Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

THE CATHEDRAI; ACRE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SOUTH ABBTRAMAH REGISTER.
Six -The late temporary triumph of the anti-grant
section of the community— obtained by means now
sufficiently appreciated, and which, therefore, need
Tint liftrft rm nhamntomvari—liaa it. nnnpnrs ftmhol
dened a few of our opponents to attempt to wrest,
if possible, from the Church of England the acre in
Victoria-square, granted to that body for a Cathedral;
while in your editorial article of yesterday, with a
view of preventing efforts to procure the erection of
the proposed Church, you broadly assert that ' the
recent resolution of the Standing Committee of the
Diocesan Assembly can scarcely be otherwise re
garded than as a wilful indifference to public
opinion, and an almost incredible, blindness to public
equity.'
The Diocesan Committee is composed of men who
are not likely either gratuitously to brave public
opinion, or wilfully to perpetrate an act of public in
justice. While, however, they are individually and
as a body incapable of inflicting wrong, they are
prepared to advise the Episcopal authorities to allow
of no injury being done to their communion under
the pretext that the maintenance of what they
believe to be their just rights would be constructively
a defiance of public opinion.
Assuming, however, for argument's sake, public
opinion to be of such sovereign potency as virtually
to annul Acts of the Imperial Parliament, and to un
settle, from time to time, grants of land made under
guidance of such Acts, by her Majesty's representa
tive, I should like to be informed wiiere and when
spoke this oracle — public opinion — on the subject in
question? Not snvely in the Legislative Council in
December, 1851, when its members, losing sight of
their legitimate duties, and regardless of their para
mount obligation to uphold imperial law, vainly
determined, in the face of such law, that the Lieute
nant-Governor of the province had no authority to
dispose of the squares of the city. Nor will it, I
presume, be pretended that two misinformed or mis
guided members of the ? Town Council — one
of whom expressed himself convinced of the
validity of our title by the gratuitous asser
tions made in 'An Old Colonist's' first letter,
while the other coolly proposed summarily to dis
possess us by converting the boundary stones of the
acre in question into metal for roads ! It will not
be pretended that these men give expression to the
public sentiment. Nor, pardon me, Mr. Editor,
highly as I value the South Australian Register as a
faithful chronicler of daily news, can I give even to
it the distinguished hoivmr of being the exponent,
in the matter in question, of the public opinion. Where
then, is to be found that expression of public senti
ment to which, you assert, the Diocesan Standing
Committee has shown such wilful indifference ?
You, moreover, assert that the resolution of the
Committee is to be further regarded as ' an almost
incredible blindness to public equity.'
Now, if I rightly construe this somewhat am
biguous phraseology, you intend to say that the
Diocesan Committee is unable to discern the just
claims of the public to the use of a small space— say
one-eighth of an acre — in Victoria-square, which it
is proposed to cover with an ornamental building, to
be dedicated to the service of God. If, however, as
we are prepared to show, the acre in question — in-
dicated on every authorized map of the city, and
never formally objected to as a site for a cathedral
church — was, by competent authority, conveyed to
the Bishop of Adelaide for such purpose in 1848,
how are public rights infringed by the Committees
recommending that site for the purpose for which
it was apparently always intended, and at length
legally conveyed ? No, Sir, the members cf the
Diocesan Committee are not blind to the rights of
their fellow-colonists : they respect law, and will, I
trust, ever seek to be guided in their public as well
as private conduct by principles of equity. But they
will not yield to groundless pretensions and lawless
menaces. Strong in the conviction of our possessing
an equitable claim as well as legal title to the acre in
question, you may rest assured that nothing short of
an order from the Home Executive, disallowing the
act of Governor Robe, would inrtuce the Committee
to recommend the authorities of the Church of Eng
land to relinquish it.
I shall not at present attempt to argue the question
of our equitable title to the Cathedral site, but I
would strongly urge upon every person interested
thoroughly to investigate the matter.
Hoping that you, Sir, will see cause for qualifying
the statement of which I complain, and that any
further discussions relative to the acre in question
may be characterized by at least the absence of
everything that is needlessly irritating,
I am, Sir, &c,
EQUITAS.
P.S. — After all that may bo said about public
opiuion, I am strongly induced to think that a fine
Gothic Church in Victoria -square would be consi
dered by a vast majority of our worthy fellowciti
zens as an acceptable addition in several points of
view.
$