PAROCHIAL MEETING.

Southland Times, Issue 1006, 19 August 1868, Page 2

PAROCHIAL MEETING.

■ — <r. r '..-.' -'. . : ' A meeting of the parishoners of St. John's, luvereargiU, was held on Monday last, relative to the question of the proposed new Bishopric, which has to be discussed de nova at "the ' Rural Deanery Board, which sits in Dunedin this week. The necessity for the re-discussion of the question arises from the. fact that the proposed new diocese of Otago and Southland was not formally seperated from the see of Canterbury prior to the appointment of Dr Jenner, and that consequently all that has been done requires certain forms to be gone through to give it legality. ' The following resolutions, passed unanimously at a meeting of parishoners, held on the 10th inst., prior to the departure of the Rev. Mr Tanner to attend the Deanery Board, will explain the position of affairs prior to the present meeting: — Ist. — "That we cannot return representatives to the ensuing meeting of the Otago and Southland Rural Deanery Board, partly by reason of the insufficient notice given, but principally through being unable to provide sufficient funds to meet their expenses." 2nd. — " That it is the unanimous opinion of the parishioners that the proposal for the subdivision of the diocese is untimely, and cannot be entertained, whilst their means aie inadequate to the support of 'thei? clergy and the maintenance ofthe Church." 3rd. — " That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the respective Church Courts.'

h

The meeting took placejii the Church at 12 o'clock, when good? attendance of members. Mr Mppre,v. churchwarden^ ireaid the notice calling the meeting, and explained that in reality it . might 1« considered an adjourned one,; as the preTious one had broken up with the understanding that they were to again this day in the event of >MJr ; 3S^jieir^^ submitting, by telegram, the names of delegates whom he might obtain in Done* ..din.. ■ ■■ •■ - --•• ■-• -■--■•--•-.-■■ ■ . ■■••■-■■-■■■■ He and Mr Butts, had, however, in the interim received a requsition (read) to call the meeting, and they had a<HH»rd» ingly do so. He then read the.resolution passed at previous meeting. Some desultory discussion ensued, when Mr Irvine suggested that the first thing to be done, was to appoint a chairman, and named Mr Armstrong. Mr Armstrong would rather be excused, and proposed Mr Moore, who was unanimously elected. Mr Armstrong in moving that 'Mr Butts be appointed as one of the representatives of the Parish at the Bural Deanery Board/ said that that gentleman had already proceeded to Dunedin for the purpose, and that he would, he believed, carry out their views. ; Mr Brodeiicfc seconded the motion. Mr -Irvine would like to know whether Mr Butts had gone on church business solely, or on other matters as well. Mr Hare would like to know what M* Butts was going to do at Dunedin. He (Mr B.) had been present at a vestry meeting at which the question had been* ' asked whether any gentleman was /willing to go and represent the parish. at their own expense, and he had never given the least intimation that he was willing to go* Since then, however, he appeared to hate changed his niind and gone off at once without instructions from the . congrega? tion, or stating what course he would pursue. ._~. Mr Armstrong said, Mr Butts h»di i acquiesced in the resolutions passed at ; the former meeting,, and he (Mr A) believed that he would carry out their ; ' tenor, viz— strongly oppose the sutidif. vision of the diocese". * * Mr Pratt asked if it was known what course Mr Butt's would adopt in the., event of the subdivision being carried. ' He thought that as "they did not intend, ; or were unable, to pay anything for the ' support, of the new Bishop they should r refrain altogether from having any share in his appointment. . !Mr Richardson understood that a. i telegram had been received, nominating f other gentlemen as delegates, if such were I the case, he was :of opinion ; that before I going further these names should be sub- ? mitted. : l Mr Brodrick said that he was in , possession of the telegram alluded td, . f and would read it, as it exactly explained.. ; the position they were in. The telegram, which was from Mr Edwards, ran thus :— . 'Kp resolution against subdivision of i- diocese can be put to the meeting, sole , object being nomination: of Bishop. f George Elliot and Frederick Hardy > would vote as you wish — against >■ Bishopric— for Jenner.' Mr Brodrick » went on to say that when Mr Smith, of ,: Dunedin, or any other gentleman, prbF posed D r Jenner as Bishop of Dunedin, . Mr Oldham might propose Archdeacon .. Harper, or any person they might wish. V: If they did not record their totes in I favor of the delegates named, they, would ■'< I have reason to regret it, as they would thus )• assist the opposite party to carry their y ■ own nominee as Bishop.' : * . •• ,■ ■. [ Mr Pearson explained his views and said I that he felt the only course he could conl sistently adopt would be to withdraw i h from the meeting. He^ for one, objected l | tp any bishop at all, and did not intend to support one forced upon him: They were not well able to pay Mr Tanner" his T very insufficient salary,far less to support* newand unnecessary Bishopric. He thought they should distinctly and determinedly oppose the sub-division of the diocese,.: and if that were carried retire and' have no further participation in the matter. Let those who wanted a Bishop appoint and pay. for him. He would resist the appointment of a- Bishop, or of delegates who would even entertain the question of his appointment. : ! ■ Mr Armstrong said two years ago they had protested against the sub-division, and they were still opposed to it. The Otago people had decided in favor of having a Bishop, and on them should I>e thrown the entire onus of his appointment. If he was forced upon then they ; -..- could not altogether avoid contributing to his support, but they should do so under protest. Mr Irvine was afraid the last speakers did not quite realise the true position of the matter. The course proposed by Mr Pearson was not in reality a neutral one, and in effect gave six votes to the party opposed to our. rviews in the fiural Deanery Board. There was only one constitutional way of actingin the matter, namely, ,.' through our representatives. The logical result of Mr Pearson's course would be practical secession from the Church of England. - r - : < Mr Kichardson thought it would be grossly illogical to say, first, they could not, and would not pay for a Bishop, and then say whom they would have as Bishop. If Dunedii liked to have one let them appoint and support him. Mr Brodrick thought the meeting was losing sight of the real question.. It was. still discussing the question of the sub- : division of the diocese, when it was no longer a question of Bishopric but of Bishop. A Bishop they would have whether they liked it or not, and .the only. _ thing they could now do was to say whom. they would have. To refuse participation in his appointment would be abrogating their proper position, and j leavmg'it in the power of the other party to seiivfdown a Bishop who might be objectionable to this Parish. He thought their course was clearly to appoint, dele- ; gates who would join with the others in favor of Dr Jenner, and vote for him ki!/ preference to Archdeacon Harper or any : other who might be proposed. He considered that, if Bishop there was to be Dr

Jennerwad entitled to be elected, he had already been appointed and put to great trouble and expense, in fact he was probably now on his way out. Further, his character had been thoroughly investigated, and nothing really objectionable had been substantiated agaiust him, while even his enemies admitted that he was a most honorable, energetic, and upright man. Mr M'Culloch had always been opposed to the appointment of a new Bishop, and if the were now; Bishop or no Bishop, he should certainly tote for none, but as the Bishop would be forced upon them, whether they would or not, he should conscientiously vote for Dr Jenner. Mr Richardson moved, as an .amendment " that this meeting endorses the resolutions passed at last meeting," he thought this would bring the matter to an i end at once. The amendment was allowed to lapse. Mr Armstrong asked leave to withdraw his motion. He had come to the conclusion that it would be better to have no delegates, and no hand in the appointment at allMr Pearson should prefer to see men appointed who would distinctly say no Bishop, and abide by it. Mr Armstrong's proposal to withdraw his motion, on being put to the meeting, was disallowed* The original proposition was discussed for sdme time longer, partly in a conversational manner, when, on the motion of Mr Pratt* the meeting adjourned until halfpast 7 o'clock in the evening. At the adjourned meeting in the evening, there was a still larger attendance of members, all of whom manifested great interest on the subject* Nearly all present spoke on one side or other at length, but the speeches were mainly a repetition and enlargement of what had been said in the morning. - The motion for the appointment was ultimately carried, hb was also one for the appointment of the two delegates named in the telegram given above, viz., Messrs Elliot and Hardy* An amendment, by Mr Bichardßon, 'that no delegates be sent at all,' having previously been put and lost. . A vote of thanks to the chairman, Mr F. H. Moore, terminated the proceedings.