A PROTEST FROM THE BAPTIST UNION.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11012, 9 July 1901, Page 5

A PROTEST FROM THE BAPTIST UNION.

DISCISSION AT THE CITY COUNCIL. Tie following letter was read at the City Council meeting last nigljt: — "A. E. G. Rhodes, Esq., Mayor,—l am instructed by the Committee of the Canterbury and Westland Baptist Association to respectfully protest- against the consistent manner in" which u« Baptist denomination liaa been officially ignored in connection With all the functions which pertained to the recent visit of their Roya , . Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York. We recognise that the invitations to the reception meeting on the Saturday evening were entirely a personal nutter of your own, and se we are referring 'to the remaining public functions, and invitations to winch, although issued by tlie Government, were made, we suppose, with the cognisance oi the municipal office. We have the more reason to' bring (the matter under your M-ayoral notice, as the .treatment now complained of was but a repetition at what happened at the celebration of the Jubilee of the .province. I have, etc., S. B. lngold, Secretary Canterbury and Westland Baptist Association." . The Mayor said he .had written a .private letter to the secretary explaining tlie position which the Council: had taken up in the matter, and asking him whether he wished the letter to be placed before the Council. The secretary replied that he would lite we Mayor to do so. The position of tne Council which .he had explained, and which perhaps he might now state publicly, was simply to a certain sum towards the expires of die visit of their Royal Highne&es. The Council had,nothing whatever to do with the issuing of .the invitations at all. The Reception Committee, lie also would point out, hud not issued any notations whatever; indeed, the members oTthat Committee for their seu s on the stand for themselves and, their friends. The Council, therefore, nor the Reception Committee, » !l<i , n S t£f- anY with the invitations, nor had they anj cognisance of them at all. As far as re- | gardedthe Government invitat.ons, that, of course, waa a matter with which they, as a Council, had nothing whatever to do • Cr "Clark said that he understood that ! fefa idea of the letter was to protest against the Baptists being ignored in connection with any public functions. So far as the invitations were concerned he would like to point out that tne members of the City Council, were quite as much ignored with regard to the functions as the members of the Baptist Church appeared to have been. Ihe only privilege councillors had was the pay- ' ing for their seats, and that later in the day 1 alter they had done so they received a couple of tickets each for the Government stand. J Cr. .Smith said he desired to point out 1 ' that all citizens, irrespective of denominations, were invited to attend the prehmmary 1 meeting at which the Reception Committee 1 waa appointed. Had any representatives of 1 '■, the Baptist Church been present on that oc- ' : caeion they would have been on the Com- ; lnittee, but as had been pointed out by mem- | 1 bers there were no privileges attached to the ' membership except the payment for their , 1 - seats. He though the sooner the idea that » the members of the Council got anything : beyond what had been spoken of by Councils lor Clark was dispelled the better. He s moved —"That the letter be received and r I acknowledged, and the writer be informed ' that the Council invited the citizens irrespective of denominations to meet and form 3 committees to carry out the arrangements k for receiving the Royal visitors. The mat--3 ter was then left in the hands of the ap- • pointed committee." r Cr. Clark seconded the motion. ■Cr. Taylor supported the motion, and in s doing so expressed the opinion that the time 3 at wfiich these preliminary meetings" in • connection with public iunctions were called - was a most inconvenient one iof~ Council- ? lors to attend, and therefore many were not i on the committees. He thought that it was > just as well that the, public should be made - aware that the Council had nothing to do i issuing the invitations." 1 J Cr. Loughnan moved as an-, amendment— b I "That the letter be received, and the writer . I informed that the« Council had nothing to - ■■ do directly or indirectly with the matter of r j issuing the invitations; Or. Macdonald seconded the amendment. Cr. Smith called attention to the fact that every City Councillor had been placed on one committee or another. ', The Mayor said that he could support what Cr. cmith had said. After the preliminaiy meeting a great deal of the work was done , by the Council and Councillors. ' The amendment was put and lost, and the motion agreed to.