THE WESLEYAN TRUST BILL.

Evening Post, Volume XLIV, Issue 45, 22 August 1892, Page 4

THE WESLEYAN TRUST BILL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir — My letter traversing the action of the olorical party on this question seems to have produced tho samo effect that v, live sholl, unexpectedly dropped hot und hissing into an enemy's camp, might bo expected to produce. All the spirits of earth and air have boon invoked. Tho ministerial olomont has run its logs off. noarly, hunting up tho powers that bo. Tho trustees of tho Wellington district, half of whom attended, have been hastily summoned from tho four winds, have met in solomn conclave, and have signod a petition to Parliament in favour of the Bill, and ono may, therefore, suppose that the opposition has boon most effootaally routed. Had this been all no one nood havo been alarmed, booause it is merely a continuation of the process of " buttonholing " and " lobbying " that has been carried on for weeks at the House of Representatives. Bat the reply of the Rev. Mr. Lewis to my lottor is undoubtedly the most eminently characteristic contribution on tho question that has yot been producod. One scarcoly knows whether to tako the re v gentleman seriously, for surely no man occupying a position of responsibility would commit himself to the statements containod in bid letter unloss ho woro oithor very angry or intondod to deliberately hoodwink thoso who aro moot immodiatoly concerned. To say that ovory member of his own congregation had had the fullest information ou the subjoot, and attendod the church when th« yote was taken with his mind fully made up, is so exceedingly absurd that all Mr. Lewis' persuasive powors will bo unable to repress a smile. The fact of tho mattor is the statement is not true. Tho minutes of the New Zealand Conferences do not roach one in a hundred of all tho Methodist adherents in the colony, and the New Zealand Methodist has for years had such a ridiculously limited circulation that tho Conferonce has, tiino after time, had to seriously discuss tho question of continuing its publication. I am as well acquainted with the members of Wesley Church congregation as, probably, Mr. Lowis, and I unhesitatingly say that tho goueral complaint of the moinbors is that they are unacquainted with the true natnre of the proposals now being made for changing the itinerancy period. Those who have had any information oil the matter at all have imagined, and many do still imagine, that the whole change is simply from throe years to five And this is what Mr. Lowis led the congregation to believo when tho show of hands was given. Thoro was never a groator error perpetrated in tho history of Methodism. No time is stated in the Bill, and to show whero the " faction" has been, I will contrast the resolution* of the General Conference held in Sydney two years ago with tho illogal and arbitrary proposal of the New Zealand ministors. The resolution affirmed by tho Sydney Conference in 1890 roads as follows ;—; — "That the General Conforonoo hereby empowers eaoh of the annual conferonoes to frame for itself regulations dealing with the following subjeots : — The term during which a minister may be appointed to the same circuit, Bubjeot to the following conditions : (1) No minister shall be appointed to the same circuit for more than fivo years in succession. (2) No annual conferonce shall exercise the power thu» conferred upon it until it has taken, upon approved legal advice, the steps necessary to make such appointments legal." Now, the proposal of the New Zealand Conference for whioh Parliamentary sanction is being sought is not only a violation of every principle of equity, but it is in diametrical opposition to tho explicit terms of tho resolution of the General Conference. It must not bo forgotten that the New Zealand body is affiliated to the larger Conference, and ought to loyally obey its injunctions. The olause in the Bill now under disoußsion reads thus : — "Notwithstanding anything containod in the said Act, or in the mode), deed or deedpoll referred to in the said Aot, the New Zealand Conference may from time to time (a) appoint any of its members to the same oircuit or office year by year successively tor any such number of years as tho Conferenoe frr the time being exercising supreme jurisdiction in the colopy sjiajl by resolution permit." It will thus be seen that any congregation may have forced upon it, and for any length of time, any minister that the Conference likes to appoint, and that the congregations are as uttorly abandoned as a drowning man in mid-ocoan. We gre constantly told that there are certain safeguards by whioh the congregations will be protected, though it is an astonishing fact that the inclusion of these safeguards in tho Bill is mast persistently resisted by the clerical party. This being the case it requires little sagacity to perceive what the ultimate roault will be. The congregations are being made tho butt of the supremest piece of aggrandisement that it is possible to conceive. If tho New Zealand ministers seoure their object now, their next move will be separation from the Australasian Conference, to bo followed by exclusion of the laity from the higher connoils of tho Church. This is no pleasant prospeot to faoe, and when it is known that the proposal in its present form was drawn up by a comparatively small number of ministers, most accurately denominated the " Committee of Privileges ," and that when the resolution appointing them was passed it was generally understood that five years should be the limit, it will be seen how the powers conferred upon them have been deliberately exceeded, and to what extent the general body of Methodist adherents havo been " sold." In conclusion, sir, I would ask Mr. Lewis to pernse my first letter again. I put no words into his month he did not use. All his statements are "quoted," and the oxEression "Auckland rebels" is mine, not is. I would, however, suggest that even with Christian ministers consistency i 3 something of a virtue, and to denounce from his pulpit as " grossly ignorant " the same individuals that his letter terms "practical common-sense men," is a lapsus lingua that Mr. Lewis would do well to avoid. I quite sympathise with his intense curiosity to know who " Protest" is, and shall be very glad some day to gratify him. At present, owevor, I have no desire to extend mj notoriety. I am. Ac , * Peotrst.