THE DUNEDIN BISHOPRIC.

Evening Star, Issue 3029, 4 November 1872, Page 3

THE DUNEDIN BISHOPRIC.

We intend to publish Dr Jcnnor’s pamphlet in vindication of his right to be styled the lirst Bishop of Dunedin, and to day give that portion of it, having reference to Bishop Nevill. OnJunelGtb, 1871, 1 sent iu my formal resignation of the See of Dunedin. In so doing, it is evident that I did not surrender my claim to have been Bishop of t>.e see. Ou the contrary, the very act of resignation was a fresh assertion of such claim ; a claim, be it observed, iu which I was and am supported by the deliberate opinion of the whole Episcopate of England and Wales at least, and by a large majority of churchmen, clerical and lay, including the best authorities on questions relating to episcopal mission and jurisdiction. On June 4th, 1871, the Kev. 8. T. Nevill was consecrated by four New Zealand Bishops “to the See of Dunedin.” This was twelve days prior to my resignation ; it was two months prior lo that resignation reaching New Zealand. Moreover, the consecration was proceeded with, in ostentatious disregard of my rights, and of my repeated protests. The see, then, being at the time full, the consecration of Mr Nevill was essentially uncanonical and schismatical. My resignation, I repeat, was tendered on the distinct assumption that 1 was actually Bishop of the see which I resigned. On no other condition would I have consented to resign. The resignation, however, if accepted at all, is not, it seems, accepted in this sense ; for it is attempted to deny that I have ever been Bishop of Dunedin. Bishop Nevill, at all events, in apology for the very awkward circumstances in which he finds himself, has published a statement to that effect. To this statement 1 have replied in a letter to Bishop Nevill, to whom 1 have formally proposed a reference of the dispute to the judgment of unprejudiced arbitrators, on the understanding that their award should be final. It is only right to point out that any advantage in such an arbitration would be altogether on Bishop Nevill’s side. A decision favourable to my claim to the historical position of first Bishop of Dunedm would in no way affect Bishop Nevill’s actu'd position, since nothing cm be further from my object than to interfere with the Bishop's da facto occupancy of the see. Certain technical formalities would, 1 presume, validate his election ; while, as regards the consecration—a non-iterable rite—factum valet. On the other hand, an award adverse to my pretensions would necessitate the unreserved withdrawal on my part of what I at present claim, viz., to have been Bishop of Dunedin from the time of my consecration to that of my resignation. Bishop Nevill, however, declines the proposed arbitration, lest (he says) he should “compromise the whole Ecclesiastical Province of New Zealand, and .imply a doubtfulness ou their part of their position, which they are not willing to allow.” The Bishop also considers that there would he a difficulty in rinding suitable arbitrators, and intimates that he should object to “all persons resident in England ” —rather a comprehensive “challenge,” it must he confessed. It is manifestly absurd, not to say childish, to treat this question—on which so large a number of persons, well qualified to judge, have come to a totally opposite conclusion to that arrived at by the New Zealand Church —as if it had but one side. It is simply giving up the case, to decline so fair and obvious mode of settlement as that proposed by me ; without, moreover, suggesting any other mode. It is, in fact, admitting that Bishop Nevill’a position is too insecure to endure any investigation of the steps by which it was reached. Desiring, nevertheless, to concede every possible advantage to Biihop Nevill, so as to secure, if it might be so, on any terras, the final settlement of this unedifying dispute, I hereupon submitted another proposition, the rejection of which (for it has met with the same fate as my former suggestion) I regard as simply suicidal. This offer was to refer to arbitration, as a preliminary matter, the question whether the case really is so entirely free from all “doubtfulness,” as to render unnecessary any further inquiry. By the decision so arrived at I engaged to abide ; and more, 1 offered to leave the appointment of arbitrators almost entirely in the hands of Bishop Nevill. Thus the matter stands j Here is a confessedly difficult case, on which there is, at any rate, something to be said on both sides. From one side come repeated offers to submit unreservedly to the arbitration of a third party, to he chosen (to say the least) with a due regard to impartiality. While the other aide, for fear of being “compromised,” declines all proposals, saying in effect “ Vce victis.” So the sore which might so easily be healed, remains open, and a .state of things certainly not creditable to those to whose “recklessness and perverseness” it is alone dup, is perpetuated. So much for Bishop Nevill, In dealing with the other episcopal disputant, it will

be, I regret to flay, necessary to travel over ground that has been often trodden and retrodden, painfully and wearily, during the last five years. But for this there is no help, as long as my opponents continue, more suo, to ignore every fact and every argument that tolls against them, and to re-occupy positions from which they have been re peatediy driven. (To he ‘'onlinutd.)