PARISH MEETING.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1028, 9 November 1882, Page 2

PARISH MEETING.

The meeting held in St Saviour’s Church last Monday evening did not break up until nearly 11 o’clock, and consequently we were able to publish only a summary of the proceedings in our last issue. The object of the meeting was to consider what steps should be taken to induce the Bishop to alter his decision with regard to the removal of the Rev Mr Welsh from the parish. On the motion of Mr Ensor, seconded by Mr Harrop, Mr S. D. Barker, Minister’s Churchwarden, took the chair. The Chairman explained the object of the meeting, and read a letter from Mr E. Pilbrow, Parishioners’ Churchwarden, pointing out how desirable it was that the present Incumbent should be retained in (he parish. He also expressed regret at being unable to be present, owing to having to go to Christchurch, and hoped that the meeting would be unanimous in their deliberations. Mr D. Inwood asked the Chairman for a summary of the affairs of the parish. The Chairman said thei’e was nothing to add to what they had heard from the Rev Mr Welsh on the previous evening. He hal not thought there was any likelihood of Mr Welsh leaving- the Parish until Mr Welsh returned Irom the bynod. It was then that he hoard the first of it. Of course, like everyone else, he felt very much put about on hearing that Mr Welsh was leaving. It was a matter of great regret to him to find that they were to lose his services just when they had separated from Pleasant Point and he would have time to attend more to the parish. He at once addressed a letter to the Bishop on the subject, pointing out the good work Mr Welsh was doing in the parish, and stating that it was a pit} r to take him away before he bad finished it. His Lordship replied that be (Mr Barker) must not be disappointed at his (the Bishop’s) judgment differing from his, and altogether (he tone of the repdy seemedtoshow tliatthe Bishop had male up his mind on the subject. The Vestry i ext met and concluded to call the premeeting. He algo wrote a second

making any definite arrangements until after the result of the meeting had been made known. He hoped they would all believe as he (Mr Barker) did that the Bishop had only one object in view, and that was the good of the Church at large. It would be very hard to get a man to work up Pleasant Point, and he believed the principal object of the Bishop was that he thought no one could do it so well as Mr Welsh. As for Mr Welsh, there were reasons why he wished to go to Pleasant Point, #

and many masons why'he regretted leaving Temuka, and so he placed himself in the hands of the Bishop, to send him where he thought fit, believing that the Bishop was the best judge of these things. Mr Deßenzie : Did the Pleasant Point people apply for Mr Welsh ? Mr Barker said he believed that a member of the Synod from Pleasant Point had addressed the Bishop? on the subject. He did not think there was any movement before then with regard to the matter. The thing had been talked of at Albury, where it began, for some months previously, but he believed there was no communication with the Bishop until the meeting of the Synod. Mr Eusor asked whether Mr Welsh had agreed not to leave unless there was a suitable clergyman put in his place. i Mr Barker said he would be most unwilling to leave unless he knew that his place had been well filled. Th| filling ot the place would be il the hands of the nominators, Messrs In wood, Benbow, Rayner, and himself. The Diocesan nominators could nett nominate without the agreement of the local nominators. Mr Ensor said they must view with sincere regret the resignation of the Rev Mr Welsh, but he supposed that they could do nothing but accept i|. He did not think the Bishop had used them fairly at all. It was not fair to take away their clergyman from them. The Pleasant Point people had evidently worked quietly but effectively. They never said a word about it until the business was done. He had been up Pleasant Point way several timegr.. lately, mixed with those who were likely to know all about it, but not one word did they let fall in reference to the matter.

Mr Wills was puzzled by the matter. It was said the Bishop had no power to remove a clergyman from a parish and that the people had no power to do so either, and yet Mr Welsh had been removed by the Bishop. Mr Barker said that was easily explained, Mr Welsh had placed himself in the hands of the Bishop, and the Bishop had decided to remove him to Pleasant Point. Mr Wills said the thing had been going on for six months. They had now a clergyman that suited them, and he did not see why they should play second fiddle to Pleasant Point. Mr Barker said lie had no doubt that the Bishop did what he thought was for the best, and their object should he to show the Bishop that it would be more advantageous to the Church to leave Mr Welsh here than to sen t him to Pleasant Point. Mr De Benzie thought tiie best man should he left here. This was a parish where if a clergyman had once been appointed neither the Bishop nor parishioners had power to ramove him. ft was not so at Pleasant Point. The clergyman appointed there could be remoxed at any moment, and he thought it would better to pat Mr Welsh, as he was a tried man, where the Bishop could not remove him than put an untried man there, whom, if they did not like, they could not remove. They were a quarrelsome lot in this parish, and it was not every clergyman that could agree with them, and if they did int get one to suit them there was no way of removing him except by stopping ids supplies and starving him ou:. The untried man should he sent to Pleasant Point, where, if he did not give satisfaction, he could he removed. Mr Ensor suggested that a deputation should wait upon the Bishop when he would be in Temuka in about a week’s time, and point out the injustice of removing Mr Welsh,

On the motion of Mr Inwood, seconded by Mr Harrop, it was r esolved— ‘ That the Parish deeply regret to hear of the probable removal of the Rev Mr Welsh, and wisli to place on record their opinion that the parish would not meet with fair treatment by the removal of their Incumbent against the wishes of the parishioners.’ The resolution was carried unanimously.