forth a torrent of reproof, among which the following: "No, sir; in your official capacity I shall always treat you with the courtesy and respect due to you. Were you elsewhere, I should treat you, after your conduct, with less courtesy than a dog."
Such quarrels were little regarded by Arthur; but when the authority fell into the hands of Franklin, the altercations of parties were less disguised, and the moral weight of government seriously injured. The attorney-general resigned is appointment; and shortly after, as a judge, obtained the object of professional ambition. Mr. Stephen, while the law officer of the crown, was said to display eminent legislative skill: his drafts often elicited considerable opposition, and he did not disdain to explain the principles he embodied in his measures, whenever they were seriously questioned by the public.
Before his removal from the colony, Mr. Alfred Stephen promoted a petition to the crown, for the concession of British institutions: an instance remarkable for the unanimity of the colonists, and the friendly countenance of the governor. It was almost universally signed (June, 1838); but, like its predecessors, unavailing.
The opinions adopted by Captain Maconochie on convict discipline, and which placed him in opposition to every colonial party, rendered his dismissal necessary; but it deprived the governor of a long cherished friend, and who, in happier circumstances, might have greatly facilitated his affairs. Thus Franklin stood alone; and the nephews of Arthur absorbed the influence, which subordinate officers rarely acquire, without rendering their chief contemptible.
Many efforts had been made to obtain admission to the public during the sittings of the legislature. The members had been long released from the oath of secresy, and their votes, and even the substance of their speeches, were occasionally known. Franklin determined to throw open thedoors of the council chamber (1837), and expressed a conviction that the freedom of public discussion, founded on accurate knowlege, would confirm the measures, or correct the wanderings of the legislature. At the first sittings of the council, the novelty of the privilege secured an attendance at the debates; but the desultory and heavy discussions soon tired the patience, and members pointed with exultation or regret to those deserted benches, where patriots had vowed to watch the course of legislation.
The principle of open debate is, however, invaluable: reporters were there, and the public could read in an instant what it required hours to gather. Nor is the exercise of a privilege necessary to establish its worth: the title to be present belonged to the whole people, and Britons esteem and acknowledge a real treasure in a right. An open threshold, although rarely darkened by guests, is the pledge that all is honest within.
To compose ecclesiastical claims has ever been among the most difficult functions of the civil government. Franklin found the relations of the churches unsettled, and among his earliest measures was one to define the objects, and fix the amount of clerical pay.
The chaplains appointed for the Australian colonies by the crown, had been always ministers of the church of England: the greater part of the population, mostly prisoners of the crown or their descendants, were members of the Anglican church. Thus expediency corroborated the exclusive claims of the clergy to the spiritual oversight of the colonies. It was, however, impossible to obtain qualified clergymen of the English church, in sufficient numbers to supply the penal establishments. Thus the government employed ministers of other denominations, chiefly the wesleyan, as religious instructors; sometimes with the express sanction of the chaplains. In the country, catechists were appointed with the concurrence of Archdeacon Scott, who, however, were often members of dissenting communions.
At this time, the doctrinal views of the various denominations were in general harmony: the standards of the church of Scotland, the declaration of the congregationalists, and the articles of the church of England, are of the same general import. The wesleyans, and the society of friends, entertain some opinions at variance with these symbols; but in their ordinary teaching, all parties employed nearly the same theological and devotional terms. Their views of church government, and of ritual observances, were the chief points of dissonance; but in scattered settlements of recent formation these distinctions were rather matters of recollection than of practice. There were no diocesan, no presbyterial or other courts. In the towns the denominations maintained their exclusive forms and separate teachers; but controversial divinity was excluded by common consent from rural ministrations; and wherever christian ministers presented themselves in this character they were welcome, and in any other almost unknown. It was not possible, or perhaps desirable, that this interchange should last: experience has shown that organisation is requisite to permanent vigour; but when bodies of professors ranged under their separate banners, their general sympathies were lost in the corporation spirit.
Unless as temporary agents in the instruction of prisoners, the government did not recognise the title of any, except the Anglican clergy, to the patronage of the crown. Others were favored with sites for their churches, and in some instances with assistance in rearing them; but at that time land was granted to private persons, and loans of mechanics were allowed to assist the settler in building his dwelling.
The emigration of respectable families from Scotland produced an important revolution: they, it is alleged, constituted one half of the free settlers in the country districts. Their attachment to that form of christianity which is professed in North Britain, was not weakened by their migration.
The Rev. A. Macarthur, ordained a missionary minister by the united associate synod of Scotland, arrived in Van Diemen's Land in 1823: the first presbyterian clergyman established in this hemisphere. The innumerable sections of presbyterians differ with each other, chiefly on grounds almost unintelligible out of Scotland.
The arrival of John Dunmore Lang, D. D., in New South Wales (1823), was an important event in the ecclesiastical history of the Australian colonies. Although an ordainedminister of the church of Scotland, he received no assistance or special authorisation; but, according to his account, "set forth a solitary friendless wanderer." The different sects of presbyterians welcomed him at Port Jackson, and the foundation of a church was immediately laid. His supporters, contrary to his advice, applied to Sir Thomas Brisbane for pecuniary aid, such as the catholics had received already. The applicants were rejected with reproach, and were told that it would be time enough to ask assistance, when they should prove themselves equally deserving. To this Lang retorted, that Scotsmen did not ask toleration; and, unless degenerate, would vindicate those rights, the swords of their fathers had won. These warlike papers were published in London, and Lord Bathurst spontaneously expressed his regret "that his excellency had put to their probation ministers of the church of Scotland in the colony—the established church of one of the most enlightened and virtuous portions of the empire;"[204]The governor was ordered to pay £300 per annum to Dr. Lang, as a stipend.
Dr. Lang, thus successful, henceforth disputed the preferable claim of the Anglican church in every form: he celebrated marriages by bans, when he was refused a governor's license; and when the registration act, of 1825, required every pastor to certify his ecclesiastical acts to the parish minister, to be inserted in a general register, he questioned the existence of a parish, and the ordinance was upset. The idea of an established clergy was thus violently shaken, and Lang naturally detested as an ambitious innovator.
The weight of the ecclesiastical establishments in the penal colonies had been very considerable. The churches, some of great cost, had been built wholly at the expense of the treasury; the inferior officers were also paid or provided by the government.[205]The principal chaplains were members of the legislative councils, and were consulted on most measures relative to religion.
Mr. Commissioner Bigge recommended the crown to reserve lands for the endowment of the church; and in 1824, a "church and school corporation" was created in New South Wales: one-seventh of the crown lands were granted for their use; for the endowment of a bishopric,parochial ministers, and schools. The expense of managing this corporation exceeded its revenue. Dr. Lang visited England, and protested against its object and enormous cost. By the recommendation of Archdeacon Scott,[206]it is said, all these lands, excepting certain glebes, were resumed by the crown, and the church and school corporation was dissolved.
The colonial governors never questioned the status of the episcopal clergy as the established church. A presbyterian congregation in New South Wales, who had sustained their form of worship without a minister for many years, applied, through Dr. Lang, for assistance in supporting a clergyman. They were informed that the governor rejoiced in the liberality they had already displayed, and did not doubt its future sufficiency! At Bothwell, where a great majority of presbyterians resided, Arthur stipulated that the church erected at their solicitation, should be given up whenever a minister of the "established church" might arrive in the district. Even money to assist the erection of St. Andrew's Church, Hobart Town, was, at first, lent on the bond of Messrs. Hopkins and John Walker, lest the secretary of state should demand its repayment.
The agitation of ecclesiastical rights was discouraged by the government, and the social dependence of the settlers silenced the murmurings of discontent. Arthur, little inclined to weaken the exclusive claim of the Anglican church, gave but £100 per annum to two ministers of the presbyterian church stationed in the interior, and £150 to the minister at Hobart Town; and when the presbyterians of Launceston applied for similar help, the refusal was decided and cold: they were informed that, in the opinion of the governor, the episcopal church was fully sufficient for the wants of the town. They were not, however, discouraged, and applied to Dr. Lang, who soon sent them a minister—the Rev. J. Anderson.
The title of the English clergy to exclusive support, became a question of great imperial moment. The discontent in Canada led to a canvas of the subject in the British parliament, and it was avowed by Sir George Murray,[207]thesecretary of state, that the principle of a dominant church was both pernicious and untenable. He recommended the practice of sharing fairly among all churches the revenues appropriated to religion. These views were soon published in the Australian papers: they gave a new aspect to the relations of ecclesiastics, and opened a way for a definite arrangement.
On receiving an order of the king in council, dissolving the church and school corporation, Governor Bourke addressed a despatch to the secretary of state.[208]He observed, the time was come to settle the public policy in reference to religion, and that to erect a dominant church would produce incessant hostilities, and that without a chance of its permanence; he therefore proposed to give support to the three grand divisions of christians—of the churches of England, Scotland, and Rome; to assist them in erecting their places of worship, and paying their ministers, yet at a rate which would leave their clergy partly dependent on voluntary contributions. He recommended the appointment of an English bishop and a Scots' presbytery. Against this course, he remarked, it might be objected that an equitable claim was raised in behalf of other bodies of christians, and even jews; "this, however, was an objection to the theory, not likely to interfere with the practical benefits of the plan."
The opinions of Bourke were favorable to the voluntary principle[209]—the only policy which allowed a proper reverence for the rights of all; but he thought the special circumstances of New South Wales demanded the neglect of minor inequalities. Notwithstanding, in the church act of that colony, as it actually passed, all christian sections were entitled to participate in the public bounty.
Two years had elapsed from the date of the despatch, when Lord Glenelg expressed his concurrence with the outlines drafted by Bourke, and admitted that to select one church for endowment, "even were it advisable in other respects, wouldnot be long tolerated."[210]The moderator of the synod of Australia addressed his lordship (Glenelg), to express their "unmingled gratitude and joy" at the happy settlement of their affairs; and requested, that should the heads of the other churches be seated in either council, the same honor might be conferred on a delegate from their own. Lord Glenelg replied that it was not intended to grant to ecclesiastics a seat in council. The publication of these despatches created considerable interest in Van Diemen's Land: the presbyterians especially renewed their claims, and asserted the parity of their status with the sister establishment.
Arthur, on assembling the council of Van Diemen's Land, presented these documents, and observed that in a remarkable degree they accorded both with his opinions and his suggestions. A day was devoted to the discussion of the subject, when all the unofficial members of the council concurred in commending their adoption as the basis of Tasmanian legislation. Thus, in the spirit of this resolution, the salaries of the presbyterian ministers were slightly augmented; the wesleyans gratified with £400: considerable sums were set apart for the erection of churches. £200 were offered to the Rev. Frederick Miller; but the principles of the independents reject stipends from the state: £500 were, however, lent for the liquidation of the chapel debt—in reality a donation. The congregation were not restrained by the noble example of their minister; and reconciled their consciences to an evasion of their creed, by excuses never long wanting to those who diligently seek them.
These measures were generally approved, and Arthur calculated that the more equal "distribution of the revenue would suppress every factitious cause of discontent." He stated that "religious discussion and hostility had been little known, or rather altogether unknown;" and he expressed a hope that the visit of Bishop Broughton, then expected, would "offer an opportunity sought for by all denominations, to manifest their consciousness that there is in our common Christianity a bond of union."[211]
The crown erected the Australian colonies into a see (1836). Dr. Broughton was consecrated first bishop: the event was considered auspicious to the episcopal church. Addresses from its members welcomed the prelate during his first visitation, and efforts were made to secure the possession of ground still destitute of clerical culture.
The proclamation of a see within the colonies, erected by letters patent from the crown, seemed to assert the supremacy of the Anglican communion. The members of the Scotish church, however, questioned the legality of special distinction, and maintained that the grant either of money or power to one body, simultaneously quickened a title in the other to similar privileges.
This view was first formally announced by Mr. James Thomson, in letters published in theTrue Colonist(1835), and afterwards in a pamphlet, entitled,Remarks on the Status of the Presbyterian Church in the British Colonies.This work was accepted by Scotish colonists, as a just exposition of their national rights, and the church of Scotland affixed to the argument "the broad seal of approbation."[212]The argument rested mainly on the treaty of union, which provides that, in default of express stipulations to the contrary, "there shall be a communication of all rights and privileges, and advantages." In the spirit of this clause, the presbyterian ministers stationed in India were recognised and placed by law under the presbytery of Edinburgh, in the same act which authorised diocesan episcopacy. Thus again the legislature had implied a parity of rights in the foreign port act, which required the consul to appropriate funds for the erection of churches, and on the same terms, when demanded by the members of either establishment. The writer appealed, with great ardour and effect, to the national history of his countrymen: their courage in fight, their patience in suffering, and their sagacity in council. He inferred, alike from their piety and their patriotism—their pride as Scotchmen, and their earnestness as christians—that when they sanctioned the legislative union, the dignity of the church, the first object of their affections, would be the last they would be likely to compromise or to forget. But the actual position of the colonial presbyterians rendered the argument for the present unavailing.
It was obvious, that whatever ecclesiastical arrangements were guaranteed by the treaty of union, pertained only to the national church. The clergy of the establishment would have been even less disposed than the crown to allow a seceding ministry to share in their legal heritage. Yet the church at Hobart Town, founded by a seceder, was under his care. The government sometimes called the congregation Scotch, and at others presbyterian; but never an establishedchurch. The grant of money was expressly to the accommodation of the inhabitants "in connexion with the church by law established in Scotland;"[213]but the deed drafted by the managers proposed to secure the building to the dissenting incumbent, and to a congregation holding the Scotish standards, and it recognised no presbyterial control. This description was deemed dangerously defective. A meeting, summoned by Messrs. James Thomson, Thomas Young, and others, passed a resolution to establish an indisputable connexion with the national section of the presbyterian church.[214]Against the legality of this meeting, the managers and several of the congregation offered an unavailing protest. It was asserted that, for the most part, they were dissenters from the national church, and thus hostile to her claims.[215]A committee was appointed "to carry out the connexion." Arthur, who was then desirous to protect the existing minister, enquired if the movement would affect the stability of his appointment? To this it was replied, that the duty of the committee was expressed and limited by the resolution passed, and no instructions had been given by the meeting in reference to the relations of the incumbent. The difficulty was, however, speedily removed: an opportunity occurred to declare the pulpit vacant, and the appropriation of the property to the exclusive use of the church of Scotland was no longer resisted (1836).
To perfect the claim of the colonial presbyterians, founded on the treaty of union, it was necessary to obtain a distinct recognition by the general assembly. An act for this purpose, had already passed that court (1833): it declared the colonial presbyteries, if constituted by ministers of the national church alone, a part of the national church, and thus qualified to enjoy whatever privileges that character might confer; and the standing committee of that churchwere authorised to correspond and advise with the colonial presbyteries.[216]
A memorial, founded on these resolutions, was presented by the convener of the assembly's committee to the ministers of the crown, and Sir George Grey was directed to reply, that by an arrangement recommended to the colonial legislatures, "the church of Scotland will in these colonies, be for the future equally entitled with the church of England to share in the public funds applicable to the general object of religious instruction in proportion to the amount of private contribution."[217]
This arrangement, however, did not provide for appeals generated by the decisions of the colonial courts. An application was made to allow the colonial presbyteries representatives in the general assembly. This measure would have embarrassed a national church, and thus (1834) the general assembly repudiated an appellate jurisdiction.
In various forms Colonel Snodgrass, while acting lieutenant governor, expressed an interest in the church of his native country. He called a synod of ministers, elders, and delegates, by proclamation, to be held at Hobart Town, to effect the settlement of the church, and thus to prepare the way for its endowment. Many, favorable to the object, doubted the legality of the meeting, and the power of any officer to proclaim the assembling of a body not recognised by the legislative council. The presbyterians, however, maintained that they were qualified to act under convocation by the crown, independently of parliamentary or local legislative sanction—that the meeting or synod only prepared the preliminaries antecedent to the intervention of law. At the time appointed the synod met: in the meantime Sir John Franklin was advised that the proclamation of Snodgrass was irregular; he therefore sent his private secretary, Captain Maconochie, to request the assembly to stay proceedings, with an intimation of his friendly consideration of their claims. They, however, considered that to disperse would compromise their rights, and therefore chose a moderator.At this stage, a counter proclamation, hastily prepared, was brought by a messenger from the governor, and the convocation dissolved.
However conclusive this reasoning to Scotchmen, the Anglicans were little disposed to admit its force. They asserted that the faith of the sovereign was the imperial faith, and that it was within the competence of the British legislature to set up an exclusive establishment of their clergy. The usual argument against the universal equality of the Scots' national church, was the fact that the laws of England, and not the laws of Scotland, were binding in the colonies.[218]To this it was replied, that treaties, on which the imperial legislative power was founded, were the limits of its action; and that the ascendancy of English law in the colonies of Australia depended on a parliamentary enactment passed by the representatives of Scotland; subject, however, to the restrictions of the treaties in virtue of which Scotchmen were contented to sit on the benches of Saint Stephen.[219]
Archdeacon Hutchins denied that either treaty or law prohibited a preferable claim, and remarked that "opening the door to two co-existing establishments would shortly admit others, and thus prepare for the destruction of all."
It was not affirmed by the Scotch, that they possessed an inherent right to the privileges of an establishment:both, orneither, was their motto. The colony, they affirmed, was not English nor Scotch, but British. It was the opinion of lawyers, however, that beyond the seas the churches of England and Scotland depended for their rights on parliamentary or colonial enactment; and that whenever obscure, a declaratory statute must fix the sense of a treaty, anddecide whether an exclusive endowment of any class of clergymen was beyond the competence of imperial or local law.
The passing of an act in New South Wales, granting stipends in proportion to the adherents, from £100 to £200, and the prospect of a similar act in Van Diemen's Land, led to urgent applications for ministers by the heads of various churches. Bishop Broughton published a strong appeal to the numerous unbeneficed clergymen in Great Britain, to whom he represented these colonies as a field of great promise. He stated that the obtaining ministers, "was a matter of life and death."
The son of the illustrious Coleridge exerted himself on behalf of the church of England, and based his chief appeal on the inadequacy of the penal laws at home; the misery endured by the poor; the numerous crimes originated by the refinement of society; and the principle of compensation, which bound the English people to supply in colonies not less instruction than they must have furnished in gaols.[220]
A fund was contributed, though of no great amount; but the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge supplemented the colonial pay, which was found inadequate to secure men of character and education. Compared with the ground to be occupied, the church of Scotland was more successful in candidates for this important sphere.
Dr. Lang lost no time in proceeding to Great Britain, and obtained a numerous band of clergymen and schoolmasters, whose passage was defrayed by the colonies.
The Rev. Thomas Dugal, and other ministers of the synod of Ulster, expressed their willingness to undertake colonial charges. Lord Glenelg enquired of Dr. M'Farlane, the convener of the general assembly's committees, whether their appointment would be sanctioned by the church of Scotland. To this he replied, that they might be "taken under charge of presbyteries in connexion with their church, on their adhibiting the subscription, and coming under the engagements required by their church, but no longer."
The admission of the Roman catholic body to equal privileges, was defended as a measure of policy. The national clergy appealed to a legal recognition; but, until a recent period, the catholic worship had by statesmen been both tolerated and abjured. The penal institutions required catholic instructors, to teach a proportion of prisoners, amounting to one-third of the whole. The appointment of the Rev. Dr. Ullathorne as vicar-general, led to increasing concessions of money and patronage. The zeal and intelligence of that clergyman was conspicuous in the management of the prisoner class. On their arrival, they were submitted to a course of moral and religious training, and from his testimony it appears, that the effect was long visible, and led to a marked decrease of crime.[221]The patronage of the crown was more freely granted to the Roman catholics than the presbyterians, until the general policy of the state was revised. When other non-national communions were passed over, the number of the catholics, and their subordination to a governing body, were the reasons assigned for their special countenance.
The protestant bishop, Dr. Broughton, was preceded by the arrival of Dr. Polding, the prelate of the Roman church. An incident occurred, which occasioned great delight to his adherents: he landed at Hobart Town, and the governor sent down his carriage to the beach to conduct him to the government-house. At a meeting of the catholic body, resolutions, to which Messrs. Rowe and Hackett were the speakers, voted a present of plate, to express their gratitude for Arthur's zeal in their cause, and his courtesy to their bishop.
Beside the leading denominations, who obtained the pay of the state, the wesleyans possessed the great pre-requisite, a governing body. By a singular oversight, they permitted the bounty of the treasury to descend to them in an annual donation, instead of a stipend regulated by the general law. Their co-religionists in New South Wales now enjoy an endowment, of which nothing can deprive them, but the joint consent of the crown and the people.
The preliminaries being settled, a bill was introduced by Franklin, and passed into law (November, 1837). It authorised the governor to grant £300 to any congregation, to provide a parsonage, and £700 for the erection of a church, or a sum not greater than the amount subscribed by thepeople. It directed the issue of a salary of £200 to any minister of the three churches, whose congregation should be equal to eighty adults, or in towns to two hundred. The discussion of this bill created considerable controversy: the ministers of the church of England were especially opposed to its latitudinarian aspect, and Archdeacon Hutchins represented that the principle was wholly untenable on Christian grounds, but cast the responsibility of a permanent establishment of the papal faith on the members of the Scotch communion. Their protest against the bill, and a renunciation of their claims would, he affirmed, at once fix the establishment principle. Had the proportionate numbers of the two churches been reversed, he believed that, rather than endow the Romish priesthood, the Anglican communion would abandon all further competition for the favours of the state. To this the minister of St. Andrew's retorted, that the responsibility lay wholly with the state; and that, if sincere, the English clergy might, by withdrawing their own, remove the pretensions of all.
The archdeacon, and his clergy[222]of the English church, united in a petition, presented by the chief justice, against the provisions of the act. They complained that its principles were a compromise of truth, since they not only assumed that the religious "sentiments of the Roman catholics are equally entitled with those of the protestant to the support of government, but that every variety of religious sentiments, which is to be met with amongst the various denominations of Christians, is entitled to support, without any reference whatever to the conformity of those sentiments to the word of God."
The law was scarcely in action, when one of its clauses was found to operate against its professed design. A church and a house were required before a minister could be salaried; but the settlement of a clergyman was in fact a necessary preliminary to the erection of a church. An amendment gave the governor a power to issue a salary on a requisition, on condition of a small local subscription (1838). But this relaxation proved mischievous in another direction: the salary was paid, but the church was not erected. This required a third law, and it was therefore enacted, that if a religious edifice were not in progress within six months from the issue of a stipend, payment should be discontinued (1840).
The colony, on the passing of the church act, was an open field. The first clerical candidate, because he was such, engrossed a large proportion of the available signatures. The people, generally anxious for some form of worship, both as a moral agency and from its tendency to raise the respectability of a township, gave their names freely asbonâ fidemembers of either protestant church. The inevitable result was, an eager competition by the more zealous members of the rival communions. The meaning ofbonâ fidemembership of this or that church, was brought into considerable debate. The Anglican clergy insisted on the census; the Scotch on the right of every man to make himself a member for the purposes of the act, whatever his hereditary or mental creed. These different views led to serious discord: the analysis of names appended to various applications imputed all the errors, informalities, and even corruption supposed to attach to popular elections. Those who had never thought much on religion, gave with facility and then retracted their adhesion: they virtually changed not only their minister but their creed. The opposite parties represented each other in terms full of reproach and bitterness; imputations of sectarianism, intrusion, kidnapping, were the common forms of recrimination. It would be useless to relate examples now before the writer, in colours painted by the passions of the conflict. It is the nature of religious controversy to throw on the surface all the malignant feelings that cloud the reputation of gentler spirits, in whom the real virtues of a communion dwell; but the lesson is worth remembrance—that of all forms of clerical institution, none realise less the idea of loving-kindness than that based on universal suffrage.
The social effects of this competition were lamentable: neighbours were divided, who had often worshipped at the same altar; religious emulation sprung up in every locality: an attempt to possess the ground, led to the marching and counter-marching of hostile forces. The advent of an eminent clergyman on a township was reported to the head-quarters of his antagonists. In one place the moderator had appeared, in another the archdeacon: it was thus the more zealous partisans of either exasperated their antipathies. Again, the church act did not tie the laity to either their ministers or their creeds: thus a dissatisfied people might easily raise the preliminaries for a second or a third clergyman, and leave their late pastors to their salaries and their solitude.
Demands on the treasury for the erection of churches and support of the clergy perplexed the executive. The ordinary revenue showed symptoms of declension, and the council passed a bill which declared that new imposts were impracticable, and vested a discretionary power in the government to refuse assistance to any new undertaking (1841). Thus the principle of the church act was subverted, and the grant of money for purposes of religion confided solely to the impartiality of the administration.
The voluntary efforts of the different sects largely supplemented the legal provision. Churches of respectable architectural pretensions were rapidly multiplied. The wesleyans, independents, and baptists raised buildings for worship in the more important townships. Many private persons expended large sums for these purposes.
The dependence of the clergy on the public treasury was from the first considered a temporary expedient. Some officers of the government favored the voluntary principle, others looked forward to endowment of the churches with lands. Bishop Broughton, anticipating the establishment of an elective legislature in New South Wales, made an effort to secure a preliminary territorial endowment. In presenting his petition (1839), the archbishop of Canterbury insisted that, however impracticable in Canada, such a measure could encounter no fair objection in a colony where so large a proportion were members of the English church. While he admitted the impartial liberality of the government, he complained that a principle had been adopted "by which persons of all denominations were placed on the same footing." The home government exhibited no disposition to accede to this proposition.
A provision, however, resting on an annual vote, was obviously uncertain; and it became necessary to declare the terms on which it was enjoyed. The minister of the day notified to the officers of the Anglican and Scotch churches that incomes dependent on variable resources and mutable opinions were liable to casualties. He therefore warned them that, beyond the fair influence of the crown and the equitable claims of existing incumbents, no guarantee could be given.[223]During a financial crisis these views were reiterated by one governor, who reminded the council that the warning of his lordship was likely to be realised; but he added his conviction that to render thechurches independent of the state would not only relieve the local treasury, but raise the clergy to a higher level.[224]
Archdeacon Hutchins died suddenly (June, 1841). His estimable private character and clerical zeal endeared his memory to many. The Hutchins' grammar-school was erected as an appropriate memorial of his worth. The vacancy occasioned by his demise suggested the establishment of the diocese of Tasmania. This was founded by letters patent, 27th of August, 1842, when Dr. Francis Russel Nixon was constituted first bishop. His lordship landed June, 1843, and on 23rd of that month opened his ministry in the words of St. Paul—"I am determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ." The venerable senior chaplain, on the 27th of the same month, conducted the bishop to his throne; pronouncing the words of inauguration—"I assign to thee this chair or see episcopal, and place thee in the same, in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Twenty-one years before Dr. Bedford commenced his pastorate in the same place; the first permanent ecclesiastical edifice erected in Van Diemen's Land, and now known as the cathedral of St. David. Beside the endowment of the diocese made by subscriptions contributed in England, an act was passed giving the bishop a salary independent of the estimates,—a distinction not enjoyed by other clergymen.
It would not be possible to invest with general interest the details of ecclesiastical affairs. The relation of the churches with each other, involving principles of colonial government, demand a transient notice. The position of the episcopal church was anomalous and perplexing. The forms of procedure were derived from its practice, where its supremacy was established by law, and moderated by the crown. The patent of the see gave the bishop authority to try and punish delinquents; but the colonial law recognised no such tribunal as an ecclesiastical court, and patents were no further valid than they were in harmony with local acts. The governor could give ecclesiastical preferment to episcopal ministers without the sanction of the see, and maintain a clergyman in defiance of his bishop. For this ecclesiastical anomaly the growth of circumstances required a remedy, and its discussion brought the bishop into collision with a large section of his clergy, the governor, and with other denominations. The bishop withdrew the license from certain clergymen who had been charged with serious irregularities: these offences were not investigated with the formalities usual in England; and the clergymen dismissed questioned the legality of their deposition. One appealed to the supreme court, but the judges held that the withdrawment of a license was within the province of the bishop; another obtained his salary from the treasury, the governor having refused to recognise the revocation. These proceedings were differently viewed by the episcopal clergy. Some, in the neighborhood of Hobart Town, remonstrated against the power claimed by the bishop to revoke licenses at pleasure, as inconsistent with their dignity as ministers; while, on the other side of the island, their brethren repudiated the sentiments of the remonstrants, and declared their determination to submit "to his judgments in the Lord" (1845).
The necessity for a controlling power is recognised by every church; and moral and mental aberration, such as no communion could tolerate, justified the interposition of authority. An exact conformity with the English custom required the legalisation of an ecclesiastical court; but the church act had subverted the dominant status of the English church. A court requires to subpoena witnesses, to be protected from contempt, to have its decrees carried out by the civil powers. Questions of ritual, such as baptism, would violate the religious opinions of other denominations. A clergyman, for burying an unbaptised child might be liable to deposition; a baptist might be subpœned to give evidence against him. Thus the jurisdiction of a court passed beyond the limits of a single denomination, and involved the liability of all, at least as witnesses. A still stronger feeling than liberty of conscience raised the opposition to this extension of ecclesiastical power. The Scotch had claimed equality with the English church: to give the legal rights of a court to the bishop was to create local disparity; while the presbyterian had no religious objection to ecclesiastical courts, the other non-prelatic communions abhorred them.
A variety of differences had created a coldness between the governor and the bishop. His lordship had demanded the control of religious instructors; he possessed no means to employ them independently of the convict department, or to protect them against its many changes. In repeating a prayer for the governor and the clergy and laity, the bishop inverted the precedence, it was alleged to degrade the governor by the transposition. Sir E. Wilmot did not enter into the viewsof the bishop, who, in a charge to his clergy (1845), represented "legal help" as necessary to the protection of ecclesiastical discipline, and expressed his intention to visit Great Britain to obtain a more satisfactory arrangement. Petitions against ecclesiastical courts were forwarded by the various denominations. To these the secretary of state replied that no powers had been solicited in any way affecting others than the Anglican church; and intimating that none would be conveyed (1847).
A conference of bishops, held in Sydney (1850), have since this period proposed a liberal constitution for the Anglican communion, which awaits the sanction of the law. They demand the complete organisation of the church and its government by synods, for the arrangement of spiritual affairs; and by conventions, admitting the laity, for the management of temporalities. They contemplated the nomination of bishops by provincial synods; and affirmed that no beneficed clergyman ought to be deposed except by a sentence following judicial trial. These organic changes would, probably, greatly promote the usefulness of the episcopal church; but they seem to contemplate a total severance of its political dependence. The defect of the ecclesiastical law, which offers serious impediments to the discipline necessary, cannot but be deemed a grievance. They have arisen from those connections with the state which most denominations seem to bear with impatience.
The relations of the churches with each other have occasioned difficulties rarely of permanent importance. The dispute of the prelates of the Anglican and catholic communions is an interesting exception. It led to an adjustment of their relative rank in the colonies at large. The right of the Roman see to appoint a bishop to act in its name had been already questioned by the protestant prelate, and met with a protest from the altar. Such, under similar circumstances, had been the course of Dr. Broughton. The laws of England retained the abjuration of a foreign episcopate, and assigned the nomination of English bishops to the Queen: the catholic vicars-general had in England exercised episcopal functions; being also consecrated to the oversight of imaginary sees. This arrangement was needless where the catholic religion was salaried by the state. The ancient abjuration was retained among protestants; but its spirit had expired.
The Roman catholic prelate received an address as the"Bishop of Hobart Town," and in reply recognised the title by adding "Hobartien" to his name. This document having fallen into the hands of the lord bishop of Tasmania, he directed a remonstrance to its author, suggesting that to claim an episcopal jurisdiction over the city was to intrude on a diocese already appropriated. The correspondence which followed entered largely into the religious differences of the parties. The papers were forwarded to the secretary of state.
A complaint arising from the miscarriage of a letter addressed to the catholic prelate as bishop of Melbourne, and a dispute in reference to precedence, in which the metropolitan of Sydney and Archbishop Polding were concerned, also called for a final adjustment of the various points at issue, so far as they could be settled by the state. The lord-lieutenant of Ireland, willing to conciliate the catholics, had recommended the secretary of state to recognise the style of their prelates. Earl Grey regretted that the lordship ordinarily pertaining to a barony had ever been conferred on colonial sees. He, however, finally arranged that the protestant archbishop of Australia should rank above the catholic archbishop, and the protestant bishops before the catholic, throughout the colonies; that the titles of "your grace" and "my lord" should be accorded indifferently to both classes of bishops, but that the government should not, in official correspondence, recognise any title complicated with the name of any city or territory within the British dominions, not authorised by letters patent from the crown. Thus neither side could claim the victory, more being allowed to the catholics than they could expect as a religious denomination; while the territorial honors were conferred exclusively on the nominees of the crown.
On the disruption of the church of Scotland the members of that church in Tasmania were involved in serious disputes, which terminated in the resignation of several of their clergy, and the formation of separate congregations. The free and residuary Assemblies opened a correspondence with the colonies, demanding to know to which part the colonial ministry adhered. The opinions of the local clergy were divided; but they concurred in a general expression of regard to the principle of church independence, and their satisfaction that they themselves enjoyed the liberty for which their brethren were obliged to contend,—thus leaving to inference their religious connection, and giving no ground tocall in question the ecclesiastical status and revenues conferred by the church act. This answer was considered by the free church evasive; and its more ardent supporters on the spot pronounced the course of the local presbytery jesuitical and dishonest. They affirmed that the church of Scotland alone was entitled, by colonial law, to state support; and that the retention of its emoluments was a virtual adherence to its principles. This discussion has been extremely fertile of controversies; but the general reader would not be likely to enjoy them.
Should the reader infer from the record of ecclesiastical divisions that the colonial temper is intolerant, he would be greatly mistaken. The laity, often even the clergy, have given evidence of their charity in friendly sympathy and generous assistance. The rights of conscience are generally understood and respected; and although many are prepared to liberate the churches from dependence on the state, but few would desire to establish invidious distinctions. The tendency of colonial life is to annul the prejudices of European society, and to yield to every man the position which may be due to his talents and virtues. This feeling is, however, found compatible with religious predilections. One hundred clergymen, many wholly sustained by the people, labor to diffuse their views of Christianity in the various districts of the island; and the emigrant population are usually in attendance on their teaching. The census is an imperfect index of actual strength, the smaller sects exerting proportionately more influence. When the claims of prescriptive authority are finally exchanged for a reliance on moral power these discrepancies will disappear, and a vast apparatus, already supplied by the state and private zeal, will bring within reach of every colonial family some form of Christian doctrine. The tendency of small communities is not unfavorable to the progress of religious denominations. The only interruption to the monotony of life is found in the church: the only association which can be readily offered to strangers is provided by the religious bond. Opinion acts with increased power where the social inequalities are slight. Thus, in the United States of America every extravagance of sentiment is tolerated; but there a man of no religion is suspected, shunned, and left to solitude.