Untitled

Southland Times, Issue 634, 20 February 1867, Page 2

(TO THE EDITOB OF THE SOTTTHIiAjrD TIMES).

Sib, — I notice in your issue of the 26th ult., a letter from Mr Win Carr Young, the treasurer of St. Paul's Church, Dunedin, taking grave exception at the remarks I made at the Church of England Tea Meeting of the 20th December last. I am sorry, not for having made the remarks, but that they should have in any way caused the slightest feeling of annoyance to one whom I esteem so highly. The reply which I must in self-defence make has been delayed in consequence of my time and attemion having been thoroughly occupied with subjects of greater moment. Mr Young's defence of the late ecclesiastical action at which I took exception at the tea meeting, is exceedingly plausible ; had he entered at greater length into the facts, it might might not have proved so satisfactory to the cause he advocated. The Bubstance of his statements may be classed as follows : —

Ist. Alienation of the 50 acre section from general Church purposes. 2nd. Southland's share in the general endowment.

3rd. Consent of the English Church congregations in the two Provinces to the formation of a new Bishopric. With respect to the first, we have always been under the impression that the section in question was bought out of monies given by some society in England to the Church in Otago and Southland ; I not unnaturally therefore supposed, that it was a security to the creditors of a Church which is a' part of the ecclesiastical district to which it was given. Mr Young says, the money was given by the Bishop of New Zealand. If it is "so, I am wrong. The question is, upon whom was the Bill of exchange in London referred to by Mr Young, drawn ? A society for the endowment of churches, or on his Lordship's private banker, to be paid out of his Lordship's private funds ? As regards the second clause, Southland's share in the general endowment, I was not referring to the clergy maintenance fund at the meeting. I find, however, on inquiry, that not only has Southland been as liberally treated as Mr Young states, but that she has contributed her full proportion, since in 1863, £114 Is Id, and in 186*, £93 16s 9d was sent to the general fund. The liberality virtually consists in returning our own money with an average of from £7 to £10 added.

In support of his third proposition, Mr Young quotes resolutions which he must have known were passed year by year, by the Rural Deanery Board, as mere assents of good will to the Bishop's repeated proposal, and that to none of these meetings was Southland able to send up a representative. We were compelled by circumstances to delegate persons resident in Dunedin. He forgets to mention the resolution which was passed by a meeting of the Board at Dunedin, specially convened for the purpose, when it was definitely decided that neither Otago or Southland was sufficiently ripe for the establishment of the Bishopric. I contend therefore, that I was correct in stating that the Bishopric, was formed, if not directly against the consent, yet certainly without the desire of both provinces, and if Mr Young cannot prove what he says about his Lordship of New Zealand's gift, I think that what has belonged to parochial endowments should not have been taken away to be given to a fund which ought to have been raised by special collections, for a purpose which never could have been contemplated at the time of the gift, and one which Mr Young himself admits to be premature. Notwithstanding Dr Harper's recommendation for the establishment of a new Bishopric, as contained in the letter quoted by Mr Young, I must say I still prefer a Bishop " nTthe abstract," to one in "propria persona," so long as I am called upon to furnish means to support his dignity. Otherwise I should have much pleasure in his presence. I repeat, in asking a clergyman to minister to our spiritual wants, we. have entered of our own free will into a liability, we are bound in all honor and justice to fulfil to the letter, one which will tax to the utmost the powers of the congregation. The attempt to thrust a further liability is most impolitic and unjustifiable. And I am sorry on Dr Jenner's account he should have been misled, as from all I can gather the income is by no means adequate to the abilities of -the man, qv

dignity of the office. I ttuat for tht sake of ensuring the unity of our church no further attempts at coercion on the part of the heads of it will be made. In communities where the clergy is supported by voluntary contribution, priestly domination cannot be exercised with that earnest of success which it might where the tithe system obtains. The management of the affairs of the English Church here is perfectly simple, and as we find the means for its support we are entitled to be consulted on tlie T appointments of those who conduct it. If this justice is not meted out to us, I am inclined to think the flock of the new Bishop will be considerably diminished. WAIiTEE H. PEABSOSTi Invercargill, Feb. 14.