legality.

All this is clear enough. But what does not appear is, why a more
hearty and earnest effort was not made to secure the needed
legislation. No such effort could have been expected from the
authorities of the State. They who cared nothing for an Episcopate
in America before the War of the Revolution, were not likely to
care more for it after the war was ended. If, as they had all
along been led to believe, the idea of an Episcopate was offensive
to the Colonies, it could hardly, they would say, be less
offensive to the States in the first flush of their acknowledged
independence. Nor were influences lacking, either in England or in
America, which were brought to bear in blocking that legislation
without which the English Prelacy declined to act. It is,
therefore, easy to understand the apathy of government. But it is
not so easy to understand, and it is far less easy to justify, the
apparent apathy of those who, it might justly have been thought,
"in view of the sacred deposit committed by the great Head of the
Church to her bishops," would have been heartily disposed to avert
the dangers which darkened the future of the Church in America.
What makes the inaction more inexplicable is, that while these
negotiations were pending, an Act of Parliament was actually
passed which enabled "the Bishop of London to admit foreign
candidates to the order of deacon or priest, but gave no
permission to consecrate a bishop for Connecticut or for any of
the American States." Who can wonder that Seabury was, at last,
driven to say, "This is certainly the worst country in the world
to do business in; I wonder how they get along at any rate"!
[Footnote: Letter to Mr. Jarvis, May 24, 1784.]