WESLEYAN PROPERTY TRUST BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8948, 4 August 1892, Page 3

WESLEYAN PROPERTY TRUST BILL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I feel that I should not be doing my duty if I did not reply to the letter which appears in to-day's Herald from the Rev. W. Morley, who writes, as I understand his letter to state, as chairman of the sub-committee " who undertook the actual preparation of this Bill."

In the first place, Mr. Morley endeavours to make a great point of the fact that I stated '"that the committee, did not follow the instructions of the General Conference as to a ' time limit;' and proceeds to state ' that I was perfectly aware the, committee had no option,' being instructed and directed by the ' annual Conference' to do exactly what they have done."

Now, what are the plain facts? Did not the Rev. Mr. Berry submit the resolutions to the annual Conference, which bound the committee? Did not the Rev. Mr. Morley revise those resolutions before being finally adopted by the Conference, which resolutions bound the committee?

I cannot understand the fine distinction as between the Committee, and the " Annual Conference," seeing that Mr. Berry and Mr. Morley were the prime movers in both the " Annual Conference," and the " Committee," and were responsible for the results in both places—but if it will please Mr, Morley better I will either substitute or add the words " Annual Conference," as well as " the Committee."

Then Mr. Morley continues that I stated that the Committee, did not follow the instructions of the General Conference sis to a time limit." All I can say is, that anyone reading the resolution of the General Conference" can come to no other conclusion. Here is the clause, " That the ' General Conference' hereby empowers such of the ' Annual Conferences' to frame for itself regulations dealing with the following subjects :— (1) No Minister shall be appointed to the same, circuit for more than five years in succession. (2) No 'Annuul Conference' shall exercise the ' power thus conferred upon it until it has taken, upon approved legal advice, the steps necessary to make such appointments legal," and I am certain that when the General Conference meets that quite a different interpretation will be given to what Mr. Morley now wishes to lay down, that it was not to be inserted in the Act : — This is ivhat has caused all the trouble, and startled and astounded the Methodists from one end of New Zealand to the other, and I now ask Mr. Morley did not the Rev. Mr. Lee enter his protest before the Committee, when this clause came up for final adoption, as being a violation of the distinct instructions of the " General Conference?" The letter from the legal advisers who prepared the Bill under instructions, which appeared in your yesterday's issue, corroborates what I stated, " that they urged delay," and giving their own words, "because we considered that an Imperial Act when passed would (amongst other powers) vest in each Colonial Conference the right to make its own arrangements as to the term of the itinerancy, and thereby the cost to our Connexion of obtaining local Acts be avoided." I stated in my letter that the reason why they urged delay was " until it was ascertained what the English Conference would do in the matter." These two statements, to my mind, mean one and the same thing. I did not say, or even insinuate, that they urged delay because they thought the Bill unconstitutional.". > ■ In reply, 1 may also state that I am not aware " that it is well known that in connection with the proposed plan of Methodist I Union some years since every quarterly

meeting discussed the very point of leaving the ' time limit' out of' the deed, and the majority voted for it." But supposing this was so, when we were considering the basis for a " United Methodist Church ' with altogether different and extended representation in all our Church Courts, it was quite a different case for our consideration. I believe Mr. Morley is correct in stating that Mr. Berry's motion was brought up on the second day of the Conference, but he might have added that Mr. Berry's resolutions came on in the afternoon after the adjournment for luncheon, and before many members had returned, and I know some who intended to take part in the debate were quite surprised to find when they came in that, it was all over. It is true that my attention was directed to the " feeling " in the Conference, and I now repeat what I stated in my letter now under review " that the impression made upon my mind from what I saw and heard was that there was no real intention to take action forthwith." Again, Mr. Morley remarks that " I appear to be specially grieved that this matter was not formally remitted to the trustee meetings for a vote." Mr. Morley knows quite well that it was only by the last English mail that we had the resolutions of the committee appointed by the English Conference, who have (guided by the highest legal authorities in England) unanimously agreed to " respect the rights of trustees," so that I could not possibly have raised the question in our Conferences in 1881 and 1884. But this ouly goes to prove what I have contended for all along, for delay, so that we might profit by what they are doing in England in the matter. I still contend that the Bill ought to have been advertised in the New Zealand Methodist. The sub-committee (represented by Mr. Morley) must have been in very great straits indeed in trying to make out a case of inconsistency against me in referring to something which took place " twenty years ago," when I, as a circuit steward, was a party " to inviting a minister for a fourth year." But what are the facts ? I like the whole truth told. Was it not that our senior minister, and chairman of the district, might, with the assistance of a young man to supply for him, be free to visit our mission stations, etc.? If I am wrong, correct me ; if not, then why not have put the whole case fairly, so that it can be judged on its merits ? Twenty years' experience has taught me that human nature is the same all the world over, and that our ministers are only flesh and blood, with like passions to ourselves. This I say with the greatest respect. In conclusion, Mr. Morley remarks that as to lay representation in our church courts, " it is a matter for me to bring before our church courts if I wish for any alteration." This remark is rather significant, seeing that both Mr. Berry and Mr. Morley have professed to be such advocates for this reform, but it is a thankless task for any layman to undertake, and he must be very brave indeed, if he willingly incurs the disapprobation of those whom he desires to love and respect. I do not wish to hear one minister getting up and saying " that he would never submit to it," and another, " that he was a ' captain,' and that he would object to be tried by anyone but his ' peers.' " If Mr. Morley and Mr. Berry wish to see lay representatives in all our church courts an accomplished fact, they can easily carry it. They may rest assured that there will not be any opposition from the laity. In conclusion I can assure Mr. Morley that I desire to conduct this correspondence with him in a most friendly spirit, and without any desire to misrepresent or hurt anyone's feelings.—l am, etc., R. Hobbs.