b’vv\,1uIllL£l1L uuciueu U11 21 new estabnsn_ glgglt ulgdflr Dadvld A11311_lCl~V-l. Broughton .3 e eputy-assistant-commissary- general in Iune 1813, but on Macquariers further strong recommendation in 1814 he. was promoted acting-assistant-commig. saiy-general at a salary of £365. In M33’ 1815 BT°U811t0D, who had been a magistrate since November 1809 clashed with]. H. Bent [q.v.] when with Alexandcr R119)’ lq-V-l he wished to all t€111P0Ya1’11Y. eX—convict attorneys to appoeglf ES agents before the newly established upreme Court. Bent did not forget this dispute and in Iune 1816 had Brou ht arrested for contempt when he regfusmd to return a servant who had been legally transferred from Mrs Ellis Bent’s em 1 to Broughton’s. Bent’s action was held ‘fy be illegal and in refusing him bail Ben‘; have bcha"°d in 3“ ungent1e- Broughton was soon in trouble a ' . . . gain When. In 11113’ 1815 MaCqUa1'1e sent him to relieve P. Hogan [q.v.] at Hobart Tow and. Correct abuses ‘in the commissariarf the”-‘~ 1'16 (1): igagggz‘ ::1pacit:t§lr helwciluld be required to counten- Would provide ‘a good Classical scientific coiifiertlifvithméir fgighedidd End 130- act ‘m and reli ious d t‘ ’ - - our 9 "1 5333" pprents ign ClICeH]l1l(f.la(ll1(?nZ11'itCT Iii1g(liei'orir;SinI?£ lgrigingnuiiubligctsiiiibeorfmfposfid System of 0 life’; there would be no religious tst f . . . ° "Ce Separate but the mat d th . _ . 9 5 011715 Of T€hg19I1. and possibly also to be Ang“CaI§L0_1i§h:11p1an6“i;:1§t;1iCi§ti:1<:i‘ieWt<;%ltfl every congregation of dissenters and laws to many Sydney residents or to the Pliesb A gifirian the same p,-inciplqu, The Colonial terian’ DI Lang [QM]. The Colonial Oflige , t ‘cc impatiently disclaimed an ijntention gave a belated approval but Bourke did his t§ln1cI.I:1pgie:li;y1ici(§iigm'0n uportl yliur mfhp’ best to limit official support he disliked 1‘ - ‘ mic’ or 0 em” 5 religious 8 I .7 3 I _iee exercise of your jlldgment , _ _ either sidizing «KS §.fi§°é‘fS.ie‘2‘i§1h3bE:°.§1‘.§i‘ii§{’.i.‘§.‘21 1 },‘;.O3;g;;§of1i;1Sf,gI;;}m°1' Ieoslaofe dcapafgy Civil Servants of the Government while r 3 were YCSO V9 an e the and f d _ was. conseci'ated_bisIiop of Australia (the mere ]Hd$/bllso uhedeIio0rC:brr(iV'i:iuCa8Cl1i Hl ongmal :mg3°5“°“' New South W3153 in seam. 1833 iii- I::‘i:1%..%;:;“.a:a.:°.:.‘:i. ‘:i.°i9r ma lowed this protest with a scl f h - ‘ C 3 ace C 3 introduction of Stanley's Ii‘iblimeNaotrioha(l g¥t£rC1l,1,1,’1Si‘}§’,§’ E21?/Oley off CIuant§rbur-$7?‘- system of popular education. At the same ch t (1 GI I PS 0 on on’ ‘m- timc he proposed that th ld es er an oiicester. Broughton arrived divisions of Christians’, thee cl1ifi'ccIi%1smb(f 1 Ehdkwldssbficihlifrycilndtllc gmndm Em 2 I113: England, Scotlafnd ahnd Rpme, should re— three days later Sldlmutelllldlniissderfhm ceive payment or t eir ccr y and build- On his}. t . B 1 ‘ ‘. elf ings on a sliding scale the ormer in pro- excl d d fe um mug-mm. found hum - ' . he Le islativ d E'ecu- portion to local population the latter to tiveuCE r‘l)m t ‘g C an X - - . ' by a riilin of (I v {S private contributions. Although some new le al 1(()lm'm S I g ‘C gmemo , « . En landhcl d eedto arrangement had been made necessary by h'g 'V1-SerSf.n g .1" 33' . the Order in Council 4 February 1833 bls (lnnlmon mm 8 remnmmted Counal - - 1 » had secured (‘I I ' his dissolving the corporation this 1‘ M 1C ' ’ em gs assent to . v P0 Icy was ineinbershi of the it’ t’ b kc resisted by Broughton The concession that ' P" 6‘ ls mg Ody‘ Bout . —. ‘ - *1 d Brou liton’s ' ' b final] the Anglicans might retain evistin school lrqilrette ' g mS'St.°”C° “t Y buildings did not mollify him iii: could I -13 t° gm’ "Y‘*Y~ Meanwhile the governor . - duced his Irisl d ‘ allow that onlv his church as the re I intro * *‘ V I C ucanonal system . , v ~ pre- 1 into the council. Brou ht h d ch sentative of the national establishment Svd " g on- 3 tea should receive full oificial recognition and 3 Hey m 3 much Shorter “me than we r . Id have ventured to ’ d was SUDP0rt. He was fully prepared to admit I Cgll k - expect an toleration but not religious equality E e to- ta e 3 leading part In the General B h _- _ ommrttee of Protestants which fought .. .,:‘;‘:.‘:’.:;’*:.:eii.:2;°.‘:.:°.i5i%Esitaifti: I §1‘i3:§l“i§§i’i§a§;‘:f.,,,T,‘,*egyagfied apgrofl ‘ * ' y e oman at 160 ...._ 0- _: M g :.i«.I aroused formidable Protestant op- : :.~m. Th egislative Council, with ., .__=liton stiii excluded, voted money for ,;-‘res plan but the public reaction, skil- _ .~ exploited by the bishop, had been too :.g for much to be expended. In 1839 'Li'II0I‘ Gipps proposed that the British ' 3 Foreign School system be introduced. . 2." August Brougliton, now restored the legislature, resisted it in what was ' .ibly the finest speech of his career. He longer enjoyed general Protestant sup- :. though the Roman Catholic clergy :-«.5:-d Gipps’s policy; so, ‘faced with a szne which was clearly Protestant, but 5 with the spiritual institutions of Engla 7.. Broughton’s main concern was up -- vide the colonies under his Jurisnictit; '\II/hile he agreed that the colonial ‘chug; had a missionary duty and the necessxj-' to promote its physical expansion, he coy.- sidered that its chief task was to S21IiCfl."_f and uphold the social structure. This re- quired not undisciplined evangelists b:_;_: men of ‘temperate and professional ardou: ordained clergy rather than lay preachers; A regular church involved a regular :12: ordered colonial society. His conviction 1:: this point made Broughton reluctant :.: condone ‘liberal’ policies which he cr::»- sidered might endanger the fragile Aug- inimical to his aims, he had to don his former allies and take his ‘- :..I upon the distinctive nature of _;l1'can doctrine’. Gipps did not press - polint but Broughton’s victory was not :'il( LITC. Tti I844 the new part-elective Legislative ::1cil, of which Brougliton was not a xiber, appointed a committee to inquire "1 the state of education. The committee 1 fcrted the introduction of a version of Irish system and the council gave its ‘ ‘ ~ ';‘i al. Broiighton upheld his educational ion in his triennial visitation charge—— , most lengthy and learned of these 1 .u-pal pronouncements’—and before the tnittee itself, but the coiincil’s decision ' i1‘ust1'z1tcd by Gipps’s refusal to imple- f‘: it. The governor's attitude was ex- .::r_d ofhcially by the clergy’s unwilling- ’ to co-operate in a general system; it ::()l)2{l)lC that his defeat in 1839 had '-'1l‘iCCd Gipps on this point. Robert Iq.v.l, in the Atlas, immediately "Bed Gipps’s intransigencc to Brough- ' ff persuasion and followed this in May '4) with a charge that the governor and bishop had a pact whereby the re— 3 ‘vmonopoly of education was to be 'V':.1i'V.i‘Z1In(‘(l in return for Broughton's sup- . it for Gipps’s land policy. Although long __'-”- > VJ I l 161 Wiseinan to the new archbishopric of Wesuninster. In his controversy with \Viseinan, Broughton tried to define royal supremacy and to deny that it involved the subordination of the church to the secular state. But he had always expressed reservations about the degree of practical control exercised by the government over the chaplains and the clash of jurisdictions that this might, and in Van Diemen’s Land did, involve. The Tractarians’ insis- tence on the spiritual autonomy of the church helped to give a sense of the basic independence of colonial Anglicanism; it was not simply the ecclesiastical depart- ment of the state. The sacramental teach- ings of the Tractarians and their emphasis on the church as the means of grace were welcomed by Broughton; he was always concerned lest the church should fail to assert its corporate nature and divine mis- sion in the raw colonial society where secular influences predominated. Broughton regarded himself as a patron rather than a follower of the Tractarian clergy. He was anxious to introduce ‘young men brought up in their princiiles’ into his diocese, and to give them preferment where this might be done without estranging the existing clergy or making a show of his virtually unlimited authority in making appointments. He was unsuccessful in avoiding criticism, especially from the laity. There were accusations of ‘Puseyite’ tendencies, of episcopal tyranny and clerical authoritarianism. Some of the charges were unfounded: those by Robert Lowe in the Atlas were iniscliievous in intent and others simply reflected current discontent with the constitutional position of the colonial Church of England. The otfertory issue was raised in 1847, as else- where in the empire. The conversion of Revs. R. K. Sconce and and T. C. Makinsoii [qq.v.l to Roman Catholicism in 1848 provoked a bitter controversy, in which Broughton was not supported w1iole- heartedly by all his clergy. The senior minister, William Cowper [q.v.l, who had just been made archdeacon, was notably lukewarm. Broughtoii’s conception of the role of the church, perhaps on account of its Tractarian connexions, was sometimes misinterpreted and not always popular. But these considerations were generally subordinated in the 18403 to the question of church expansion. In the year after his entlironeinent his project, and (' 'ernor Bourke laid the stone anew neai le same place at the old George Street burial ground. In the prosperous times good progress was made, but it faltered with the depression and revived only in 1850. Broughton did not see his cathedral completed, but used St Iames’s until a temporary wooden church, the second on the site, was built in 1842 as the pro—cathedra1. Broughton had some success with parish churches and schools, of which he was an indefatigable promoter. Although the Acts of 183637 gave material impetus to church expansion, Broughton’s organizing ability and lengthy travels proved invaluable in a situation where the population was newly arrived and thinly spread. During his episcopate Broughton consecrated or dedicated almost a hundred church buildings on the Aus- tralian mainland. Of more immediate importance was the supply of clergy. Broughton considered that his church was losing ground after 1833 in recruiting men for the colonial His visit to England next year was promp ted in part by his need to speed the supply. He had little personal success, but he made important contacts with the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. The help of the society and the provisions of the Church Acts led to a steady flow of pros- pective ministers, some already in priests orders, others to be ordained by Broughton. Although the colonial Treasury grants soon slackened and fresh subsidies from the society were not made after 1847, the bis1iop’s position was relieved. Few of the new men had had long English experience and they settled into their Australian parishes without undue difliculty. Some resented the lack of security in their liv- ings and their dependence on the bishop; but with several notable exceptions the)’ maintained good, if not close, relations with Broughton. Broughton soon realized that his diocese needed to train its own ordinands. His own attempts as archdeacon to promote clerical education had been as unsuccess as Archdeacon Sc0tt’s, but the support that he received from English supporters after 1835. made :1 renewed effort possible. A large grant f1'QII1ttl1C Society for the Propa- gation of the Gospel in 1840 was used t0 support a grammar school and in 1845 a theological college at St Iames’s, Sydney- Brougliton began to build his cathedral. Macquarie had laid the foundation stone Andrew in 1819 but Commissioner Bigge [q.v.l had very soon stopped the work on The college moved to Lyndhiirst, The Glebe, in 1847 and eight of its student$ were ordained before it closed in 1849- St Iames’s College. He himself retain his early interest in scholarship and he saV_V I of a great metropolitan church of St Broughton had entertained high hopes f0‘ i i it. Broughton enlisted strong support for i 162 n the college his best chance to c0nimum' 9: -.—--.~ W-....._ . «:6- .v-. .. -444"!-t .1 .a a heavy blow to Broughton. He Wrote it. lllc tcauiuis uh u» ,——-»--v— — ‘ 1111 to cover reccet developments. .111 “may as well as t standard banalities indiavinity course. This led to complaints . ‘"1 the Atlas that Broughton was trY1}18 "Wyn the college into a Tractarian . ’m_,hO1d, andoa charge by Rev. A.-£11 [q.v.] in 1849 that _R€V.d ériné .,:ice had taught the Tridentine OCH nstification. The failure of the co ege ' created at Adelaide. isrougiituii uau u.3~.~— to surrender a portion of his own srt:Pet‘l11‘(la from the Treasury to help Sullig‘? Castle Melbourne and later the ewof his bishopric. He ‘could not secureumen esflhe personal choice. as. his Cti) ezégjlxlnwood bungled the nomination of R0 it t he Web [q.v.] to M0rpeth-1\ewcastle—- ud T ell corned the selection of Perry an . Y1’? He even hlintgd tligt, S:"c‘3CTe‘:dh‘}51iIIf1r1eI}‘le . - I . v V‘ Edward Colerltdhge’ hls vlslrlalrliltesdf Egililsll llilidfddreggnerhigenew oflice dof bigholp oi gworter, ‘as to e . . . g _ ’ , . ' En lan to e ea W niagadued ‘°.f“i‘.’f§i;;f2é “:33: §id.“:2.u:;‘3.::*:::.;‘:.g for coignal "“"’”'y use See no 8 ’ ' ’ ‘ B tBroughton now metropoi an, - ."1lSl1'1 well for the work of the Minis- service. 11 ' . ism ate yet lg“? he W“ azfimsssiiéaizl £‘:“.a:.3::e*“ ‘”“ °‘ his ” C} i genera institu ion a ' . -- na joceses ‘ijd tried to have trust funsls released 'Th(l tf O(lnt1l(‘l:tl'i0eI(13(l (fir idéldfllement of the 1. for it. But the ‘foundation of the stimu a em of the Church of England in waslty of Sydney In the same year govemllle Broughton had already foun it an and to his hopes.‘ Bl-Oughtlm jluslla ml. roblems of clerical discipline, ‘.1’.iOI1C(l against its aggress1V€lY‘3€Cu ar “e Ocaycigtion of English canon an ...acter, declaiming that his po1icy‘wa3 the aP11’ ‘W the participation of the hity txaminlng univemty with alfilmte Wltutel asltical matters and the relations lijius teaching Colleges. when thls was Hf Clcc éslla and state to be more and more : ;.‘vt;inted prflomptlfy, he declinedhteo 2S1:IC]:}:: (Oh to Solve Bishop Selwvn of New belated 0 er 0 a Seat 0“ ' 1‘ nod and Perry midicated that his clergy should follow Zealalnd l1i1ld‘:VTe115‘:1t;1at1:i‘:1(:’ Séps to regulate Cxmnpla A Comp}-Omlse was reachlicl l Fhifseof their dioces:s.Bv 1850 Brough- \ I ll ‘wllhfthc inClOlcll(i)rl3i'bOillgl(iloT1t$811113 ll i . r ".?r:::f..1:... i of i::.::n:::.: his best to superintend his vast 111“-9‘ Wnod Wltll t Fmlzg apmared to inhibit —'79n~ 110 bad Visitfd Vim Dlcmcnis Land the royal Sulncl‘ ‘ yBut Broughton. who 1330 and 1833--his relations with Lie?” “Ch. 3 promo Hilgil minated its sessions. .r.rnor Arthur were better than with presided over an ‘(O tg on CC-desiastical ‘ »'.-rnor l’iourke—:ind again in 1838 after intended its statcmcn - 1 . . . ' .1 disci line. €’(lUC3' island had been made an archdeaconry. l‘ government and Cl€r1C”1 1’ tion and missionary action to be perS1121~ sive in the historical developmefit ofréleig emu The '**s“°PS i.°*is:$::..Y.igb... Ycese and where the Cliurch Missionary 0_T1 all l"““t5 ?xF€P‘ tetethgir recommenda- ’ 3:-ty recruits were not quite l‘3DPY t0 Ufmal rcgcilcrdfion’ yeived in tile Sgvcra ‘i'€pt his ininistrations. By 1840 Broui—Zh' l “°“5.W°'° (00 YfieCA mam Tasmania was convinced that local development colonies. In SouIt)h‘“_ U-there -were hostile rid regional differences made essential the and even at Port 111_P.tS that the MN "eation of additional bishoprics. 1-1e co- meeting-S and Compdalgf H e “aim, with "stated with his English friends in pro- were not to be accor e nllilk gf .w‘iSC0pa1 ‘"1111! the Colonial Bishoprics Fund. He the c1ergV? there was]; I dimimjfign o ‘fiistecl in the foundation of the sees of tvrannv’ and a fear oc tneBm“ght0n was IW Zealand (1841) and Tasmania (1842) the Crown s S11p1‘CI‘[1E1t}\1’~the imbact of the M1 advocated a bishopric at Port Phillip. immersed in coD}T1g W‘ d honed that After long negotiation and some changes gold rush on ‘his d10C1€dS€ aglextend to the “ Plan, Broughton secured the appoint- this critical spirit W0}U{ 005 rowing 0 d “Went of bishops at Melbourne and NeW— 1 church at SYdneY~ e “a 5; went to Port Phillip in 1838 and ‘13 and in the former vear _t0‘ NCYV _.alnnd, which did not fall within his 163 Broughton A. D. B. and the troubles of the past few years had taken their toll. The death of his wife and his own serious illness in 1848 had im- paired his energy, though not his resolu- tion. It was a cruel disappointment to find that his form of petition to the imperial ;)arliament——he had rejected local or volun- tary action as i;:co:sti:’;;.*ienal-—\vas sharply censured by parish meetir._:s and opposed by a strong minority at a clerical conference in April 1852. Several weeks 5 later a lay association was formed to pro- mote a counter-petition which ‘deprecated the assumption of clerical supremacy which now threatens [the laity'sl religious freedom’. The lay criticism \vas ill informed about the constitutional difficulties and was prompted as much by the agitation for secular responsible government as by a general mistrust of the bishop's ecclesi- astical policies. The association enlisted considerable support and sent its petition to England with Sir Thomas Mitchell [q.v.] for presentation to the House of Commons by Robert Lowe. Broughton’s attitude to what he regarded as a captious movement was one of dignified aloofness. His own petition had been modified at the instance of his advisers and he remained confident of its success. He had already determined to go to England to discuss the whole question of the future of colonial church government and he thought that his arguments might allay the doubts of the imperial parliament and stifle the criti- cisms of his opponents in New South Wales. Broughton sailed for England in the Snlacia on 16 August 1852. He was obliged to travel by way of South America and it proved an arduous vovage. He landed at Lima, where he held services, travelled to Panama and crossed the Atlantic in a ship on which yellow fever raged. He reached England in November in ill health, but he worked hard to promote a meeting of colonial bishops and to convince \Vhitehall of the constitutional difficulties of his church. Broughton had little time to achieve his object; he died on 20 February 1853 at the London home of I.ady Gipps, widow of the former governor. He was buried in Canterbury Cathedral, the scene of his schooldays, the first post-Reforma- tion bishop to be so honoured. In his panegyric Chief Iustice Stephen said ‘if the late Bishop was not a man universally loved in the colony, he was a man universally respected and esteemed’. There is no doubt that, despite the strong criticism levelled at him, Broughton was honoured for his devotion and probity. His opinions and policy could never be generally acceptable and he did nothing to court an easy popularity. He was a re- served man who made few close friends in New South Wales and his scholarly and precise sermons were scarcely to the colony's taste or understanding. Although hampered by lameness he was indefatigable in travelling and preaching. Broughton’s conception of the nature of the church and his View of its future constitution were far- sighted. It was his Inisfortune that his Tractarian sympathies aroused resentment and hindered his work, often for quite irrelevant reasons. Broughton was not suc- cessful in allaying this opposition, for his High Churcbman's reluctance in the 18303 to acknowledge the changing status of the Church of England was not readily for- gotten, but although he shared some of his faults and errors with other colonial bishops of his time, his virtues remained his own. HRA (1), 15-26; F. T. Whitington, William Grant Broughton (Syd, 1936); R. Border, Church and state in Australia, 1788-1872 (Lond. 1962); M. Roe, Quest for authority in eastern Australia 1835-1851 (Melb, 1965); P. A. Micklem. ‘William Grant Broughton’. IRAHS, 22 (1936); K. Grose, ‘1847: the edu- cational compromise of the Lord Bishop of Australia’, I of Religious History, 1 (1961); I. Barrett, ‘The Gipps-Broughton alliance‘, Hist Studies, no 41, Nov 1963; K. I. Cable. ‘Religious controversies in NS\V~—aspects of Anglicanism’, IRAHS, 49 (1963-64); Act books and registers (Sydney Diocesan Registry); Broughton papers (NL, ML, St Andrew's Cathedral, Syd): SPG papers (ML). K. I. CABLE BROUN (BROWN), PETER NICHOLAS (1797-1846), public servant, was born on 17 August 1797, at Guernsey, Channel Islands, the second son of Sir William Broun, sixth baronet. and his wife Annie, daughter of Peter de Mirgy, colonel of the Guernsey Artillery. He spent his early life in Scotland as a gentleman clerk, and in 1825 married Caroline, daughter of Iames Simpson of Dumfriesshire. VVith recommendations from Sir George Murray and other influential patrons he was nominated by Captain Iames Stirling in December 1828 as secretary of govem- ment for the new settlement at Swan River, and formally appointed next Ianu- ary at a salary of £400. With the gover- nor's party he sailed with.his wife and two children in the-Parmelia, arriving in Western Australia in Iune 3829. The re- gulations for the colonial secretary's ofiice, drafted on the vovage, set out in detail his multifarious duties: dailv consulta- tion with the governor, hours of busi- i ness, recording of correspondence. must-.;. 16A ~-I racflv-" ‘it-""HIFf‘-é‘ .--an-—\—.. .4-u-» - £1