BISHOP CROKE'S EXPLANATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume X, Issue 2903, 19 May 1873, Page 4

BISHOP CROKE'S EXPLANATION.

To the Editor of the Herald. Sib, —Permit me space to refer to a letter which appears in Saturday's issue, from Bishop Croke, wfth reference to pome remarks made by the Chairman at the annual meeting of the Home for Kenlected and Destitute Children. The explauaLion given by his Worship the Mayor was perfectly correct, made in all fairness, and in a gentlemanly manner. The exact; terms of tin- icfusal, in the Bishop's handwriting. is as follows : — "Bishop's lIou?e, Hobson-street, April 8, 1871. —Rev. and Dear Sir, — Accept my apology for not having replied sooner to your kind note of March 27, and wh.cli had reference to the * Society for the Relief of l Neglected and Destitute Children in Auckland.' For pretty obvious reasons I cannot in aov w>iv connect, myself with that .Society, though I recognise and respect the benevolent intentions of who patronise and seek support for it.—l have, &c ,+T. W . CiiOEi:. — Rev, P, H. Corn ford,JSee., The construction put upon the Mayor's explanation by Bishop Croke is unjust and uncalled tor. The Mayor is reported, in your journal, to have eaid (and the statement; is substantially accurate) that " Bishop Croke had been requested to HomiDate some of the clergy and laity of his denomination to serve on the committee, but he had positively declined to do anything of the kind." 1 leave every lover of truth and fair play to draw his own conclusions a3 to ■whether that, statement is " spitefully emphatic," as B:shop Croke asserts, or on the contrary, a temperate and truthful statement of fact borne out by documentary evidence. — I am, &c., EDWIN G-iantille,

lion. Sec., Home for NVgic-i;tt'd and Destitute Children. [We perceive nothing in Bishop Croke's letter at all inconsistent with the above note. Moreover, we think ilajor Philips should be left to explain himself. He is well able tj do eo, if explanation is at all necessary. We may state that our own impression, after reading the report in both newspapers, was that Bishop Croke had refused to countenance the Home. We should have been disappointed and surprised if such had really been the case. —Ed. IvZ.IL]