Dean Refuses to Resign

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 575, 30 January 1929, Page 1

Dean Refuses to Resign

differences with bishop More Dissension in Waikato COMMISSION TO HEAR DISPUTE (Special to THE SUN) HAMILTON, To-day. THL existence ot strained relations between Bishop CherrAigton and Dean G. R. Barnett have been an open secret among many Anglicans for some days, but in deference to the Bishop, pressmen refrained from the publication of the facts, as the matter was suli-judice, pending the adoption of the commission s report. The publication in another paper that the Bishop had asked the dean to resign lias aroused considerable indignation here. It is felt that somebody is respon ible for a grave breach of confidence.

rpHE statement published was that -*• the dean had refused to obey the bishop’s instructions to resign and that a commission will sit to determine the question. Should the dean be forced to resign. he will be the 13th clergyman to leave the Waikato diocese since the arrival of the bishop. The ministers who have left Hamilton during the last year include Messrs. Harvie, Sell, Rich, Harty, Adams and Wareing. Those who openly disagreed with the bishop during their terms of office were: Messrs, llarvie, Harty and Rich. DEAN NOT AT CHRISTENING

the inquiry was solely on tlie question as to whether the dean is suitable to hold his present position, and it would be unfair if the evidence w'as published. Should the dean resign, it w ill be the duty of the bishop to appoint a successor, and the appointment must be confirmed by Synod Standing Committee and Chapter. If the statement of the Anglican referred to above, as to the cause of the trouble, is correct, it is strangely at variance with what the bishop told one Waikato vestry some months back.

It was pointed out to him that the changes in the form of service had only taken place since his arrival, and it was felt that he was responsible for them.

Great surprise was caused when Dean Barnett was not present at the Cathedral last Sunday to officiate at the baptism of the bishop’s son. It is known that this was the definite outcome of quarrels between them. A prominent Anglicau stated to-day that, from inside information, he had j learned that the reason for the | squabble was because the dean re- i fused to follow the bishop’s instruc- j tions regarding certain forms of services. Previously the dean had been a staunch supporter of the bishop, but differences had existed between them j for a long time. It will be recalled that at the public meeting called by the bishop some months back to clear the air regarding the controversy, his lordship stated that the dean was well aware of the conditions of his appointment when he took office, and that he promised to carry them out. The dean rose dramatically in the body of the hall and strenuously denied this statement. The denial was ignored by the bishop. CONSTITUTION OF COMMISSION The commission to sit in judgment on the dean will consist of one clergyman and two laymen, nominated by the bishop. The dean has the right to object to any member of the commission, and the bishop then appoints another. The dean will have the opportunity to be present and review' the evidence and offer further evidence. If the dean is obliged to resign he where in the diocese. WARDEN’S STATEMENT Mr. D. Hay, people’s warden at the cathedral, stat€;d to-day that the reasons for the dean’s removal could not be made public, as they were part of the evidence. He said the trouble had not arisen over the question of doctrine, and not wholly as a result of the differences between the bishop and the dean. HELD IN CAMERA Mr. Hay considered that the commission would be held in camera, as

A former member of the vestry concerned says that the bishop replied that that w r as not the case, and that he did not interfere, or tell the ministers the form of service to adopt.