The recall of Arthur, long anticipated by his enemies, at length
arrived. Some months before, he had been informed by the secretary of
state, that "having continued him in his government for the unusual
period of twelve years, the crown intended to name his successor." On
the recommendation of Mr. Huskisson, the duration of an ordinary
government was limited to six years: special reasons withdrew Van
Diemen's Land from the operation of this rule.
The ministerial changes at the seat of empire left Arthur's influence
unimpaired. The variations of national policy rarely reached his sphere.
Unwelcome orders he managed to modify or evade. The difficult nature of
his duties, the distance of his government from supervision, and the
weakness of the free population, enabled him to assume and maintain for
many years a discretion all but unlimited. The state of the colony on
his arrival has been already noticed. The measures he adopted to coerce
and control the convict population, and to subdue the aborigines, will
be found in the second volume of this History. He repressed the outrages
of the lawless, and restored comparative tranquillity. Under his
auspices the chief town, which he found consisting of a few frail
dwellings, assumed the aspect of a commercial city. Many, he received in
chains, were established in social happiness: many immigrants, who
arrived with slender resources, had risen to opulence.
A series of forty-seven statistical tables, prepared by the colonial
secretary, his nephew, exhibit a progress then almost unexampled. In
1836, the revenue had increased from £16,866 to £106,639; the imports
from £62,000 to £583,646; the exports from £14,500 to £320,679; mills
from 5 to 47; colonial vessels from 1 to 71; churches from 4 to 18: the
population had risen from 12,000 to 40,000; and every branch of public
and private enterprise exhibited the same general aspect.
It would be absurd to ascribe to Arthur even the main credit of these
results: they were the effect of that spirit of industry which ever
characterises the native of Great Britain, and which nothing can wholly
extinguish. Nor was this prosperity without alloy. The unproductive
improvement encouraged, was sometimes unhealthy. The settlers were
deeply involved: the valuation of property was raised beyond reasonable
calculation. The pleasing delusion was cherished by the members of the
government, whose official and private interests concurred to dupe them.
Happy were they who sold. Arthur left many who, acquiring his favour by
the extent of their outlay, and the vigour of their enterprise, were
laden with debts from which they never recovered, and a prey to
perpetual solicitude.
The great demand for sheep and cattle, created by the establishment of
new colonies, gave a temporary respite: flocks were sold at £2 per head,
and were purchased in large quantities. These ameliorations were only
transient, and the wide regions open to adventure lessened the worth of
those properties which had been valued by the farms of Great Britain,
not the unpeopled wilds of New Holland.
A just estimate of Arthur's administration, must include all the
peculiarities of his position, and the complicated interests he held in
trust, whether they relate to the imperial government, the free, or the
bond. The measures best for the colony were not always compatible with
the design of its establishment. Nor must we forget that, in surveying
the past we have lights which rarely attend the present; that much which
experience may amend, it is not possible for wisdom to foresee.
The primary object of the crown in colonising this island, was accepted
by this governor as the chief aim of his policy. The settlement of free
men he considered but subsidiary to the control and reform of the
transported offender: their claims, their duties, and their political
rights were, in his view, determined by their peculiar position. They
were auxiliaries hired by royal bounties, to co-operate with the great
machinery of punishment and reformation. As the representative of the
crown, he stood off from the colonists in their sympathies and ultimate
views. Employed not to build up a free community of Englishmen, but to
hold in check the criminality of an empire, with him the settlement was
an institution requisite to the effective execution of penal laws. Such
he found it: such he desired to mould its growth, _and to prolong its
destination_. Thus, except in the capacity of employers, he regretted
the arrival of free men, and warned the ministers of the crown, that by
their encouragement of emigration, they were destroying the value of
bond labor, the dependence of the settlers, and the adaptation of the
island for the purposes of a prison.
Thus, in his official correspondence with colonists on subjects of a
political nature, Arthur always avowed hostility to liberal ideas, and
scoffed at their solicitude for the common rights of English people.
While the opposition could avail, he resisted the liberty of the press,
trial by jury, and open discussion of legislative measures. His remarks
were often in a tone austere and reproving; nor did he think himself
obliged to preserve that dignified complaisance which softens the
differences of political life. The settlers were expected to stay at
home, to keep their servants in custody, to denounce their infractions
of penal rule, and as the "materials of prison discipline," (so they
were denominated) to carry out a judicial sentence. They knew, before
they came, they must sacrifice British rights, and with the political or
social influence of transportation, beyond their own fences, they had no
concern.
As an officer of the army, the profession of Arthur was not unfavorable
to the main purpose he avowed: the process he conducted was, of
necessity, harsh and imperative. In the selection of instruments, he
preferred military men: they were without colonial scruples, and when
the government was unconcerned, perhaps, without partiality. They were
deficient in legal knowledge, and as magistrates sometimes overlooked
the material facts; but they despised the reproaches of the press, and
the censures of civilians.
In the course of his administration, Arthur had most places at his
temporary disposal: he filled them, wherever possible, with his friends;
and he left his nephews in the highest appointments within their
professional capacity. Arthur drew out a minute detail of official
subordination: the duties prescribed for his officers were defined with
labored exactness, and the reins of control met in his hands. Everything
was referred to himself, and his instructions were definite, and
generally irrevocable. Many persons appointed by the crown were
dismissed, or thrown off, by his contrivance. Accident placed many
offices in his provisional gift. Baxter, a judge elect; Gellibrand, an
attorney-general; Ferreday, a sheriff; Thomas, a treasurer; Burnett, a
colonial secretary; O'Ferrall, a collector of customs; and many in lower
station, relinquished or lost their appointments, by the determination
of his inflexible and unflinching will. The forfeiture was sometimes
obviously just; but it was a maxim of his government to fill the
departments with persons who knew no patronage except his own. Among
them were candidates for the same gifts, who looked for fortunes beyond
the limits of their duties: they cultivated farms; became competitors
for prisoner labor; and speculators in commerce. The supreme court and
the newspapers were often occupied by their recriminations: sometimes
they exchanged challenges, and sometimes writs. The colonists in
opposition saw, not without some gratification, dissensions which seemed
to weaken the common enemy; and the press was often enriched by the
malice of official pens. Many were, however, too wise to quarrel: their
quiet industry enabled them to combine their public and private
employments, without scandal, and with success. They were, indeed,
accused of peculation; but specific charges were generally rebutted, and
can now only be noticed as a rumour, and dismissed as detraction.
The officers trained under Arthur acquired his tact, and imbibed his
spirit: the least deemed himself something superior to the richest
trader, or the most enterprising colonist. The sub-divisions among
themselves were minute and rigorously enforced. They were, however,
subject to vicissitudes. Those who lost their appointments furnished the
material of libels: reported the peculations and duplicity of their late
colleagues, and often became distinguished for their patriotism.
The patronage permitted to Arthur was enormous: to a large extent he was
the almoner of the crown. Thus disaffection became highly penal: a
quarrel with a magistrate, or a friendly intercourse with persons under
a ban, exposed the delinquent to serious pecuniary loss. These
considerations were avowed.[198] The dread of injury made the timid
servile, and corrupted private intercourse. A secret influence pervaded
every rank: society was embittered by suspicions and the dread of
denunciation; and had not the growth of population decreased the
comparative power of the government, or had its original plan been
perpetuated, it must have formed a community of slanderers and slaves.
The intentions of the governor, however just, could not save him from
the falsehood of spies, and thus the perpetration of wrong. It was early
announced that opponents would be "crushed." The extent of the "crushing
system" was greatly exaggerated, and even the course of good government
was commonly ascribed by the sufferer to official enmity and avarice.
The industry of Colonel Arthur was constant: his attention to the
details of his government, and his perseverance as a despatch writer
were universally admitted: a large proportion of his time he spent in
his office, and toiled with an assiduity which would have been fatal to
ordinary men. It was commonly stated that he was not very accessible;
but he willingly heard those whose education and habits qualified them
to suggest. Persons of every rank were admitted to an audience on a
slight pretence. He was quick in estimating the characters and
capacities of all who approached him.
The executive council was useful to Arthur, without obstructing his
measures. When he resolved on a project, he would nominate a board, and
obtain its sanction. When his private views were opposed to his
instructions he affected impartiality, and seemed to yield rather than
to guide. These artifices were well understood; but the colony often
approved the object, and admired the ingenuity of its execution. A new
colonial minister, in the hurry of his office, gladly surrendered to the
governor's judgment a question often beyond his comprehension, and which
to resist it was necessary to understand. Thus it was ordered to execute
public works by contract instead of the gangs; to levy a tax on convict
labor; to retain men seven years in chains. Boards, or commissions,
which gave him the aspect of a mediator or judge, advised him to
postpone and quash the disagreeable order or restriction. Thus during
his government his influence was paramount, and inferior functionaries
were satellites who obeyed his impulse, or were driven from their
spheres.
The chief justice alone could pretend to independence: by his seat in
both councils he possessed a voice in the enactment and administration
of the laws--a subject of continual suspicion and complaint, and really
dangerous whenever the government was a party. The chief justice
ultimately resigned his seat in the executive council (1835). The
secretary of state had declared in parliament that legislative and
executive offices were incompatible with the proper functions of a
judge.
The great works of Arthur were attributed by his opponents to sinister
motives: those most frequently mentioned were the new wharf at Hobart
Town, the road to Richmond, and the Bridgewater causeway. Arthur
benefited by his fore-knowledge. The imputations of personal injustice
or corruption were unfounded: what he gained, others did not lose,
except by the common risks of a sale. Thus the property of the Rev.
Robert Knopwood, whom he was said to defraud, was several times in the
market: it was offered by advertisement many years before: its future
appropriation to commerce was predicted, and was described to enhance
its price. It was offered by Mr. Knopwood to Mrs. Hodgson for £800: it
was purchased by Mr. H. Jennings, a nephew of Mr. Gellibrand, senior,
without reference to Arthur; and was finally sold to his agent at a
small advance. The new wharf rendered the purchase highly advantageous;
but there was neither deceit nor oppression.
The great work he began at Bridgewater, where a magnificent causeway
forms the abutment of a bridge which connects both banks of the Derwent,
was a task of many years: many thousand pounds in value lie buried.
Arthur had estates in its vicinity. The other charges of corruption are
of a similar nature, even less substantial than these.
But although many of his works will perpetuate his memory while the
country lasts, they could only be justified by their connexion with
penal arrangements. The discipline prescribed did not admit of rapid
movement or wide distribution. Huts were necessary for the convicts,
houses for their officers, and various stores; and it was only on
extensive excavations that labor could be inspected with success. The
waste of expenditure was rather apparent than real. The objects
contemplated were not colonial; and thus, if the local obligation is
lessened, the ground of complaint is diminished.
During his government, Arthur became wealthy: his estates were numerous,
and their sale realised a large amount. That he acquired them improperly
is not even capable of suspicion; that he applied clandestinely the
means afforded by his office to improve them, is equally destitute of
evidence. Nor is it easy to see how a community can be injured by the
outlay of capital acquired in its service, or the interest of its
officers in the soil. The moral weight of government was compromised far
more by the air of mystery which veiled, than the corruptions which
debased it. The outcries raised against the disposal of land in special
instances, were often misdirected: many deviations from strict
impartiality were prescribed by the secretary of state, whose discretion
was unlimited by regulations. Arthur was silent, and his character
suffered: he despised reproach, which notwithstanding impaired his
influence for good. Just before his recall, Mr. William Bryan made
statements before the Commons of mis-appropriation of crown lands, which
had been the text of colonial articles without number, when a secretary
from the colonial-office stated that the more serious were unfounded;
that many were ministerial acts; and the whole series were reduced to
comparative nothingness.[199] While Arthur had the power, he was not
sparing in its use: he endowed his friends. Nor is it incredible, that a
private service to himself detracted nothing from weight of public
obligation.
Arthur was no fickle or hesitating patron, and the qualities he approved
are nearly allied to virtue: he appreciated humanity, sobriety,
industrious habits, and religious decorum. Respectable men, who did not
question or cross his path, might usually calculate on his complaisance.
But those who reckoned up his estates; numbered the benefits conferred
on his friends; estimated the cost of his government; or criticised his
public works; found that he did not fear, although he detested them. The
imperial officers cared not in what direction his patronage was turned,
and their nominees experienced and praised his generous discretion.
The impressions of devout men were usually favorable to Arthur: he told
them his objects and trials with apparent humility and devotion. He
listened with deep attention to their plans of usefulness, and talked,
especially of the prisoners, in strains of christian compassion. His
sanction was given to every benevolent scheme, and he gathered around
him a very large proportion of those persons who care more for the
circulation of religious knowledge than the civil enfranchisement of
mankind. The ready countenance of their labors lessened, in their view,
his civil faults. Nor can it be denied, that the decorous habits of the
governor confirmed his religious pretensions. Wherever he appeared,
ribaldry and drunkenness vanished. The open licentiousness of public
officers he did not tolerate, except the offenders were distinguished by
official cleverness.
Addresses from all denominations of Christians expressed their
admiration of his religious sympathies and his moral worth; and in the
most bitter outburst of party spirit, his domestic character was never
assailed. The testimony of Messrs. Backhouse and Walker, members of the
Society of Friends, would generally be adopted by most persons of their
class:--"Our first interview with Colonel Arthur gave us a favorable
impression of his character as a governor and a christian, which further
acquaintance with him strongly confirmed. He took great interest in the
temporal and spiritual prosperity of the colonists, and the reformation
of the prisoner population, as well as in the welfare of the black
inhabitants."[200]
Messrs. Backhouse and Walker were authorised by the Society of Friends,
and sent on a religious mission to these colonies: they brought a letter
of introduction from the secretary of state, Lord Goderich, requesting
the governor to forward their benevolent object.
The more violent opponents of Arthur, connected with the press,
afterwards retracted their opinions; but their statements must be read
with equal caution, whether they censure or praise.[201]
A collection was made by Arthur's friends in token of their regard,
supposed to exceed £1,000 in value. It, however, indicated rather their
liberality than their number: individual contributions were not limited.
The addresses were signed by many who were conciliated by his moral
sentiments, but disapproved of his government; they however, seemed to
justify the ministerial applause which crowned his administration. Sir
George Grey referred to these tokens of esteem, as evidence of
popularity, and the contentment of the people.[202]
Arthur held his last levée on the afternoon of his departure:[203]
several hundreds were present, collected from all parts of his
government. He proceeded with the chief officers, civil and military, to
the beach, where the 21st Fusileers awaited him: multitudes attended his
progress; the wharf was crowded with spectators; a hundred boats
surrounded the government barge, and followed him to the ship. The
vessels in the harbour were decorated, and his numerous friends gave the
usual demonstrations of favour. In these feelings many did not
participate: some followed him with hisses and groans; others
illuminated their houses in token of joy. Some fell into the hands of
the police, overpowered by their excessive gladness. Having gone through
the ceremony of embarkation he returned to his office, and spent the
night in completing his last labors. Adverse winds detained the vessel,
and he passed the Sabbath in sight of that country where his name can
never be forgotten; and where monuments more durable than brass, formed
by his care, will remain to the end of time.
The manners of Arthur were formal; his tastes moral; his temper
vindictive. He approved the right, and usually followed it; but his
resolution once taken, he did not hesitate. He devoted all who opposed
him: and those whom he could not conciliate, if possible, he bore down.
The sentiment of religion, however, did sometimes triumph over his
antipathies. His contest with Mr. Gellibrand, the barrister, continued
many years; but they met at the sacrament shortly before their final
separation. Arthur approached the seat where Gellibrand was sitting, and
offered his hand. This being misunderstood, a prayer-book was tendered
him: he then explained, that before they joined in the solemnity which
had brought them there, he was anxious for reconciliation.
Such only who know little of man, and of those conflicting passions
which attain alternate ascendancy in the human breast, will survey with
distrust a scene like this. In the presence of the Almighty the loftiest
mind may bend without meanness, and recognise the moral grandeur of a
forgiving spirit.
A few months after the departure of Arthur, Mr. Joseph Tice Gellibrand
lost his life. He visited Port Phillip, a place which long engaged his
thoughts: in company with Mr. Hesse, a barrister, he set out to explore
the interior; they missed their way. The guide who attended them was
convinced of danger: he could not prevail on them to change their route,
and he returned alone. Their long absence occasioned anxiety, and
parties of their friends attempted to track them: they found that when
in company with the guide they had crossed the Byron, instead of the
Leigh, their intended course; they then travelled on about fifteen miles
by the river side, and over a plain, and entered a wood soon impervious
to horsemen: then their track was lost. For several years, efforts were
made to solve the mystery of their fate. In 1844, the natives directed
Mr. Allen, a gentleman of credit, to a spot where they stated a white
man had been murdered: there he discovered human bones, but no evidence
by which identity could be established. Beyond this, nothing certain is
known.
On his return to Great Britain, Arthur was received with favour by the
ministers. He was created a knight, and appointed governor of Upper
Canada: afterwards, he obtained a similar office in India.
Sir George Arthur cannot be withdrawn from the rank of eminent
functionaries; and his administration, on the whole, is entitled to more
than respectful remembrance.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 197: _Ross's Almanack_, 1837.]
[Footnote 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.]
[Footnote 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.]
[Footnote 200: _Backhouse's Narrative_, p. 15.]
[Footnote 201: "At the time to which he (Mr. Hall, of the _Monitor_)
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.]
[Footnote 202: Speech, 18th of April, 1837.]
[Footnote 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.]
HISTORY OF TASMANIA.
FROM 1836 TO 1843.
FROM 1836 TO 1843.
SECTION I.
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 the _Fairlie_,
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 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.
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_, or _neither_, 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, and decide 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
the people. 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 as
_bonâ fide_ members of either protestant church. The inevitable result
was, an eager competition by the more zealous members of the rival
communions. The meaning of _bonâ fide_ membership 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 the
churches 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 subpoened 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 views of 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 to call
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.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 204: _Lang's History of New South Wales_, vol. ii. p. 258.]
[Footnote 205: An organist of St. John's Church, Launceston, refused to
play, and was sentenced to punishment; but was restored by the
intercession of the clergyman.]
[Footnote 206: _Macarthur's New South Wales._]
[Footnote 207: "Sir George Murray maintained that this country was bound
to provide the means of religious instruction for the people of our
colonies: at the same time he begged to say, that so far from approving
the maintenance of any exclusive system in the colonies, he thought any
such system there, _bad_ and _dangerous_. He was of opinion that parties
of all religious persuasions were equally entitled to support, and he
deprecated the exclusive establishment there of any one church above all
others."--_Parliamentary Debate_, July 13, 1832.]
[Footnote 208: 30th September, 1833.]
[Footnote 209: "I would also earnestly recommend that provision be made
for the schools, in which the children of persons of different religious
tenets may be instructed without distinction, on the plan now adopted in
Ireland. The means of education being secured, I shall feel disposed to
leave it to the voluntary contribution of the inhabitants to provide for
churches and clergy. To aid all where the creeds are various seems
impossible, and a partial distribution of the public funds appears
nearly allied to injustice."--_Despatch of Sir Richard Bourke,
respecting land in Port Phillip, October_, 1835.]
[Footnote 210: Despatch, November, 1835.]
[Footnote 211: Minute, 1836.]
[Footnote 212: _Rev. J. Lillie's Letter to Rev. W. Hutchins_, p. 13.]
[Footnote 213: Arthur's minute, 1833.]
[Footnote 214: "The whole of the objects which the congregation desired
to maintain, are very clearly to be gathered from the second resolution,
and these appeared to consist in maintaining their connexion with the
church of Scotland by law established, and the control which belongs to
ecclesiastical courts of the national establishment over the minister as
well as the congregation; for it is evident that all grants are made to
them as a part and parcel of the community of the _national church_ of
Scotland _as by law established_: and it is only in that character that
they have claims on the government, any more than the catholics,
wesleyans, independents, or unitarians."--_True Colonist_, May 29,
1835.]
[Footnote 215: "Accordingly we find that the majority, if not all, the
protesters are not members of the church of Scotland, being either
burghers, anti-burghers, independents, or episcopalians, and as such
opposed to the Scotish church."--_True Colonist_, May 29, 1835.]
[Footnote 216: "The assembly instructed the committee for the colonial
churches to insist on the fair and full execution of the laws at present
existing, and on the insertion in any new enactment for the government
of the colonies, such clauses as will unequivocally place the churches
in connexion with the church of Scotland on a footing as favorable with
respect to holding property, receiving a share of government grants, and
having their procedures in matters ecclesiastical carried out with as
prompt effect, as are enjoyed by those branches of the church of England
recognised in the same."--_Lillie's Letter_, p. 35.]
[Footnote 217: _Lillie's Letter to Rev. W. Hutchins_, p. 9.]
[Footnote 218: "I cannot see why the national legislature may not
determine what will be the established church of the colony, with just
as much propriety as it determines what shall be the prevailing law. A
separate and integral part of an empire at large, can have no right to
do this. As soon might a number of Cornish men insist upon their right
to have introduced the peculiar laws and customs by which the mining
operations of the county are regulated."--_Letter of Archdeacon Hutchins
to Rev. J. Lillie._]
[Footnote 219: "But let me tell you, Scotland is not asleep to her
rights and privileges: she is still the same independent dame she ever
was.... The instant you touch her religion, or presume to put indignity
or insult upon her venerable church, either at home or abroad--a church
from whom she has received so many benefits, and who has grown old and
grey headed in her service--her proud and independent spirit rises. She
appeals to her _marriage_ contract--her articles of union; and if I
mistake her not, she will sooner retire to her mountain freedom, and her
'single blessedness,' than consent to have them violated. _Nemo me
impune lacesset_, is still Scotland's motto."--_Letter of Rev. J. Lillie
to the Rev. W. Hutchins_, p. 18.]
[Footnote 220: _An Appeal to the Friends of the Church of England, in
behalf of their Brethren._
The extreme difficulty may be inferred from the following:--"Fully
agreeing with you as to the necessity of such an appointment (at Norfolk
Island), I have used every endeavour to find a clergyman of the church
of England, qualified for the office; but I regret to inform you that I
have not been successful, and the archdeacon has been equally
unfortunate. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to institute inquiries
in other quarters."--_Lord Glenelg_, 1835.]
[Footnote 221: _Evidence before the House of Commons_, 1837.]
[Footnote 222: Excepting Dr. Browne and Rev. R. R. Davies.]
[Footnote 223: Lord J. Russell's despatch, 31st December, 1839.]
[Footnote 224: Finance Minute, 1845.]
SECTION III.
The education of the people, every where a question of difficulty, has
been not less so in Tasmania. In the elder colony seminaries for the
more opulent classes were projected at an early period. In 1825 the
church and school association formed a boys' grammar-school. In '29, Dr.
Lang, who had been at issue with the Anglican clergy on this as on other
subjects, prevailed on the home government to authorise the loan of
£5,000, to be repaid by Scotch mechanics, to be conveyed at Dr. Lang's
risk, and employed in building a college. Prior to this date Dr. Lang
had been concerned in the foundation of the Sydney College, of which the
first stone was laid, but ecclesiastical difficulties prevented its
vigorous encouragement. Vast controversies followed this revival of
learning. The government voted considerable sums for the education of
the settlers' sons; but the secretary of state objected to the expense,
and ruled that the scholars did not belong to a class entitled to
gratuitous instruction.[225]
In this colony Colonel Arthur had established a superior school (1834),
under the governorship of official persons. The episcopal system was to
rule: the children of others were eligible, provided they submitted to
catechetical instruction. The plan of the school was suggested by Dr.
Broughton, and was calculated on the idea of an ecclesiastical relation
to the colony, which subsequent enactments disturbed. Colonel Arthur
found serious obstacles in carrying out the scheme, and he suffered it
to drop. The Rev. Mr. Rusden was nominated first master; but the
question of religion was again fatal to its success: the school sunk
into a private establishment.
The project of Colonel Arthur was succeeded by another more extensive in
its aim. Sir John Franklin addressed Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, describing
the religious elements of the colony, and requesting the arrangement of
details for the future management of an establishment. The great
difficulty was still the ecclesiastical relations of the settlers. Dr.
Arnold suggested a double chaplaincy, and a religious education rather
than a merely secular system; and recommended that the head master
should be permitted to take orders. Mr. G. P. Gell, of Cambridge
University, was nominated principal.
In 1840, the legislative council sanctioned the establishment of a
college and the erection of buildings. The cost was variously estimated
from £12,000. The Queen's school, intended to be afterwards a
preparatory institution, was first formed. The denominational leaning of
the college awakened considerable opposition. The Roman catholic
vicar-general declared that the authorised version of the scriptures was
a mutilation, and compiled to suit the views of the translators; that
catholics could not pray with protestants; and urged other objections,
not new to theologians, but which appeared outrageous to a colony
accustomed to a liberal intercourse. The presbyterians prayed for
religious equality, and other sects joined in the general aversion to an
episcopal institution at the public cost.
The government, by the advice of Mr. Gell and the archdeacon, selected
New Norfolk as the college site. On the 6th of November, 1840, the
foundation-stone was laid by Sir John Franklin, assisted by the members
of council and heads of departments, and by Captains Ross and Crozier,
of the antarctic expedition. "The college was dedicated to
Christ,--intended to train up Christian youth in the faith as well as
the learning of Christian gentlemen."[226] The night following the
ceremony, thieves overturned the foundation, and stole the inscription
and the coins. But difficulties more fatal beset the institution. The
pride of equality and the ambition of pre-eminence, not less than
tenderness of conscience on either side, prevented a compromise. In
private life concessions are found compatible with the utmost zeal, but
the rivalry of churches has never been adjusted. The Queen's school, the
pilot institution, was not more successful. At an expense of £1000 per
annum twenty-three scholars (1843), for the most part children of
government officers and opulent shopkeepers, were educated. The
institution was broken up by Sir E. Wilmot; and a petition, signed by
great numbers, requested the erection of a school on a more
comprehensive basis. This memorial being remitted to the secretary of
state, Lord Stanley replied (1846) that, when established, a proprietary
school would receive from the crown whatever assistance the public
resources might justify. The direct interference of the government in
the education of the higher classes thus terminated.