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]