DIOCESAN SYNOD.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 431, 30 October 1875, Page 2

DIOCESAN SYNOD.

Friday, October 29. The President took his seat at 4 p.m., and opened the proceedings with prayer. RESIGNATION OF THE LAY SECRETARY. The President read a letter from Mr Beid resigning the office of lay secretary. On the motion of Mr Hanmer, Mr Fendall was appointed lay secretary. __ ALTERATION OF FORMULARIES. On the motion of Archdeacon Harper the Synod went into committee for the further consideration of resolutions on the draft Bill for Alteration of Formularies. On the motion of Sir Oracroft Wilson the chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again at 7.30 p.m. on,Monday. BALLOT BOXES. ' ; - Mr Ainger moved—“ That as con* siderable objection has been raised to the present form of arriving at the results of elections, and it is desirable to strictly adhere to the present principle, in the opinion of the Synod it is desirable that two ballot boxes should be pro* vided before the next meeting of Synod, one for the clerical, the other for lay members ; that each box shall contain, say twenty compartments, over which the name of the candidates proposed can be placed, that each member of Synod may then drop a ball into the compartment allotted to the person for whom he wishes to vote.” The Dean moved an amendment having he effefct of referring the method of conducting the election of members of select and executive committees, taking into consideration Mr Ainger’s proposal to the Standing Committee to report at the next session. The amendment was agreed to. PASTORS TO PARISHES. On the motion of the Dean the Synod went into committee —Mr G. Leslie Lee in the chair—to consider the following resolutions contained in the report of the select committee on the appointment of pastors to parishes : > “ 1. That in the opinion of this Synod no fundamental alteration, such as the transfer

of the initiative from the Board of Nominators to the Bishop, ought to be m-jde in the statute of the General Synod. 2. Ihat it is expedient that the Bishop should have an opportunity of expressing his opinions, and of communicating information to the Board of Nominators, previous to the nomination. 3. That, with this view, it is desirable that the Bishop of the diocese should be distinctly represented on the Board of Nominators, by the power being vested in him of nominating an additional member of the Board, who should have a substantive vote and who might, or might not, be chairman of the Board. 4. That as to clause 12 of the statute of the General Synod, having reference to resignations, no alteration appears necessary. 5. That the interval after which the appointment to a vacant cure should lapse to the Bishop, as provided in clause 11 of the Statute of the General Synod, should be reduced from eighteen months to nine. 6. That the recommendations of the Diocesan Synod of Nelson, with reference to exchanges, be adopted by this Synod. 7. That the President be requested to communicate the foregoing resolutions to the several Bishops of this Ecclesiastical Province, with a request that they may be laid before their respective Synods for consideration ; and that, subject to any alteration which may be made in them at the next session of this Diocesan Synod, he be requested to bring them before the General Synod at its next session, together with a recommendation that they be adopted, and that effect be given to them in an amended statute.” On clause 1 being moved, Archdeacon Harper proposed the following amendment: —"That, in the opinion of this Synod, the statute of the General Synod which provides for the appointment of pastors to parishes, and which provides, in particular, that on the occasion of 'a vacancy in any cure the Bishop shall take the initiative by satisfying himself as to the income of the cure, and also by summoning the Board of Nomina--tors, should be altered so as to allow the Bishop to have the further initiative by recommending the names of one or more clergymen to the Board for their consent. The Board to have the privilege of refusing any such recommendation, and of requesting the Bishop to propose other names. The consent of a majority of three-fourths of the Board to be necessary both in the acceptance or rejection of any name proposed by the Bishop. When the consent of the Board to any such recommendation made by the Bishop shall have been obtained, the invitation to the clergyman thus nominated shall proceed from the Bishop to the said clergyman.” The committee, after discussion, divided on the amendment— Ayes—Clergy ... 13 Laity... 1 Noes—Clergy ... 12 Laity... 20 The amendment was consequently lost. The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday, at 4 p.m. STATUTE NO. 4 AMENDMENT BILL, Mr Walker moved the second reading of this Bill. The motion was agreed to, and the Bill being read a second time passed through committee with an amendment, and was reported. STATUTE NO. 5 AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of Mr Walker, this Bill was read a second time, passed through committee, and was reported, CHURCH PROPERTY TRUST ESTATE. The President said that the Synod had ordered Mr Mellish’s resolution to be considered, but he would remind the Synod that the report of the select committee had been read but not adopted, and he thought that the fullest consideration should be given to it before it was adopted. The committee admitted that they bad not had time for full investigation, and yet they had brought up a report, casting a severe censure on the trustees : in fact, saying that they bad discharged the duties of that trust unworthily. He was an ex officio member of that trust, and could not resign, and the report cast a like censure on him, and a severe reflection also upon the whole body of the trustees for years past, and on the Synod itself. He trusted that before they went into the resolution some one would move the adoption of the report. Mr Mellish moved the adoption of the report. The motion was not seconded. Mr Hamilton moved that the report be adopted on some future day, [No, no ] Mr Mellish said he -would claim his right to move the resolution. Rev B, A. Lingard said he thought the Synod could not refuse to receive the report. If they did not approve of it they could negative the resolutions recommended in the report. Mr Tancred said that it appeared to him that the Synod ought not to question thefacts contained in the report, they might, however, question the wisdom of the recommendations. Mr Hanmer moved the absolute rejection of the report, because it contained allegations which might or might not be true ; because, also, it contained allegations reflecting on the trustees, who had had no opportunity of refuting the allegations. The trustees were charged with neglect of duty; the trustees were men of high position, honest, honorable men. who gave their time and labour for nothing, and yet they were charged with shirking their work. He was surprised to see the report published this morning in the public prints, a report reflecting on the character of the trustees, and which must either be confirmed or rejected by the Synod, If he were a trustee, he I would resign at once ; indeed, unless the Synod rejected the report, there was no other alternative than for them to resign. The select committee had only examined one trastee, and without giving the other trustees an opportunity of resigning they had presented a report condemning those gentlemen. Mr Malet seconded the motion, as the Synod did not appear to wish for enquiry. Mr Hanmer disclaimed any wish on the part of the trustees to burke enquiry, they wished the fullest to be made. Mr Mellish explained that the committee had not the amount of time at their disposal as would enable them to bring up such an exhaustive report as they could wish. He would contend that the evidence before the committee justified them in bringing up

their report. He would remind Mr Hanmer that the committee had a duty to perform and this they had done. It was not a question of majority in the committee, as there was not a single word in the report which had not received the assent of the whole. [Applause. \ Rev Mr Stocks said the Synod were placed in this painful position—if they went on with the report they cast a reflection on the trustees ; if they did not do so, they reflected on the committee. Sir Cracroft Wilson warned the Synod that the rejection of the report would be casting a slur upon the [committee, and he warned the Synod against doing that. After some discussion on a point of order, the motion for rejecting the report was put and negatived. Mr Mellish moved—“ That the Synod go into committee to consider the adoption of the resolutions annexed to the report of the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the position and management of f e Church property estate.” Mr March seconded the motion, which was agreed to on the voices. The Synod then went into committee on the resolutions, Rev E. A. Lingard in the chair. Mr Mellish moved—“ 1. That in future any leases which may be granted should contain clauses providing in the cases of rural land that it should not be exhausted, and in the case of both town and rural land that it should not be sublet without the consent of the trustees, and generally that its value should not be depieciated.” The Dean said that the resolution implied a censure on the trustees that lands had been let without such clauses. Such censure ought not to be made without, and he would now call on the mover for, proofs. Mr Mellish said he would accept the challenge, and he mentioned the case of land known as Bingaland, where there was a renewal of a lease granted to a man who bad surrendered his lease, on easier terms than he would have paid under the lease surrendered. Archdeacon Willock, on being referred to, said that the easier terms were granted on condition that the lessee should drain and cultivate a swamp. But judge of his (Mr Mellish’s) astonishment, when he found that the first lease contained a clause that the whole of the land should be drained and cultivated in a husband-like manner. The only thing the new lease contained was that the lessee was to erect buildings to the value of £6OO. Archdeacon Willock said that he would accept Mr Mellish’s challenge. When he (Mr Willock) was before the committee they treated him more like an old rowdy drunkard than any one else. [Loud cries of " Order,” Mr Mellish rising and claiming the protection of the chair.] He admitted that he had told Mr Mellish that the second lease was granted for the purpose of getting the land properly drained. He saw the gentleman who made out the rate roll and was informed by him that half of the land was unsaleable. The first lessee of the land gave much trouble, and the trustees had to sue him to turn him out, and this cost £1436 17s 6d ; against this the trustees obtained £llOO from their new tenant, so that they only lost about £3OO. The trustees might have been deceived, but he utterly denied that they had ever been guilty of neglect in granting these leases. The Archdeacon then related the circumstances under which other leases had been granted about the neighborhood of Addington, and inquired whether the trustees were to be blamed, because they did not foresee five or six years beforehand that the establishment of the Addington sale yards would materially increase the value of land in that locality, and yet it was insinuated that the trustees had been guilty of negligence, He denied this ; the trustees were honest honorable men, and had endeavored to honestly discharge to the best of their ability the trust confided to them. He also denied the statement of the committee that they took up leases at hap-hazard, if they did so why did they inquire for the Bingsland lease? In all the leases granted the land wa3 let at fair value at the time, and if the trustees had not leased the land how were they to meet the rabid cries for " more revenue.” Notwithstanding the low rentals, the per centage on the coat valuation was 65 per cent last year, and next year it would probably be 75 per cent. And now he would ask them as men of business did that show that the trustees had been guilty of such very gross mismanagement. The trustees were also blamed for granting such large powefs to their late steward. It was quite true that a document was granted to the late steward, and it was granted to him with the concurrence of the late Mr R. Packer, Mr Cyrus Davie, and Mr R, J. S. Harman, all of whom were men of business, not likely easily to be taken in. Then, too, there were three parsons,’ one of whom was a Scotchman, known to be very keen, the other two were himself and the Dean, who might be looked upon as two old women. [Laughter.] He would acknowledge that the trustees had been deceived in their late steward—as- things had turned out —for they did not think he was a rogue, or they would have dismissed him long before. But he was the trusted servant of the trustees, who had the highest confidence in him—they were deceived in the man in whom they placed implicit confidence. ‘ He was ready to answer any question, and to give the fullest information on all points, God helping him so to do. | Applause.] Rev Canon Dudley said that he was certain he spoke the mind of the whole Synod when he said that no person ever thought of accusing the trustees of wilful negligence ; but he must say that they had not exercised such a proper supervision as they ought to have done. He contended that in some cases the value of the estate had been depreciated through the careless manner in which the property had been leased. He, however, did not so much blame the trustees as their servant who had deceived them. Mr Mellish said he would refer to the church property which abutted on Cranmer square. Those sections were marketable at any time at £4C’O apiece, and they were let at £2O a year for twenty-one years, and no covenant which compelled the tenant to put up a single building on them. Mr Hamilton that he did not believe the sections alluded to would fetch anything like the price stated.

Sir Thomas Tancred complained that the Synod was being turned into a wrangling club. This he objected to, and considered that the speakers should confine themselves to the resolution. Rev W. E. Paige entirely dissented from the statement made by Sir Thomas Tancred. Rev H, C. ,M. Watson did not think that the resolution conveyed any censure on the trustees. The Dean differed entirely from the conclusion arrived at by Mr Watson. Censure on the trustees was certainly conveyed in the resolution. The chairman ruled that each speaker must confine himself solely to the resolution under debate. If, however, any trustee considered his past conduct impugned, he was at liberty to defend himself. Hon J. B. Aclaud moved that the word “all ” be substituted for the word “ any ” in the resolution. The amendment was agreed to on the voices. Rev R. J. S. Jackson moved the previous question. The chairman ruled that the previous question could not be moved in committee. Rev G. J. Cholmondeley said that as one of the trustees he had too much self-respect to enter on his defence that evening. The resolution imputed blame to the trustees, and he asked the committee to pause before they passed a resolution imputing blame without proof being given that such blame was due. Rev F. Knowles said it was most inconvenient that such a resolution should be discussed in committee, it was a matter of executive detail. He moved ns an amendment—“ That the report be referred to the standing committee to report upon.” The chairman ruled that the amendment could not now be put. The resolution was then put and agreed to on the voices. Mr Mellish moved—“ That a periodical examination should take place as to the sufficiency of the sureties of the Church steward dr others entering into engagements for the performance of responsible duties.” The motion was agreed to. Mr Mellish moved —“ That the state of the accounts as shown by the books kept by the Church steward should be examined and verified at stated intervals between the times of audit.” Archdeacon Willcock said that the books were now regularly examined and audited. The Dean said that it was unfair that the whole blame should be attempted to be cast upon the clergy, because, like their co-trustees of the laity, they had been deceived by the man whom they trusted. He thought that it was unfair that censures should be thrown out as they had been, as no doubt the resolutions, when considered with the report, conveyed censure. If the resolutions were carried, it appeared to him that there was no other course open for the trustees to adopt than to resign. After some further discussion, the resolution was agreed to on the voices. Mr Mellish moved—" That the accounts of the various trusts be closed and audited up to one fixed date in every year.” Archdeacon Willock pointed out that this course had already been determined on by the trustees. The resolution was agreed to on the voices. Mr Mellish moved—“ That the auditors appointed to audit the accounts should receive adequate payment for their services.” Archdeacon Willock said that the trustees had already determined that this course should be adopted. He might mention that even the Provincial Auditor had been deceived, false entries having been made in the Bank pass-books. The resolution was agreed to on the voices. Mr Mellish moved—“ That the President be requested to appoint a commission composed of persons familiar with business transactions, whose duty it should be to. examine and-report in detail upon the state of the property, aud to recommend a system of management suited to the circumstances. ” Mr Hanmer suggested that the Synod should elect a fresh body of trustees, who might enquire into the matter. Mr March pointed out that the Bishop had some time since appointed such a commission. The President said he hoped that the invidious task of appointing such a commission would not be put on him. The Synod had far better elect fresh trustees. He did not often veto, but if the resolution were passed, he should be compelled to veto it. Mr Mellish said that after the expression of opinion from the Bishop, he would withdraw the resolution. Clauses 7 and 8 were also withdrawn, Mr Mellish moved—" That the Church steward should not be allowed to exercise discretionary powers of any kind, but should act only either on general written instructions, or a special authority in writing in special cases.” The resolution was agreed to. The chairman reported the resolutions. Mr Mellish moved—“ That the resolutions as amended and reported from the committee be agreed to.” Mr Walker seconded the motion. Rev G. J. Cholmondeley enquired whether the committee had gone into the question of the diocesan funds ? The Dean said that perhaps the reason the committee had not enquired into the diocesan funds was because one of its members was a member of the standing committee. Mr Malet said if the Dean referred to him, he begged to thank him for it, Mr Mellish said that the committee had not had time to inquire into the state of the diocesan funds. Mr Gresson said it did appear strange that that the committee had not as they were ordered, inquired into the state of the diocesan funds. In reply to Mr L. Harper, Archdeacon Willock said that the defalcations in the diocesan funds by the late steward amounted to upwards of £2OOO. Rev E. A. Lingard moved as an amendment, “ That the question of considering the report of the committee on the resolutions be made an order of the day for Monday.” The Synod divided on the amendment— Ayes—Clergy ... 12 Laity ... 9 Noes —Clergy .. 7 Laity ... 17 The motion was consequently lost.

Rev E, A. Lingard moved “ That, after notices of motion, the Synod do adjourn until Monday.” The Synod divided on the motion of adjournment— Ayes—Clergy ... 8 Laity,,. 8 Noes—Clergy ... 12 Laity... 17 The motion was negatived. The Synod divided on the motion for adopting the amendedjesolutions as reported by the committee. Ayes—Clergy ... 10 Laity... 16 Noes—Clergy ... 9 Laity... 9 The motion was carried. Notices of motion having been given, the Synod adjourned until 4 p.m. on Monday.