WRANGLING PRESBYTERIANS.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3025, 7 December 1882, Page 3

WRANGLING PRESBYTERIANS.

At a meeting of the Auckland Presbytery yesterday several letters from the kirk sessions were read commenting upon cases of union with Otago, General objection was taken to the request that Dunedin should be the seat of the Supreme Court and of the Theological Hall of the Church. After some discussion (he following motion, proposed by the Rev. Mr Maukuy, was carried—“ That union wiih the Church of Otago and Southland i-< desirable, and that the Presbytery believe the basis of union proposed by the Church of Otago and Southland, and amended by the Committee of our general Assembly to be in the present circumstances a good and workable basis and worthy of adoption by the Assembly.” A letterfrom the Rev. M, S. Breach, of Taranaki, was road, and created a most exciting scene, during which several reverend gentlemen waxed warm, and as one speaker remarked, “ such a disgraceful display was never before known in connection with their meetings.” The letter stated that the writer not being able to go to Auckland for various reasons, tendered his resignation as a member of the denomination. The Rev Mr Mackay moved and Mr Runeiman seconded “ That the resignation of the Rev. M. S. Breach, in terms of his letter dated 30th October, be accepted, and that he should no longer be a minister of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand.” There being no amendment, this was put to the meeting and carried, it ;was thought unanimously, for no dissenting voice was heard. Immediately after, however, Dr McLeod rose and and stated his determination to appeal. The Presbytery should decide whether the Rev. Mr Breach was no longer a member, and express dissatisfaction at bis past conduct. A strange scene ensued, in which an attempt was made to call Dr McLeod to order. The Rev. Mr Fraser moved, and the Rev. Mr Munro seconded, that Dr McLeod’s action was frivolous. After half a dozen other motions and a few other petty quarrels, and Dr McLeod had expressed the opinion that he should be treated as a Scotchman and a Highlander, an Englishman and a Presbyterian, and not have his individual liberty infringed, the following motion, by the Rev Mr Mason, was put and carried by eight against five—“ That Dr McLeod’s appeal be dismissed, o% the ground that it is irregular.” Dr McLeod gaid he would take good care to move an amendment another time. If not allowed to appeal to the General Assembly, he could reach a higher Court by petition or other means, and was determined to take some further Steps in the matter* The Rev Mr

Runciman thought as Dr McLeod had l-.st his right to appeal through _ inadvertence, lie should now be given permission to do so, but he obtained no support from the other members, and the matter dropped.