MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 63, 20 March 1852, Page 5

MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

On Monday, the 15th instant, a Meeting of the members of the Church of England was held in the temporary Church, at Christciureh, for the purpose of taking into consideration the establishment of some organised Government for the Church of England in New Zealand. The Meeting was called by public advertisement, by the Bey. O. Mathias and the Rev. B. B. Paul, the Commissaries of the Bishop of New Zealand. The proceedings were opened and concluded with prayer. The Eev. O. Math ras said, In taking the chair as one of the representatives in this settlement of the Bishop of New Zealand, it may perhaps be expected that I should state to you the reasons which have induced my broiher Commissary (Mr. Paul) and myself to call you together on the present oocasion ; and I will endeavour briefly to explain the motives by which vre have been actuated. It may perhaps be thonght, that having no bishop of our own at present in the settlement, we have been somewhat hasty and precipitate in the movement which we are now endeavouring to promote; and, at first, we had some scruples on the subject; but, having been appealed to by a considerable number of the influential laity, and seeing tbat the movement had already been commenced in other settlements' of this colony, and in the sister colony of New South Wales, and knowing from private sources of information that a considerable time might yet elapse before a bishop should be sent out, we dsemed' a longer delay to be undesirable, and therefore at once determined to summon you together, lest we might seem luke-warm and apathetic in so important a movement, and might lose the opportunity of co-operat'iig with the friends of the Church of England in different parts of the colony. For, gentlemen, icis a very important movement, and upon our present efforts, exertions may in a great measure depend the future existence and welfare of the Church of England in this and the neighbouring colonies. The" present state of our Church, not established by law, and unaided by the Government of the mother country, places us in a very anomalous position; it therefore becomes most desirable that we should possess the power of regulating our own Ecclesiastical affairs. Though not acting at tlie present moment under the immediate sanction of the Bishop of New Zealand, still I am happy to inform you, from conversations I had with his lordship upon the subject when, he last visited our set-

tlement, that he cordially and entirely coincidea with our views; and I may state still further, that he expressed his earnest wish that whatever form of Government should be eventually adopted, the laity should have a frill and equal voice with the clergy in the administration of our Ecclesiastical affairs, and that whether they deliberated in Synod and Convention, separately or together, the one should possess no functions which were not equally shared by the other. It is to the want of this co-operation between the two bodies that is mainly to be attributed'the lukewarmness of the laity, which prevails to a considerable extent, towards our venerable Mother Church in England, but which I feel convinced will not be the case here, when I witness the great and earnest interest which is manifested by so large a body of laymen in our church affairs in this settlement; and I trust that the laity and clergy will ever, as now, continue to act together in harmony and concord, that the same good understanding will ever exist between them, and that so we shall best forward and promote our temporal and eternal interests and, at the same time further the extension of our Redeemer's kingdom in this our adopted country: and that we shall ever bear in mind that one great object in leaving our mother country was to transplant and carry with us a^branch of that pure and Apostolic Church of Christ as established at the Reformation, together with its spiritual and pure and simple Ritual, uncontaminated and untrammelled by the traditions and fanaticism of the dark ages, and to conform and strengthen which our forefathers shed their blood on the field— our Priests and our Prelates laid down their lives in the dungeon—at the stake—on the scaffold— and against which, humbly but confidently relying, upon the promises of an immutable and Tucarnate God, we believe, that nor the gates of hell nor the errors and supeistitions nor the tinsel mummories of Rome shall ever prevail and triumph.

Mr. Godley then rose, and spoke as follows: The resolution which I have to propose is one which may be said to express a truism. The Church in New Zealand as elsewhere is a society having a definite mission and certain practical ends fo accomplish. Its essential principle, the very condition of its existence, is, work. To my mind the notion of an inactive or passive Church seems almost an absurdity. Indeed what I say of a Church applies more or less to every associated body. When men form or join a society, ecclesiastical or secular, this idea is almost necessarily involved of their doing something in combination which as individuals they could not or would not do ; otherwise why should they combine ? But a society in order to v/ork must have an organization and a government; it must have forms, laws, qualifications, executive instruments ; it must have a head and hands. Accordingly, every association of men for any purpose whatever, begins by constituting its government; on however small or humble may be its scale and its 'object, whether it be a penny club, or a building society, cr a political union, or a religious sect, aa a matter of course, it appoints its managing comnnttee, or its president, or its synod, or whatever else it may please to call its legislative and executive organ. Through the medium of this organ it acts, and speaks, and does its business; without this organ it would be an unmeaning and objectless list of names. Therefore 1 call it a truism to say that it is exceedingly desirable for the Church of England in New Zealand to have a form of government. The wonder is indeed, that at this stage of our ecclesiastical existence we should have to enunciate to seif-svident a proposition. Yet so it is ; this truism is not merely ignored; it is actually disputed. While, so far as I can recollect, there is not in the world another instance of a society without a government, to many Englishmen it appears right and proper that such should be the normal state of their church. If you go to the shareholder in a joint-stock bank, or of a railway company, or to a Wesley an or Presbyterian, "and ask him how the .society he belongs to is governed, that is to' say who makes and who executes its laws, not one of them would be for a moment at a loss for an answer ; he could inform you with respect to its organisation as easily as he could with respect to "its character and object. But if you go to a member of the Church of England and ask him the same simple question, what answer can he give ? Is there any one here present who can tell me how the laws of the English Church are made, who speaks our collective voice, who does what we have as a Corporation to do: in a word, who manages our affairs ; one man may refer me to certain laws made in the year 1603 for the Government of the Church, and may reply to me by describing the judicial machinery provided for the execution of them ; another "may tell me that Pailiament

governs the Church ; another that the Queen ; another that the Bishops govern it. And in each of these answers there would he a certain amount of apparent truth. The canons are nominally the statute boole of the English Church ; Parliament does occasionally legislate in matters ecclesiastical; the Queen is, in theory, her executive head; the bishops' exercise after a fashion certain governmental functions in their respective dioceses. But still the question " who governs us ?" taken in its ordinary common sense meaniug, remains unanswerable. The canons are necessarily and properly for the most part obsolete and unexecuted, as indeed it is absurd to suppose that any human authority could devise complicated rules of action for a society, which would answer its purposes and supply its needs for 250 years without addition and alteration. Parliamentary legislation in Church matters is a usurpation founded simply upon might: the Queen's authority is as purely nominal in ecclesiastical as in civil affairs, the Bishops' have no recognized collective authority at all; and in their respective dioceses exercise the simply ministerial office of carrying out the existing laws. No real governmental power resides in any of these functionaries, because a right to make laws is an essential attribute of a real Government; and no existing authority has a right to make laws for the English Church. In considering this state of things I confess it seems to me difficult to resist the conclusion that even the endurance of it implies, in a degree paralysis; contentment under it would imply the absence of life. A society that cannot make a law for the regulation of its own affairs, or express a corporate opinion, or do a corporate act. that is unable in short to perform any of the functions of life can only by a great stretch of language t>e said to be a living body. Whatever may be the numbers and energy of its individual members, as a society, I say, it is virtually dead. However, such being the state of the Church of England, she has sent out numerous bodies of offspring to all parts of the world ; I beg your pardon ; she cannot send, because as I have explained to you, as a Church she caunot do anything ; I should have said, numerous bodies of her offspring have gone out from her, bearing with them the principles and traditions of their spiritual mother, and they have to adapt these as best they can, to a new set of political and social circumstances. Amongst other things they have to see how they can get on without government in a state of things which urgently requires corporate action. The Colonial Ckurch is cast on her own resources altogether; she has generally speaking, neither influence, nor funds, nor consideration bequeathed to her or provided for her ready made; she must obtain them, as she can, by personal efforts, if I may use the term. But personal efforts require, of course, a personal agency ; in order to collect funds, to build churches, to get and keep congregations to exercise order and discipline among them, and to convert the heathen, a machinery is wanted; the old machinery, such as it is, is inapplicable or inadequate, and there is no one with authority to create new. The consequence is, that the Anglican communion almost invariably falls, at the commencement of a colony, below the level of other denominations. Ido not recollect a single instance when under such circumstances, she can be said to have held her own. Other sects come out accustomed to self-organization and self-government, each branch is complete in itself, prepared at all points, ready for its work. Anglicans alone, when removed from the sphere of their old associations, stand bewildered and apathetic, and unable to move or act; looking for help from government, or from the mother country ; from every quarter, in fact, but from themselves, lhough generally richer than other denominations, they cannot or will not support their own ministers; at least, I know that in those colonies with which alone I am personally acquainted, it is so. In British America the English people through the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and the additional Bishoprics' Society, and in New Zealand the people of England through the Church Missionary Society and Parliamentary grants, almost exclusively support the clerical establishments of communities which are perfectly well able to do it for themselves, and would be perfectly willing too ? if they were not enervated by long disuse of the habit of acting for themselves in ecclesiastical affairs. At the game time it would be only fair to say that the Qbuvph. of England in the colonies is far from

being on a level with other sects, as regards freedom of action. Deprived as she is of the advantages resulting (or supposed to result), from state connexion, it is believed (for such is the absurdity of the system, that no one seems to know exactly what its principles or practices are,) but it is believed that she still remains fettered by the liabilities which were the incidents of her establishment in the mother country. I will illustrate what I mean of an example which occurred not long ago in this colony. A member of the Anglican church wished to marry a Jewess ; the clergyman refused to perform the marriage, and persevered in its refusal; but the bishop told me he had been informed by the judge, that if the parties applied for a mandamus to compel the clergyman to marry them, he (the Judge,) would have felt it his duty to grant it. lam not going to enlarge on the intolerable tyranny involved in the existence of such a state of things ; I allude to it at present as shewing the necessity not only for a complete review of, our ecclesiastical affairs, and for the establishment of new and radically different principles of church organization, but also, perhaps, for parliamentary assistance in breaking our bonds. I have now. Sir, attempted to show why in the words of the resolution which I am about to propose, it appears desirable that a form of government for the Church of England in New Zealand should be established with as little delay as possible. I have attempted to explain that without it she cannot properly fulfil her most ordinary and necessary functions, and that to the want of it is mainly to be attributed the apathy and helplessness which are such melancholy characteristics of our colonial churches. I will next endeavour to corroborate the! view I have taken by quoting the example set to us with respect to this matter by a sister Church which found itself not very long ago in circumstances analogous to our own. I mean the Protestant Episcopal Church of America. It is often said by enemies of the English Reformed Church that she is the creature of the state, dependent on her establishment and her endowments for existence, and incapable of standing like other ecclesiastical bodies, humanly speaking, by her own strength, and working with her own means: and I confess if I were to look at the present state of our colonial churches alone, I should find it difficult to rebut the sneer, But I can show another side to the picture. When the United States declared their independence, it may be said (humanly speaking again) that the Church fell with the monarchy ; episcopacy, especially in communion with the Church of England, was for obvious reasons, not only unfashionable, but almost infamous ; the endowments of the Church which had been very large in some of the States were taken away ; her edifices were destroyed ; even her communion plate was sold; numbers of her clergy emigrated, together with the most earnest members of their flocks. In short, it is impossible to conceive a more complete and overwhelming prostration than the American Episcopal Church then suffered; one would have said that within the lifetime of a generation, her existence in the United States, like that of the British Constitution on which she is said to depend, would be a matter of history. Now let us look at the sequel. For some little time the depression consequent on the resolution continued, but the American Churchmen who were left were not dismayed ; they had sense to see that new measures were required to meet the emergency, and faith to believe that they would be snlHcient to meet it. Now, it is instructive for us to remark that the first step they took when forced to shift fot themselves, was the formation of a governing body. The first General Convention of the American Church met in 1785, only three years after the peace ; the first American Bishop was consecrated in 1787. The Church was organized with a rapidity and completeness, eminently characteristic of the administrative talents of the people, the civil constitution of the Republic, serving naturally to a great extent as a model, A General convention was constituted consisting of all the Bishops, and of clerical and lay representatives from each diocese, and possessing full legislative powers for the whole Church. Diocesan conventions exercised similar powers within their respective jurisdictions. Vestries administered parishes. By degrees the outline thus sketched was filled up ; canons of discipline were passed ; the liturgy was revised ; provision was'made for education, for foreign missions, for domestic extension, Scattered and

helpless individuals became an animated, active, workiug body, far inferior, indeed, to most of the. other demonstrations in outward circumstances, but at least able for the first time to do justice to itself and make free use of its own resources. Before I describe the result of these measures, I must remind you that the Episcopal Church had another disadvantage to contend with. It iS notorious that of the emigrants to America, a comparatively small proportion, are even nominally members of the English Church. The causes of this are too obvious to require enumeration, and the fact is undoubted. The American Episcopal Church, therefore, was forced to rely largely upon proselytism, if it hoped to hold its own in numbers and influence. But to return to the historical facts. I cannot find out what the number of Episcopalian clergymen was after the revolution. 1 can only ascertain such isolated facts as that the State of New York, which, in L 844, had 304 clergymen, had only five in 1787. lam compelled, therefore, tc begin my general comparison at a later date. In 1814, I find that the Episcopal Church numbered 240 clergymen, officiating in organizee parishes ; in 1844, the last year for which I have been able to procure the statistics., it had 1202. Assuming that its congregations multiplied in equal proportion, and there seems no reason for doubting it, we have here the fact that in thirty years the number of American Churchmeun increased live-fold, or about twice as fast as the whole population of the Union. So that even if we allow for argument that immigration supplied them to an extent proportioned to their origin.il numbers, they must have more than doubled themselves by conversions alone in 30 years. And that they have done so at least seems to be shewn by the fact, that in 1839 more than one-half of their clergy, and nearly one-half of their bishops had been Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, or Bab lists. I need not say that the proportion of converts is likely to have been larger among the congregations than among those who rose to office and dignity in the Church. Again, the American Church gets plenty of money. Her Clergy, which must now amount to at least 1600, nave an average income of £200 a year, and if I add the funds raised for church building, education, missions, and other church purposes, I am sure I shall be within the'mark if I seb the income of the American Church at half a million sterling annually, that is, speaking roughly, 10s. ahead for the members of her communion ; or £2 10s. for every family. "In fact, we do not want money," says her historian, "we have funds enough; we want men for the Ministry." This is the natural result of the Zealand interest which is engendered among her members by an active participation in the management of her affairs. In every department of her proceedings the advantages of her system are visible. When an extension of the Episcopate is required, she is not obliged to go, like some other people I have heard of, to a heterogeneous legislature composed of men of every religion or of no religion, nor to a Colonial Minister, who may be her bitter enemy, in order to ask leave to consecrate a Bishop, and to discuss the boundaries of the Diocese, and the amount of the endowment. The American Church settles that for herself, as every church ought. But I need not expatiate longer on these advantages of system and organization which the American Church enjoys. I have been induced to say thus much on her constitution and progress, because as presenting the only instance of an ecclesiastical body in communion of the Church of England, which possess a regularly constituted representative Government, she affords the only available precedent for our own case, and also because the signal success which has attended a career begun under such discouraging circumstances, seems to show that in order to fulfil her mission, the Church of England does not require andowments or State connexion ; she only wants to have her hands untied, a cieiir stage, and no favour. Of course I do not suppose that Self Government is the only cause of the success of the American Church, but it does appear not only to be remarkably coincident with that success, to constitute almost the only material difference between her position and that of the Colonial Churches which are so far behind her in available life and energy. I will next notice one or two of the objections commonly made to a representative Government for the Church, for I need hardly say that the form of Government we wish to obtain, involves the representative principle. It is said that it would encourage factions, debatiugs, and party

contests. I will not insist on the argument that a similar objection would lie against all representative Government, civil as well as ecclesiastical, I would rather point to the American Church, and ask whether such an effect has heen produced there. Of course I don't mean to say that there has been no party feeling on Church matters in America; I only say it has not been so strong;'nor has it led to such evil results as in England; and that, there as elsewhere, in the Church as in the State, free and regular institutions have been, not the cause but the cure of faction. Again, it ma}'be said that Self Government will lead to rash and heterodox alterations in the formularies of worship, and in the discipline of the Church ; and here I must not be misunderstood ; I would certainly claim on the part of the New Zealand Church, the right of managing to the fullest extent its own affairs, including of course the regulation of worship, and the control over formularies. While it is necessary and right that the formularies of the Church of England should be the basis of union among those who combine to form a constitution for a colonial church, I must say, that after it is formed, I think it would be unworthy of our position as a national church to bind ourselves to those formularies for ever. Why should we not have the same right of revising from time to time our liturgies and articles to suit our circumstances, which every national church, and which the Church of England herself, has repeatedly claimed and exercised ? Are we afraid we shall exercise that natural and obvious right badly ? It is possible we may, but I am quite sure, if we are inclined to do so, no paper restriction will prevent us, nor is it advisable that it should ; if bishops, clergy, and laity should at any time wish for alterations, I really see no good in trying- to make them use forms which they would on the hypothesis disapprove of. But having said thus much on the abstract right to effect changes, I point to the American ohurch as my ground for anticipating that they will not be effected; at least not to any injurious extent. There was everything in the circumstances of the American church and people to make wide deviations on their part, from the English ritual a priori probable ; yet it is well known that the deviations actually made are altogether unimportant, both tin number and character; nay, it is remarkable, and forms a remarkable testimony in favour of our formularies, that in several instances where alterations have been actually made, the church has subsequently returned, after experience of the change, to the more ancient usage. The last, and by far the strongest objection to representative government which I shall consider is founded on the difficulty of settling how the lay element in the proposed governing body shall be constituted ; in other words, who shall possess the church franchise. This difficulty is undoubtedly a formidable one ; indeed, it is hardly susceptible of a perfectly satisfactory solution ; for in which ever way it be settled by any particular class of persons, it is always open to another class to use them who gave you authority to settle;it. But this is not properly an objection, it Is only a difficulty, and difficulties are made to be overcome. Although we may never arrive at the solution of the question which shall be logically satisfactory, we may get in a rough and approximate way at a settlement of it, which will be sufficient for all practical purposes. For example, a plan might be proposed by the nighest authority in our church, the bishop, or bishops, involving a settlement of the franchise question, and if that plan were accepted by the clergy, and the great body of those who call themselves churchmen, it will probably be thought that as near an approximation to the desideratum of a general assent as is necessary for practical purposes would be arrived at. For my own part, lam very anxious to have this question raised; and though it is not strictly relevant to tbe matter in hand, Aand the disjussion of it may appear premature, I ijftll ask your indulgence while I say a few words aboutjt. After much and anxious reflection, I can see ri'o'proper qualification for a church franchise but that of full communion; and I say this quite irrespectively of any doctrinal opinion about the nature and effects of that Holy Sacrament; I say it because this qualification or something strictly equivalent to it is in consonance with invariable usage in the ancient Church, and also indeed in every Christian denomination, except our own, of which I ever heard ; I say so moreover because we can have otherwise absolutely no guarantee that those who assume to legislate for the Church are even nominally churchmen, still less that they observe those laws an observance of which all her members admit to be of the very essence of Churchmauship, and while I entertain what many

would consider very democratic views about the participation of the laity in Church Government it is a sinequa non with me that they should be Church laity. Now, it seems a contradiction in terms to say that a man is in.communion with the church who never communicates. The very word Communion, as applied indiscriminately to Christain fellowship, and to a participation in the Lord's supper, proves that the two ideas are in the minds of Christians, identical. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that those who hold a different view in this matter either have hardly thought out the question, or are mainly actuated by what I conceive to be a mistaken view of expediency. Some of them fear that non-communi-cants would be offended; but I must say I think a man who deliberately and habitually abstains from communion with the Church, is not one to whose opinions and feelings Church rules should be made subordinate. Others fear that a communicant's franchise might lead to a profanation of the sacrament. Have they enquired whether in other religious denominations, where conformity to religious ordinances is invariably required, as a qualification for church government, any such profanatory effect is experienced or even suspected. The fact is, it would really not be worth .a man's while, for the sake of so small an inducement, to be habitually guilty of so great a crime. But even if it were found, as is just possible, that such a rule might aggravate the guilt of a few abandoned individuals, ought we to place their supposed spiritual interests in competition with the welfare of the whole church ? Others, perhaps, have heard the maxim, that taxation involves representation, and think accordingly that every man who pays money for Church purposes has a right to participate in Church Government. Have they considered how far this abstract proposition >vould lead them ? Certain it is, that no political or religious community in the world even admitted or acted on such a principle. No matter how far a nation may go in the direction of universal suffrage,.it always stops short of making contribution to its revenue the sole qualification for political power. Women, children, idiots, couvicts, aliens, may and generally do contribute to revenue, but they never enjoy its supposed correlative, that is power. Go and subscribe to a Wesleyan meeting-house or a Presbyterian church, and see whether your doing so will get you a vote for members of the next Conference or the next Assembly. You may reasonably make pecuniary contribution one qualification, but I cannot even conceive a proposal deliberately made that only one. On the other hand, I hardly think any one will propose as a permanent qualification for Church government a simple statement of Church membership.. This again would be quite unheard of; no religious or political privilege was ever yet granted on the mere condition that aperson claimed it, for it comes to that; there is always required some test of his sincerity; something that involves a question of fact upon which the' claimant may be objected to, if he be not telling the truth. There remains therefore only the alternative of a double franchise i. c. a statement of church-membership, combined with a payment; and this is the franchise which has been apparently proposed for adoption in Wellington, and it may be said in South Australia also, for seat-renting involves in some degree a profession of churchmanship as well as a money payment. To this rule T objecc in the first, place, that it does not secure the real churchmanship of the governing body, and in the second, that pecuniary payment ought not to be mixed up with Church franchises at all. Wherever it is adopted, the best churchmen may be excluded because poor, while persons who are notoriously not Churchmen will have votes in Church matters, and assist in making Church laws. On the whole, therefore, it does appear to me that no good reason can be assigned why the Church of England should adopt a more lax rule with respect to its franchises than any other ecclesiastical body. I trust you will pardon me for this digression, if it be one, and for having intruded my own view of this subject on you at so much length. My object in doing so is not to procure any expression of opinion on it, still less the adoption of any practical step by the meeting ; but merely to bring it before the mind of the public, in the sure hope that by full consideration and free discussion the objects which we all have at heart will be best promoted. It will perhaps be expected that I should say a few words as to the relation whioh the proposed body would bear to the Canterbury Association. My own view is this. It is perfectly competent for the Association to make any provision it pleases for the management of its own funds, but I have not the slightest doubt that if a body be constituted which shall really represent the Church in this settlement, the Association will as a matter of course hand over to it the management of its ecclesiastical fund. 1 will conclude by saying that the practical step we propose to the meeting is merely to elect a corresponding committee, and to ascertain from the bishop, and the churchmen of o.her settlements what it is that they are going to do. Whether it will be our business afterwards to go more into the details of a plan, or whether the bishop will be pleased to_ draw out a plan, and invite our co-operation in it,

whether we shall begin by petitioning Parliament, or, as I should much prefer, the Colonial Legislature, to make us a corporation, or whether like the people of South Australia, we shall endeavour to organize ourselves, and go on temporarily without being legally incorporated, will depend on the nature of the answer we receive. I only trust that now, having begun, we shall not let the matter drop ; I trust we shall see that if our Churchmanship be not a sham, if we really take any interest in our Church, if we care as much about it as we should do about a joint stock company in which we had invested fifty pour.ds, we shall do with respect to it what as men of business we should do as a matter of course in a worldly case; we shall claim, for the ecclesiastical society to which we belong a constitution and a government.

Eev. H. Jacobs said, —Mr. Chairman, in seconding this resolution I have but a few words to say. That some definite form of constitution for our church in New Zealand is already greatly needed in practice, no one, I think, will doubt, who has had his attention directed to the subject: no one certainly, who, from circumstances or position, has obtained any insight into the practical working of the church in the colony. Even if it were possible for us to wait till we were forced into action, in some such way as churchmen in South Australia have been forced, would such a course, I ask, be desirable 1 Are not our circumstances daily becoming more complicated? Are not fresh difficulties likely to arise at every step 1 Our difficulties at present are not too many or too great for us to deal with, if we take them in time ; but may they not become so, if we delay ? Should we not seize the opportunity while we are comparatively free and unembarrassed, of making out for ourselves a definite course of action, and basing our future proceedings in church matters on. a clear and well understood footing ? Besides this, Sir, I conceive that we owe a duty to our fellow churchmen in other parts of New Zealand, as well as in another neighbouring branch of the Colonial Church. To mark our sympathy with our brethren at Wellington and in South Australia, to encourage them if we may be permitted to do so, and strengthen their hands, to co-rperate with them, with other branches of the Church in the colonies, in the endeavour to obtain for themselves the blessing of order, harmony, and an active working constitution; these, Sir, are surely sufficient motives to induce us to join heartily, and without delay in this common undertaking. Our common success also will depend in no slight degree, upon our acting together. By moving simultaneously and in concert with combined energy and counsel, we are far more likely to obtain our ends, than if we strive singly and at intervals. Our Bishop, the Bishop of the yet undivided Diocese of New Zealand, is well known to be favourable to our undertaking. Were it probable that we should very soon be placed under the government of another Bishop it might be both prudent and dutiful to defer our movement. But in the great uncertainty which at present hangs over that part of our prospect, it would seem, on the grounds I have before mentioned, both unwise and ungenerous to delay. I may add also, that it might seem undutiful to our present Bishop, if we hung back and did not strive to second his endeavours. On these grounds, Sir, I beg to second the resolution which Mr. Godley has proposed, " That it is extremely desirable that some form of government for the-Church of England in New Zealand should be established with as little delay as possible."

The second resolution moved by Mr. Pritchard, and seconded by Mr. Eose was as follows: " That with a view of promoting this end, a Committee be appointed to represent this settlement, to consist of the Licensed Clergy and an equal number ef laymen, and that the Committee have power to add to their number so as to arrange that the number of Clerical and lay members be always equal."

Mr. Worsley moved and Mr. Packer seconded the third resolution:

"That Mr. Tancred, Mr. Rose, Mr. Brit tan, Mr. Pritchard, and Mr. Woolcombe he requested to act as lay members of the said Committee."

The fourth resolution was moved by Mr Woolcombe, and seconded by Dr. Gun dry :

"That such Committee be authorised and instructed to place itself in communication with the Bishop of New Zealand, and with the Committees wnich have been, or which may hereafter be appointed at other settlements for similar purposes, and to adopt in. concert with them, such measuresas may be deemed advisable with the view of obtaining forth- members of the Church of England hi this colony, the power of managing their own ecclesiastical affairs."

A similar Meeting was held at Lyttelton on Tuesday evening, the Rev. R. B. Paul in tue chair. 'We are compelled from want of space to postpone our report of this meeting until next week.