James Bonwick, The Last of the Tasmanians; Or, the Black War of Van
Diemen’s Land, London, pp. 154-155
1
When all were getting ready, the Governor thought it proper that the
blessing of Heaven should be implored upon the expedition. Prayers were
ordered to be offered up for this object on the Sunday before setting out.
While those employing freedom of language in public ministrations were
left to their own mode of carrying out this obligation, the Episcopalians of
the colony were agitated upon the propriety of the form to be adopted. As
their spiritual head — their Bishop — resided several thousands of miles off,
at Calcutta, and the Archdeacon in another country, this additional call upon
their devotions was committed to the care of the Chaplain, the Rev. W.
Bedford. That good man, without doubt, prepared a very suitable form of
supplication, but which, nevertheless, subjected him to public criticism.
While entreating the Divine favour on behalf of an enterprise which
would, if successful, be attended with the blood-shedding of the Natives, an
urgent request was offered for their speedy conversion to Christianity. This
was held to be slightly inconsistent with the principles of the New
Testament, though admitted to be agreeable to the practice of Christian
governments. It might not be unlike the conduct of the warlike Bishop of
Norwich, who, after making Wat Tyler’s rebels kneel and confess their sins,
very episcopally gave them absolution, and afterwards very baronially
ordered their throats to be cut.
1
Cited in Anglicanism in Australia. A History (B.N. Kaye ed.; Melbourne: Melbourne University Press,
2002) p. 226 & 340 n. 31.
But pretended exception was taken as to the prayer itself. It was
called by one paper “a great constitutional error.” Then there was blame
attached to the chief clerk of the Colonial Secretary’s department for not
transmitting it to the Government printer, or to that functionary for not
publishing it. It was declared “of importance to know who were the clergy
by whom the English Bench of Bishops were represented.” The ritualistic
fervour of the writer led him further to say, “However unimportant may be
the mere wording of such a prayer, yet it is of importance that the public
should know by whom it was composed. There is nothing connected with
the Church, not even [155] the Articles of its Faith, so jealously looked after
as the Liturgy.” Another political moralist, at the end of this unfortunate
expedition, referred to the blasphemy of this Address to the Deity, and the
hypocritical hope of engaging the services of Heaven in the cause of
injustice and cruelty, and added, “the very arrogance, presumption, and
impiety of this special prayer ensured its defeat.”