A FIXED PRIMACY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 103, 3 May 1922, Page 11

A FIXED PRIMACY.

CLAIMS OF WELLINGTON.

PROPOSAL NARROWLY DEFEATED.

When the Anglican CJencral Synod met last, evening, the Primate moved the second reading of a bill to repeal certain clauses and enact others in connection with the appointment of a Primate. The bill provided that thej Bishop of Wellington for the time being should be etyled Trimate of New Zealand. The clause, he said, would come into operation on the next ensuing appointment of a hi.sb.op for the Wellington diocore. The bill further provided that every vote upon the question of sanctioning a nomination for the Bishopric of Wellington should be tiecided by ballot. Another clause was emended to read that in the event of ~ie Primacy being vacant, the senior bishop should have all the powers, duties, and obligations of the Primate.

Dr. Juliue eaid be hesitated to press the bill, a* ho wae not satisfied with all the conditions, and was not sure it would work. "There are unquestionably i serious disadvantages," he paid, "and I| want to he ac honest as a biehop can b<>. (Laughter. There are sorrows and difficulties in the way. and it might be a possible cause of friction, and thus do! harm to the Church."' He would not presa the bill. Mr. H. D. Andrews (ChrfetahuTch) opposed the bill. The time was not ripe for continuing with it. He believed that in time the. queetion of an archbishopric would have to be discussed for the province.

The bill wa-s also opposed by Archdeacon M-aoMurray (Auckland), who did not favour a fixed primacy. Bishop Selwvn in his laet address had stated it was not expedient that the Primacy should be at the seat of government. Wellington certainly had advantages, principally geographical, but he wae certain if the bill were enacted there would be dissatisfaction and trouble. The passing of the bill would lead to dimension. ! The Primate: Do you wish mc to ■withdraw thie bill? Cries of "Xo, no." The Bishop of Kelson (Dr. Sadlier) eaid the bill would mean increased efficiency in the business side of the Church. He would vote for the second reading of the. bill. That the time was not opportune for such a change was the opinion expressed by Mr. C. Hudson (Auckland). There was nothing wrong in the present method of appointment oi a Primate. The question of centralisation :n Wellington did not receive his support; nothing could be gained by such a change.

Archdeacon A. M. Johnson (Wellington) believed that the bill would lead to efficiency. Three dioceses, he said, bad voted for the bill and three against it. In eudden emergencies the centralisation of the Primacy would be a. great advantage to the Church.

On a division being called the bill was defeated by one vote. Three of the bishops voted for it, and four against it.