DIOCESAN SYNOD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVI, Issue 14202, 26 October 1906, Page 8

DIOCESAN SYNOD.

ANNUAL SESSION. The Synod of the Anglican diocese of vm-risxchurch resumed its sessions at the Christ’s College Library yesterday, Bishop Julius presiding. The Rev C. IT. Gasset moved that of the sum. of £l5O already expended for the ’passage money of clergy from England, £SO, being the cost of the Bishop’s mission chaplain, should be chax-ged to 'the Bishopric estate. The motion was seconded by Archdeacon Harper and carried. Mr Gosset then moved that the remaining £IOO should be charged to the income of the general trust estate. Archdeacon Scott moved as an amendment that the sum of £IOO should be charged to the general expenses fund. He said that if tho amount was charged to the general trust estate, the income of every clergyman in the diocese would bp reduced by the same amount, hut if to the general expenses fund, any amount required would be provided by the parishes according to their respective abilities. The amendment was seconded by the Rev A. -S. Fox and carried. Mr\Gcaset moved that until a supply of locally ordained, men, sufficient for the needs of the diocese, should be provided, expenses that might he incurred in obtaining clergy from England or elsewhere, should bo charged to the income of tho general trust estate at the discretion of the Bishop and the Standing Committee. Archdeacon Harper seconded the motion. The ,Rey H. Williams, jun., moved as an amendment that expenses sho-nld be charged to the parish or parochial district for which the clergyman was required. The Rev ,A. S. Fox seconded the amendment. Canon Pasooe said that the amendment would be suitable for parishes that had the right of nomination, but not for poor parochial districts. The Bishop said that moat of the clergy who wore brought from England were intended for mission or parochial districts. They would find.it impossible to raise the passage money for clergy, and that would mean either that' they must go without clergy or that the Bishop must make provision. The amendment was lost, and tho motion was carried. The following were elected members of the Standing Committee:—Archdeacons Harper, Scott and Averill, Canon Pascoe, the Revs F. P. Pendall, T. A. Hamilton and C. FI. Gosset, and Messrs W. H. Hargreaves, H. D. Andrews, H. W. Bishop J. Studhohno, W. G. Brittan, W. C. Bean, G. G. Bridges and C. H. Bridge. The election of an eighth clerical representative was adjourned until the following day. The second reading of the Bill to enact regulations for the management and working of the church mission fund was moved by Mr FI. D. Andrews. The Bill proposed that the fund created for the general work of the Church should be called the Church Mission Fund, and. should consist of the income from investments made by the authority of the Synod, offertories and collections on four Sundays in each year, and subscriptions, donations, bequests and special.offerings. The objects of the fund should he to supplement the stipends of the clergy; maintain exhibitions for candidates for. Holy Orders; support clergy in mission districts ; provide for the spiritual needs of hospitals and other institutions; further tho religious instruction of the young; and promote the work of the Church in any desirable way. ' Exhibitions of £3O, not exceeding six in number, should be given to theological students at Christ’s College holding exhibitions of a like amount; and exhibitions of £lO, net exceeding two in number, to theological students holding Somes scholarships. The exhibitions should be renewable yearly, on the recommendation of tho ‘Bishop and of the’ head of the Upper Department of Christ’s College, with - a written declaration on the part of each student of his continued intention to seek ordination in the diocese of Christchurch.

'Mr Andrews said that the principle of the Bill was tho expansion of the objects of the fund. The fund was tne working or fighting fund of the diocese, and the Standing Committee, which promoted the Bill, thought it advisable to make the fund responsible to some extent for the training of men for Holy Orders. The committee’thought it better to enlarge the objects of the church mission fund than to set up a new fund, and the committee hoped that the whole fund would be strengthened. The Rev C. H. Gosset seconded tho motion. The Rev T. J. Smyth said that the ■whole object of the Bill seemed to bo to provide for the maintenance of theological’ students.' In the past the students had been able to carry on satisfactorily, and he wanted to-ask whe-

ther there was any need to alter the conditions. He maintained that the objects of the fund should not be- altered. There were mi inhere of clergy getting less than the minimum stipend laid down some years previously by Synod, but if the objects of the fund were altered, those poorer clergy would be still further impoverished by tho diversion of a part of the fund that supplemented their incomes. He objected to a proposal that would make it necessary for the poorer and not the richer clergy to contribute large sums to tho maintenance of theological students. Archdeacon Scott said that there wrs not the slightest danger of the poorer clergy suffering if exhibitions were to he maintained. The fund would, ho was sure, grow quite fast enough to stand the strain of all requireraen.s. He would urge the Synod to pass the Bill, and at least try it until the next session. Mr J. H. Upham said that tho Church Mission Fund had apparently gone back considerably during the past year. The Synod, if it passed the Bill, would bind itself to the payment of £2OO -for exhibitions, and the sum might have to come from the stipends of the clergy. The Rev G. W. Russell said that the question of the treatment of stipends was a serious one for many of the clergy. He had had notice from the Church Mission Fund that his stipend was reduced by £l4 on account of the increased work to be done by the fund, • and that his stipend might be further reduced. That would suggest that the clergy must suffer for any enlargement of the objects of the fund. The Rev J. R. Wilford said that the Church Mission Fund was for new work. It should bo a means of progress, and as they could not progress without men, the training of men was one of the first objects on which the fund should be expended. The. Rev J. 11. 'Rogers said that the .first object of the Bill was to supplement the stipends'of the clergy,', and there' was a sum belonging to tne fund that was absolutely rest.icted to the supplementing of stipends. He believed that by increasing the purposes of the fund they could secured increased subscriptions. They must move forward in faith, and tney must work to secure their objects. Where it was necessary that the parishes should increase their oontiibutior.s they would be willing to do it.

Mr C. H. Bridge said that the reductions made in the grants from the Church Mission Fund were- not due to any desire to provide for other work. One of the reasons that induced the Standing Committee to reduce grants was that districts became foo dependent on the fund, and therefore fail.d to provide for themselves as they m.glit reasonably be expected to do. Fie hoped that the second reading of the Bill would be carried, for there was groat need of the exhibitions for theological students.

The Rev W. H.‘ Orbell said that many of the clergy would not object to the reduction in their stipend grants, but when it made a • reduction the Standing Committee should s_nd its representative to the district to tell the people of the reduction and to urge them to rirake up the original stipend. The Rev J. A. Julius said that in some cases grants had'done no good, because the wants and capabilities of districts had not been ascertained. Ho thought that the Bill should be supported, for the diocese should not sponge on the church in England for its clergy. . The debate was adjourned until 4 p.m. on the-following day, and the Bynod adjourned ■ until that hour.