THE REV.MR HOWELL AND THE PRIMATE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9356, 22 February 1892, Page 3

THE REV.MR HOWELL AND THE PRIMATE.

The following letters speak for them selves.-— St. Matthew's Vestry, Rev. E. T. Howell. Feh^^- 1892. BeI" *r d H%? r j Sir-Having observed with regret the recently assumed by the Bishop of Wellington towards yourself, reflecting upon your conduct as a minister of the church, wf take the opportunity of your return to the parish to assure you of our continued confidence and esteem, and to express our sincere sympathy with yub-e m t d V ° Which you have ****

We express this as the feeling of the whole amo r n Ugsi nus,^WeaT &C lOng C°ntinUe to work (Signed) R, Maris Clark, G. G. Bridges (churchwardens), J.Fulton, J. p. Woodhouse, C B Gnerson, JL Sinclair Thomson A. Clulee, E. H. Hart, G. W. Rattray, James Hazlett, Henry B Williams (members of vestry). "<-">* a.

Manor Terrace, Dunedin, Gentlemen-I thank you or your kmd address That you, at such a distance from the scene of action, should give me the same sympathy as I always received from my parishioners in Wellington itself, and express the same confidence m my integrity of purpose, is indeed a fact for which I cannot but feel grateful. I cannot explain in detail all the circumstances which placed mi. «,;«, out the matter clearer to you.—Yours u£ c g mw ,-x. r , B. T.'HOWELL. The letter referred to was as follows :—

tlleS, Of *&■s*»«« Post, Wellington. Sir,-As I leave Wellington to-morrow, f wish before I go to say a few words through the medium of your columns .Most of your readers are aw™ that when in,1890 1 was for a time in charge of St. Paul's,. Thorndon, there was some disturbance, especially at the time of the parish meeting, about certaiivtnmgs which concerned the Primate and myself. It did not appear to me that a purely parochial matter required me to justify my action to those outside the parish, while within the parish more than bOO of the congregation testified to the approval of my conduct. My only desire was to leave the diocese quietly, that peace might soon be re-established, and I was permitted to do

so. I should not have returned, I think, for some years had I not been chosen, without ray own consent, to the office of representative in General synod; but as I was elected I felt it my duty to come here. I did not anticipate any trouble. I had been asked to preach in one of your churchos before I left Duncdin, but my reply had been, what I said privately to numerous friends on arrival, that I could not in courtesy to the bishop do so without his express consent, which of course it was not for me to ask. I hoped that thus I might be free to hear as I have been, and not to speak in your churches. Judge therefore my surprise when I found it not only stated publicly, but asserted privately by one who know, that the Primate had instructed the three lucumbents of Wellington not to allow me to preach in their churches. It became me then, I thought, as occupying a public position in the synod and mixing with churchmen from all parts of New Zealand, to clear my character from any suspicion that might cloud it. I therefore addressed a respectful letter to the Primate, asking if the press was rightly informed on the matter, and if so upon what ground his Lordship's action had proceeded. To this letter (dated February 12) I have not yet received a reply, but I believe that the substance of such an answer as I should have had must have been contained in tho statement made by authority in your columns by Archdeacon Fancourt. With that statement I should for the peace of the church have been willing to be content. It seems to me to prove that nothing serioua was alleged against me. But whether or not, the bishop of my diocese, jealous as he has always been for the honour of his clergy, has supported me throughout. My record for 27 years is known to him, and his testimony is all I need. I may, therefore, I trust, leave Wellington with perfect confidence in the justice of my fellow-churchmen throughout New Zealand. When they see that no proof has been or can be given that I have deserved to be forbidden to preach here, they will dismiss the whole matter from their minds. That one of my fellow synodsmen should have attempted _to clear me before the synod showed a Kind and right feeling in him, however opinions might d jffer as to the expediency of his action. I thank him for it, as.well as others of the Dunediu representatives who joined with hint. I thank my bishop for making my cause his own, the press for their just and impartial comments on the case, and lastly, the numerous frieuds, especially in St. Paul's parish, who have throughout assured me of their wannest sympathy and continued affection. I cannot thank them all personally, but I hope they will all accept this expression of my gratitude.—l am, &d E. T. Howell. .

Wellington, 17th February 1892