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.