FOURTH GENERAL SYNOD OF NEW ZEALAND.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3511, 16 October 1868, Page 5

FOURTH GENERAL SYNOD OF NEW ZEALAND.

' THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15. I Th* Prwfidmt took the chair at 4 p.m. Present : The Bishop* of New Zealand andLio i- ' field,' Christchurcb, Wellington, tfehon, WfriaDi ; * and Biahop Patteson. Clergy : The Dean of Cb'rii tcharoh, the Her. Canon Cotterill ; the Yen. Arc! ideacons Butt.' Brown, Gorett, Hadfield, Harpe-, Uoyd, and WiUiama,; Bert. J. Atkio, S. Blucl:karn, B. Burrow^ A. r Gyford, Y. Lush, Dr. Maui- ' iell, J. Palmer, and S. Poole. Xaity : Meurv. \ \ Betokham, A. S. Braithw»ite, C. H. Brown, F. . H. PtntoD, P. Hanmer, S. Kempthorne, G. S. Kis«hn ;, R.'B: Lu«k, R, B. M«rtia, E. Quiok, Ji R. Selwyu, .^ & B. Ludbtook; H. Willbm. 5 Captato Tilley, Hoi i. J. B. Acland, Hon.'W. Swaiwon, Hon. Colonel - Kwny, and Sir W. Martin.

MHfUTIS. ! I ' ' Th« miobtfti of the preceding sitting were md And I confirmed. ' • \

•'" ' bishop sblwyh's dipabtcm. i His Lordship aaid the vessel by which ho proposed to leave Auokland had arrived in harbour, and he was informed by the agents that the late it day of sailing would be Tuesday next, at tbn c o'clock. It would, therefor*, be necessary for tl c Synod to decide, before separating tbii eveniDg, i* to the beat means of completing the business of tl c Synod. There need be no difficulty in settling tt c bttrineeswell and effectually by Saturday. Mary of the members would neceuarily have to leave c n Friday.

88. Jnpint AND THE DtfMKDIX BISHOPRIC. | The PmistDißT brought up the report of the committee Appointed to consider and report upon tit propriety of bringing to a conclusion the eecleifa itical arrangements respecting the See of Dunedi*. The following ia the report of the committee :—: — J " Your committee, baring carefully considered toe •abject submitted to them, and having taken sudb •riaenos and examined such document* bearing "thereupon a* were within their reach, including, a 1 statement by Dr.* Jenner, beg to report ai follows:— ! "They bare ascertained that the endowment fmnd for the proposed diocese is, in its present state, insufficient for the rapport of a Bishop. They hare further ascertained that the objections entertained in the contemplated diocese to the alleged opinions and practices of Dr. Jenner precluded the probability of the speedy completion of this fund. "At the same time they are led to believe that the pecuniary circumstances of Dr. Jenner, so far a| they are able to form an opinion upon them, are . such as would cause him to be wholly dependent upon that fund. ' "In coming to a decision they have nob thought tiMttselres called upon to take into consideration the alleged ritualistic praotdoes of Dr. Jenner, but they consider that the state and prospects of the endowment fund, and the circumstances abore referred to, constitute sufficient reasons for the following decision, namely : — ' "That they are not prepared to recommend this Synod to confirm the appointment of Dr. Jenner. | " They recommend that, as soon as the necessary endowment be completed, the proper steps be taken for the nomination, confirmation, and consecration of a .Bishop for the proposed See. "They accordingly propose the following resolutions for adoption by the Synod : — "1. That the report of the committee be adopted by the Synod. And contingent upon this being carried, 2. That the Primate do requested to forward a oopy of the report to Dr. Jenner and the Bural Deanery Board of Otago and Southland. "J. C. CHBISIfHCROH, " Chairman."

DR. JBmn'S STATEMENT. ■ i The Bisror of Chbietohttkck laid before the Synod a letter received by him on that day from Dr. Jenner, accompanying a number of copies of a statement drawn. up by bim on the subject of the matters in connection with the proposed Dunedin Bishopric, and himself. The letter of Dr. Jenner contained a request that the local journals would publish the "statement."

RETORT 07 COHMirm ON STATUTES. The report of the Statatei Committee wu brought Sv recommending certain Alteration! in Statute o. 3.

CONSICRATION OF THS NSW PBIHATX. The Bay. Dr. Mavhsbll moved, " Whereat the Diooesan Synod of New Zealand has agreed to nominate as Bishop of that diocese suoh percon as the Bishop of I^cbfield may select for that purpose in the mother, country ; atid whereas this Synod has fall confidence in his. judgment : Resolved that this Synod does confirm such nomination ; and hereby requests the Bishop of lichfield to take the necessary kteps for his consecration." The Her. R t Burrows seconded. The Bishop of Nelson took objection to the notion. He was much: di-appointed with the statement of the President on the previous day. They did not want ritualism in New Zealand, and he hoped they never would have it. The President said, if the Bishop of Nelson required any explanation respecting any portion of his ■peeon, he would be quite willing to give it on otion. They had no such thing as ritualism at present in New Zealand, and therefore the Bishop of Nelson had no right to allude to matters which trere pnrely confined to Great Britain. The Bishop of Nilson said it might be a question how far the opinions expressed by the President on the previous day would justify the confidence placed In his Lordship by the Synod as .to his fitness to ohooss in the matter under discussion. Be must confess that what bad been said bj his Lordship on the previous day had materially shaken his confidence In his Lordship. Several members rose to order. The Bishop of Nxlson proceeded to say that the Bishop of Licbfield had given expression to such opinions on matters relating to ritualism that he felt his confidence .materially shaken in b'"s Lordship's fitness to select a successor. The Bishop of Milanksia said, if the Biahop of Nelson had known how much pain he had caused by the observations which h>'s Lordship bad made, he would have reserved them for another occasion. He was quite sure that the Bishop of Nelson bad quite misunderstood the remarks of the Biahop of New Zealand and lichfield on the previous .day. If the BtsLop of Nelson had known his Lordship better, he would have been ready to believe that nothing would be further from bis thoughts than to introduce anything into, New Zealand that would cause dissension in the Church. (Applause.) The fiev. ft. Bubbows said he was sore that the Bishop of Nelson had misunderstood the whole tenor of the Bishop's remarks, and bad he known him tatter he would have been very loth to have given expression 'jbo such remarks. He felt sure that his Lordship would be the laat in the world that. would dd anything that would have the effect of, introducing dissension into the Church in this colony, i , , „ Colonel Kinky followed in the same strain. As % layman he could fully testify to the self-denial and Chiiitian exertions of the Bishop of New Zealand. He kltr su/e that no one in the Church of New Zealand wiiuld be mor« ready to exclude anything thaJ^wpTt'd engender dissension in the Church. 'rffty a. Kkupthobnb moved an amendment, which fall through for 1 want of a, neconder. The Iron. ' J. B. Acland followed in the same l*rai*. ■ •' : J Dr. Maunsklli said, having often broken a lance with his Lordship, he iniglft be fairly considered impartial in the' matter. While giving the Bishop of Nation foll ( iredit for thorough earnestness and conscientioutness, he could not but entirely disagree with~~him in the, opinion he had expressed with regard to the Bishop of New Zealand and lichfield, whom he bad the" honour of having known fun many year* iHe was sum that the utmost confident* waif reposed in .his Lordship's fitness to make * judieipjur choice of a successor. ' / Ohe motion wfes pnt aid carried. -:iTbejP*»«B>«*T srid bei thanked tb» Synod for tHe confidence that had beem reposed in him. There was. however, i great difficulty, in making a choice, and al«*4y five persons ha<f refused the, offer. If, therefore, some delay occurred in making a selection it mu(tjb* ascribed to the difficulty of fiodiug a fit per. ■on lot/ the office, and not to any lackvof seal on his paijti ' jflehad hoped t)Jiod a oler^yman t> accept the office, but by the last mail he had received. a lettir from tho^am*p»,x«on declining it. H e would endeaXOatta make a judicious choice, and they might rest ass-ired that l>« would do nothing contrary'^to tap interest not. only of tbis diocese but of the whole. (Cheery.) i , n •

AUXILIARY CLTOGTHEtr. The Rer. A. OrFFOED moved, "That this Synod do earnestly in«itei the several Diocetan Synods to take l i|ito ! khei^c^'-idfr»tioii (he importance of provunqg. auxiliary clergymen for/ the occuional relief of tls, relent cjergy, ao.l to . fulfil other temporary d^tiei j»i t^e'"Bi«lJop %\ia\\ from time to time appoint." » / Mr. H. B.'. Martin seconded. After caiuiderable (I'isouehou the mot'on wan *|wedto. i^ . '^l/.t i HJIOOKAN i 'TJMDABIIS. Sir W. MAimWrmoreJ, •" That the Biahopa of J the prorioct be reipeotfally reqaetwi to mett together

to contider the qu«=tion of the boundwie. of the •ereral dioceses, »nd to report to the Synod the result of their conference j wdthat the committee to which tke question is now referred be dtscharg«d fiona considering the same." rari f; n u The Hoo. Colonel Kbnny seconded the motioh. AfUr « discnision the motion w»s mgreed to. ,

, Theßer. Dr. Mmna moved," Thatthe diocese hitherto known » the Diocese of New Zealand be heno»forth called the Diooese of AuckUnJ, «d th»b the Statutes and Resolution of the General Synod bi altered accordingly." . . | Archdeacon Govarr seconded the motion. , The motion was agreed to.

HnnfAL COMMITTM. | The Bishop of Waiapo moved, " That the name of Mr. Kemptborne bo added to the committee da the Hymnal."— Agreed to. BMORT O» DONBDIN BISHOPBIO COMMTTTJCK. j The Bishop of Christchtjkoh moved, "That, *n the event of the committee appointed to consider the expeiiency of completing th« ecclesiastical w- . r.ogements proposed for the new Diocese of Dunedin bringing up their repeat to-morrow, the Synod do proceed to consider the resolutions founded oa that report." H« said the oommittee had examned various documents relative to the matter, had examined clerical and lay witnesses, and after muoh .deliberation came to the conclusion embodied in this report. One of the resolutions he had to propose was that the report be adopted, and ib would remain for the committee to decide whether the question ■honld-be discussed in committee or in Synod. (His Lordship here read the report.) He had to moye that the report be adopted. , Mr. Maktin seconded the motion. t The Pmcsidbnt said that the report was no framed as to place hint in a position 'that hd ' could not consent to occupy. There was a resolution appended to the report requesting him to forward a copy of the reports Dr. Jenner, but there waß no distinct resolution submitted in the report which would affect the question whether Dr. Jenner wa»re»lly m th« position heibelieved himself to occupy.' He (the Fresident) would thus, be placed in the position of forwarding the report to Dr. Jenner without being able to inform him distinctly whether or not he occupied the position of Bishop of Dunedin. The *BiSHOP;of Ohkistchxtboh obtained leave to withdraw his motion until a later stage.

ARCHDEACONRY AND BUBAL BOARDS. A«hd«con Williams moved, "For leave to bring in » bill to amend Statute No. 3, for organising Archdeaconry and Rural Deanery Boards, and, if such leave be given, that the bill be read a first time." The Hon. J. B. Acland leconded the motion, which was agreed to. Archdeacon Williams then nooveJ that the bill be read a fint time and ordered to be printed.— Agreed to.

MISAPPLICATION OF CHURCH PtTNDS. Sir W. Martin moved, "That it is desirable that a bill be prepared and laid before: the Synod at ite next meeting, to give to the Standing Committee of every diocese such powers as may be required to enablo it to inquire into oases of alleged misapplication of fundi applicable to Church purposes." Dr. Maunsill seconded the motion, which wai agreed to.

THE DITOEDIN BISHOPRIC KEPOB.T. The Synod adjourned for half an hour, in order to enable the Biihoprio of Duuedin Committee to amend the report. On the Synod resuming, The Bishop of ChristohoßOH brought np the amended report, and, in doing to, said the committee could easily understand hour unwillingly he moved the resolutiona attached to the report ; but his position of chairman of the committee left him no alternative. (His Lordship read the amended report.) He had to more, in the first place, " That the appointment of Bishop Jenner as Bishop of Dunedin be not confirmed." Mr. R. B Mabtut seconded the motion. Mr. E. Quick moved, as an amendment, "That, the report of th» committee being of such an important character, its further consideration be postponed until to-morrow, and that the report be printed and placed in the hands of members of the Synod. He •aid his teasous for moring the amendment were that he had scarcely an opportunity of fully understanding the report, and the statement which had been forwarded by Dr. Jenner hrd not been sufficiently long in the hands of members to enable them to understand its contents. The Rer. A. Gutord secouded the amendment. The President read the statement forwarded by Dr. Jenser, as follows : —

"THE BISHOPRIC 01 DUNEDIH. "The subjoined statement of facts connected with the nomination and consecration of the Her. Henry Lascelles Jenner, as Bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand, has been sent out for presentation to the Diocesan Synod of Christchurch, ai)d to the General Synod of the New Zealand Church. "The following statement is submitted to the • Synod, ie the hope that it may, in some measure, serve to guide the members to a right and just deci•ion on the question to be brought before them, viz., the confirmation of the Bishop in the see for the occupation of which he has been consecrated. " It will be convenient to give a brief summary of events in their chronological order, appending a few observations on their bearing upon the matter under discußiion. 11 On the 14th of October, 1865, the Archbishop of Canterbury offered to nominate the Rev. H. L. Jenner, a beneficed clergyman in his Grace's diocese, to be the first Bishop of the proposed diocese of Dunedin ; producing at the tame time a letter from the Metropolitan of New Zealand requesting dm to select a clergyman for the new see ; 'a clergyman,' writes Bishop Selwyn, 'able and willing to undertake the work of hewing a ■tatue out of a very rough block of stone j a vigorous man, with some power of speech, and real earnestness of purpose, able to walk and ride, and , not afraid of weather, &c.' "On Ootobi-r 17, Mr. Jenner accepted the offer ; and the Aichbishop wrote to the Bishop of New Zealand, by the mail leaving, via Marseilles, on the 26tb, notifying Mr. Jenner's acceptance of the call, and encloning bis declaration of adhesion to the Constitution of the New Zealand Church. "When the intelligence reaches New Zealand, letters are written to Mr. Jenner by the Metropolitan, and the Bishop of Christchurch (from whose diocese the provinces to be placed under the charge of the new bishop were to be separated) expressive of their satisfaction at the nomination and its acceptance. These first communications are dated January and February, 1866. ' "On April 16, 1866, the Bishop of New Zealand, writing from Tokomairiro, Otago, thus begins his letter: — ••'My dear Bishop of Dunedin, — I thus address you in the hope that my letter to the Arohbisbop will have removed all doubfc, and that you and Dr. Suter are already consecrated.' "On May 2, 1866, the Bishop of New Zealand again addresses Mr Jenner as Bishop of Dunedin, ani says that he 'much regret* the delay in the con"On St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1866. Mr. Jenner is consecrated, l>y royal mandate, • a Bishop in New Zealand :' and he assumes the title of Bishop of Dunedin on the strength of Bishop f-elwyn s letters, and of others from the clergy of Otago aml^ Southland, whose communications, up to the date o t April, 1867, uniformly express satisfaction at the consecration. For example, the Rev. W. F. Oldham, of Riverton, writes thus, his letter being dated 27th February, 1867 :— " • I am anxious, if possible, to express>to-.you the pleasure which I in common with all the clergy, I think, look forward to your arrival among us. I look upon it as likely to be an era in the history of the Church out heie, and I hope to work with you for m*ny year<, with all my energies, in her muchloved service.' •The Rev. E. G. Edwards, Raral Dean ; the Rev. Algernon Gifford, of Oanuru ; the Rev. E. H. Granger, of- All Saints', Dunedin; the Rev. W. Tanner, of Invercargill ; also send letters of hearty congratulation. ' . " About this time (April, 1867), two discoveries appear to ( have been ma-'e. 1. That the election *nd consecration of the Bishop were 'irregular.' 2. Tnat be hid ' ritualistic teudenoies.' It is deter- ' mined to employ the first of these, to save the i diocese from the fatal effects of the last. *• 'The question of the election,' writes the Rev. |W. F. Oldham,"' would probably never have been raise !, but f«r th« danger which seemed to threaten the Church.' j "It is unnecessary to enlarge upon th" agiratinn which, was resorted to, and the measures which I were adopted, an ordtvr to obtain the repudiation of ißishopi Bishop Jenner's election by; the Church in Otago ,anl Southland. Neither need the steps taken % Vr. W. Carr Younsr, with the same object, be described at length ; the letters of that gent eman on ■the subject having been printed in the colonial n*wspapers And re<p£ct for hi 3 Grace's high office pieclixies all comment on the attitude assume 1 by 1 the Archwahopitt Cattterbuiy towards Bishop Jenner since lv« ooni»eoratiou. i<n this j&ioful subject it coay suffice to Observe th»t thy Rdral DeaufcryBoard of Otago and Southland, bejng specially con- ,

veiled, ou September 11, 1867, to consider the i complaints made by Mr. Young, his interview with the Archbishop, as reported by himself, and his Graced unqualified condemnation of Bishop Jenner rejected a motion hostile to the Bishops claims and passed on© of an opposite tendency. And at the aunuil meeting in January, 1868, the Board again refused, by a decisive majority, to take adverse action. | "Resolutions are, however, received from frwjo or three separate congregations or veßtries, stating objections to the appointment of the Bishop, me vestry of St. John's, Invercargill, may be mentioned si one of these. A categorical reply to the resolutions having been sent, it is thus acknowledged by the Rev. W. Tanner, the incumbent :— " ' Your present letter is a satisfactory answer to our feara, and we gladly accept ir as such, and hoje you -will conbider that we cordially receive you i s our Bishop.' . ,i "The opposition now,, i.c,, at .the close of the year 1867," appears to be declining. Letters from all parts of the diocese, indicative of a reactiOD, aije received ,by the Bithop, who determines, with the approval of the Bishop of ,Christohurcb, to sail fqr New Zealand on February 3, 1868. But on January 9, Bishop Harper writes to say that /recent advices from his diocese have convinced him that, the opposition being on the increase, Bishop Jenner s departure from England must be postponed until the General Synod shall hare met, and formally sanctioned his appointment. j " This course does not approve itself to the judgment of the Bishop, who is convinced by his own correspondence that the repugnance to hit arrival, sb far from being on the increase, is daily diminishing;; and who is desirous to meet the members of his new flock, whether hostile or friendly, with all cordiality and charity ; and to strive, by personal intercourse and hard work combined, to remove unfavourable impression*, and conciliate opponents, before the meeting of the General Synod. , " Failing, however, to convince his two elder brethren of the reasonableness of his views, thp Bishop is compelled, with the utmost reluctance, and under protest, to submit to their deciuon. j "This then is the position of affairs at the end ojf June, 1868. Bishop Jenuer remains at home unt^l after the meeting of the GeneraF Synp,d, in deference to the opinion— so strongly expressed as to admit of no resistance*— of Bishops Selwyn and Harper, and in spits of his own sure conviction that; such, delay is by no means required by the necessities of. the case,— a conviction which ii strengthened by advices which avery mail brings from the colony. + " On the foregoing sketch of the progress of events, the Bishop of Dunedin makes the following observations :—: — \ , . . i ' "1. It is evident that the offer of nomination as Bishop of Dunedin came to Bishop Jenner from the highest ecclesiastioal authority in England, acting at the instance of the highest ecclesiastical authority m New Zealand. ,- „ lL w ' "2. The offer was made unconditionally r thought of choice having been conferred absolutely on the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Metropolitan of New Zealand. , ••3. 'Ihe offer was accepted on the assumption that it was a bona fide one j in which 'conviction the Bishop Designate signed, and transmitted to the Metropolitan, his adhesion to the New Zealand Church Constitution. "4. Between the acceptance of the offer of nomination and the consecration of JSishop Jenner there was ample time and opportunity for alleging the irregularities now complained of, as a bar to the consecration. Yet in the covrse of those ten months not a hint reached the Bishop Designate that any , irregularities whatever had occurred. | "5. From the oircuiuitance that four months before the comecration the Metropolitan addressed the Bishop Designate as Bishop of Dunedin, and referred to a letter in whioh he had pressed the Archbishop to proceed with the consecration, it appears certain that, in the estimation of the highest ecclesiastical authority in New Zealand, no irregularity had.occurred of sufficient importance to impede the consecration. 11 6. By the co«secration on August 24th, 1866 (a step deliberately taken by the Primate of all England, in compliancd with a requisition from the Metropolitan of New Zealaid), the episcopal 'character' was indelibly impressed But in the event of the rejection of his claim to the see of Dunedin, the Bishop will be placed (and that from the very beginning'of his episcopate) in the anomalous position of a bishop with no field of labour, an overseer with nothing to oversee, a shepherd with no sheep to feed. .... "7. Whoever is to blame for the 'irregularities' which, it is contended, vitiate the appointment of the Bishop, it is admitted, on ?1I bands, that no responsibility attache* to him. It is, therefore, consonant with neither reason nor justice that be should be the one person on whom the punishment should fall. "8. The portion of the New Zealand Church most interested in the matter has, at least twice, formally condoned all 'irregularities,' and-recog-nised Bishop Jenner as its chief pastor. "9. Only a slight allusion is made in the foregoing narrative to what are called the ' ritualistic tendencies' of Bishop Jenner. For the Bishop is unable to believe that the Synod will take any such question int> consideration. As far as he has any voice in the matter, he beg? to be distinctly understood as objecting entirely to be Judged, more especially in his absence, for any presumed 'tendencies' whatever;? or, indeed to any issue being raised before the Synod but that of justice or injustice towards himself. " 10. For, in conclusion, the Bishop respectfully submits that it is as a nutter of good faith and common justice that the New Zealand Church is bound to recognise his claim to the see of Dunedin, to confirm his election, and to assign him spiritual jurisdiction over the territory to be separated from the Diocese of Christchurch. An engagement of more than ordinary solemnity has b«en entered into ; the two contracting parties being the Church in New Zealand, speaking aud acting by her Metropolitan, and Bishop Jenner. The question to be decided by the Synod is simply this : Do the iotere-ts of the New Zealand Church demand, and will justice and honesty admit of, the repudiation of that engagement by either of the parties, i without the concurrence of the other? Such a question may safely be left to the judgment of auy . assembly of fair-dealing Englishmen ; and the Bishop leaves it with peifect confideuce in the hands' of, the j General Synod of the New Zealand Church, only praying that in this an! all its deliberations GoJ the Holy Gho-t will guide it into all truth, and that, whereever the infuence of its counsels may extend, God's name m»y be glorified, aud the Church of His dear Son edified." He would only add that the last note attached to the statement was an extract from a very incorrect report of the proceedings of the conference. What he referred to was the declaration signed by Dr. Jenner, and he was protected from any arbitrary action by the 16th clause of the Constitution. The motion now before the Synod amounted to the deposition of a Bishop ; and under the 16th clause of the Constitution he claimed that the deposition should not take place without a ipecial itquiry, and that inquiry made by a properly constituted Court. The Dean of Christohttrch hoped Mr. Quick would reflect that a mischievous effect might be produced, if the report of the proceedings up t > the present went down South without the result. The Rev. A. Gtffobd said he bad no intention of impeding the progress of business. So small a matter as the departure of the mill had not entered into his consideration . Mr. BECKHAM : Snrelv the matter is of too great importance to admit for a moment fie consideration of so small a matter as the departure of the mail. The motion for the postponement of the consideration of the report was put and carried.Colonel Kenny g»ve notice of motion for to-day that the evidence upon which the committee fouuded the r report be laid upon the table. The Deajt of Christchurch said no detailed account of the evidence had been taken, but the committee had carefully considered the evidence. Minutes of the proceedings h»d, however, been taken, and, if it was desired, would be laid before the Synod. Col»nel Kbnny obtaine 1 leave to insert the word " minutes " as well as "evidence." The Dba.n of Chhistchubch said one of the gentlemen who wa« examined had prepared a memorandum of the evidence which would probably be forth- | coming.

• " I must add," writei Bishop Harper, in answer to a protest against the delay,, 'that I should i«commend your immediate resignation of -all claims to the office of Bishop of Duuedin, ia preference to any assumption of it i under present circumstances." ' ' '■' t The Rural Dean of Qttvgo and Southland; e.g.,, writes : "I gather from what your^ Lordship says, that Bishops Selwyn and flarpor advised you to remain in England, ibecause the dpposition was ' increasing ;' I have written to tell them that they are altogether mistaken." ■ i It is essential that there should be no mistake on this moint During the last session of the convocation of Canterbury the Bishop of Lichßeld and New Zealand, in his place In the Upper House, made the following statement, in illustratioa of the advantages of synodical , action :— !' When the 'litiuilistic practices of Bishop Jenner were called in question, in parties concerned agreed to lefer the matter to'the General 'Svriod for its decisiou." On which words -Bishop Jenner, "writing to the Bishop .of Christchurch, remarked, and now repeats that he for one (certainly a party concerned) neyer had agreed, and never could. ajjoeMD.any Juch.ref«rtaoe ; unless, indeed, a definite charge were brought against him, which at should bare proptr opportunity of meeting.