BISHOP AND SYNODSMAN.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 217, 12 September 1911, Page 9

BISHOP AND SYNODSMAN.

ICR. HARPER'S POSITION" DEFINED. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) OHRISTCHURCfI, this day. The sequel to the action of Bishop <Ti]ius in declaring Mr. W. H. Hargreaves, a member of the Diocesan S;iTio<i now in session, ineligible for a position on the hoard of nominator? occurred to-day. Immediately upon the Opening of the afternoon sitting, the Ituv. if. T. Purchas asked permission to refer to the incident of Friday night, aid 1 , upon 'being given permission, stated that he desired to say in the first place that M;r. Hargreaves withdrew what he had said on Friday evening in regard to leaving the church. (Applause.) that statement was (made by Mr. Hargreaves, as all would understand, under great pressure.

Biahop Julius: I said I was very thankful indeed that llr. Hargreaves Biedr withdrawn the words 1 all must have resetted. He thought it was clearly Understood that there was nothing whatever affecting -Mr, Hargreaves' character—that ought to have been understood from the first. Mr. Andrews said that the committee appointed on Friday night had met the Bishop after the sitting. The committee's report was as follows:—"The committee deaire the Synod to know that -the whole ground on which the Bishop acted wa3 that 3dr. Hargreaves had 'himself voluntarily told' him on (Friday afternoon that he had not received the elements of communion for Boiue years past; that the Bishop, having informed Mr. Hargreaves that he could not allow his nomination to stand, requested him to have his name withdrawn <by leave of Synod, and, on Mj. Hargreaves declining to take this course before or after the first 'ballot, the Bishop, in the opinion of the committee, had no option hat to taike the course She did."

Mr. Hargreaves said' that last Thursday he was told there to a movement afoot to keep him off the Board of Nominators, on the ground that he was opposed to the interests of the local clergy. He denied-the impeachment. He then approached the Bishop, detailing what he had heard, and explaining why ihe had heen unable., for two reasons, to partake of the elements of the Lord's ifca'ble. One reason was a phyeicall one, which ho had -been labouring under for forty-two years; the other reason was. purely a matter of conscience. But this Obstacle had now been removed by death. He had been a communicant for nearly for.ty-four years, and it had ifaeen a great loss to him to havo to abstain +'rom communion.

Bishop Julius eaid he had listened to Mr Hargref.ves with great sympathy and attention. For his own part in the matter he had no regret. But for Mr. Har,greaves' voluntary statement to him he would not have challenged the nomination; He could not agree that Mr. Hargreaves was still a communicant. There was nothing .whate-ver of any sort behind 1 this question, except the fact that the Church required that every member of a iboard of nominators should be a communicant, and that, in the judgment of ,the Bishop, Mr. Hargreaves was not.

■The Rev. ir. T. Parch as said that, although 3lr. Hargreaves did not desire him to mention it, he would state that Mr. Hargreaves had attended Holy Communion the previous day. That should remove every difficulty. The Bishop: It removes every difficulty in my mind in regard to his place in the Synod. (Applause.)