Volume 1 — 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 subpœned to give evidence against him. Thus the jurisdiction of a court passed beyond the limits of a single denomination, and involved the liability of all, at least as witnesses. A still stronger feeling than liberty of conscience raised the opposition to this extension of ecclesiastical power. The Scotch had claimed equality with the English church: to give the legal rights of a court to the bishop was to create local disparity; while the presbyterian had no religious objection to ecclesiastical courts, the other non-prelatic communions abhorred them.

A variety of differences had created a coldness between the governor and the bishop. His lordship had demanded the control of religious instructors; he possessed no means to employ them independently of the convict department, or to protect them against its many changes. In repeating a prayer for the governor and the clergy and laity, the bishop inverted the precedence, it was alleged to degrade the governor by the transposition. Sir E. Wilmot did not enter into the 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:

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.

The schools for the working classes were originally controlled by the government. Mr. P. A. Mulgrave, many years chairman of quarter sessions, arrived with the appointment of superintendent. This office was, however, filled by the senior chaplain; and until 1838 the schools were exclusively episcopalian. The altered policy of the crown, in reference to religion, suggested a change in the organisation of the schools. A letter, written by Sir Wm. Herschell, was transmitted by Lord John Russell, detailing the system at the Cape of Good Hope, and recommending the British and Foreign system for colonial adoption. On this plan schools were established in 1838, subject to a board nominated by the crown. It was intended to comprehend all denominations. The clergy of the Anglican church were from the first hostile to comprehension. Archdeacon Hutchins demanded that if an exclusive system were no longer attainable, a fixed sum should be divided among the different denominations, to be expended in separate schools, in proportion to the money issued under the church act. The laity in general, however, did not object to the union of all sects on the plan proposed; and to the last the British system was supported by a considerable majority, including clergymen of every sect, both protestant and catholic.

In New South Wales an attempt was made to establish the Irish system, the school books of which were sanctioned by the chief prelates of the protestant and catholic churches in Ireland. The protestant bodies were, however, averse to the exclusion of the "entire scriptures," as a discreditable compromise, and met the project with decided resistance. A committee, of which one half were episcopalians, organised under the sanction of Bishop Broughton, called on the laity to exert themselves in the "holy cause"[227] of opposition to the project of Sir Richard Bourke; and they succeeded in its defeat: but when, after their victory, they met to collate their plans for further action, the meeting was abruptly terminated by Dr. Broughton, who declared that he could co-operate in no scheme not framed on the recognition of the episcopal catechism and clerical superintendence. Denominational schools were, therefore, established, and those abuses arose inseparable from a plan which makes men the assessors of their own pecuniary claims.

A committee of the legislative council recommended the establishment of a general system, on the plan of Lord Stanley (1844). They alleged that by the denominational system more than half were left uneducated, and that the thinness of population, the diversity of opinion, the inferior character of the schoolmasters, and the great expense compared with the benefit secured, enforced the importance of a general and comprehensive scheme. Sir George Gipps warmly seconded these opinions, but was compelled to yield to the strength of the opposition offered by the clergy, and which no concession short of ecclesiastical control was deemed sufficient to remove. The agitation of this subject for several years has lessened none of the difficulties which attended it, and it remains a vexed question for solution by future legislators.

When the British system was established in Van Diemen's Land, masters were sent out by Lord John Russell, at the colonial cost. The schools were, however, regarded with increasing aversion by the episcopal clergy. Messrs. Lock and Fry, the last a clergyman and the author of a work on apostolical succession, visited the schools to report on them. They saw, or thought they saw, laxity, sectarianism, and partiality; and they gave the results of their enquiries in a copious publication. On the arrival of the Right Rev. Dr. Nixon this book was placed in his hands. He petitioned to be heard by counsel against the British system. His request being granted, he delivered an earnest address, in which he not only opposed the principle of the school, but reiterated many of the statements of Messrs. Lock and Fry. The Board of Education had, however, forwarded minute contradictions to these allegations; and Governor Wilmot resolved to support the schools until, on a full consideration of the adverse testimony, the secretary of state should otherwise determine (1843). Lord Stanley recommended the appointment of a commission of enquiry, which was accordingly confided to three episcopalian laymen, who acquitted the schools of most of the imputations of their former visitors. But the seals of the colonial-office had fallen into the hands of Mr. Gladstone. This event was fatal to the British system. The scholastic minister professed to examine elaborately the principles of colonial and church education, and came to the conclusion that a scheme of biblical instruction, confided to various teachers of uncertain creeds, was too little for the churchmen, ought to be too much for the catholics, and could only be agreeable to independents. He argued that church teaching includes all that a church believes, and that its inculcation was necessary to meet the fair requirements of religious liberty. Acting on a suggestion in his despatch, Sir William Denison granted a fixed sum per head to the denominational schools, dissolved the board of education, and appointed as inspector the son of the illustrious Arnold.

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION IV

The claims of the churches on the treasury (1838) soon threatened the government with serious difficulties. It was resolved to increase the revenue by prohibiting colonial distillation. This trade had been often interrupted by the ordinances of the governors, but when the crown ceased to purchase wheat at a high fixed price it was deemed unfair to the farmer to restrict the local market for his produce. Duties were imposed, but they discriminated between sugar and cereals, and between colonial and imported grain. This distinction offered ample opportunity for evasion. The distillers employed these various articles at their own pleasure, and paid the lowest duty. Colonial spirits were sold as foreign; and the permits of the police-office covered the transit of quantities greater than they specified. From £5,000 to £7,000 were annually lost. The bill introduced to extinguish the trade was resisted by Mr. W. E. Lawrence and other leaders of the country party. They objected both to the suppression of a lawful trade and the injury inflicted on those who had embarked their capital. The government proposed to include in the bill a provision for the indemnity of the distillers, leaving its amount to be settled by a committee. To this Chief Justice Pedder strongly objected. The government was unwilling to entrust to a jury the claims of the distillers, as proposed by the chief justice; and, not wishing to delay the law, passed it without granting any security beyond admitting the equity of compensation.

The laxity of the distillation laws had enabled the manufacturers to realise double profits, by graduated duties, mostly paid under the lowest denomination. Their gains during the past could not be questioned; but Sir John Franklin was persuaded that it would be ridiculously profuse to pay an indemnity for the loss of profits rated by the success of an illicit trade. A resolution passed the council, "That any applicant having been proved, to the satisfaction of this council, to have been in the habit of distilling contrary to law, has, by such practice, destroyed any claim he might have otherwise had to compensation." To ascertain this fact a "feigned issue bill" was brought into the council. It simply referred the question of illegal distillation to the jury, without assessing their claims. The right of the distillers to compensation was, however, so indisputable, and the retrospective action of the bill so liable to objection, that it was generally opposed; and, by the dissent of the lawyers, the treasurer, with all the non-official members, rejected by the council. The attorney-general, Mr. Macdowell, impressed with its injustice, informed the governor that he could not support the bill; in this resolution he had been fortified by the strongly expressed opinions of his colleague, Mr. H. Jones, the solicitor-general, who denounced its principle as utterly iniquitous and unprecedented: but on the resignation of Mr. Macdowell, Mr. Jones accepted his place, and voted for the bill: defending his conduct by stating that he had expressed his former opinion in ignorance of its details. The public indignation was excited by this apparent perfidy, for which Mr. Jones atoned by a speedy resignation. The financial success of the suppression was mentioned by Sir John Franklin in exulting terms. The law is, however, regularly violated when grain is low. Private stills have supplied spirits more than usually deleterious; and the revenue has shown a decline. The rights of the distillers were recognised by the home government, and their unsettled claims, to the amount of £7,431, were paid in 1843.

The duty of a member of the government to support, at all events, the measures of his chief, was asserted by the secretary of state. If his conscience would not permit his acquiescence, he was expected to resign. Thus, while his oath bound him to advise, as a legislator, according to his convictions, his interest, as a public officer, compelled him to submit to the impulses of another. From this condition the chief justice was excepted,—a condition hard to an honorable man and unfair to the colony. However plausible the reasons for distinguishing between an official duty and a conscientious belief, public morality abhors them; and Mr. Macdowell is entitled to the colonial remembrance, as one among few who have refused to support a measure because unjust.

The extensive land sales, combined with the demand for labor (1840), induced Sir John Franklin to promote emigration. The impression was general that transportation to Van Diemen's Land would cease; such had been announced as the policy of the crown. A vessel was dispatched to Adelaide, where many were suffering severe distress. The New Zealand emigrants were also dissatisfied, and many found their way to colonies where wages were high. This course was inconvenient, and excited great indignation among employers in South Australia, who prevailed on the government to pass a law intended to check emigration to Van Diemen's Land.

Sir J. Franklin disapproved of these methods of supplying the labor market, and proposed to devote £60,000 for the introduction of suitable working families from Great Britain. By many this movement was hailed with strong expressions of approbation, as a pledge of social elevation of the working classes. It was urged by Mr. Philip Smith, of Ross, that "without an extensive emigration and a stop to the introduction of convicts it was in vain to hope for permanent prosperity." Mr. Berthon, of Woodlands, asserted that "before the colony could thrive a better description of peasantry was necessary, which could never be found in the sweepings of gaols" (October, 1841). Pursuant to these views the governor authorised the settlers to select for themselves, by their own agents, the persons they required. Every considerable inhabitant received the necessary authority to ship such laborers, under indentures, at the colonial cost, it being found that useful workmen were indisposed to emigrate except to a master already known. The greater part of the settlers appointed Mr. Henry Dowling their agent. It was the intention of the local government that laborers should be sent out in small numbers by the regular traders; and thus afford time to pay the cost of their transit without difficulty to the treasury. The emigration commissioners objected to all these plans, and set them aside. Indentures were disallowed; and instead of laborers in the proportions required, families were conveyed, or they were sent in rapid succession, hundreds together. On their arrival a financial crisis reduced their wages: the home government changed its views, and resolved to continue transportation: the land fund, which had reached £52,000 in 1841, rapidly declined, and in 1843 Lord Stanley was informed that for years to come little revenue could be expected from the sale of land. The local officers, unable to pay the charge, were induced to dispute it; and they attempted to cast on the agents of immigration the failure of plans disallowed by the commissioners. They evaded the payment for one year. The claims of the shippers were instantly allowed by the secretary of state, with the usual interest; and Mr. Dowling, who had been aspersed by the local government, was amply vindicated by the commissioners. The colonial secretary charged him with collusive sale of his agency to London shippers, and a fraud on the colonial treasury. Mr. Dowling protected his character by an appeal to the supreme court, when Mr. Horne, the attorney-general, admitted that the imputation was unfounded, but succeeded in convincing the jury that no malice is to be inferred from the tenor of a libel when the writer cannot be supposed to be influenced by mere personal animosity. Mr. Dowling lost by his agency more than a thousand pounds.

An exceedingly useful class of emigrants arrived under the commissioners, who readily sanctioned the applications, regard being had to the equality of the sexes. The commissioners defended their opposition to the plans of the local government. They asserted that private agents could never select laborers in numbers sufficient to freight a ship; and they inferred that transferable orders for the payment of bounty on the arrival of emigrants would be either matters of traffic, or that private persons, discouraged by the difficulties of their task, would abandon it in despair.

For two or three years the emigrants were satisfied and moderately prosperous. The sub-division of town property was rapid. On every side small brick tenements multiplied. Every mechanic aspired to possess a dwelling of his own. But Lord Stanley's system of probation rapidly told on the condition of the workman. He stood aghast; he persevered for a time; he appealed to the government for protection against convict competition. For one-fourth its actual cost his property passed into the hands of others: in Launceston especially many suburban neighbourhoods were deserted. The emigrants brought out at so much public and private cost were expelled to the adjacent settlements, to begin the world anew.

One of those seasons of general distress to which small communities are especially liable pervaded the entire colonies (1841-4). A variety of causes contributed to augment its pressure, and to involve the whole in commercial embarrassment. The imports of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land exceeding £20 per head; the high price of grain, reaching 28s. per bushel; the enormous rate of interest, and the boundless extravagance of credit and expense, produced a convulsion all but universal.

The measures of the government increased the pressure of these difficulties. The land sales by auction at Port Phillip were succeeded by the system of selling on special surveys, at £1 per acre; and he who, one year before, had competed for his purchase, found the next section in the hands of his neighbour, at half the price he had given. The settlers in the elder colonies had speculated deeply. Stock and implements were transferred to the new country, under cover of credit. Competition raised the value of bullocks to £30 per pair; of horses to £60; of sheep to £2; the wages of servants to £50 per annum.

The government had raised the minimum price of land; and thus those who were entitled to take up their surveys under a lower denomination hastened their purchases with borrowed money. The London merchants consigned immense quantities of goods on speculation which were poured into the market; the promissory notes of irresponsible persons were taken by their agents: the fraudulent laid up for the crisis; insolvent estates were crowded into auctions; goods sunk below the expenses of the factor; dividends of a few shillings in the pound represented the assets of persons indebted from £50,000 to £100,000; and had not the chief losses finally rested with the London merchants and the English banks, the disasters of the times must have long retarded colonial prosperity.

The effects of this revulsion were soon felt in Van Diemen's Land, where peddling traders had thriven in momentary credit by the union of worthless names on their bills. As an instance: one hundred bushels of wheat, sold ultimately for £40, were transferred to a succession of speculating purchasers, who raised among them £1000, on credit of the exchange from one to another. The governments of the colonies had exhibited remarkable miscalculation. In all the treasury failed to meet the expenses. The deposits formerly realised by land sales were withdrawn from the banks. Debentures were issued; new taxes were imposed. The commercial panic was in full career when the crown renewed transportation to Van Diemen's Land; and thousands and tens of thousands of British offenders were gathered on these shores. The expenditure of the government, though large, was chiefly confined to the Capital, or fell into the hands of the merchants; but it is worthy of remark, that, except one house, all who could pretend to that rank maintained their position.

The settlers were, however, deeply involved. They were mostly induced to purchase at the land sales by borrowed capital. They complained bitterly of the usury, to which their produce bore no comparison; and incessantly invoked the legislature to limit the exactions of money-lenders. To aggravate these evils American flour poured into the colonial markets, drawing their cash and rendering agriculture profitless. The declarations of insolvency were daily. Whole streets of mechanics and traders followed each other. A common liability to the same ordeal introduced a system of dangerous license; and men walked away with their creditors' property without molestation and almost without reproach. The statistics of these times afford a memorable warning to all. To the government, that by enticing the people to purchase land, the general revenue will suffer by their imprudence; to the banks, that by reckless advances capital will be sacrificed for nominal assets; and to the British merchants, that by glutting every store with speculative consignments they render their exports of no value—that they ruin the shopkeeper, whose capital they destroy by the competition and sacrifice of their own.

But the great resources of the colonies soon manifested themselves. A settler at Port Phillip discovered or applied the art of boiling down the surplus stock, so as to produce the tallow of commerce; and sheep, lately 2s. 6d., became worth eight shillings. The discovery of the Burra mines raised Adelaide from deep prostration. The opening of new tracts of country offered a vast field for successful enterprise; wool once more rose in price; the banks lowered their discounts to a reasonable level; the goods saved from the general wreck appeared in the shops of those who took the tide at its flow; and every colony exhibited the signs of returning vigor—all but Van Diemen's Land.

SECTION V

The last three years of Sir John Franklin's administration were chiefly employed in arranging the details of the system of convict discipline, afterwards expanded by Lord Stanley to gigantic proportions, and described in the second volume of this history. Accompanied by Lady Franklin, Sir John penetrated the western district of Van Diemen's Land to Macquarie Harbour, formerly a penal station, to ascertain its fitness for a similar purpose, and some of the perils of his early life were renewed. His absence for several weeks awakened great anxiety, and his return was greeted with a general welcome (1842).

The most painful event of his political career sprung from a disagreement with the nephews of Sir George Arthur, and especially with Mr. Montagu, the colonial secretary. A narrative of this dispute, written by Franklin on his return to England, was issued for private circulation just after he started on his last voyage of discovery.[228] This account traces minutely the progress of a quarrel which all parties concerned are anxious to forget. The power acquired by Mr. Montagu in colonial affairs was considered by Franklin incompatible with their relative position. Inferior officers had been dismissed on his imperative advice, who complained that they were sacrificed because they stood in his path and thwarted his plans. Franklin partly shared in their suspicions, and appointed persons to offices who were unconnected with the Arthur party, and as a counterpoise to their influence. The immediate cause of the final rupture was the restoration of a colonial surgeon, dismissed on a charge of culpable negligence. His neighbors, believing the penalty unjust, remonstrated in his favor, and Franklin complied with their request. This Mr. Montagu severely condemned, as fatal to the dignity of government, and ascribed the lenity of Sir John to the influence of Lady Franklin. He then announced to the governor, in a formal manner, that thenceforth he should confine his own services to the routine of his office, and that a cordial co-operation might be expected no longer. The details of business, formerly prepared to the governor's hands, were left to himself: trifles exhausted his attention: his pleasure was asked with affected formality, and his enquiries answered with studied reserve. In a dispute with the governor in reference to a matter of fact, Mr. Montagu addressed him (17th of January, 1842)[229] in the following style:—"I trust," said he, "your excellency will also pardon me for submitting to you—and I beg to assure you that I do so under a deep conviction of the necessity of supporting my statement—that while your excellency and all the members of your government have had such frequent opportunities of testing my memory as to have acquired for it the reputation of a remarkably accurate one, your officers have not been without opportunity of learning that your excellency could not always place implicit reliance on your own." Clothed in a profusion of words, the charge of imbecility or falsehood was understood. The jealousy and contempt which had characterised the late official intercourse of Sir John and the secretary could not but injure the public service and divide the government into factions. But this language was deemed inconsistent with official subordination, and on its receipt Mr. Montagu was dismissed. Aware that it would be difficult to justify his note, Mr. Montagu offered an apology, with a view to a restoration. He sought, through Dr. Turnbull, the friendly offices of Lady Franklin. Her mediation was employed, and was unsuccessful; but Sir John promised to represent the past services of Montagu in the most favorable terms to the secretary of state, strongly recommending his employment elsewhere. This pledge the governor redeemed. Lord Stanley received Mr. Montagu with favor—consulted him in reference to convict discipline—heard his complaints of Sir John and Lady Franklin—and treated the governor in his own imperial way. He admitted that the proper relative positions of Franklin and the colonial secretary had been inverted; but ascribed the ascendancy of Montagu to his intellectual superiority; ordered his salary from the hour of his dismissal to be paid; and claimed the credit of great moderation in not sending him back to his office. The generous testimony of Sir John in Montagu's favor was quoted to condemn his dismission. The despatch containing these sentiments was placed in the hands of Montagu, who, with natural exultation, sent it out instantly to his friends. He had preserved minutes of his interviews with Lord Stanley, and recorded his own severe reflections on the character of Lady Franklin. These memoranda, bound together, were sent by Mr. Montagu to the colony, and, although circulated with some reserve, became very generally known. The governor complained bitterly of this covert detraction, and especially of the attack on the character of his wife, whom he solemnly vindicated from that interference with public business charged upon her. No one who reads the dispute will deem it necessary to weigh nicely the reproaches which were current on either side. To destroy or be destroyed is the usual choice of official war; and Montagu had not been bred in a school where more generous maxims prevail. He had conquered; and the feelings of the governor or his partisans were not likely to be treated with tenderness. Sir John is perhaps the only man who ever accompanied a dismissal with eulogy, and the result of his candour will probably prevent its imitation.

To Lord Stanley more blame must be attached. It was his duty to care for the reputation of a governor whom he did not instantly recall. But his despatch was in print long before it reached the hands of Franklin, and must have been fatal to his proper authority had not popular sympathy sustained his government. Before Sir John received an official notice of his recall his successor arrived. On this abrupt termination of his office he obtained private lodgings in haste. The Legislative Council, then sitting—the various churches and literary societies, expressed their admiration of his personal character, and, more sparingly, their approval of his administration. He was attended, on his departure, by a considerable party of northern colonists. Sir John, in reply to their addresses, spoke with some warmth of that portion of the press which had libelled his wife,—a lady devoted to the welfare of the colony; whose last act was to settle property on an institution for scientific uses; whose benevolence was unbounded, and who, at a large sacrifice of her private fortune, had ministered to the comforts of the poor. Had it been consistent with his duty, he said, he would have gladly exposed to the whole people his most secret measures. He declared that he would never fail to uphold the reputation and to promote the prosperity of the colony. The frank and humane temper of Sir John Franklin won the affections of the settlers. He thought favorably of their general character, appreciated their moral worth, and shared in their notions of convict discipline. The insults of which he complained were the acts of a few: a philosopher would have smiled where he deprecated; and have felt that the salary of office is not more certain than the enmities which surround it.

The alleged ascendancy of Lady Franklin in public affairs it would be useless to discuss. Her masculine intellect and adventurous spirit led some to ascribe to her more than the usual authority of her sex and station; but whenever apparent, her influence was exercised on the side of religion, science, and humanity.

The appointment of Franklin to this government was made at the instance of William IV., by whom he was greatly esteemed. It was the expectation of Sir John to find an easy retreat, like some of the military governments, where veterans enjoy the dignity of office without its toils. But he found himself doomed to encounter all the responsibilities of ordinary legislation and government, with difficulties peculiar to a penal colony. For this his former pursuits had not prepared him. His manner was often embarrassed and hesitating, and presented a contrast to the quiet vigor of his more able but not more amiable predecessor. The colony had attained that development when the public institutions require reconstruction, and the popular will must in some measure regulate their form and spirit. The administration of the governor was eminently disinterested. He had no private speculations or secret agents, and his measures were free from both the taint and the reproach of corruption. Such faults were sometimes imputed, but they were the staple slanders of writers without credit or name. His expenditure greatly exceeded his official income; and while the plainness of his establishment and entertainments was the topic of thoughtless censure, the charities of his family were scattered with a liberal hand. The piety of Franklin was ardent, and his conscience scrupulous. His remarks in council on the sports of some idle boys in the government domain on the Lord's Day exposed him to the satire of scorners. He thought that youths who violate the sanctity of the Sabbath take the first ordinary steps in a dissolute and dishonest life. An anecdote, on the authority of Captain Back, shows his harmless character in a striking light.[230] The writer observes—"As an illustration of the excellent individual to whom it refers, I may be pardoned for introducing it here. It was the custom of Sir John Franklin never to kill a fly, and though teased with them beyond expression, especially when taking observations, he would gently desist from his work, and patiently blow the half gorged intruders from his hands, saying, 'The world is wide enough for both.' Manfelly (an Indian chief) could not refrain from expressing his surprise that I should be so unlike the 'old chief' who would not destroy a single mosquito."

The name of Franklin is indissolubly connected with the great problem of modern geography—the connection of the polar seas with the north pacific ocean. In 1818 he was first employed in this service, but returned without success. In 1820 he conducted an overland expedition to the Coppermine River. This party suffered every kind of hardship, from the loss of boats and the mutiny of their attendants: several perished, having eaten their old shoes and scraps of leather: yet Franklin recorded in his journal the following grateful expressions—"We looked to the great author and giver of all good for the continuance of the support hitherto supplied in our greatest need." They completed a journey of 5,550 miles. The narrative of this expedition excited at the time much admiration, as a rare example of intrepidity, perseverance, and elevated piety.[231] In 1824 Franklin was entrusted with the charge of another expedition. They were attacked by the Indians, and the party was saved from destruction by the coolness and judgment of the leaders: they encountered storms, fogs, and cold, which prevented their reaching their destination. These efforts considerably enlarged the scientific knowledge of the icy region. On his return to England in 1843, it was resolved to confide to Sir John Franklin a new effort to discover the north-west passage. Accompanied by Captain Crozier, he sailed in May, 1845. The vessels—the Erebus and Terror—were furnished with provisions and artificial fuel for four years. They were last seen by whalers in Lancaster's Sound.

In 1847 the long absence of Franklin and the 136 persons under his command awakened considerable alarm. English expeditions, both by land and water, a reward of £20,000 offered by parliament, and the earnest co-operation of foreign powers, have done all that money, or daring, or affection could accomplish to solve the mystery of their fate. Though these efforts are not even now (1852) relinquished, the issue has ceased to be regarded with hope;—except by Lady Franklin, whose exertions to rouse and prolong the search have excited the sympathy and admiration of nations.

FOOTNOTES: