ST. JOHN’S CEMETERY.

Waipa Post, Volume III, Issue 108, 7 May 1912, Page 3

ST. JOHN’S CEMETERY.

TO THE EDITOR,

SIR,— For several and ample reasons the publication of the letter by the Rev. F. W. Clarke in reference to the neglected state of St. John’s Cemetery, is to be deplored. The rev. gentleman in my opinion (whatever that may be worth) has been wrongly advised. He might well exclaim, “ Save me from my friends ! ” Apparently the shepherd has good* reason to be ashamed of his flock, but is it either politic or proper to thrust that unhappy circumstance under the notice of the disinterested and —the pity of

it—too often bitterly -cynical members of other flocks, and worse still, before those “abandoned ” creatures (like myself) who belong to no flock at all ? Though it would be equally deplorable and indefensible, yet the reverend gentleman could not logically object, if any dissatisfied member of St. John’s used your columns to air grievances imaginary or real against his vicar. Such action would be no less ill-advised, though owing to its personal nature, would undoubtedly be more interesting to certain sections, more particularly the mean-spirited goodygoody and the unthinking '* scoffer.” If the majority of the Te Awamutu Anglicans do not think it is worth more than sixpence a head to dean uo the place where they go to commune with their God (there can be but little “communion,” I’m afraid),

they are indeed to be pitied, but for pity’s sake, and “for the sake of the traditions of the great church of their forefathers,” do not I pray, advertise their shame. Let it be kept within the four corners of the vestry. Has the vicar of St. John’s given up all hope of rousing his people by. legitimate means to a sense of their duty, so that nothing is left to him but this dernier ressort of whipping them in the market place ?' His letter, I am afraid, is a serious indictment against every Anglican in Te Awamutu, himself included. And why call a public meeting ? “ Pubkc meetings,” in this sense, are called when discussion is necessary. What discussion is necessary for an act of common decency and cleanliness ? Surely the church itself (“herself” I suppose I ought to say, but I use “ //self ” advisedly) outside the indifference of local adherents has a duty to perform here. Not another day should be lost in cleaning up this sinful mess. The devising of a scheme for the “ permanent maintenance” of the cemetery is another matter. Though essentially and primarily an Anglican affair, it is under the

circumstances to some extent — , though quite secondarily —a public matter, but if the Anglicans do not show any concern as to the condition of things NOW> how can they expect outsiders to concern themselves in the future welfare (the permanent maintenance) of their cemetery. I sincerely hope the public meeting will result in much good, but if it is a “ frost,” neither St. John’s, its vicar, nor any of its members, will have any right of complaint. If they fail as they have failed up till now to give a lead they can-

not expect —nor would their precious conservatism allow — the public-to step in. The most the public.will be permitted to do on or for this private and presumably consecrated property will be to find the money. That being so, then let the vicar (with whom I have much sympathy) and his people, get to work and show that they mean business, and theii “ pass round the hat.” If such a movement is properly organised, more than enough will 1 be obtained from sources outside of St. John’s,as the non-Anglicans and non-Anythings are fully and guiltily conscious of what they

owe to themselves through their “ City of the Dead,” to say nothing of what they owe to the memory of those who have “ crossed the Bar.” Months ago I contributed my mite to the fund collected for this purpose by you, Mr Editor, and this I will gladly double when so requested. While disapproving of the order of procedure —calling a public meeting as the first act in this connection —I sincerely trust there may be a full and representative attendance, and that nothing but good may result therefrom. My card (enclosed) is at the disposal of the Rev. Clarke, whose friendship—ever, by me esteemed an honour I trust I have not forfeited nor even strained, for ’twas he who made this a public matter. —I am, etc., W.F.S. V P.S.—There is debatable matter enough in the Rev. Clarke’s letter for a vigorous religious controversy, but I hope you will true to your principles and not allow it. —S.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The two letters lately appearing in your columns about the neglected state of St. John’s churchyard must surely arouse public feeling. As the churchyard has practically been used as a public cemetery(wWcMr Clarke s

letter) surely it is right and proper that the public should contribute to its upkeep. This could well be done by the Town Board voting a contribution. If, however, this cannot be legally done, then I say let every person who values the good name of their town contribute of their means. Any newcomer in looking round the town, as I did some months ago, naturally visits this historic church, and cannot but be shocked at the very neglected state of the graves there. The Anglican community’s responsibility is another matter, but on public grounds alone I venture to assert that the present state of things should not be allowed to continue. I enclose five shillings towards the fund. I am, etc., Herbert Innes Jones. Kihikihi, May 4th, 1912.