Anti-Bishop Party Wins Election

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 641, 18 April 1929, Page 6

Anti-Bishop Party Wins Election

WAIKATO CHAPTER VOTING DEFEAT OF PEOFLE'S WARDEN (From Our Oicn Correspondent) HAMILTON, Wednesday. In one of the keenest elections in the history of the Anglican Church in Hamilton opponents of Bishop Cherrington carried all before them and secured all the positions on the Cathedral Chapter, at the annual meeting of parishioners this evening. The Town Hall was full, the attendance being about 650. Dean G. R. Barnett presided. THE financial statement sliowed that receipts totalled £1,628, and the excess of expenditure over income totalled £305. Assets were valued at £11,721, and £206 was held in trust accounts. In moving the adoption of the report, Mr. Hay said he admitted that, unfortunately, there were parties in the parish. Whichever side won the elections, he said, he hoped that those of the defeated side would help the side that was successful. The report was adopted. The dean appointed Mr. W. G. Pountney as vicar’s warden, and called for nominations for people’s warden. Mr. J. W. Warren nominated Mr. Hay, and Mr. W. H. Blakeway nominated Mr. E. V. Stace. FORCED TO CONTEST ELECTION In nominating Mr. Stace, Mr. Blakeway said it was with reluctance that Mr. Stace had been forced ijjto the position of contesting this election with Mr. Hay, but, in view of the circumstances, he had no alternative but to give the parishioners the opportunity of choosing between himself and Mr. Hay. Much as the existence of party feeling in the Church was deplored, said Mr. Blakeway, it would be useless and not quite honest to say that such party feeling did not exist. Mr. Hay represented one party and Mr. Stace the other. In casting their votes the people were, in effect, voting on a question which affected not only the future welfare but the very existence of the Church to which they had the privilege to belong. NON-PARTY TICKET Mr. Blakeway drew attention to a circular which he said had been issued that day by Mr. F. H. Clapham and two others. In this 10 nominations had been put forward. It had been described as a non-party ticket, and each candidate was pledged as follows: *‘(1) To work for the Church and the glory of God. (2) To be entirely unbiased and to work loyally for the good of the cathedral district. (3 and 4) If elected the candidate promises, as far as the chapter is concerned, that there shall be no r.\ re dissension in the parish, and to make an earnest endeavour on his part to settle chice and for all the present unhappy state of affairs.” Mr. Blake way described the statement that the ticket was a non-party one as mere camouflage. The ticket mentioned in the circular was standing definitely for the bishop to continue in office. A crisis had been reached and all eyes were on Hamilton. CHAMPION OF LIBERTY Mr. Hay said he had tried to keep party feeling out of the meeting. Mr. Stace stood for one side and the speaker stood for another. When he came on the chapter he found members engaged in fighting the dean. Now they were supporting him. He had tried to bring about a compromise but he was not successful. He stood for general liberty, but Mr. Stace did not. The dean said he was in a difficult position and asked that no considemtion be given to him. He was described when he was appointed dean two years ago as the best of a poor lot of clergymen. There was no use drawing red herrings across the track. He wanted the parishioners to vote in a big way and not consider personal quarrels. The eyes of the Church throughout the diocese and New Zealand were on Hamilton that night. “ONE PARTY SHOULD WALK OUT” It did not matter two straws, said the dean, whether he stayed in Hamilton or went away. It would not affect the main issue one iota. It was perfectly useless trying to claim that one of the tickets nominated was a nonparty one. It appeared at present that the only way there could be peace and harmony in the Church was that one party should walk out, but no one wanted that. The main issue before the parishioners was this: “If you are convinced that the administration under the present bishop of the diocese is for the benefit of the Church and diocese, then it is your duty to vote for Mr. Hay and those associated ■with him. If you are equally convinced that the present administration is not for the good of the Church and diocese as a whole, then your duty is to vote for Mr. Stace and those associated with him.” The dean added that both candidates were sincere men, and had faithfully served their church for years. He contended that Mr. Hay and others nominated on the ticket were associated with the bishop in an endeavour to get rid of the speaker. He reminded the parishioners that their vote have far-reaching consequences. He asked them to stand for a moment while they sought guidance to enable them to vote for the good of the Church. At this stage Bishop Cherrington I entered the hail and was received with | applause. The bishop took his seat I on the platform. MR. HAY DEFEATED The vote for the people’s warden was then taken, and resulted in the I return of Mr. Stace, the voting being: | Mr. Stace, 203 votes; Mr. Hay, 145. Messrs. F. H. Clapham, E. G. Hou- | then and H. G. Sergei were elected I unopposed as the parish representa- ' tives on the Rural Deanery Board. | Four nominations were received for | the position of two parish representa- | i ives on synod, namely, Messrs. H. M. | Hammond and W. H. Blakeway, who j opposed the bishop, and Messrs. D. i Hay and H. G. Sergei, who were de- | scribed as non-party candidates. The voting resulted: Hammond, 200; j Blakeway, 197; Sergei, 138; Hay, 137. The first two were declared elected. Nineteen candidates sought election to the chapter. In one column the names of those opposed to the bishop were printed. In the second column the non-party nominees were printed, while in the third appeared the names of the two country representatives. Messrs. H. S. iuues Jones (Te Rapa)