Report of the Committee

Appointed by the General Synod (May 19th. 1874) to draw up a Statement of the Grounds upon which the General Synod has acted in reference to the Bishopric of Dunedin.

Your Committee have to Report—

That the Constitution was framed in the year 1857, and came into operation at the first session of the General Synod, which was held at Wellington in the year 1859. Before that date the Bishops in New Zealand had been appointed by the Queen's Letters Patent.

These provisions have been acted upon, and the first Bishop appointed thereunder was the present Bishop of Nelson, a motion having been made and carried at the session of the General Synod at Christchurch in the year 1865 as follows, that is to say :—"That the Nelson Diocesan Synod having page iii deputed to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London the nomination of a successor to the present Bishop of Nelson, and the Bishop of London having notified that he is prepared to exercise such right of nomination, this Synod do forward to His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury a copy of clause 23 of the Constitution Deed, and request his Grace will be pleased to act on behalf of the General Synod in sanctioning, at his discretion, the nomination of a Clergyman by the Bishop of London, and to take the necessary steps for giving effect to the nomination.

The present Bishop of Auckland has also been appointed in conformity with the provisions before-mentioned.

That the first reference on the records of the General Synod to the Bishopric of Dunedin is to be found in the opening address of the Metropolitan (the present Bishop of Lichfield) to the second General Synod held at Nelson in the year 1862, when he spoke as follows :—"To complete the system a Rural Deanery Board has been organised at Otago, which under the present circumstances of that Province we hope will soon expand itself into the Synod of a new Diocese."

That at the session of the third General Synod held at Christchurch in the year 1865, a resolution was passed in the words following :—"That the next session of the General Synod be held in Dunedin, if by the time of meeting there be a Bishopric of Dunedin constituted, and the Bishop shall have entered upon the duties of his office. If there be no Bishop the next session shall be held at Auckland." No other reference was made to the Diocese or Bishopric of Dunedin during that session.

The before-named Metropolitan in his opening address to the fourth General Synod at its session held at Auckland in the year 1868, said :—"The first question which will require your attention is an Act to validate the election of members chosen to represent the two portions of the present Diocese of Christchurch. This necessity has arisen from the unforeseen delay in the Constitution of the Diocese of Dunedin. It seemed to me to be expedient that a full representation of the Clergy and Laity in the Rural Deanery of Otago and Southland should assist in deciding the important questions affecting the new Diocese, which will be brought before us. On this subject I have only further to recommend that any matters involving personal considerations be referred, as in former instances, to a Select Committee to be chosen by ballot."

The resolution was carried, and a Committee was balloted for, which consisted of—The Bishop of Christchurch, the Bishop of Waiapu, Bishop Patteson (of Melanesia), the Dean of Christchurch, Venerable Archdeacon Govett, Venerable Archdeacon Hadfield, Venerable Archdeacon Williams, the Rev. Dr. Maunsell, the Hon. J. B. A. Acland, C. Hunter Brown, Esq., F. D. Fenton, Esq., Sir Wm. Martin, and William Swainson, Esq.^*

On the 9th day of the session the Committee brought up their report in the words following, that is to say—

"Report of Committeee appointed to consider the expediency of completing the Ecclesiastical arrangements proposed for that part of the Diocese of Christchurch which is included in the Provinces of Otago and Southland.

"Your Committee, having carefully considered the subject submitted to them, and having taken such evidence and examined such documents bearing thereupon as were within their reach, including a statement by Dr. Jenner, beg to report as follows :—

"They have ascertained that the endowment fund for the proposed Diocese is, in its present state, insufficient for the support of a Bishop.

"They have further ascertained that the objection entertained in the contemplated Diocese to the alleged opinions and practices of Bishop Jenner preclude the probability of the speedy completion of this fund.

"At the same time they are led to believe that the pecuniary circumstances of Bishop Jenner, so far as they are able to form an opinion upon them, are such as would cause him to be wholly dependent upon that fund.

"In coming to a decision they have not thought themselves called upon to take into consideration the alleged ritualistic practices of Bishop Jenner, but they consider that the state and prospect of the Endowment Fund and the circumstances above referred to, constitute sufficient reasons for the following decision, namely:—

That they are not prepared to recommend the Synod to confirm the appointment of Bishop Jenner.

"They recommend that, so soon as the necessary endowment be completed, the proper steps be taken for the nomination, confirmation, and consecration of a Bishop for the proposed See.

"And in accordance with Standing Order No. 22, the Committee beg to submit the following resolutions for adoption by the Synod:

"1. That the appointment of Bishop Jenner to the See of Dunedin be not confirmed by the Synod.

"2. That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Christchurch, and Bishop Jenner, and the Rural Deanery Board of Otago and Southland.

"3. That it is expedient that, so soon as the necessary endowment shall be completed, the proper steps be taken for the nomination, confirmation, and consecration of a Bishop for the proposed See.

"(Signed) H. J. C. Christchurch.

"October 15th, 1868."

And on the same day of the session the Synod proceeded to consider the resolutions founded on the report.

On the following day the resolutions were further considered, and a resolution was moved "That the appointment of Bishop Jenner be not confirmed by the Synod."

An amendment thereto was proposed, "That, inasmuch as the sum raised towards the Endowment Fund of the proposed Diocese of Dunedin is totally inadequate to the support of a Bishop,

"Resolved—1. That the Synod does not see the way open at present to the completion of the Ecclesiastical arrangements in connection with the proposed Diocese of Dunedin.

"2. That the Rural Deanery of Otago and Southland be formed into a Diocese to be administered provisionally by the Bishop of Christchurch."

After a prolonged discussion the following amendment on the original motion was moved:—

"That this Synod having carefully taken into consideration all the circumstances in connexion with the See of Dunedin is unable, in the present state of the question, to find any sufficient ground for withholding its recognition of the appointment of Bishop Jenner, but while acknowledging the appointment, and declaring that it shall be competent for Dr. Jenner to enter upon the duties of his office, the Synod would urge upon Bishop Jenner the expediency of his resigning the Bishopric on the ground of the difficulties experienced in obtaining an adequate endowment."

After some discussion, the amendment was put and negatived, as was also subsequently the previous amendment.

The Synod adjourned for half an hour, and on its resuming the following amendment on the original motion, that is to say—

"That whereas the General Synod is of opinion that it is better for the peace of the Church that Bishop Jenner should not take charge of the Bishopric of Dunedin:

"'This Synod hereby requests him to withdraw his claim to that position,'" was moved and carried without a division.

At the same session of the General Synod the following Statute was made and passed, that is to say—

"Statute to Provide for the Division of the Diocese of Christchurch into two separate Dioceses.

"Whereas it is desirable that the Diocese of Christchurch should be divided into two separate Dioceses, and to that end the Bishop of Christchurch is desirous of resigning so much of the said Diocese as is comprised within the Provinces of Otago and Southland : Be it resolved by the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Branch of the United Church of England and Ireland in New Zealand in General Synod assembled as follows :

"1. From and after the first day of January 1869 the said Provinces of Otago and Southland shall cease to form a part of the Diocese of Christchurch, and shall thenceforward form a separate and independent Diocese to be called the Diocese of Dunedin.

"2. Until a day to be fixed in that behalf by the Standing Commission the said Bishop of Christchurch shall continue to have charge of the said Diocese of Dunedin and for the purposes of the Statute for the organisation of Diocesan Synods shall be deemed and taken to be the Bishop of such Diocese."

The Primate (the present Bishop of Christchurch) in his opening address to the fifth General Synod at its session in Dunedin in the year 1871, said:—

"I have received by the last mail from Bishop Jenner the judgment or opinion of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury respecting Bishop Jenner's claims to the See of Dunedin.

"There is a letter also from the Bishop addressed to myself which I consider it expedient to lay before you, because it questions my right, as Bishop of Christchurch, to administer the See of Dunedin. My right to do so, or as I would rather say my duty, may be regarded as resting on two grounds, either on the fact of my consecration under Royal Letters Patent to the See of Christchurch, which at that time included the Provinces of Canterbury, Otago, and of Southland, and which as yet I have never formally resigned, or on the authority of the General Synod, which in its Statute No. 12 has declared that 'until a day, to be fixed in that behalf by the Standing Commission, the Bishop of Christchurch shall page viii continue to have charge of the Diocese of Dunedin, and for the purpose of the Statute for the organisation of Diocesan Synods shall be deemed and taken to be the Bishop of that Diocese,' Whichever of these grounds are taken, my spiritual oversight of the Diocese of Dunedin is founded, I conceive, on very sufficient authority. But I am quite content to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Synod, in the full assurance that due deference will be paid to the opinions expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the claims of Bishop Jenner be impartially considered, and with much sympathy with him for the position in which he has been placed. I will only add that I am persuaded that it is for the interests of the Church that this Diocese of Dunedin should be speedily entrusted to the charge of a Bishop who may be able to reside in it, and I shall be very thankful if arrangements can be made for that purpose, though quite ready to continue in the charge of it if such arrangements at this time be thought impracticable."

The letter to the Primate from Bishop Jenner and a printed copy of the judgment of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, were laid on the table and read.

In order that the General Synod might be in possession of all information on the subject, a motion was made and carried—

"That the following papers be laid on the table:—Bishop Jenner's reply to the resolution of the General Synod asking him to withdraw his claims, and the reply of the Standing Commission, and any other correspondence that may have passed between Bishop Jenner and the Standing Commission or the Primate of Now Zealand."

On the sixth day of the Session a motion was made and earned without division—

"That whereas the last General Synod of the Branch of the United Church of England and Ireland in New Zealand took into consideration all the circumstances of the nomination and consecration of Bishop Jenner, and did thereupon formally request that he should withdraw his claim to the position of Bishop of Dunedin for the sake of the peace of the Church, to which request Bishop Jenner has declined to accede; and whereas the law of the Church requires the sanction of the General Synod to the nomination of a Bishop to any See in New Zealand—Resolved that this Synod does hereby refuse to sanction the nomination of Bishop Jenner to the See of Dunedin, whether that nomination were in due form or other- page ix wise. But at the same time this Synod begs to express its symyathy with Bishop Jenner in the painful position in which he has been placed."

On the seventh day of the Session the following question was put to the Primate (as President)—

"1. By whom and in what form a specific request has been made to this present Synod to give the formal sanction of the Synod to the nomination of Bishop Jenner to the See of Dunedin? " And

"2. If no such request has been laid before this Synod, whether any motion can be considered in order or entertained which proposes that this Synod shall refuse to give the said sanction?"

The President gave a written reply as follows:—

"In answer to the first question I have to state that I am not aware that any request has been made to the present Synod to give the formal sanction of the Synod to the nomination of Bishop Jenner to the See of Dunedin." To the second question—"If no such request has been laid before this Synod, whether any motion can be considered in order or entertained which proposes that this Synod shall refuse to give the said sanction?" My answer is—"That, looking at the terms of the Constitution, I do not think that this Synod now sitting at Dunedin is a different body from that which met at Auckland in 1868, although it does not consist of precisely the same body of men. It was and is the representative governing body of the Branch of the Church of England and Ireland in New Zealand. To this body the matter in question was referred at its last meeting for settlement, and a certain resolution was passed which has not been accepted, but which is known to have been formally if not officially declined by one of the parties most interested. This being the case, it appears to me in order that the matter should be again brought before the Synod for a further expression of its opinions."

On the ninth day of the Session a resolution was moved and carried—

"That the President be requested to forward to Bishop Jenner the resolution of the Synod having reference to the Bishopric of Dunedin."

By "The Bishoprics Statute, 1871," passed at the same Session of the General Synod, it was resolved that—

"Except as hereinafter provided the nomination of the first Bishop of a new Diocese shall proceed from a convention of the licensed Clergy resident within the boundaries of such new Diocese, and representatives of the Laity of the same, the said representatives to be elected for such districts in such number and such manner as shall be determined by the Primate or by a Commissary specially appointed by him for that purpose. And the Primate, or his Commissary aforesaid, shall convene and preside over such convention. Provided that the President of the convention aforesaid shall have no vote in the election of the Bishop, unless being a Commissary he shall be a Clergyman of the new Diocese, in which case he shall vote as one of his own Order. Provided further, that the nomination of the first Bishop of Dunedin shall be made by the Diocesan Synod."

At a meeting of the Standing Commission held on the 22nd day of May, 1871, the following resolution was passed:—

"Whereas by the Statute of the General Synod to provide for the division of the Diocese of Christchurch into two separate Dioceses, it was resolved that the Provinces of Otago and Southland should cease to form a part of the Diocese of Christchurch, and should thenceforward form a separate and independent Diocese to be called the Diocese of Dunedin, but that until a day to be fixed in that behalf by the Standing Commission the Bishop of Christchurch should continue to have charge of the Diocese of Dunedin, and for the purpose of the 'Statute for the Organization of Diocesan Synods,' should be deemed and taken to be the Bishop of such Diocese.

"And whereas the Reverend Samuel Tarratt Nevill, Rector of Shelton, in the county of Stafford, has been nominated by the Diocesan Synod of Dunedin to the Bishopric of the said Diocese of Dunedin, and the said nomination has been confirmed by a majority of the Standing Committees of this Ecclesiastical Province, it is resolved and declared by the Standing Commission that, on the day on which the said Samuel Tarratt Nevill shall be consecrated to the office of Bishop, the said Bishop of Christchurch shall cease to have charge of the Diocese of Dunedin, and shall cease to be deemed to be the Bishop of such Diocese for the purposes of the 'Statute for the Organization of Diocesan Synods'."

Bishop Nevill aforesaid was duly consecrated on the 4th day of June, 1871, at St. Paul's Church in Dunedin, and on the same day the Primate formally resigned the administration of the Diocese of Dunedin.

In his opening address to this General Synod, the Primate said—

"The interval which has passed since the last meeting of the General Synod in 1871 has not been without events of interest to the Church of New Zealand. On the 4th of June in that year a Bishop, who had been duly nominated by the Synod of the Diocese, and whose nomination in accordance with our regulations had been confirmed by a majority of the Standing Committees, was consecrated at St. Paul's Church, in the city of Dunedin, by myself and three other Bishops of this Ecclesiastical Province, and on the same day I formally resigned the administration of that Diocese."