PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD.

Evening Star, Issue 10149, 30 October 1896, Page 2

PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD.

Sittings resumed at 10 a.m. to-day, the business being further consideration of the question of union with the Northern Church.

The minutes of last night's session having been read, objection was taken to the incorporation therein of the details of the Rev. W. BanuermaU's protest. A discussion ended hi the confirmation of the minutes as read being carried by 55 votes to 8. The Rev. W. Bannerman raised a question of privilege. It was, he said, the practice of the church to allow protestations to be made before proceeding to matters regarding which members might feel that they were being committed to issuts which they did not approve of. In 1885 such a protestation was allowed.

The Moderator asked Mr Bannerman to state his question of p. ivilege. The Rev. W. Bannerman said it waia this r that by the ruling of the moderator and the vote of the Synod he was deprived of at )l?ht which bad been recognised to hi the right of members in years past. In everv question affecting serious issues liberty had been given to members to protect themselves by way of protestation such as he had made before the discuts.on was entered upon. In 1835 ft report on union was biought up, and a protestation was allowed from Mr Will for himself and others, and he (Mr Bannerman) held that he was entitled to the same liberty and privilege. He felt, when the report was put into his hand, that the articles defining the basis seriously affected his liberty as a minister of this church, and he held that he was entitled to protect himself from any consequences ia connection therewith. In 1595 he made a similar protestation

The Rtv. W. Will asked whether the protestation was made at the commencement of the discussion last night. Was it not made after the report was adopted.

The Rev. W. Bannerman : Not at all. The Rev. W. Will : Was not the discussion started the year before, and were we not simply continuing what was then done ? The Uey. W. Bansebman: No; it was a renewal of the veiy protest that Mr Will was' allowed to make.

The Rev. J. Claeke, rising to a point of order, taid that Mr Bannerman would have had a pe feet right to introduce his protest had he done so before Mr Gibb had begun his speech, but Mr Gibb had prcce; ded for a minute or two before Mr Bannerman began.

The Kev. R. It. M. Sutheeland contended that the proper time for protest was af tor a report was reai. How, otherwise, could a member know what was in the report ? The Rev. \V. Bannerman said that ho made his protest before the report was read. Mr Gibb had only read a word or two of the report when he (the sp.aker) gut up. He rose as soon as he could.

Mr Begg thought they were merely splitting straws. Ue would move that the matter be left as it was.

The Moderator said it was the sameauthority that allowed the protestation years ago that refused it now. It seemed to him that the matter wa3 fully enough entered in the minutes.

The Rev. W. Bannerman urged that it was his right to have bis protestation entered.

The Moderator : It is settled now. The Rev. W. Bannehman said that he was not addressing the moderator, but the Synod. He was entitl d to have his protest entered, a>d if this were not allowed he should take other means of putting his case before the church. He hal another point of privilege to raise in connection with a ruling of the moderator that an appeal ft' m a ruling of the moderator was not the pubject of discussion. The rule proviled that "the member calling to ord' r briefly states the point raised, but no other member is allowed to Bpcak thereto without permission of the moderator, with whom it retti to settle the point of order. An appeal to the house, however, lies trom the ruling of the moderator. Such appeal taken makes the point of order the subject of discussion. Mr Agnkw urged that they should get on with the business. The Rev. AV. Bannerman: Let it be done according to the rules, and it will save trouble. A motion was made to resume the discussion. The Rev. R. K. M. SUTHERLAND : I move not. My reason is that you have enunciated the doctrine that our rights and privileges here depend upon the will of the Synod and not upon the constitution of the church, and if that is to be accepted by the Synod as the doctrine of the future, then let us know where we are. I for one do not a r cept it. Askad what his motion was, the Rev. B. R. M. Sutherland said he would not presß it, but wished to correct the impression that had been made.

The Rev. W. Bannerman said that there was now before the Synod a legal opinion on the subject of union. Everyone knew that a legal opinion depended very much upon the matter submitted to the solicitor, and in order to understand this opinion he wou d move that the letter addressed to the Hon. W. D. Stewart be laid before the Synod. The Rev. J. Gibb moved that the request bo not agreed to. As a matter of fact there was no letter. Two or three of them called on Mr Stewart.

The Hon. W. D. Stewart's legal opinion, dated July 22, was as follows:

In reference to the proposed basis of union between the Presbyferiau Church of New Zealand and the Otago and Southland Presbyterian Church, in my opinion, if the Synod of the latter church is abolished as a church court, legislation will be necessary to constitute a body in lieu of the Synod, in order to carry out the trusts and provisions of the Acts and Ordinances under which the various properties are held. The Presbyterian Church of New Zealand Act, 18S4. contemplates that the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand shall carry out its functions in the provincial districts in the colony outside of Otago. and Southland, so that doubts may arise as to the right to deal with matters within the latter district. The main object of the legislation, however, will be to provide a substitute for the Synod, which is to be abolished as a church court. In any legislation it would also be desirable to provide for the management and administration of the various funds belonging to the respective churches* These questions should be arranged before a union is agreed upon, but the required legislation would fol'ow after the basis of union has been provision, ally agreed upon. The Synod went into committee at eleven o'clock, and on resuming at 1.20 it was reported that clause 3 cf the articles was still before the Committee. THE SCSTKNTATION FUND. A special sitting was held this afternoon to consider the returns to remit, THIS EVENING the discussion of the report on union will be