BISHOIPRIC OF DUNEDIN.

Southland Times, Issue 1011, 28 August 1868, Page 2

BISHOIPRIC OF DUNEDIN.

(Frtm the " Daily Timei I ' 2ist Auguat)"" MEETING- OF THE RUBAX DEINEBY BOABD. ; A meeting of the; Eural Deanery Board of Ot&go and Southland was held: tail evening, in St George's Hall. The Eev. E. Gk Edwards, the Rural Dean. presided. —■■-■-■-•"■--■■•- :-•■—•- „-,^,,,..,—, , ...,..,,.,,... The Eev. Mr Martin (Tuapeka) begged to be allowed to introduce Messrs Herbert and Borton, who had been elected m the representatives of the Church of Lawrence (Tuapeka). The Rural Cean said that at the last meeting, he mentioned that if . Tuapeka wished to be represented, an application must be sent in ; but no such application had been made. The Rev Mr Oldham (Bivertpn) said that each of the last three meetings had been stated to be the last meeting of the Board, before the constitution of a Synod so that those desiring to send representatives to the Board had not known what to do. A long conversational discussion followed ; of which only a brief outline can be given.Mr E. B. Martin moved, that Messn Herbert and Borton be admitted as members ; and I. N. "Watt seconded the motion. Mr IV Wayne moved that, as a necessary preliminary step, Tuapeka be placed on the roll, as entitled to send representatives ; and the EeT Mr Stanford seconded this proposal It was contended by Mr Martin and Mr Watt, that the Board having the power to decide as to the validity of any election, the Board could now resolve to admit the Tuapeka representatives. Mr James Smith and others replied that while the Board had power to decide as tothe validity of an election for a constituted district, it had no power to deal with a question of election for what, to the board, was not known as a district ; and that the Chairman must decide whether the question now raised could be entertained. Mr Watt argued that while the. Board was . in session, the Chairman had only such. _ ; power as the Board allowed to him ; and .'. that the question of admitting representatives from a very important district, could at any time been dealt with by the Board. The discussion involved the question of the legality of the election of three representatives who had taken their seats as delegates for Invercargill ; and there were frequent references to what occurred at the last meeting, as to the election of the reprer sentatives who then sat for Invercargill.Mr Watt said that, up to the departure l * of the last steamer from Invercargill, there had been no election, a regularly convened parish meeting having declined to elect any. The Chairman stated that all the information he had as to Invercargill was by telegram, signed by Mr F. Moore. Mr Watt added that Mr Moore . had been a church- warden, but had resigned, in consequence of what had taken place as to the election, after the contrary decision come to by the parish meeting. The Eev. Mr S tanford said he had been informed tliat the election at Invercargill was by a packed meeting. Mr J. L. Dewe urged that Tuapeka could not have applied to be constituted a district, because there was no legally appoin- - ted Standing Committee to which the application could; be .made. ' " The Bural Dean regretted very much that Tuapeka should not be represented ; but, under the Standing Rules, he must decide that such a district was not known ? as one entitled to send representatives. He could not sudmit Mr Martin's motion to the Board. . Mr Watt moved that a division be taken whether the motion should be put; but the Eural Dean declined- to put the question. Mr Watt protested against the rulinjg, and left the meeting ; as did Mr Martin, and Eev/ Mr Stanford, the Eev. Mr Oldham, and others. Mr Oldham said, j " Seeing that this Board is now no representation of the r Church in Otago and i Southland, we protest, and we shall appeal against anything done," ; : As far as we could, ascertain the following retired from the meeting:- — The Eev. Messrs Oldham (Eivertqn), Stanford (Tokomairiro), and /Martin (Tuapeka) ; Messrs B. B.JM^rtan (Dunedin) ; I. N. Watt (Eiverton); J. L. Dewe, Tokomairiro ; George Eichardson, Molyneux; and Messrs Herbert and Borton, Tuapeka. . . The following remained :— The Eev. ..-.-., Messrs E. H. Granger (All Saints), Honorary Secretary; W. GDanner, Invercargill ; A. GKftard, Oamaru ; A. Daseht, Waikouaiti. Messrs P. Wayne, 1 Waikori- " aiti ; J. C. Eowley, MAniatpto , B. Hibbard, Tokomairiro ; F. Pantlin, Dunedin ; E. D. Butts, G. W. Elliot, anS H. T. Hardy, Invetcargill ; W. Mason, Dunedin jE. S. Cantrell, Dunstan; Gk M. Webster, Oamaru ; and James Smith, The Lakes. The Eubai.' Deait said: I am very sorry that the Bishop of Christchurch has thought it necessary that another bpecial meeting of the Board should be summoned, not only on account of the great inconvenience and expense to which, members must be put, but still more because I a painful subject will be re-called, whiclii, I had fondly hoped, had been, as far as the Board is concerned, finally settled^ I gather from what the Bishop says, in his letter to myself, dated May 30th, 1868 — a copy of which you have all received — that his , Lordship is' of opinion that our proceedings have been irregular, and that we . should now nominate a Bishop to the See of Dunedin "strictlyaccording to rule. J - It does 1 not appear that there is any clause in the Church constitution clearly applicable to such a case as ours.: The 23rd clause runs thus : — " The nomination of a Bishop shall proceed from the Diocesan Synod, and if such nomination be sanctioned by the Geheral Synod, or if the General Synod ; be not in session, by the majority of the " standing committees of the several Dioceses, the senior Bishop shall take the

necessary step for giving effect to the nomination." Can this clause be said to apply to the case of the nomination of a Bishop to a new See, wihcli cannot have a Diocesan Synod to nominate ? In a letter which the Primate wrote to the Bishop of Christchurch, in January, 1868 occur these words, " Our Constitution provides no mode of election or nomination of a Bishop for a newly constituted Diocese." And Sir "William Martin wrote thus to myself in July, 1867. "As to the. meaning of the clause No. 33 of the Church Constitution, I do not think there was any doubt in any man's mind at the time of the revision. It was intended to be an adoption of the ancient rule jof the Church, that a Bishop is to be chosen . by the concurrent voice of the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese: — that is torfiay, the Clergy and Laity over whom hejs to preside. As the most regular and satisfactory mode of carrying out this principle, the nomination is required to proceed from the Synod. No doubt the ordinary case of an election to fill a vacancy in a Diocese already possessing a Synod was the case contemplated. In the rare and exceptional case of an election of a first Bishop, all that can be done is to conform to the spirit of the clause. An election by the Synod of Christchurch, though it might seem nearer to the letter, would certainly not have been according to the true meaning or spirit ; for it would really have been an election by persons, outside of the Diocese. In point- of fact, I suppose there was a fair and reasonable approximation to the rule in this case of Dunedin." In connection with this clause (23) a resolution proposed by the Bishop of Christchurch, seconded by the Rev. Dr Maunsell, and carried, at the third General Synod, should be considered — " That this Synod instruct the Bishops of this Ecclesiastical Province to memoralise the authorities of the State in England for the purposes of obtaining their consent to the regulation of the General Synod, as expressed in clause 23 of the Deed of Constitution, viz., " that the nomination of a Bishop shall proceed from the Diocesan Synod, and be sanctioned by the General Synod; or pending their decision on this matter, that they appoint no Bishop to any vacant See in this -Ecclesiastical Province, unless he shall be willing to declare his assent to this Constitution." It might be asked — Is not this clause in abeyance until an answer has been received to the resolution of the Bishop of Christchurch, complying with the request contained therein? It will be for the Board to determine whether' if it should decide upon formally nominating a Bishop to the See of Dunedin, that nomination should be submitted to the Diocesan Synod of Christchurch for their approval, or forwarded direct to Auckland for the sanction of the General Synod. In the Statute for the organisation " or Archdeaconary and Rural Deanery Boards clause 7 declares that " until other provision be made in that behalf by the Diocesan Synod, every Archdeaconary or Rural Deanery Board shall have arid exercise such of the powers of the Diocesan Synod as the Bishop of the Diocese shall from time to time pre■cribe." The question is, has this power been given by the Bishop of Christchurch into the hands of this Rural Deanery Board? The standing Committee have for some time past been in correspondence, through the Rural Dean, with the Standing Committee of the subject of representatives for the Rural Deanery to the General Synod. The two Standing Committees are unable to agree. On the one hand, the Standing Com T mittee of Christchurch is of opinion that this Rural Deanery should be considered as a distinct diocese ; and that, therefore, the Standing Committee of the Board should make arrangements for the election of three clerical and four lay representatives ; and in support of this opinion they lay stress on a letter from the Rev. E. H. Hey wood, commissary of the Bishop of New Zealand, in which the Bishop of Dunedin, and the lay and clerical representatives of his diocese, are formally summoned to the General Synod. On the other hand, the Standing Committee of the Board are of opinion that this Rural Deanery should still be considered as a portion of the Diocese of Christchurchj arid that the See of Dunedin has no legal existence until the General Synod shall have sanctioned the formation- of the Bishopric. And they are strengthened in this view of the case by ■what the Bishop of Dunedin has said in a letter to the Rural Dean, dated May I, ' 1868.

Mr James Smith moved, " That this meeting refers the question of the formation of the See of Dunedin, and the appointment of its first Bishop to the General ;Synod, for their final decision; and also appends, for their information, the proceedings of the Rural Deanery Board, and other published documents in connection with this subject." The Eev W. Tanner seconded the motion, regarding it as a leaving of the whole of the much discussed question to the settlement of an umpire. The 32ev Mr Giffard, Mr Wayne, and Dr Webster, addressed the Board. Mr Hibbard proposed as an amendment, "That this Board, seeing the small amount subscribed towards the Bishopric Endowment Eund, thinks it prematuie

to appoint a Bishop, it being impossible for such nomination to do otherwise than -"""Injure the Church of England in the Province of Otago." The amendment was not seconded. The motion was adopted ; Mr Hibbard being the only dissentient. The Bey W. Tanner moved, " That in the opinion of this Board, no further step towards the nomination of a Bishop should be taken, until the proper endowment of LBOOO has been completed." Mr Butts seconded the motion. The 3tev A. Giffard moved as an amendment, " That the Board is desirous, for the further information of the General Synod, to add to the statement

of the history nf the Bishopric question, an abstract of the present unsatisfactory position of the Endowment Fund. Mr W. Mason seconded the amendment.

The amendment was adopted. Upon the motion of Mr "Wayne, £50 was voted towards the enlargement of Wakouaiti Parsonage; and, on the motion of Dr Webster, '£25 was yoted towards the cost of Oamaru Church.

Mr James Smith (in reply to the Rural Dean) said he believed that, no Standing Committee having been appointed at the last annual meeting, the old Committee continued in office. There could not be a fresh appointment until the next annual meeting. This concluded the business.