THE PRESBYTERIAN RUMPUS.

Observer, Volume 4, Issue 99, 5 August 1882, Page 323

THE PRESBYTERIAN RUMPUS.

There was a good, deal of the out-pouring of the spirit when Rev. Carrick and Mr Bell, the Commissioners appointed by the Auckland Presbytery, held a meeting at New Plymouth to inquire into the relations between Mr Breach and his congregation. In fact, they nearly came to a breach of the peace. The local paper reports that a Mr McLauchlan threatened to pull MeKonzie's nose, Mr Breach called him. a " consummate liar," and McLauchlan compared Bell to "Balaam's ass." The same gentleman. is reported by the Taranalci Herald to have said, "The Presbytery were, a disgrace to humanity and the G-ospel. Let them go to hell •"

Mr Breach, sends us a letter commenting upon the report in the TaranaJci Herald of ~ the 28th.He says this is the true version of the expression, " G-o to hell !" The speaker (Mr McLauchlan) and myself, when we were,at Auckland, called on the Eev. McKenzie, Mr McL. having known his " popularity" in Australia for some twenty years.Soon Mr Fraser introduced the New Plymouth Church scandal, and said the' case of Mr Bruce was a bad one. It was bad as a precedent, for what would people think of those ministers who were receiving stipends of hundreds, if Mr Breach preached for £50 a-year' and lived upon it ?Mr McL. replied warmly to that and the Church rule refusing to allow any minister to settle- in any church which would not give . £200 a-year. "Now," he said, "after alluding to Christ and his Apostles, it conies to this — If we be so poor that we cannot pay £200 at least. 'for stipend yearly, we are not allowed to have the G-ospel ; let a charitable minister be" ever so willing to preach it for less. This is the English of it, he said, according to Presbyterian law, to the poor parishioners. In other words, if the/cannot gi re' £200 a-year to the ministers, take the G-ospel away,

and keep it away, and let them go to hell for the want of it." : »_

Mr Breach continues :— "The coming of Mr Carrick has-been a sham parade of justice, and the toadying paper here has hoodwinked its * readers. . John Skinner, one of the scandaLpetifcioners, became very insulting to me. at the meeting/and I shut him up by saying, ' Pay me your marriage fee, which has been owing for years.' It is true his rich mother-in-law, Mrs Gilmour, did send a parcel of old clothes to my •wife to make up for my children, saying the many marks of valuable service rendered to Skinner's wife in his serious illness were too ■ valuable to be bought, in handing over the rags ; but neither Mr Skinner nor any of his relatives ever paid for the cake and wine at then- wedding in my house, and , now they persecute. I called no man a 'consummate liar,' but I called a lie a lie ; and though I did not say it, it was true nevertheless."