BISHOPRIC OF DUNEDIN.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2055, 5 September 1868, Page 7

BISHOPRIC OF DUNEDIN.

MEETING OF THE RURAL DEANERY

BOARD.

A meeting of the Rural Deanery Board of Otago' and Southland was held on the 18th ult., in St. George's HaU. -The Rev. E. G. Edwards, the Rural Dean, presided ; and he commenced the proceedings with prayer.

The Rural Dean having caUed over the list of members,

The Rev.' Mr Martin (Tuapeka) begged to be aUowed to introduce Messrs Herbert and Borton, who had been elected as the representatives of the Church of Lawfence (Tuapeka),

; The Rural Dean said that at the last irieeting, he mentioned that if Tuapeka wished to be represented, an application rimst be sent in ; but no such appHeation had been made.

I The Rev. Mr Oldham (Rivertoh) said that each of the last three meetings had been stated to be the last meeting of the Board, before the constitution of a.Synod; so that those desiring to send representatives to,the Board had not known what to do.

A long "conversational discussion followed; of which only a brief outUne can be given.

; Mr R. B. Martin moved, that Messrs Herbert and Borton be admitted as members: and Mr I. N. Watt seconded the iriotion. Mr F. Wayne moved that, as a necessary preliminary step, Tuapeka be placed on the roll, as entitled to send representatives; and the Rev Mr Stanford seconded this proposal. It was contended by Mr Martin and Mr Watt, that the Board.hafing the power to decide as to the vaUdity of any election, the Board could how resolve to admit the Tuapeka representatives. Mr James Smith and others repUed that while the Board had power to decide as to the vaUdity of an election for a constituted district, it had rio power to deal with a question of election for what, to the Board, was not known as a district; and that the Chairman must decide whether the question now raised could be entertained Mr Watt argued that whUe the Board was in session, the Chairman had only such power as the Board allowed to hira ; and that the question of admitting representatives from a very important district, could at any time be dealt with by the Board. The discussion involved the question of the legaUty of the election of three representatives who? had taken their seats as for InvercargiU; and there were frequent references to what occurred at the last meeting, as to the election of the representatives who then sat for Invercargill. Mr Watt said that, up to the departure of the last steamer from Invercargill, there had been no election, a regularly convened parish meeting having declined to elect any. The Chairman stated that all the information he had as to IrivercargiU was by telegram, signed by Mr F. Moore. Mr Watt added that Mr Moore had been a church-warden, but had resigned, in consequence of what had taken place as to the election, after the contrary decision come to by the parish meeting. The Rev. Mr Stanford said he had been informed that the election at Invercargill was by a packed meeting. Mr J. L. Dewe urged that Tuapeka could not have applied to be constituted a district, because there was no legally appointed Standing Committee to which the appUcation could be made.

The Rural Dean regretted very much that Tuapeka should not be represented ; but, under the Standing Rule 3, he must decide that such a district was not known as one entitled to send representatives. He could not submit Mr Martin's motion to the Board. .'..,..'

Mr Watt moved that a division be taken whether the motion should be put; brit the Rural Dean declined to put the question.

Mr Watt protested against the ruling, and left the meeting ; as did Mr Martin, the Rev. Mr Stanford, the Rev. Mr Oldham, and others. Mr Oldham said, "Seeing that this Board is now no representation of the Church in Otago and Southland, we protest, and we] shaU appeal against anything done." ' - As far as we could ascertain, the following retired from the meeting :—The Rev. Messrs Oldham (Riverton), Stanford (Tokomairiro), and Martin (TuaDeka); Messrs R. B. Martin, Dunedin ; "I. N. Watt (Riverton); J. Jj.Dewe, Tokomairiro; George Richardson, Molyneux; and Messrs Herbert and Borton, Tuapeka. The foUowing remained :—The Rev. Messrs E. H. Granger (All Saints), Honorary Secretary; W. Tanner, Inver cargiU; A. Giffard, Oamaru ; A. Dasent, Waikouaiti. Messrs F. Wayne, Waikouaiti ;''J. C. Rowley, Maniatoto; B. Hibbard, Tokomairiro ; F. PantUn, Dunedin; E. D. Butts, G. W. Elliott, and H. F. Hardy, InvercargiU; W. Mason, Dunedin; R. S. CantreU, Dunstan; G. M. Webs'er, Oamaru; and James Smith, The Lakes.

The Rural Dean said: I am very sorry that the Bishop of Christchurch has thought it necessary that another special meeting of the Board should be summoned, not only ori account of the great inconvenience and expense to which menibers must be put, but stiU more because a painful.subject will be re-opehed; which, I had fondly hoped, had been, as far as the Board is concerned, finally settled. I gather, from what the Bishop says, in his letter to myself, dated May 30 h, 1868—a copy of which you have all re-ceivedr-that- his Lordship is of opinion that our proceedings have been irregular, and that we should now nominate a Bishop to the See of Dunedin "strictly according to rule." It does not appear that there is any clause in the Church constitution clearly applicable to such a case as ours. The 23rd clause runs thus — -" The nomination of a Bishop shall proceed from the Diocesan Synod, and if 3uch nomination be sanctioned by the General Synod, or if the General Synod be not in session, by the majority of the standing committees of the several Dioceses, the senior Bishop shall take the necessary steps for giving effect to the nomination." Can this clause be said to apply to the case of the nomination of a Bishop to a new See, which cannot have a Diocesan Synod to nominate ? In a letter which the Primate wrote to the Bishop of Christchurch, in January 1866, occur these words, " Our Constitution provides no mode of election or nomination of a Bishop for a newly constituted Diocese. ?J And Sir William Martin wrote thus to myself in July, 1867. "As to the meaning of the clause No. 23 of -the Church Constitution, I do net think there was any doubt in any man's mind at the time of the revision. It was intended to be an adoption of the 1 ancient rule of the Church, that a Bishop

is to be chosen by the concurrent voice of the Clergy and. Laity of the Diocese—that is to say, the Clergy arid Laity over whom he is to preside. As the most regular and satisfactory mode of carrying out this principle, the nomination ia required to proceed from the Synod. No doubt the ordinary case,, of an election to fill a vacancy in a Diocese already possessing a Synod was the case contemplated. In the rare and exceptional case of an election of a first Bishop, aU that can be done is to coriform to the spirit of the clause. An election by the Synod of Christchurch, though it might seem nearer to the letter, would certainly not have been according to the true meaning or spirit; for it would reaUyhave b6en an election by persons outside of the Diocese. In point of fact, I suppose there was a fair and reasonable approximation to the rule in this case of Dunedin." In connection with this clause (23) a resolution proposed by the Bishop of, Christchurch, seconded by the Rev. Dr. MaunseU, and carried, at the third General Synod, should be considered*—'.'.That this Synod instruct the Bishops of this Ecclesiastical Province to iriemorialise the authorities of theSta*ein England forthe purpose of obtaining their consent to the regulation of the General Synod, as expressed in clause 23 of the Deed of Constitution, viz., "that the nomination of a Bishop shaU proceed from the Diocesan Synod, and besancT tioned by the General Synod ; or, pending their decision on this matter, that they appoint no Bishop to any vacant See in this Ecclesiastical Province, unless he BhaU be wiUing to declare his assent to this Constitution." It might be asked— Is not this clause in abeyance until an answer has been received to the resolution of the Bishop of Christchurchj complying with the request contained therein? ~ It will be for the Board to determine whether, if it should decide upon formally noriiiriating a Bishop to the See of Dunedin, that nomination should be submitted to the Diocesan Synod of Christchurch for then* approval, or forwarded direct to Auckland for the sanction of the General Synod. In the Statute for the organisation of Archdeaconry and -; Rural Deanery Boards, clause 7 declares that " until other provision be made in that behalf by the Diocesan Synod, every Archdeaconry or Rural Deanery Board shaU have and exercise such of the powers of the Diocesati Synod as the Bishop of the Diocese shall from time to time prescribe." The question is, has this power been given by the Bishop of Christchurch into the hands of this Rural Deanery Board ? The Standing Committee have for some time past been in correspondence, through the Rural Dean, with the Standing Committee of the Diocesan Synod of Christchurch on the subject of representatives from the Rural Deanery to the General Synod. The two Standing Committees are unable to agree. On the one hand, the Standing Committee of Christchurch is of opinion that this Rural Deanery should be considered as a distinct diocese; and that, therefore, the Standing Committee of the Board should make arrangements for the election of three clerical and four lay representatives ; and in support of this opinion they lay stress ori a letter from the Rev. E. H. Hey wood, commissary of the Bishop of New Zealand, in which the Bishop of Dunedin, and the lay and clerical representatives of hi 3 diocese, are formally summoned to the General Synod. On the other hand, the Standing Committee of the Board are of opinion that this Rural Deanery should stiU be considered as a portion of the Diocese of Christchurch, and that the See of Dunedin has no legal existence utvt.il the General Synod shall have sanctioned the formation of the Bishopric. And they are strengthened in this view of the case by what the Bishop of New Zealand has said in a letter to the Rural Dean, dated May 1, 1868. " I have accepted his (the Bishop of Christchurch) determination not to sanction the formation of the Diocese of Dunedin, until the General Synod shall • have met, and decided the question at issue." I may add that, having written to Mr Hey wood, to ask if the Primate had given him any distinct instructions on the subject, the answer was this,:—"ln reply to your inquiry of 13th July, I beg to state that the Primate of New Zealand gave me no especial instructions as to the election for the General Synod, and therefore did npt distinctly authorise me to recognise the Diocese of Dunedin. When .writing to my Bishop on the subject, 1 have.written to all, leaving to the Bishops of Christchurch and Dunedin, or, in their absence, to the Dean of Christchurch and yourself, the interpretation of the statutes of the General Synod which affect the question." I may also add that, having suggested to the Dean of Christchurch that it would be advisable to refer this disputed point to the Standing Commission of the General Synod, for their final decision, the answer I received was that the Standing Committee of the Diocesan Synod declined to adopt the suggestion I made, and that the elections of representatives for the Diocese of Christchurch proper (exclusive of this Rural Deanery) had taken place. These, brethren, are very important questions ; I trust that they will be calmly and dispassionately considered.

Mr James Smith moved, "That this meeting refers the question of the formation of the See of Dunedin, and the appointment of its first Bishop, to the General Synod, for their final decision ; and also appends, for." their information, the proceedings of the Rural Deanery Board, and other published documents in connection with this subject."

The Rev. W. Tanner seconded the motion, regarding it as a leaving of the whole of the.much discussed question to the settlement of an umpire. The: Rev. Mr Giffard, Mr Wayne, and Dr. Webster, addressed the Board.

Mr Hibbakd proposed as an amendment, "That this Board, seeing the small amount subscribed towards the Bishopric Endowment Fund, thinks it premature to appoint a Bishop, it being impossible for such nomination to do otherwise than injure the Church oi England in the Province of Otago." The amendment was not seconded. The motion was adopted ; Mr Hibbard being the only dissentient.

The Rev. W. Tanner moved, "That in the opinion of this Board, no further step towards the nomination of a Bishop should be taken, until the proper endowment of LBOOO has been completed." , Mr Bxjtts seconded the motion.

The Rev: A. Giffard moved as an amendment, "That the Board is desirous, for the further information of the General Synod, to add to the statement of the history of the Bishopric question, an abstract of .-the present unsatisfactory position of the Endowment Fund." Mr W. Mason seconded the amendment.

The amendment was adopted. Upon the motion, of Mr Wayne, LSO was voted towards the enlargement of »Vakquaiti Parsonage; and, on the motion of Dr Webster, L 25 was voted towards the cost of Oamaru Church.

Mr James Smith (in reply to the Rural Dean) said he believed that, no Standing Committee having been appointed at the

last annual meeting, the old Committee continued in ofiice. - There couldnot be a fresh appointment until the next annual meeting.

Thi3 concluded the business.