PERMISSION REFUSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 231, 30 September 1929, Page 10

PERMISSION REFUSED.

LECTURE IN CATHEDRAL.; BISHOP EXERCISES POWER, INCIDENT AT HAMILTON. ■ (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) ' HAMILTON, this day. The suggestion contained in a pub I lished report that further friction has arisen between Bishop Cherringtoa and Dean G. E. Barnctt, in coneequence of the bishop's refusal to permit M ' Edward Branecombe, of the Westmiaetw Gl* Singer,, to give a lecture??? Peer's Cathedral ] Mt night on «fc and Religion," was referred to the X parties concerned this mornin" The report stated that .Air. Branseombe was announced to preach i u St . Pet °° Cathedral last evening, but Bishop Ch Pl nngton exercised his episcopal veto and forbade Mr. Bnuiseombe the use of tl,« cathedral pulpit. "A short service Zl held, and at Dean 0. R. Barnelt'e request the congregation repaired to th« parish hall, when Mr. BransonaK delivered his address." It would appear from this statement that the permission had been refused at the eleventh hour, and that the dean had led his waigregation to the parish hall. Such i< :ot the case. The anC c ments were ccu-pleted on Saturday and the advortieeme, t announcing the fact that Mr Bransci :>o would lecture in the parish hall a;j, »ircd on Saturday. Mr. Bransc:r.;'::'n Position. Questioned on the bject, Mr Branscombe expressed snip. that the matter should have been give, any publicity. Simply, the facts were that he was - invited by Dean Barnett to deliver the lecture which he recently gave at King's College, Auckland, in St. Peter's Cathedral. "Possibly owing to some ecclesiastical law or custom, or to the fact that v I am not licensed to preach in an Anglican church, the bishop apparently intimated to the dean that he preferred the lecture should not be given at the cathedral," added Mr. Branseombe. Bishop (Sherrington explained thai nobody could lecture or preach in any church in a diocese without the sanctioii of the bishop of the diocese. "I wae not consulted in the matter of Mr. Branscombe's proposed lecture in the cathedral," said his Lordship. "In the first place, Mr. Branseombe is not a licensed preacher in the Church of England, and even if he were he must obtain the permission of the bishop to epeak in any of the churches under that bishop's jurisdiction. The dean knows this. As a matter of fact, the knowledge that the lean .had invited Mr. Branecombe to lecture in St. Peter's came to me quite casually. I thereupon communicated. , ivith the dean, through the diocesan secretary, Mr. A. B. Whyte. I intimated my willingness to eee the dean on the natter, but he refused.

"Strict Rule of Church."

' "It must be quite obvious," added his: Lordship, "that it would not do to allow anyone who came along and desired to do so to occupy the pulpit in the cathedra!, or any other church iu the diocese, without proper authority. Any man withoutcredentials and incorrectly representing , himself might find his way into the pulpit otherwise. Unless this strict rule,, which is general throughout the Churchof England, were closely observed, there is no telling to where it might lead. ■ No visiting -clergy-man or lay reader, even, can speak for more than one Sunday in any church without the bishop's mission." His Lordship added there was nothing, unusual in hie refusal to grant ; therequest. ■ Deaii Barnett, when interviewed, saidhe had "nothing whatever" to say on the subject.