CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 29, 3 February 1904, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE NEW PRLMATE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —While fully agreeing with your graceful remarks under the above heading in reference to the election of our Primate, I feel it my duty, as a member of the Synod, to correct you in reference to your comment on the action of the Synod in rejecting the motion of the Bishop of Nelson, and for this purpose I will quote clause 24, canon 1, title A of the General Synod, which is as follows: —"On the motion that the Synod proceed to the election of a Primate, it shall not be competent for any member of the Synod to propose any candidate for the office, and the only question to be spoken to shall be the subject matter of the motion-" Which, of course, means whether or not the Synod shall proceed there and then or at a future time to the election of a Primate, and consequently no other subject can be discussed while the ballot is in process. It, is evident, therefore, that the Bishop of Nelson's motion after the Synod had decided to proceed to ballot, and had actually taken one ballot, was entirely out of order, and it was only out of consideration for the delicate position of the president in the matter that the point was not raised. The Synod was therefore bound to act strictly in accordance with the canon, and reject a motion whicli it is evident should never have been made. And as regards the term '''default," to which you refer, it really does not apply in this case as was clearly pointed out by the Dean of Dunedin. The conviction was general that no Bishop would receive the votes of a majority' of all orders, and members voted with the frill knowledge of what the result in thai case would be, namely, the election .ii the senior Bishop.—l am. etc., SYNODSMAN.