The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1865-05-06

Church Missionary Society nor the R5man Catholic
Pr0psganda appear TO have been hampeTei by
any such limitations. However that may tie, II
seems 10 an outsider that they might have followed
the example Of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
putting this unfortunate SOLITARY clergyman" IN
der the oversight Of the Bishop Of California.
In consequence Of the above consultation, as is
stated in the published sermon. {" representations
were made through the proper channel of the ad-
vantages 10 the church, which would result from
sending out = Bishop. At the same time no addi-
tonal guarantees in the way Of support were required
from His Majesty than those which he had already
pledged. Early in the year 1861 he
wrote an autograph letter TO Her Majesty Queen
Victoria This was just a year after the first letter
had been sent. y document Of so much historical
interest as the autograph letter referred 10, should
certainly be published 10 the world.
II will be observed that the Bishops statements
fully confirm the main point contended for. viz,
that the idea Of sending out a Bishop did not 0rigi-
nate with the King Of Hawaii, but in England.
. Representations were made through the proper
chanael'' is rather 4 vague expression. Cannot
this correspondence be exhumed from the dusty files
Of tue foreign Office, and given TO the public
On the receipt Of his letters in the spring of 1860,
Mr.. Manley Hopkins seems to have commenced pre-
pairing his work on the Hawaiian Islands, which was
published two years after in June 1862, with q pre-
face by the Bishop of Oxford. Its principal object
no doubt was to draw public attention in England
to these islands, and thus to aid the project Of estab-
fishing here a branch of the . United Church Of
-@ASAsld dLAA AANaA4A- ~ dAACA NdAdS III ANANAS
appeared in an English paper, foreshadowing the
whole plan which has since been carried out.
Several months after MIR. Hopkins " self-consti-
tu;ed committee" had been at work, DR.. Anderson
wrote to His Grace, the late Archbishop Of Canter
bury, stating strongly the objections to such a
scheme. and entreating him to use his influence to
dissuade the venerable Society for the Propagation
OF the Gospel from extending its operations 10 the
North Pacific. To this letter the Archbishop replied,
under date of Sept. %, 1860, that he had been igno-
rant of the plan until the receipt of DR.. AS letter,
but that on inquiry he found it 10 be true " that cor
tain individuals had formed themselves into u COM
mitttee for the purpose of taking advantage Of the
proposal of the King of Hawaii, and with the uIti-
mate view of establishing a Bishop on the Polyne-
sian Islands," Here we not only see where the plan
originated, but also that the Archbishop Of Canter-
bury trst heard of it from DR.. Anderson. Neither
was the plan laid before either Of the two great Mis-
.ionary Societies Of the Church of England, or before
the Missionary Society of the American Episcopal
Church. Immediately after MIR. Ellis interview
with Mr.. Hopkins, he waited upon the Secretary Of
the Colonial Church and School Society, with whom
he left copies Of the letters from Messrs. Wyllie and
Armstrong, and Of Mr.. Hopkins circular. They
were submitted to the Executive Committee of the
Society. and to DR.. TAFT, the worthy Bishop of Lon
don, who cordially approved of the plan first pro.
posed to Mr.. Ellis. This is confirmed by the report
of that Society for the next year. That he was also
opposed to the plan of sending out a Bishop was
affirmed in an editorial Of the EveniHg Standard, as
late az Nov. IA, 1861.
As Bishop Staley informs us, on page "a. soon after
HIS tate Majesty = letter 10 queen ' lCtOrla nau Deeu
received. in April, 1861, a debate took place in the
House of Convocation of Prelates of the province of
Canterbury, on the subject Of Missionary Bishops,
in the course of which the Bishop of Oxford publicly
announced His Majesty's acceptance of the offer to
send him a Bishop. and also said that he had received
letters from Bishops Kip and Potter, approving Of
the measure, and promising that the American Epis-
copal Church would support one or two Missionary
clergy to work with the English Bishop. \ circular
was then issued, which must not be COMPOUNDED with
the one drawn up by Mr. Hopkins a year before, and,
considering the circumstances, it is not surprising
that some of the most honored names in England
were obtained for it. The following August, rs Mr..
Ellis wrote, g disappointed in one or two individuals
whom they deemed suitable, that section of the
Church Of England of which the Bishop of Oxford,
BerestOrd Hope and others are representatives,, have
appointed a Bishop Of Hawaii, sc. This means, |
suppose, that that section of the Church of England
characterized by extreme ritualism took the enter
prise ander their especial patronage, and controlled
the selection of the Bishop. if not of his subordinates.
The Charge that in is origin this Mission did not
proceed from any recognized body of Christians is
not fairly answered by the flourish of titles on the
18th page. 1t is true that indtUifuGlS connected
with various religious bodies were connected with
the enterprise in different ways, but the measure did
not proceed from either Of the great religious SOcie-
ties of the Church, nor is it now under their control,
though two OF them have since voted an annual sub
sdy to 1t. The originators of the scheme did not al
low their doings, their plans and prospects to be
published to the world or discussed at great public
meetings, as is usual in Protestant Missionary enter
prises.
1t may be that the opposition of the Bishop of Lon
don and others only related TO a matter of form, but
it seems that five months elapsed after the nomina-
ton of the Bishop before the Royal License was OBJ
tanned. This license proceeded from the Foreign
Office, and was signed by Earl Russell, a circum-
stance which Of itself gave the appointment the ap-
pearance at least, of a political character. 1t is not
strange then, that Bishop Staley is regarded by some
as virtually an officer of the British Government, re.
presenting as he does in this kingdom, " the united
Church of England and Ireland whose head is Her
Majesty Queen Victoria. As the Bishop in accord
ance with his views must regard himself as holding
exclusive sovereignty by Divine Right over all Christ
iaus in the dominions of the King of Hawaii, it is of
some Importance for US to know his exact status. Is
he an irresponsible spiritual despot, from whose deci-
sions there is to be no appeal? And if there is any
appeal, where can it be carried except to the English
ecclesiastical judicatories? And if (may the day be
far distant) il ever be necessary to appoint his sue
cessor, will he not have 20 be consecrated in the same
way by a Royal License from the British Sovereign :
The irresistible conclusion is that enthusiastically. We
are a subject province of Great Britain, by the extern
sion over US Of its State Church.
ITO be continuel.l