We have by this desp. [learned] of the formal
appointment of
M Crickmer by the B of
London to an office called "the Colonial Chaplaincy" of which
the Sec. of State knows nothing, but which if it existed at
all
w be a appointment by the Colonial Minister & not by
the bishop of London. It
w be therefore desirable to know
1 whether the B of London did ever give such
credentials—2 to see copies of them—3 to have it
distinctly understood that they convey no authority under which
M
Crickmer can
claim particular power or privileges.
The history of the case is this—the S.P.G. applied last year
for assistance to their endeavour which they were then making
to meet the religious destitution of the Colony. We
declined on the ground of a want of funds but offered their
missionary a free passage which was accepted. The Church
Missionary So
c then in turn made the same request
which was answered in the same terms but they declined the
passage.
M Gammage, who was
first appointed has sailed—but meanwhile it appears that
M
Crickmer has anticipated him by going out on his own account & armed
with the B of London's credentials seems likely to
monopolise whatever ecclesiastical preferment—little
enough I s think—there may be in the Colony &—which
mainly concerns us—
to assume an official position as
the Colonial Chaplain which the Sec. of State has
not conferred. It must be borne in mind that there is now
a bishop for
B. Columbia and that no ecclesiastical
arrangement ought to be agreed to as permanent until he can
reach his own See and decide for himself. I cannot but
suspect in this affair some desire on the part of
M Crickmer
to forestall every other clergyman who might be bound for the
Colony & to secure for himself a priority of position—which
it
w be very undesirable to concede without full consideration.
I
w therefore guard this point in your
reply to the Gov desp. and I
w write to the B of
London to ask for information as to the nature of the
credentials which he is said to have given to
M Crickmer.