The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1864-03-26
Correspondence of the Pacific Coml Advert iser
The Titles of Bishops, sc.

SIR I'm your issue Of the 10Th inst. is a letter
signed "Kuaaina,' in reference to the titles of Bish-
ops. and protesting to seek information on the subject.
Your correspondent apparently is not very we'll
acquainted with the position of Bishops in England.
He says: " English Bishops are really Lords, having
equal seats with other Peers in the House of Lords,
but as mere Bishops have no claim to the title"
This is Incorrect. All Bishops are addressed in England
as Lords, some by their right as Peers, others by
courtesy. All the English Bishops are not Peers.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are always
Peers. and so are the Bishops of London, Durham
and Winchester. The rest Except Sodor and Man)
take their seats in the House of Lords by Seniority,
and every Junior Bishop Except he should ha ppen
to be of London, Durham or Winchester) remains
without a seat in The Lords until n vacancy is created.
But every English Bishop. whether a Peer or not, is
addressed as my Lord and is entitled to it by
courtesy as much az the eldest son of every Peer
above the rank Of Viscount, and the younger sons of
all Peers above the rank of Earl. Every Colonial
Bishop is entitled by courtesy to be addressed as
my Lord and so are the Missionary Bishops, of
whom DR.. Staley is one. Such is the title by which
ne would be addressed in England. OF the status
Of the reAaFRFfaha yGdanthbRaaiffe veeIiSyf French Bishop, although
in France there is no state church. is addressed as
q Monsigneur," (my Lord.) The legal decision to
which your correspondent refers, is no doubt in one
sense correct. All Bishops are not legal Lords, a. e.
Peers-meDbers Of the House of Lords.) But there
are many titular Lords, not Peers, whose courtesy
titles are recognized in English law. In legal docu.
men,s in which the name Of a ComInoner having q
courtesy title occurs, the wording is thus 90 John
Smith, Esq, better known rs the Earl Of Smith
town -. John Jones, Esq, better known as Lord
John jones'" OF thus - The honorable John
Smith, better known as" &C. The honorable
John Jones, better known sc. The former is,
according TO Blackstone. the more correct (You
will observe how the law recognizes the courtesy
title.) All English judges OF the Superior Courts
them are Peers. The present Chief Justice of Eng.
lend Queens Bench, who is a Baronet by descent,
and OF course a knight by creation, (for they are all
knighted, } is addressed as /" Iy Lord;' yet be is not
a Peer. There are many anomalies in British titles
Lord Palmerston, for instance, is n Commoner in
might be filled on the subject, which would perhaps
but little interest the general reader.
Let me sum up what L have said thus that eour-
tesy titles are recognized by law; that the Anglican
Bishop here, if he went home 20 England, would be
addressed as my Lord and is as much entitled
thereto as any Bishop of an English Diocese who has
not a seat in the House OF Lords, Of whom there are
always at least two. | do not wish to fill your columns
with a long argument on the value of honorary dis
Great writer's on the subject have always
held that in a free monarchy, rank and title are
Would your correspondent deny the
title of g Esquire" to all who are not 'Esquires by
in the same way that he would deny the title
of - Lord 10 all who are net Peers? Would he
con6ne the title I" Reverend" to it's narrowest limits?
l fear | have already ~trespassed at too great length
upon your columns, but your correspondent processes
to seek information on the sabject, and if l have
afforded him or the community any, my object will
have been answered.
am. sir. your obedient servant,
Honolulu, March Oath. 1864.