EDITORIALS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 935, 31 January 1890, Page 27

EDITORIALS.

TflE PRIMACY PUZZIjE.

THE extraordinary complications which have arisen over the election of a successor to Bishop

Harper as Primate of New Zealand have by no means terminated. On the contrary, they have assumed a new and even more remarkable phase, and the situation promises to develop into a puzzle of Chinese insolubleness. It was fondly hoped by many that the recent decision of the Standing Commission, declaring invalid the Bishop of Wellington’s election as Primate, had settled the matter so far, and that at least it would not be heard of again Until the General Synod should have dealt with the question authoritatively. Vain illusion ! The trouble has reared its head in a more perplexing form than ever, and it is open to grave doubt whether any satisfactory ' method exists at all by which the knot can be disentangled. It dees not appear to have occurred to anybody originally to challenge the power of the Standing Commission to decide such an issue as that submitted by the Bishop of Nelson and tho exPrimate. It is true that there is au expression of doubt on this point at the conclusion of the “case” stated by Bishop Harper, but merely in a few words as a sort of hesitating afterthought. The doubt did occur to many people, however, who had made a study of Church law, or who bad been actively concerned in working out its problems, and now this doubt has blossomed into a flat denial (supported by the written opinions of several eminent counsel) that the Standing Commission has any such power. It will be remembered that the Primateelect, the Bishop of Wellington, positively refused to submit a “ case ” on his own behalf to the Commission. He rested confident in the validity of his election as pronounced solemnly by the supreme governing body of the New Zealand Church, and he declined to recognise the right of any other body to review or overrule the General Synod’s resolution by virtue of which he was declared elected. He therefore claims to be de facto and de jure Primate of Now Zealand. The Bishop of Nelson, on the other hand, claims that by virtue of the Standing Commission’s judgment pronouncing Bishop Hadfiald’s election void, he (Bishop Suter) has become ipso facto Acting Primate, as the senior (by consecration) of the episcopal Bench. So there ate “two Kings iu Israel!” It was at first supposed that the difficulty could be got over by the Bishop of Nelson, as senior Bishop, convening a special session of the Geheral Synod, which it is competent for him to do on the requisition of any other two Bishops of the ecclesiastical province. As a matter of fact Bishop Harper (the ex Primate) and the Bishop of Dunedin had partly agreed to make such a requisition, But Bishop Suter promptly intimated that he saw. no reason why the Synod should be convened earlier than its next regular period of session, two years hence. Meanwhile the opinion of counsel had been taken qn the various points at issue, chiefly whether the reversal of the General Synod’s action was intra vires of the Standing Commission. It would occupy too much space to set forth in detail the arguments used. A. brief explanation in layman’s language must suffice. First, it is pointed out that, assuming the Standing Commission’s power to deal with tho question at all, it ia distinctly laid down (section 9, Canon O 4) that “ it shall not be competent for the Standing Commission to entertain any question ” (as to the interpretation of Canons, &c.) “ unless such question shall be raised by two or more parties practically interested therein.” It is held that one of the two parties who submitted their case, viz , Bishop Harper, could not be Baid to be “ practically interested,” and hence that the Commission was expressly prohibited, by the Canon prescribing its powers, from entertaining the case. Secondly, the only things which the Commission is authorise to interpret are “ Canons, statutes, or trust, deeds.” The resolution electing a Primate comes under none of these heads, and therefore it is contended that the Commission could not deal with it. Thirdly, the Commission is constituted a court of appeal- only against the decisions of the Diocesan Synods, not of the General Synod, Fourthly, even if

the Commission were empowered to interpret a resolution of the General Synod, or being empowered as it is to interpret a canon or statute, .that, it ia argued, would not be actually relevant ,to the present issue* beCadsO to set aside an election delibefa’Cly decided by the Synod without any protest being raised would amount to the absolute reversal of the action of the supremo governing body of the Church of which body the Standing Commission is merely the creature. It is held that no power has been given by the Synod to the Standing Commission to review or reverse tho action of the Synod, that being a totally different matter from a simple interpretation. Fifthly, it is maintained that the Synod itself has no right to delegate such powers, even if it had professedly done so (which is not the case)* because such a course is expressly barred by the Church Constitution, which declares that the General Synod shall be the supremo governing body of the Church, and that the consent of all three Orders, bishops, clergy, and laity, Bhall be necessary to the validity of all proceedings binding upon the Synod'and upon churchmen. It is further declared by the Constitution (section G) that this is a “hundameutal ” provision, which it shall not be lawful even for the General Synod to “alter, revoke, add to, or diminish.” Sixthly, it is held that, apart from the specific provisions iu the Constitution, the invariable rule applying to all supreme governing bodies, while permitting them to delegate certain functions precludes their divesting themselves of any of their own inherent powers. The Geheral Synod, it is accordingly held, “ cannot appoiut an outside body to overrule its own decisions.” Lastly, it is contended that the,General Synod itselfisnot bound by its own canons, but can set them aside or override them by resolution, so that even if the election of Primate was not conducted according ,to the canon, it was not necessarily therefore invalid. Among the counsel to whom the main questions at issue have been submitted are Mr Travers and Mr Quick, the latter gentleman being Chancellor of the Diocese. On the chief questions rkised their opinion is emphatically adverse to the action of the Standing Commission. Mr Travers says : —“I am of opinion that the Standing Commission has no power to set aside any act of the Synod, whether signified by canon or by resolution.” Mr Quick says : “ The General Synod cannot appoint an outside authority to overrule its own decisions . . • the Standing

Commission has no jurisdiction of any kind with regard to a resolution of the General Synod.” Mr Travers further sayst —“ As the Synod is the supremo governing body of the Church, subject only to the terms of the Constitution, it may be argued—and not without much force—that it is not bound, even by its own Canons and that the election of the Bishop of Wellington to succeed to the Primacy on the resignation of the Bishop of Christchurch is valid and effectual,” and he adds that the Standing Commission has no power to deal ex parte with a point in difference in which two or more parties are adversely interested, unless both concur in bringing it under its jurisdiction.” Mr Quick is also of opinion that the Commission “cannot, being a creature of,- the Synod, limit the Synod’s power of passing resolutions cr declare such resolutions void; the Synod alone has the power of so doing.” Such being held to be the legal position, it follows of course, if the opinions of counsel are well founded, that the decision of the Standing Commission is valueless, and the Bishop of Wellington remains Primate. Holding this view, the Bishops of Christchurch and Dunedin decided that they could not request the -Bishop of Nelson to convene the General Synod, because he would have no power to do so save in the case of the Primacy being vacant, which they held not to be the case. The Bishop of Nelson has, however, acted openly as Primate by - transmitting to the Standing Committees of the various dioceses his mandate to consider the election of Archdeacon Julius as Bishop of Christchurch. The Bishops ot Dunedin and Wellington decline to recognise-the mandate,on the ground that the Bishop of Nelson has no power to issue it, that power alone res ting with the Bishop of Wellington, as lawfully-elected Primate. Here is, therefore, another complication. The Committees ot Christchurch and have, on various grounds, recognised the man-

date and approved the election of Atebdeacon Julius, bub their proceedings Sr a' tr»id to have been informal, there being no Biabob present at the Waiapu meeting and the Christchurch Standing Committee being deemed to' have no vote, inasmuch as the election bad already been carried out by its own Diocesan Synod. The difficiilty datmot now be solved by the Bishop of Mdson convening the General - ynod, for he 16 contended to have no power to do so, the Bishop of Wellington being the sole depositary of such power Even if the question Coaid be shelved till 1892, the trouble would resur then, for, on the present basis, it tfrnuld still be urged that the Bishop of Kelson could not issue writs for the elections, or summon the Synod. It will thus be seen that the complexity of the puzzle is appalling. Only two practicable courses have been suggested. One is the usually objectionable step of appealing to a secular tribunal —the Supremo Court. The other is the immediate summoning of the General Synod by the Bishop of Wellington as Primate, to make such amendments in the canons as may bo found necessary to meet the requirements of the case. It is not yet decided which of these courses shall be adopted