The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1890. THE PRIMACY QUESTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2005, 8 February 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1890. THE PRIMACY QUESTION.

The dispute over tbe Primacy of the Church of England is attracting much attention, and exciting a great deal of discussion, but the more it is discussed tbe more entangled it seems to become, In order to understand the position thoroughly a short history of the dispute is necessary. At the last meeting of the Synod Bishop Harper, who until then held the position of Primate, resigned, and Bishop Hadfield, ©f Wellington, was elected in his stead. Bishop Suter, of Nelson, who was also a candidate for the Primacy, alleges that he had his attention called to an illegality in the election by a lawyer who holds some office in connection with his diocese. The illegality consists in this : Canon law provides that the Primate must hand in his resignation in writing to the senior Bishop, who shall as soon as possible afterwards convene a meeting of the Synod, if not in session already, and act in the meantime as Primate. Bishop Harper in resigning omitted to comply with these formalities. Instead of handing his resignation in writing to the senior Bishop—that is, Bishop Suter, of Nelson—he, we believe, resigned verbally to the Synod. On this ground Bishop Suter held that the election of his euccessor was illegal, and in virtue of being senior Bishop he claimed the Primacy for himself. To secure this he appealed to the Standing Committee, which, we believe, is a body that decides disputed points in the intervals between sessions of the Synod, and this committee decided that Bishop Suter was Primate. Matters rested eo for a time. There was much unprofitable discussion on the decision of the Standing Committe, but it did not alter matters. The Bishop of K"els»n forthwith proceeded to exercise the functions of Primate, and it was this brought matters to the crisis we find them in. Not only did Bishop Harper resign the Primacy, but he also resigned his position as Bishop of Christchurch, and Archdeacon Julius, of Ballarat, was eelected in his stead. Before,' however, he can b? consecrated, it is necessary that his election shall be confirmed by certain committees which exercise certain functions in every ; diocese of New Zealand, and it is the duty of the Primate to call upon these committees to do so. Bishop Suter, rightly or wrongly regarding himself as Primate, sent round his mandate to these committees, but the Bishop and committee of Dunedin refused to acknowledge his authority, and declined to obey him. Bishop Neville made a very learned speech on the subject, in the course of which he urged that certainly Bishop Suter was not the Primate. His chief grounds were that the Primate actually did resign, and handed over articles to his successor, and retired with him into a church to pray, and that the Standing Committee could not revise the acts of the Synod, and therefore had no jurisdiction. These points have been reviewed from various standpoints. They have also been encumbered with a mass ©f other technical questions too abstruse for the uninitiated in cauoh law. There are eminent lawyers on either side, but their pronouncements appear to flavor of the prevailing opinion in the diocese in which they live.

Eor our own part it appears to us ! the question devolves on whether Bishop Harper's resignation was illegal or not. If the resignation was legal Bishop Hadfield, of Wellington, is the Primate; if it was not legal Bishop Harper is Primate still. Under any circumstances we cannot see what claim the Bishop of Nelson can lay to the position. Of course we do not profess to know much of canon law, but from what we have read of it as quoted in the articles and letters which have appeared in our contemporaries, the conclusion we have arrived at is that Bishop Harper's resignation was illegal, and that therefore he is still Primate. The law required of hiin to place his resignation in the hands of the Bishop of Nelson, he being the senior Bishop; he has not done so, therefore he has not resigned. That i appears to us plain, but it has been rendered complicated by the Standing I

Committee declaring the Bishop of Nelson Primate, and he evidently is disposed to stick to the position. The position is therefore as follows : —No Synod can be called, for there are those who will not acknowledge the Bishop of Nelson's right to call it; others will not acknowledge Bishop Hadfield's, and others will not acknowledge Bishop Harper. It has been suggested that the"" whole three should call a meeting of the Synod, but it is alleged that the Bishop of Nelson will not submit to any doubt j being cast om his own authority. So long, therefore, as the Bishop of Nelson insists on his undisputed right there is not the slightest chance of an amicable settlement of the question, and, as the Melbourne papers have said, there is nothing for it but the Supreme Court. Even then it is not clear how the case can be submittedto the court. If all were agreeable the matter could be settled easily by beginning de. novo. Bishop Harper could hand in his resignation to Bishop Suter, who could call together a meeting of the Synod to elect a Primate, and there the matter would end. Apparently, however, there is no chance of this being done, and the only thing we are afraid of is that it will result in Archdeacon Julius being lost to this diocese. The danger is that when he sees the neighbors he is coming amongst he will withdraw his acceptance of the position. If so it will be a loss not only to the Church of England but to the whole of New Zealand.