MEETING OF PARISHONERS

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1318, 19 June 1883, Page 3

MEETING OF PARISHONERS

Tai meeting convened for last evening, celled by the churchwardene of the Engliah Church to consider the incumbency question, wa» held in the Giaborne School Huuae laat evening. There wa. a goodly attendance, the room being crowded. The Rev. Mr Hamilton, who waa in the chair, opened the proeedings by Baying he waa very glad to aee such a large meeting : he toped th«t the different matten would be uiacuaeed in the kindli.it manner. The meeting had been called aa a formal one to obtain the opinion! of the pariahionera. With tbeae remarks he called on Mr De Leutoar to addreoa the meeting. Mr De Lantunr read the minutes of the laat pariahionera' meeting, which were confirmed. He then wont on to aay he wiahad Ant to explain everything aa fully aa poaaibin to the meeting, end keep back nothing whatever. There were three things that were to bo diacuaaod, and they were Ist, the positive nomination of the Rev. W. Cocks | then, aa appeared by correspondence, the pariah waa divided; and, lastly, tha {financial position of the Pariah. Ths foregoing three matten included really the whole matten which were to be discussed, and which required bringing forward tonight Ho said the Vestry had not sought the meeting because they were themselves divided. The Vestry bad alway been able to decide points and agree together. He had a number of latten with regard to the nomination of the Rev. W. Cooks. He would read them to the meeting, bnt as they were of a strictly confidential character, he would aak the press not to insert them. A number of letten ware now read, all of which won communications between Mr DeLatour, the Bishop, and the Reverend William Cocks, with {regard to hie coming here. Resolutions wen also read of a meeting that waa held on the 11th inst. These resolutions had been forwarded to the Bishop, who had replied. Mr. De laautonr continued :—By the resolutions jut read, it wonld bo seen that no eorreapondence had been been sent either to the Bishop or to the Rev. W. Cocke by the Vestry or any of the Pariahionen that he knew of. The attitude of the Vastly with regard to the nomination had been neutral- and they had not attepted to interfen. The 2nd matter he considered bad nothing to do with him, though anyone of the Pariahionera had communicated to the Bishop he hoped they would speak out. The 3rd matter waa the finance. At the commencement of the year then was £B7 lOd. to their credit. Since monies had been paid on the Parochial account, viz :—Barker, £5O ; Locke £5, and contractors eheqne £lO, which waa refunded. Tha stipend account was answerable to £ ISO odd. The total amount of liabilities to the 30th of June waa £2lB 15a. Id. A communication had bean held aa to the poeaibility of forming a country Pariah. Only £4 3a. 2d. had been received from Ormond, Matawh.ro, and Makaraka, and the donations to the stipend fund stood at ml. The hone bin came to £lB, and there was the advertising which waa objected to by the Vestry, which, was carried on by the Rev. Hamilton. H would be fair to say that the contributions would be £l5. Thu waa the petition. Mr W Wray said his name waa mentioned in the letten aa being acquainted with Mr Cock. He denied thia, and said he did not know him, and thought ho waa not the man required for this place. *Dr Leggatt thought Mr Gray should net have brought forward Mr Coon's fitness for the place, aa it waa not the matter in question. Hs considered that he should be written to and asked for an explanation if ha could give one. Mr Rees said that the Bishop had nomi natad Mr Cocks, and we wen called np on to I consent to the nomination, which had been Mr Woon said that a letter had been forwarded to the Bishop. signed by himself and others, praying that the Rev. Hamilton might remain, and tha nomination of the Bov. Mr Cocks be withdrawn. In answer to tin question to name the others who signed ISF He said he would let the others speak det for themselves ; he had done so.

Mr Bennett asked when the letter waa for warded.

Mr Wo* n thought shortly after the nomination, though he did not reollect exactly. Mr Matthews said a meeting of parishioners was held in April at which Mr Wooa waa present, and aa he concurred in the views of the meeting with regard to Mr Cocks coming hero, he would ask him if the letter waa forwarded before or after that

meeting. Mr Woon said it was before the meet*°ln reply to Mr Nolan he said he waa perfectly willing that the letter should be shown.

Mr Rees thought that it was extremely wrong. If any in the room had signed the letter why did they not speak up as they ought to, and not keep on in this dark dealing manner. Mr DeLautour here proposed “ That it is undesirabls that communications to the Parochial Government should not be sent to the Bishop without a copy first being given to the vestry and clergyman officiating, and in charge, fortheir information.” This motion waa seconded by Dr. Leggatt, ind carried. Mr C. Smith thought the chief responsibility rested with the Bishop, as he had appointed Mr Coek’s. There certainly waa T split in the parish. The Bishop should let them know the nature of the letter.

Mr Greenwood said the Bishop had been asked, and the communication read by Mr De Latour went to show that all he had done was at to request of the parishioners. They should not pass a vote of censure for perhaps he had good reasons not to inform us of the letter, at present. Mr Matthews thought that a division waa better than otherwise. At present, the position was critical. For fourteen months the parishioners had wished for a clergyman, but now one was open for them, he could not be obtained on account of the dissension among the parishioners. Mr. W. L. Rees said he was struck, that the species of feeling, had received no dissent. Again he would say it waa a shame the men

did not speak who signed the letter. He also felt that the Vestry and nominators have the right of the confidence for whom they are 4 acting, and hare no right to undo what has been done. Mr. De Lautour said he was clear Mr. Woon’s letter did not alter-the Bishops intentions for sending for Mr. Cocks He held a letter from Mr. Murchie, dated May 26th.to the effect that the Rev. Corks had received the nomination, and showed also at this date that the Bishop had no idea of altering his intention, as Mr. Wood’s must have been forwarded in A;»riL He also had seen the Bishop in Napier, who said he hoped Rev. Cocks would soon be here. Thus his intentions must have been al ered since Mav 26th and June 6th

Mr. Woon. in speaking in reply toques tions put, stated that the ladies had as much to do in ti e matter as anyone had. (Grc->t laughter.) Mr Mat thews read a s'a’ement of the financial si l iou of the Church, t e PnrsoriHge fund up to the present • eing t'2’>2 «s in cas i, promised £2O 12s; promisory not-n extend ng over a period of years, £163 < 8 ; ot hrr monies, £l5 ; total, £4Ol.

Mr Woon moved that* the Church warden • inform the parishiourrs who was likely to bei o. me their future pastor. Mr W. L. Mees sno lie at some length ■gainst Me Woon’e motion as being against the rules of Chnn-h Government. Mr DeLatour did not quite agree with all Mr Rees's remarks He thought Mr Woon was justified in asking such a question Bnt he asked MrWa-a to withdraw hie motion on account of it placing the Chairman in a delicate position. Mr Woon stated that hie motion embodied others views besides his own. But he would withdraw his motion on the grounds stated by Mr DeLatour. Mr Chriep next moved to the effect “ That the Bishop be informed that no division exists in the parish such as he had been led to believe. Mr Rees here read a letter from the Bishop stating that he had written to Mr Cocks to delay his departure forGisborne until further advised-on account of certain divisions having arisen in the pariah. Mr Matthews here asked whether it was intended to approve of the nomination of Mr Cocks. He had never advocated hie nomination. If the motion carried approval of nomination he should vote against it: but ii, on the other hand, it did not he should vote for it. Mr De Latour then added a rider to Mr Chrisp’s motion, which, .meeting with the approval of a number of dissentients like Mr Matthews, the motion was carried. A vote of thanks to the meetings, and a benediction, concluded the meetiug.