The vast majority of the Missionaries at once reaffirmed their approval of the scheme. All the Churches concerned, except one, either cordially approved or left the matter to the free decision of the Australasian Churches and the Missionaries on the field, in which decision they intimated that they would heartily concur. The one exception was the Church of New South Wales, influenced, as already indicated, by its close association with the Trading Company, though doubtless from motives entirely honorable, so far as individuals were concerned. What is known as _The Dayspring Board_, with its headquarters at Sydney, was also strongly opposed, and for similar reasons, too manifest to need specification here. But I cannot regard the opposition of that Board as either defensible or requiring to be taken into account at all. It is simply an Advisory Committee. It neither raises any money for the Ship nor for the Mission. It is the Executive, at most, of the Mission Synod and the Churches concerned; and its proper and only function is to carry out, in a helpful and business-like way, the instructions received from the Missionaries. It is absurd, therefore, that such a Board should have any vote on the question of a _Dayspring_ or no _Dayspring_, any more than would a paid Agent executing the orders of the Missionaries for articles of merchandise. A delicate sense of honor should have made them feel this, and act accordingly, instead of becoming, as they did, not only avowed opponents of the scheme, but, in some cases, even bitter partisans and unscrupulous antagonists. For myself, I frankly say that the opposition of a Board so constituted should not only be discounted, but should be wholly ignored.