THE CANTERBURY BISHOPRIC.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 183, 8 July 1854, Page 8

THE CANTERBURY BISHOPRIC.

(From the " Australian and New Zealand Gazette.")

Our last number contained four remarkable documents from the colonists of the Canterbury Association, relative to the missing church funds; and as Parliament will now shortly meet, we trust that some patriotic member will espouse the cause of the complainants, and insist that the stain ol sacrilege—for such, in fact, it is—shall be removed from many who occupy places in both Houses of Parliament. The first document to which we shall allude, consists of a series of resolutions relative to the Association itself; the resolutions being founded on the Report of the Government Auditor as it appeared in the Times in January last, and on the accompanying letter of Lord Lytteltou. In that report the Government Auditor has softened the sacrilegious part of the affair as much as possible ;so much so, indeed, that no one can tell what, has gone with the missing funds ; so that the colonists are in possession only of the fact that their trustmoney is missing, somehow or other. When they get the pamphlet published in London by the committee of land purchasers, under the guidance of Dr. Savage, they will become enlightened also on this point, from the accounts of the Association itself as honourably conceded in part by Lord Lyttelton, though, in our opinion, unwisely withheld in full, as soon as Mr. Godley arrived in England; the latter circumstance being proof positive that a full analysis of the accounts of the Association would not bear the light. The most remarkable feature in the documents which we last week published, is this: that notwithstanding the colonists comprehend that the funds are gone, it does not seem to enter into their calculations that they are to be eventually cheated out of their money. They do not believe it possible that the rank and respectability which induced them to entrust their money to the Association will permit them to be so cheated out of it, even if the members of the Association have to pay it out of their own pockets. They consider it completely out of the question that these gentlemen are so utterly devoid of conscience, to say nothing of the ecclesiastical nature of the missing funds, that they will not refund the sums which they have misappropriated. ' Hence, they write to her Majesty, to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to Lord Lytlelton, the chairman of the Association, beseeching them earnestly to fill up the spiritual void which the misappropriation of the funds has caused; in perfect confidence that the funds themselves will be restored from the enormous wealth of those under whose sanction they have been misappropriated. They have done well to address her Majesty on the subject Her Majesty will reply to them, and the very reply must involve restitution, unless the nation is to believe that her Majesty too is to be degraded into a tool of the Canterbury Association. This is, no doubt, the secret of the Uuke of Newcastle, her Majesty's Colonial Secretary, having spoken pointedly on the matter, lne Association will not evidently be permitted to tamper with the Sovereign, as they have done with the colonists. Rank as they may amongst the aristocracy of England, the members oi the Association will hardly venture on this step. The colonists seem to be aware of this, and have wisely adopted the expedient of appealing for justice to the fountain head of justice. , The colonists apprise her Majesty that by an Act of Parliament to enable her to divide New Zealand into two separate dioceses, she has already done so, but that one of the dioceses is without a Bishop. Her petitioners further" urge that they set apart the sum of £10,000 ior the maintenance of sach bishopric, and that the special agent of the Canterbury Association tnforms them that the money is invested in unexceptional securities, and is producing a clear net tncome of £600 per annum; so that Tf abfsho,"™' 8 t0 tke immediate appointment This statement is, in plain English, a gross falsehood, whoever it may have emanated from. that hi,ifino UntS flOm tbe colo»y a*sure us f , «// ;• ? °/ CT f "num is all that is available ioiall kinds of public worship in the colony, whils eve,, tins £600 is not yet realized; lo out oil, B'V Ve7° a bish °P> bemust be withoof oRi or lm? s t0 paythem-A still *"■«>« inent A\ t * staterae«t of the Government Auditor, « that the money had been

wasted, and its investment in land teas an afterthought." The effrontery of those, then, who would palm on the colonists a palpable untruth, and make them the medium of its communication to her Majesty, is almost beyond parallel. One good will result—the truth or untruth of the statement in opposition to other statements in the colony, and to the decision of the Government Auditor, must be inquired into. Another good must follow—the interest of the £10,000 must be forthcoming4 from somewhere, and the principal be placed on a sure basis. We shall only be too happy to find that the late meeting of the Carlton has had the effect of redeeming- the word of their agent in the colony ; but if it be so, their acts of restitution, like their acts of misappropriation, are as yet clone in a corner. The colonists repeat the same story to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, but express " their regret and disappointment at learning that the appointment of a bishop is likely to be deferred for an indefinite period." They almost appear to blame his Grace the Archbishop for the delay, for which they profess themselves " unable to account" The "special agent" of the Association has told them that their £10,000 produces £600 a year, and why is not a bishop appointed ? The fact is, that although the members of the Association are for the most part men who place their heaven in church discipline, they did not think it worth their while even to consult their spiritual head of the church on the misappropriation of the bishopric fund. Had they done so, every shilling of it would have been in tact at this moment, despite the ingenuity of those who misappropriated it. If the Association can prove to his Grace's satisfaction that the £600 a year is anything more than a sham, they will no doubt get their bishop. But, after the treatment which his Grace has experienced at the hands of the Association, he will no doubt look narrowly into the £600 a year before he consecrates a bishop to Christchurch. We repeat that the latest trustworthy accounts from the colony assert that £600 a year is all that is available for all ecclesiastical purposes whatever, and that even this is not realized. We have no hesitation in further asserting, that we have not the slightest faith in any statement emanating from the agents of the Association in the colony relative to the bishopric fund. Their present statements, confronted with our statements which have recently appeared in our paper, fully bear us out in this view of the matter. A third document, from the colonists is addressed to Lord Lyttelton, in his capacity of chairman to the Association. As in the appeal to the archbishop, they' tell his lordship that they " regret to have received the intelligence that the appointment of a bishop is likely to be deferred for an indefinite time." What! when the " special agent" of the Association has told them that the bishopric fund has plenty of money wherewith to pay the bishop ? Why should the appointment of a bishop be " delayed for an indefinite time," under circumstances so happy as the Association having invested the money of the fund at such excellent interest? There is no man living who would more rejoice at seeing a bishop in the Canterbury.colony than Lord Lyttelton; and if every member of the Association, had opened his pocket on behalf of the colonists as Lord Lyttelton has done, the misappropriated bishopric fund would have been restored long ere this. But his lordship knows that the reason why no bishop is appointed, is, that there are no certain adequate funds for his sustenance ; despite the assertions of his "special agents" in the colony; this is the secret why no bishop has been appointed, and we are afraid we must add, why none is likely to be appointed. The colonists tell Lord Lyttelton plainly, " We must not conceal from your lordship that any further delay in the appointment ot a bishop will be deemed by many persons sufficient ground for charging the promoters of the Canterbury scheme with lukewarmness as regards the most important part of their ecclesiastical plan. We trust your lordship will excuse us for speaking thus plainly ; but we are told by your accredited agent that all legal difficulties in the way of an episcopal appointment have long been removed, and that an endowment of £600 per annum has been insured to the bishopric. Supposing this statement to be correct, we cannot help feeling that no adequate reason now exists for delaying- the appointment ior a single hour." Now either the statement is correct or it is incorrect. Either the Associ-

ation has funds in its own hands, as the statement of Mr. Sewell, in this portion of the case contradictorily implies, and therefore ought at once to appoint a bishop ; or Mr Sewell's statement is of a nature to call for strict explanation. By Mr. Sewell's statement, it would clearly appear that the Association has still the bishopric fund in its own hand, but for some inscrutable reason delays to get a bishop appointed. It is needless to say that we have no faith in the statement, any more than we have for there being- £600 a year in the colony for the purposes of the bishopric fund; we shall nevertheless be delighted to retract our error whenever the bishop and his £600 a year are forthcoming. '«■ ...- = = There is a point in the appeal of the colonists to Lord Lyttelton which should urge the members of the Association to make any sacrifice for the appointment of a bishop. He is plainly told that the Bishop of New Zealand cannot attend to the episcopal duties of the settlement; that while the bishopric is in abeyance, there will be great difficulties in legislating on church matters ; that the delay" will seriously affect the pecuniary exigencies of the church; f>nd finally that the withholding a bishop will " be one of the heaviest blows that could be inflicted on the Church in this settlement." These sentiments of the colonists amount to a distinct charge against the Association, that whilst by advertising, pamphleteering, and other ingenious means of puffing, they professed to the public to be about to plant a church in the colony such as had scarcely been heard of since the days of the Apostles--they have not only planted no church at all—or scarcely the [apology for one—but that they are the great hindrance against the colonists planting a church for themselves, hi lieu of the one of which they have been defrauded. ' : : How gentlemen of the rank of those composing the Canterbury Association, self-constitu-ted pillars of the church of Christ, blessing God daily for their overflowing abundance, exulting in being, as Mr.Adderley has it in one of his pamphlets, a "privileged class," how, we say, such men, having any means left, can hesitate to employ those means to amend so unchristian an error, is wonderful. That they can still maintain their standing in the church, and their apparent anxiety for its welfare, is still more wonderful. What must bystanders call such conduct? Instead of being the pillars of the churchy do they not give occasion to the scoffer to regard them as its blind Samsons only, about to' pull down those pillars and bury themselves in the ruin of the whole edifice ? We are delighted that the colonists have at length placed the misdeeds of the Association in the hands of her Majesty. Their perpetrators have long laughed at ordinary justice. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to dupe her Majesty, as a wind-up to having duped the colonists. That they will make the attempt, rather than pay, we have .not the smallest doubt, from their past dishonourable practices.