"THE LORD BISHOP"

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1063, 23 July 1883, Page 2

"THE LORD BISHOP"

A point of peculiar interest was discussed in the House on Tuesday in connection with a private Bill for dealing with land held in trust for St. Peter’s Church at Caversham. The Bill referred in the preamble and in clauses to “ the Lord Bishop.” Mr Swanson asked who was the Lord Bishop? Was he a Roman Catholic or a Protestant Bishop ? Why was he styled a lord ? And how were people to know which was “ the Lord Bishop,” as distinguished from other Lord Bishops, if there happened to be other Lord Bishops in the colony ? The question had been raised in Auckland as to a Bishop styling himself as “Lord Bishop,” and a signature to a document made in that form was not accepted until the form of signature was altered by leaving out “Lord.” He was not aware that Bishops in this colony were Lords, but he did know that Roman Catholics styled their Bishops here in that way, and the Roman Catholic “ Lord Bishop” in that neighbourhood might consider himself left out in the cold if the Bill were allowed to style some other Bishop as “ the Lord Bishop.” Mr Barron, who had charge of this Bill, said the Bill referred to the Lord Bishop of Christchurch ; and having been drawn by the legal advisers of the congregation, he thought the House should not hastily alter the title. Mr Swanson asked the Minister of Justice to state whether this title in the Bill would be correct if passed in this form. Hon. Mr Oonolly said he could not act as legal adviser to the House on points of law, although acting as Minister of Justice. There were law officers of the Crown to advise upon such points. Mr Swanson : We take you to be the Minister of Justice, and that you are here to do the think that is just; and I merely asked you a civil question. I want to know why this gentleman should be styled as “ the Lord Bishop,” as distinguished from any other Lord Bishop. Hon Mr Conolly supposed the title was copied from the deed mentioned in the Bill. Mr Barron said that was so. Colonel Trimble thought this title in the Bill might cause both jealousy and confusion. Roman Catholics called their bishops “ lords,” and there was an Apostolic Church which had bishops, who might perhaps be called lords also. In a recent State paper he had read a reference to “ the Lord Bishop,” which seemed rather indefinite, though ho bc-

licved it referred to Bishop Selwyn. la a democratic colony like this we ought not to begin this practice, and certainly should not give Parliamentary recognition to the practice. Mr Barron suggested that the Bill should be allowed to go through this House, and might be amended in the other House if necessary. Mr Steward objected to the title in this Bill as giving a statutory recognition to “ lord bishops ” in a country where lords had no seats in the Legislature.

Colonel Trimble moved the recommittal of the Bill, in order to amend the title of “ lord bishop.” Hon. Mr Conolly seconded, and said that, with reference to the question addressed to him, he had no objection to give his opinion for what it was worth, but not as legal adviser to the House. “ The lord bishop ” meant in this Bill the Bishop of Christchurch. His own opinion was that the bishop was not entitled to be addressed as “ lord,” but it was only used as a complimentary title in this colony, in the same sense that members of this House were styled “honorable,” whereas they were not more honorable than other men. He would prefer to see the title of “ lord bishop” left out of the body of the Bill, though it might be necessary where the Bill was reciting from a deed in which the bishop was styled in a particular manner. The motion for recommittal was lost on the voices, and the Bill was allowed to pass through committee without the Bishop’s title being modified.