The History of Tasmania, Volume I

by John West

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.