Demands on the treasury for the erection of churches and support of the clergy perplexed the executive. The ordinary revenue showed symptoms of declension, and the council passed a bill which declared that new imposts were impracticable, and vested a discretionary power in the government to refuse assistance to any new undertaking (1841). Thus the principle of the church act was subverted, and the grant of money for purposes of religion confided solely to the impartiality of the administration. The voluntary efforts of the different sects largely supplemented the legal provision. Churches of respectable architectural pretensions were rapidly multiplied. The wesleyans, independents, and baptists raised buildings for worship in the more important townships. Many private persons expended large sums for these purposes. 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]