Chapter 21

"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 great liberality 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 the doors 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.

SECTION II.

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 ordained minister 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] the secretary 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, would not 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 the _True 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 established church. 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 church were 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.