Project Canterbury

Seeking a See

A Journal of The Right Reverend Henry Lascelles Jenner D.D.
of his visit to Dunedin, New Zealand in 1868-1869

Edited by the Rev. John Pearce M.B.E.

Dunedin: The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Dunedin, 1984.

Formatted by the Right Reverend Dr. Terry Brown, 2006


So Bishop Jenner was back in his little parish of Preston, near Sandwich once more. He had great faith that the justice of his cause would ensure its eventual success.

We have seen that the Fourth General Synod of the Church of New Zealand had advised him to resign for the sake of the peace of the church. It had taken finance as its only ground--nothing having been said about his theological position or his ceremonial practices. Bishop Selwyn and a large minority of the Synod disagreed with its findings, and considered that it would be quite legitimate for Bishop Jenner to renew his claims once the Diocese of Dunedin was in a position to find the necessary money to pay him a proper stipend.

The first Diocesan Synod of Dunedin, we note, took a different line. Here the matter hinged not on finance but on theology. As far as that goes it was at least calling a spade a spade. But the report makes very sad reading.

At the Diocesan Synod Mr. James Smith delivered a lengthy speech. He rose to speak at 8 p.m. After dealing with the history of the case in some detail, he reminded those present that they were not qualified or competent to judge whether Bishop Jenner had broken his ordination vows, whether he had taught doctrine subversive of the Church of England, whether his ritualistic practices in England had been illegal. If there were charges let them be brought by all means, he was himself opposed strongly to advanced ritualistic practices. A charge or series of charges having been made, let Bishop Jenner stand before a properly constituted ecclesiastical court. Was it for laymen to judge Bishops? Dr. Jenner had been referred to as Bishop of Dunedin regularly for some years by Bishop Selwyn and by the present Primate. He went on to speak of the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter of 1 November 1867:

'He was sorry to have to remark on the conduct of the reverend gentleman who had written that letter, one whose character deserved to be held up as a pattern of holy life; but he felt bound to say that in penning that letter, the Archbishop seemed to have sadly forgotten what was due to an absent man.'

Mr. Smith went on to quote from a letter written to the Otago Daily Times by a man now living among them who had been a member of Dr. Jenner's congregation in Kent from 1859 to 1865, who said that he had for a lengthy part of that period been a member of the choir at [203/204] Preston--'The testimony he bore was that Dr. Jenner was beloved by the whole of his parish, and spoke in the highest terms of his earnestness, his visitation of the sick, and his attention to the education of the young . . .' He concluded his letter by saying emphatically that Dr. Jenner was a thoroughly good Churchman, and not, as had been hinted, a Jesuit in disguise. Mr. Smith then took up the question of the Fourth General Synod. It seemed to him the Church had not attached as much importance to the charge as the Bishop of Christchurch had done, and was not his Lordship's request that Bishop Jenner should withdraw for the sake of the peace of the Church a tacit admission that he had a claim? Bishop Jenner had been widely assailed as committing a breach of faith in coming out to New Zealand to let people see for themselves that he did not deprave the usages of the Church. He would put the question directly to the President--did anything pass between the Primate and Bishop Jenner relative to Dr. Jenner's remaining at home until the decision of the Fourth General Synod was known. To this the President said 'certainly not". It was now shortly after 11 o'clock at night and the Synod adjourned. Mr. Smith would have liked it to resume next day but the Primate was determined to carry on. Mr. Smith was a low-Churchman, a man of great ability, and a gentleman. He appears to have made out his case with moderation and in good faith.

The Revd. Mr. Gifford now seconded the resolution. He had been chosen, he said because he had a full knowledge and experience of all that had gone on in the Rural Deanery Board and in the General Synod. The purpose of the resolution was to ensure for Bishop Jenner a proper trial, fairly conducted. Mr. Smith had omitted a sentence of Bishop Selwyn's which was part of his recommendation to the Synod to accept Bishop Jenner 'for his sake, and for the sake of the peace of the Church, and for the sake of the Synod.' The last phrase had been left out of the local paper's report of the letter. He then read the words used in the Fourth General Synod by the Bishop of Wellington (C. J. Abraham) in opposing the motion calling on Bishop Jenner to resign:

'If this resolution went home in its present bare form, it would be the greatest blow that could possibly be given to the Synodical system, as it would undermine all confidence in its fairness. Thus the system by which they trusted to regenerate the whole Church would be brought into disrepute by doing what would be considered unjust. It would thus encourage those very practices which it most condemned. If they called upon Bishop Jenner to resign without giving him a fair trial, all quiet right-thinking men in England would condemn the Synod. The Synod should act as a deliberative assembly, but not as a judicial body; and, as they desired to uphold the Synodical system, he hoped they would not attempt to condemn Bishop Jenner without a fair, careful, and impartial hearing.'

[205] The Revd. Gifford then said that among all who recognised the justice of Bishop Jenner's claims there was not one single person who in any way whatever advocated the cause of Ritualism. He was seconding a resolution which called for a fair trial, something which, were the case his own, every member of the Synod would claim as an elemental right.

Mr. W. Carr Young then rose to head the opposition to Bishop Jenner's appointment. He had nothing against the Bishop personally but he objected to the school to which the Bishop belonged. There was nothing of moment in his speech with which the reader is unfamiliar. He denied that he had ever said that Bishop Jenner was 'gorgeously arrayed', whereas the phrase used in his letter to the Guardian relating to choristers, clergy and Bishop was 'all more or less gorgeously arrayed'; he made the allegation that he had seen Bishop Jenner listening to a sermon in a notoriously ritualistic church at Frome, but, as we know, Bishop Jenner never in the whole of his life visited the town of Frome. He had no explanation to offer for having travelled over a hundred difficult miles to Frome to judge the Bishop but never having once taken a comfortable journey of half of the distance to visit the Bishop's church at Preston, and judge him at first hand. Mr. Young went on to say that Bishop Jenner had not replied to his letter, written in England, in which he had informed him that he had recommended the Archbishop to cancel his appointment, and Bishop Jenner had come out in defiance of advice before the meeting of the General Synod. He would find him by God's will a conscientious opponent to the last. Bishop Jenner had ignored his Lordship's request to see him on his arrival in New Zealand. It would be unfair to confirm Bishop Jenner's appointment because they had not a sufficient endowment for his maintenance. If his (Mr. Young's) opponents doubted his evidence about Bishop Jenner's behaviour in England, they had only to read the Archbishop of Canterbury's last letter which bore out all he had said and contained a very severe censure on Bishop Jenner. The evidence of the Archbishop could not be refuted. Here was Mr. Young's great scoring point. The misunderstandings, the evasions, the half-truths, the lies were all forgotten. The Archbishop of Canterbury had given his evidence and was not [sic] beyond the pale of human challenge.* [Footnote: * Archbishop Longley died 27 October, 1868.]

It was now 2.30 a.m. and Mr. Ashcroft rose to propose an adjournment. The opposition opposed this vigorously and the President, as we should expect, ruled for them. So, protesting that he was quite exhausted, Mr. Ashcroft rose to speak for Bishop Jenner. Mr. Ashcroft considered Mr. Smith's defence to be temperate and able but he thought there were some omissions which he might fill in. In doing so [205/206] he stressed that he was vigorously opposed to extreme Ritualism and the peculiar doctrines it was supposed to illustrate. It was not Protestantism versus Ritualism, it was not Bishop Jenner versus Bishop Young--here the synod found a temporary release of tension in laughter--it was a matter of justice or injustice. He came from Oamaru at the other end of the Province and was opposed to extreme Ritualism but he felt that his own opinion, that Bishop Jenner must either be accepted or tried, had been exactly echoed by Mr. Smith who, as a magistrate in Southland, was accustomed to considering disputes judicially. Supporters of Bishop Jenner were to be found in both provinces but they had not formed themselves into a party, so sure were they of the justice of their cause. It was not Bishop Jenner or Ritualism which was on trial but the Synod and the Synodical system. This Synod, as at present elected did not represent the true opinion of the Church. Mr. Young made much of the feelings of his 'fellow-colonists', but it was not a matter for the colonists to decide, but for those colonists who were members of the Church. Mr. Young said that he had intended to imply by fellow-colonists, members of his own Church. Mr. Ashcroft then stated that members of other communions had taken part in discussions and had also taken part in the election of the Synods-men. This damning statement seems never to have been contradicted and, indeed, when Col. Rutherford came to oppose Bishop Jenner, he based his opposition on a statement later withdrawn by Major Richardson, and made the point that 'they resided in a province which had been founded by gentlemen connected with the Free Church of Scotland for their own exclusive benefit. The scheme was quite Utopian, and they ought to recollect that the Scottish Presbytery abominated anything which approached Roman Catholicism, and that they, as a body, ought to be as careful as they possibly could be not to obtrude anything of that kind among them.'

And so the weary night dragged on with charge and countercharge. The President was challenged that he had taken part in a celebration at Clewer (St Andrew's Day 1867) but defended himself by saying there had been no vestments, no incense, no banners. Perhaps he may not have felt called on to say that there had been lighted candles on the altar and a Mixed Chalice and that T. T. Carter was there and all his 'nuns' in their habits in one of the most 'ritualistic' chapels and one of the 'highest' altars in England. It was a suppressio veri on his part, but he can hardly have been expected to have thrown himself to the wolves, in the highly charged emotional atmosphere of his own Synod. What is unforgiveable is that he allowed so much arrant nonsense to be talked without apparently entering a protest. Some of it, the result of ignorance and prejudice, was difficult to refute. Bishop Jenner could not be proved to be an advanced Ritualist! Well, said Major [206/207] Richardson, he had friends in that party, he liked choral services, and the 'decencies of public worship', whatever that might mean. For his own part 'he now took the opportunity of placing Dr. Jenner as it were some distance up the ritualistic hill'. Who could refute a statement like that? Only Major Richardson himself who wrote to Jenner on 7 May following:

'I would further state that in my remarks I had solely in view those who have been described by the present Bishop of London, when lately addressing his clergy, as representing the Reformation as a "crime" and who, an individual or a party, "claimed the right to interpret the activities of the Church of England as being in harmony and identical with the decrees of the Council of Trent". I have not identified your Lordship with this extreme party. I believe that many ritualists stop far short of this and decline to proceed further.'

Mr. Young said that Bishop Jenner's actions had gone from bad to worse and had culminated at Whitewell and he would give details. On 8 September 1867, Dr. Jenner was said to be present in the Church where candles were lighted on the altar and after and not before the consecration a hymn was sung 'Thee we adore, O Hidden Saviour'. Mr. Smith was able to say that at the Whitewell service Bishop Jackson had also taken part and both he and Dr. Jenner had condemned the hymn.* [Footnote: * This from Bishop Woodford's translation of the great hymn of St. Thomas Aquinas, published in 1850 and since slightly modified. Why Jenner should have condemned it is a puzzle; it was consonant with his theological position, and he was not a man to be guided by discretion alas for him and his cause.] Once more the evidence of the Archbishop was invoked. Longley had condemned Jenner. If they doubted Dr. Longley's character they had better read Mr. Beresford Hope's testimony to him in the Guardian of 2 December, 1868. A clever move that, to bring in Beresford Hope, a leading High Churchman! And Mr. Gladstone, was ever Mr. Gladstone so associated in his life? Not even the Church Association would have dared that much, except that Mr. Gladstone was 16,000 miles away and not likely to know he had been so used. The damage had been done. It could not be denied that Bishop Jenner had friends among the Ritualists, it could not be established that he had many and close friends in the other parties, it was inevitable that he should be labelled. It was in vain that his supporters should plead that they did not want a humdrum orthodox Bishop but a man who would carry the flame of the Gospel throughout the diocese, who would be at home in the best society (rather theoretical that, one would have thought) and with the diggers. It was now a quarter past six on the morning of Friday, 9 April and the weary Synod voted. Of the eight Clergy present, four were for Bishop Jenner and three were against him. Of the twenty-six laymen, one had left during the night and ten [207/208] now declared themselves for the Bishop's nomination, but fifteen were against him. He had lost Dunedin by the votes of five laymen.

On Monday, 12 April 1869, the Synod resumed and Mr. Smith submitted a motion for the next day's consideration:

'That his Lordship, the President of this Synod, as well as his Right Rev. predecessor in the Primacy, having unreservedly and repeatedly pronounced the claim of Bishop Jenner to the See of Dunedin, to be morally binding upon the Church in New Zealand, a respectful address be presented to his Lordship, praying that his Lordship will convene an early meeting of the General Synod, in order that his Lordship may, in his capacity as responsible head of the Church, advise that body to pass an empowering Statute for the purpose of removing the strictly legal impediments which stand in the way of placing Bishop Jenner in full possession of the See of Dunedin.'

On the following day Mr. Smith had another notice:

'Whether his Lordship is now prepared to invest the Clergy of this Diocese with unfettered discretion as to inviting the Right Rev. Bishop Jenner, as a Minister of the Church of England, not under Ecclesiastical censure, to take part in the celebration of Divine worship.'

His Lordship replied that Bishop Jenner might so take part as a Minister provided he did not claim to be acting in an Episcopal capacity. What had happened between the time of the inhibition, or since the Bishop of Christchurch quibbled about the word inhibition, what had happened between the time when he refused the permission and now on the occasion of his granting it? Jenner's friends felt that the cause was so obviously lost that the Primate was not at risk of a popular rising in Bishop Jenner's favour. No other explanation seems to have been given to refute what was so widely held and talked about. Taking up the motion about referring the matter to a General Synod, the President said that he could not act on Mr. Smith's suggestion since it was laid down in the Constitution that the Diocesan Synod must nominate to the General Synod, the General Synod must make the nomination known to the Diocesan Synod, the final agreement must take place at the next ensuing General Synod. The President felt that this right of the Diocesan Synod was a very wise and sound one, going back to primitive antiquity, and he could not advise a General Synod to abrogate it. One is reassured by the Bishop's appeal to antiquity--especially since the opposition had spoken so scornfully of the first six centuries of Christianity but, of course, it was quite beside the point, because, as we have seen, the old Rural Deanery Board of Dunedin had already been invested by the Bishop of Christchurch with the powers of a Diocesan Synod and had nominated Bishop Jenner. The Bishop then made an appeal for good fellowship. The discussion had been a painful one and he hoped that on whichever side those present [208/209] had ranged themselves there would be no bitter feelings. Mr. Smith then rose to speak and the opposition, before he could get a word out, rose and left the room! Mr. Smith's motion was lost, the voting being Clergy, four for the motion and two against, and Laity, eight for the motion and fifteen against.

The Rural Dean, Mr. Edwards, had moved:

'That the settlement of the case of Bishop Jenner be referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Tait, such case to be drawn up by the Primate.'

This had been put and lost. The President now put up Mr. Edward's motion a second time, saying, that they would do well to refer the case to persons in the old country, who were better acquainted with Bishop Jenner's case than they could possibly be. This was received with loud applause, but nevertheless the motion was lost. It was now midnight and the President pronounced the 'apostolic benediction'.

Bishop Jenner, on his return to England took an early opportunity of calling on Dr. Tait, the Archbishop of Canterbury who, as Bishop of London, had been one of his consecrators. He told the Archbishop of his adventure in New Zealand. Dr. Tait was reclining in an easy chair and when Bishop Jenner came to describe how the Bishop of Christchurch inhibited him the Archbishop jumped to his feet--'do you mean to say that Harper did that? I should never have thought it of him.' Tait had no sort of sympathy with Ritualism but he was a gentleman and such meanness was absolutely repugnant to him. It seemed to the Archbishop that Bishop Jenner had an equitable claim to be considered Bishop of Dunedin. In order to be sure of his ground he sent for Bishop Selwyn and questioned him closely. Bishop Selwyn's account of the controversy tallied so exactly with Bishop Jenner's, that the Archbishop felt that he had to take some action. But what? He was a canny Lowland Scot and he knew the mood of the New Zealand Church which was to brook no interference from the Mother Church. It was Laodicea all over again. After taking thought the Archbishop produced a judgment.


20th October 1870.

I must premise that the following judgment is founded only on a partial statement of the case; and I am necessarily in ignorance how far it might be my duty to modify it, if I were in possession of such statements as the Churchmen resident in New Zealand might wish to forward, if they had the opportunity.

Having carefully considered the various statements which I have received from the Bishop of Lichfield and Bishop Jenner, with reference to the appointment of a Bishop to the See of Dunedin, I find:

[210] 1. That the Bishop of Lichfield (formerly of New Zealand), states that he was not authorised by any written document to request the late Archbishop of Canterbury to select a Bishop for Dunedin.

2. That the appointment was not confirmed by the General Synod of New Zealand, though, as it would appear from section 23 of the Constitution of the Church in New Zealand, such confirmation is required, if indeed the same regulations are applicable to new Sees as to Sees already existing. In fact, when the matter was brought before the General Synod in October, 1868, the following resolution was carried: "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, the Synod hereby requests him to withdraw his claim to that position".

On the other hand I find,

[210] 1. That the Rural Deanery Board of Otago and Southland, which is represented as having the authority of a Diocesan Synod, accepted the nomination of Bishop Jenner after it had been made.

2. That an endowment was collected for Bishop Jenner by name, as Bishop of Dunedin, chiefly through the exertions of the present Bishop of Lichfield, who was then Bishop of New Zealand.

On the whole, therefore, considering the unsettled state of the constitution of the Church of New Zealand, in respect of the absence from its code of any distinct regulations respecting the establishment of new Sees, and the mode of election or nomination of Bishops thereto, and believing that the other Sees in New Zealand were originally constituted much in the same way as that of Dunedin, I am of opinion that Bishop Jenner, having been selected by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the request of the Metropolitan of New Zealand and consecrated under Royal License to act as "a Bishop in the Colony of New Zealand", and having afterwards been accepted by the Rural Deanery Board of Otago and Southland, i.e. the whole of the Diocese of Dunedin, has an equitable claim to be considered Bishop of Dunedin; and I think it probable that a Court of Law would establish his right to the interest of the moneys collected on his behalf. But, as I can scarcely suppose that he is prepared to force himself upon a body which is now unwilling to receive him, my advice is the same as that of the General Synod of New Zealand, viz., that he should forego his claim. Yet I can scarcely think it equitable that he should not receive payment from the moneys at present in hand, for the expenses which he has incurred, owing to the painful position in which he has been placed.

(Signed) A. C. CANTUAR

The Archbishop had discussed the matter very carefully indeed at a Bishops' Meeting at Lambeth and Bishop Jenner has preserved in his own handwriting a discussion he had with Samuel Wilberforce--in that day the greatest of the English Bishops.

It is an interesting peep behind the scenes, recorded in Bishop Jenner's own handwriting.


Bishop Jenner I suppose that business of mine did not take long to settle, when you discussed it at Lambeth, five minutes at the utmost.

Bp. of W. On the contrary we all felt how important were the issues raised; and considered the matter most carefully.

Bp. J. Well, I confess I could not feel satisfied with the decision you came to, if decision it can be called.

Bp. of W. No, so I gathered from your letter. But what could we do? To have done what you wanted i.e. to have declared you in the right and the N.Z. Church in the wrong, would have been a challenge to the N.Z. Bishops who would certainly have sent an answer to which we must have replied and a hopeless controversy must have resulted. But I hope you understood the import of the phraseology we employed. The first draft of the resolution, I forget by what Bishop proposed, contained the words "We advise him under the difficulties of the case to resign his claim to the Bishopric" on which I observed that a claim might be rightful or wrongful and that it was hardly fair to use so indefinite an expression on such an occasion. So I proposed the substitution of the words "All right and title" an amendment which was unanimously accepted as expressing the true state of the case, and thus altered the resolution was carried nem con.

Bp. J. Then you meant, I presume, in advising me to resign all right and title to the See of Dunedin to express your opinion that I had such "right and title".

Bp. of W. "Unquestionably: how could we ask you to resign that which we did not believe you to possess?

Bp. J. Well, I hoped and trusted that was your intention only I desiderated a more outspoken pronouncement. But now that you assure me that you deliberately used words which recognised my title to the See I am quite satisfied.

Bp. of W. My dear fellow, you had as much right and title to your See as any of us have to ours; and I am sure we all felt that.

Bp. J. It is a great comfort to me to hear you say so.

Bp. of W. I still think that if you had ignored the opposition and taken possession of your Diocese as if nothing had happened you would soon have established yourself in your rightful position.

Bp. J. Possibly, but remember, I should have had to fight all the N.Z. Bishops.

Bp. of W. Well, you would have been victorious and I should have done so. Yet I can't blame you for choosing peace in preference to war.

Bp .J. My successor, Bishop Nevill has come to England. In what light is he to be regarded? If my view of the situation is correct, and you English Bishops have confirmed it, his position is a very awkward one. For he was consecrated before my resignation.

Bp. of W. I was not aware of that. It was very wrong if it was so. They ought to have waited.

[212] Bp.J. And since they did not Bp. Nevill's consecration was a schismatical proceeding?

Bp. of W. I don't say as much as that. Sad things have happened in the Church before now, and have been condoned Factum valet, you see, though fieri non elebuit. If I were you I should now condone this irregularity.

Bp. J. Certainly, if it rested with me, although I cannot but feel that Bp. Nevill's consecration was a deliberate aggression on my rights, but then there comes the question Who is to go down to posterity as the first Bishop of Dunedin?

Bp. of W. You are most certainly. Nevill is your successor.

Bp. J. So I contend. But the N.Z. Bishops and Boards ignore me altogether denying that I ever was Bp. of Dunedin.

Bp. of W. They never will be able to maintain that.

Bp. J. They will try. But what I wish you and the other bishops to understand is this that although I am quite willing that Nevill should be received and recognised as Bp. of Dunedin I never can allow that he is so except in succession to myself and I trust you will all support me in this. The fact is Nevill is not so much to be blamed as those who have placed him in the false position he occupies. I consider Bishop Harper the first culprit.

Bp. of W. Bye the Bye What was the reason of Harper's behaviour towards you? I never could make it out.

Bp. J. There was more than one motive, but you can trace throughout the dogged obstinacy of one of the weakest of men.

Bp. of W. Yes, he is weak, as I have reason to know for he was in my diocese before he went to N. Zealand.

Bp. J. What do you think of his inhibiting me from officiating in my own Diocese directly I arrived in N.Z.?

Bp. of W. You don't mean to say that! This is the first I have heard of it. Nothing could excuse such a step. What did you do?

Bp. J. Oh I obeyed; and was three months in the colony without ministering in public.

Bp. of W. There I think you were wrong. I should certainly have resisted such a monstrous order.

Bp. J. Yes, I can see now that I ought to have done false steps. But you see, I had no one to advise me and had to act on the spur of the moment on almost every occasion. No wonder I made mistakes now and then.

Bp. of W. Well there can be no doubt that you have been most shamefully, infamously, iniquitously dealt with. As far as I can see, the matter has been mismanaged from the beginning and you have been made the victim. But now tell me. You made a remark at breakfast this morning that troubled me. Referring to words of mine last night you said I had set you dreaming of Honolulu. Now the Archbishop and I have just offered that See to Willis of Chatham who has accepted it. It never struck me that you would have taken it otherwise I feel sure you might have had it.

Bp. J. Oh no, I never had any thought of that and I am extremely glad that Willis is to go. It is an excellent appointment. I do not know a better man in every sense of the word. What I desire is the refusal of the vacant see of Mauritius.

[213] Bp. of W. I heartily wish you may have it, if I knew the Colonial Secretary well enough I would write and suggest it as I certainly should do vive voce if I met him in society.

Bp. J. Thanks, I have no right to expect your interference yet the extremely anomalous position in which I find myself at present is perhaps not altogether undeserving of sympathy from the English Episcopacy at large. I have one qualification for Mauritius which may not always be easy to find, a familiarity with the French language (the vernacular of the island) from childhood. Also my robust health may be considered some recommendation. I am most anxious as you may understand to obtain Episcopal work of some kind.

Bp. of W. Of course you are and I only hope and trust you may be successful.

This judgment was sent to the Primate of New Zealand by Bishop Jenner together with a letter of protest that he should be officiating in the See of Dunedin. The letter and the judgment were laid before the Fifth General Synod held at Dunedin on 1 February 1871. Bishop Jenner was unrepresented nor was he aware of the actual date of the Synod. Bishop Abraham, the only person in the whole controversy who seems to have kept his head, had returned to England as assistant to Bishop Selwyn at Lichfield. His throne was now occupied by the former Archdeacon Hadfield who rose to say that 'he had no doubt that a few hours after the document was penned the writer regretted it'! What could you do with men who made statements of this kind without the slightest foundation?

Next day there was a brief discussion only, Mr. Lush of Auckland raised his voice in the interests of fair play and justice. He was a layman who deserved to be held in remembrance for his action. The Synod went on to record

'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 otherwise. But, at the same time, this Synod begs to express its sympathy, with Bishop Jenner in the painful position in which he has been placed.'

In the meantime Bishop Jenner had informed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Lichfield that it was his intention to resign his See, but that he would first await the General Synod of 1871 to give an opportunity for it to acknowledge his claims in a gentlemanly manner. It is difficult to understand how Jenner who knew the [213/214] mood of the opposition and the prelatical pride of the Primate expected that the judgment, weak and vacillating as it was, would do other than it did, namely to produce a furious storm. 'It can hardly fail to be a matter of regret that the Archbishop should have ventured to give any judgment at all in a matter seriously affecting the internal government and order of a province of the Anglican communion, without being requested by the duly constituted authority of the Provincial Church to intervene in the matter and avowedly on ex parte statements only.' One can appreciate the Primate's feeling but it cannot be overlooked that the Fourth General Synod, of 1868, acknowledged that Bishop Jenner had a claim on Dunedin, whereas in 1871 with Bishops Selwyn and Abraham in England and the future Martyr of Melanesia absent through illness, the Primate and the opposition had it all their way. The Synod went on to decide 'that the nomination of the first Bishop of Dunedin shall be made by the Diocesan Synod'.

And now a most curious co-incidence. A young clergyman called Samuel Tarrant Nevill happened by chance to be travelling in New Zealand with his wife. He had been in orders about eleven years and was Rector of Shelton. What more natural than that he should take letters of introduction from his Diocesan, the Bishop of Lichfield. Dr. Selwyn, who had suggested to him that he should apply for the vacant bishopric of Wellington, vacant by the return of Dr. Abraham to assist at Lichfield. Mr. Nevill declared himself willing to accept but Archdeacon Hadfield was chosen, and Nevill was present at his enthronement.* [Footnote: * The Guardian 11 Nov 1921, p.813.] His private fortune was said to be in the neighbourhood of £70,000, and although undistinguished in any way he was a generous and open-handed man. The Diocesan Synod of Dunedin was not going to miss that chance--a bishop on the cheap. Haste was necessary, it might all be done before Bishop Jenner or the English Hierarchy knew a thing about it. He was elected on March 1st.+ [Footnote: + In 1902 he presided as Acting Primate over the General Synod and made attempts to get a majority in his favour in each of the three Orders. These were all unsuccessful and, in accordance with the Canons, he declared himself Primate by default of election. A bitter day it must have been for him. He resigned in 1919 and died in 1921 at the age of 84. (The Guardian 11 Nov., 1921). Despite all this the Bishop did much to consolidate and build up the Diocese of Dunedin.] There was only one dissentient voice, that of a layman. The Revd. Edwards who at the previous Diocesan Synod had seconded the motion that Standing Orders should be suspended in order to enable him to enter a solemn protest against the majority decision not to accept Bishop Jenner now, [214/215] himself, nominated Mr. Nevill, and suitably enough Mr. W. Carr Young was the seconder. On Trinity Sunday, 4 June 1871, the Revd. Nevill was consecrated at St. Paul's, Dunedin, and inducted by the Most Revd. The Primate into the See of Dunedin. How much the General Synod was influenced by having the Revd. Nevill to fall back on in reaching its decision will, one supposes, never be known.

A good deal of correspondence now ensued in the English papers--the case for Dr. Jenner, the case for the New Zealand Church, both sides employing arguments with which we are familiar and adding nothing new. A weighty letter from Bishop Abraham summed up the situation and, as an apology for Bishop Jenner, cannot perhaps be bettered. At the same time it seemed to quench the fiery darts of the opposition for it was never challenged.


I feel that it is due to Bishop Jenner to state what I know of his nomination and consecration to the See of Dunedin.

When the Bishop of Christchurch was appointed to that See, there was no Church Constitution at all in New Zealand. The Bishop of New Zealand, after conference with the clergy and laity of the Canterbury Colony, offered the See to Dr. Harper, and on his acceptance of it presented his name to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he was duly consecrated to the See.

In the year 1857, those two Bishops, a body of representative clergy and of representative laity, met at Auckland, and drew up and signed the Church Constitution, in which provision was made for the election of a Bishop to a vacant See, but none for the formation of a new Diocese, or the appointment of a Bishop for a non-existent Diocese. Accordingly, in 1858, the Bishop of New Zealand proceeded, as before, to confer with the clergy and laity of several (political) provinces of New Zealand, and having learnt from them that there were funds available for the purpose, and having mentioned the names of the clergymen he intended to propose to the Archbishop, he laid those names before the Archbishop and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and Bishop Hobhouse and myself were duly accepted by those authorities, and consecrated in 1858 by Archbishop Sumner. And the Bishop of New Zealand having further conferred with the Church Missionary Society, presented the name of Bishop Williams to the same authorities, and he was duly consecrated at Wellington.

The first General Synod was sitting at Wellington in March 1859 (compare pp.45 and 47 of first General Synod report), when Bishop Hobhouse and I arrived and had passed the first three statutes organising the General and Diocesan Synods and Rural Deanery Boards, before Bishop Williams was consecrated, but no one ever proposed any reference to the General Synod to confirm our appointments, it being so clearly felt that the Church Constitution had made no provision for the first appointments, and that therefore the General Synod had nothing to do with them until it should pass a statute remedying the defect (which has only just been done in 1871).

[216] When the General Synod met at Nelson in 1862, they pressed upon the Metropolitan (the Bishop of New Zealand) the desirableness of his taking steps to find a Bishop for Dunedin. In 1865, when the General Synod met at Christchurch, the matter was taken up again, and a resolution passed to the effect that the Synod should meet at Dunedin in 1868 if there was a Bishop there by that time, and I made the remark that if no more interest was shown in the matter during the next three years than in the three years preceding, we had better name another place where the General Synod should meet in case there were no Bishop, and Auckland was named accordingly. (General Synod Report, 1865, p. 104). I mention this to show that pressure was brought to bear upon the Metropolitan by the General Synod, to make him try and move the churchmen of Dunedin to endow a Bishopric. He visited Dunedin, and the meaning of the resolutions passed by the Rural Deanery Board against the proposal to found a See was that there was no ENDOWMENT forthcoming--not that there was an objection to the idea of a Bishopric. He then wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, requesting him to be on the look-out for a suitable man;--he did not expect so immediate an answer as he received, that Dr. Jenner had accepted the Bishopric; but the Metropolitan set off at once to Dunedin, told the Church-people that Dr. Jenner was to be consecrated as Bishop of Dunedin, collected upwards of £1,000 for the endowment, and showed the Church members that funds were likely to be forthcoming; whereupon they reversed their former resolutions, and the Rural Deanery Board accepted the appointment.

I should add that at the General Synod in 1865, a resolution was passed requiring any clergyman before his consecration to a See in New Zealand under the Church Constitution to sign a Declaration of Submission to the General Synod. This Declaration was duly accepted and signed by Bishop Jenner, and laid before the Standing Commission of the said General Synod.

This point has had great stress laid on it by the opponents of Bishop Jenner, and they charge him with having promised to submit to the General Synod, and then, on their expressing a desire that he should resign, refusing to do so. But it should be remembered that one leading principle of the legislation of the General Synod from the beginning was that it should not exercise its authority over any of its members in the way of removal or suspension from any office except through the intervention of a judicial tribunal* [Footnote: * See Church Constitution, clauses 15 and 16; and the 5th Statute of General Synod, Clause 13.] or voluntary court of arbitrators. And to no such tribunal or arbitrator was Bishop Jenner's case ever submitted.

This point I strove to impress upon the General Synod of 1868, but to no purpose.

To sum up what I have said, I hold that Bishop Jenner was as duly elected and nominated for the See of Dunedin; as Bishops Hobhouse, Williams and myself were for our several Sees; that the General Synod encouraged the Bishop of New Zealand to proceed in the same way as he had in our cases; that there was no other authorised mode of proceeding; that Bishop Jenner made the Declaration required by the General Synod, and that his Declara-[216/217] tion and appointment were accepted by the Standing Commission of the General Synod that the Rural Deanery Board of Otago (or Dunedin) accepted the appointment; that the Bishop of New Zealand collected funds for the endowment, mentioning the names of Dr. Jenner as the first Bishop; that no objection was raised to the appointment at that time, nor until a cry was raised against him for ritualistic practices; that the General Synod had pledged itself not to remove any officer from his post without the intervention of a judicial tribunal; and that Dr. Jenner was never offered an opportunity of submitting his case to such a court of arbitrators as is promised by the Church Constitution and the General Synod.

C. J. ABRAHAM, lately Bishop of Wellington and now Coadjutor to the Bishop of Lichfield.* [Footnote: See paragraphs below]
June 2 1871

P.S.I have not shown this letter to the Bishop of Lichfield, and he is in no way answerable for my statements.+ [Footnote: + The Guardian, 7 June 1871.]

[Footnote above: * Bishop Abraham seems to have been the only actor in the Dunedin drama who kept his head. In 1875 when it was being said that he was to be the first Bishop of Derby, he wrote the Archdeacon of Derby as follows, stating why he could never accept office as a Diocesan Bishop in England--

'Ever since I heard of the Bishop's suggesting my name for the separate See (I never heard him mention it in my presence before), I have given the subject much consideration, and I have never swerved from the conviction that I had better not be put forward for the separate diocese that is proposed. To speak frankly, I could never, as a Bishop, be a party to the litigation that has been going on, and seems likely to go on, in our Church. I look upon it with shame and sorrow as a scandal in the sight of Christendom. I have myself, for the thirty seven years I have been in holy orders, conformed strictly and conscientiously, and propose still conforming, to the law of this Church and realm, but I could never take prominent office in the Church as it is at present, entirely ruled by Parliament and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I wish you to be able to say publicly that I have no intention of being put forward as a "Bishop-designate" of Derby'. 'If, says the Bishop, 'those were my opinions then, how much more strong must they be now. (John Bull)

The Guardian, 14 Feb, 1877, p.215, see further Guardians Feb, 28 p.284, 7 Mar, pp.319/20, 14 Mar, p.349.]

Bishop Jenner had heard privately of Nevill's election and was most anxious that there should not be another 'Colenso case', in other words that he should not, however innocently, be the cause of a schism in the Church of New Zealand. He was, of course, deeply, deeply hurt.

Bishop Jenner resigned the See of Dunedin on 16 June 1871. In his copy of Dean Henry Jacob's New Zealand, (S.P.C.K. 1889) there is a pencilled note--

'Mr. Nevill was drawn into the position by others--but one can hardly help wondering how he could have allowed himself to be placed in a See which he knew was claimed by another Bishop, without communicating first with the latter to put it on no higher grounds, this was hardly consistent with the de-[217/218]meanour which one gentleman has a right to expect from another!'

Would it not have been more dignified if Bishop Jenner had accepted the situation? Surely he would have been a happier man. The entire English Bench of Bishops was with him, and those Anglican papers which he cared about. The Colonial Church Chronicle minced no words--

'The consecration of Mr. Nevill being performed without the Bishop of Dunedin's consent, in defiance of his authority and in disregard of his rights, was a distinctly schismatical proceeding; and Mr. Nevill was not placed in a See of his own, but intruded into that of another Bishop.'

Samuel Wilberforce was particularly indignant about the course of events and on 3 Nov. 1870 had written

'I can see no reason why if you return with a sufficient staff of clergy you should not make good there the position to which you are entitled.'

When the Primate of New Zealand wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury notifying him that the Revd. Nevill had been elected, the Archbishop forwarded a resolution passed by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England assembled at Lambeth Palace on 5 February, 1872.

The Archbishop of Canterbury having announced to the bishops assembled that he had received from the Bishop of Christchurch a notification of the Rev. Samuel Tarratt Nevill having been elected and consecrated to the See of Dunedin, in the province of New Zealand; and Bishop Jenner having signified to the Archbishop his resignation of the See; it was resolved that the Archbishop of Canterbury be requested to inform the Bishop of Christchurch that the Archbishops and Bishops assembled are ready to acknowledge the Rev. S. T. Nevill as second Bishop of Dunedin, taking, however, for granted that His Grace will receive some more formal announcement of the consecration.'

The English Episcopate were willing, in a word, for the sake of peace, to condone what they regarded as a schismatical action on the part of the New Zealand Church, but there were limits to their condonation. They were not prepared to say that schism had not occurred

The Primate of New Zealand protested vigorously as he was bound to do, but got no redress. His argument was that if the New Zealand Church recognised Dr. Jenner as 1st Bishop of Dunedin then, since Bishop Nevill's induction took place twelve days before Bishop Jenner resigned, it would be tantamount to admitting schism. It is clear that the Primate, or perhaps Dean Henry Jacobs, who was a strong and resolute man and was said by some to pull the strings by which Bishop Harper danced, believed that the New Zealand Church could do no [218/219] wrong. Strange how the evangelical Bishops seemed to think infallibility a common gift, the Bishop of Rome being the great exception.

Accepting advice, kindly meant perhaps, Bishop Jenner was foolish enough to write a pamphlet on 20 June 1872, and give it a wide distribution. It was the most fatuous of many fatuous actions of his. Fatuous because it was addressed to men who had already said that, whether they were right or wrong, they were not going to acknowledge him. He displayed on the cover a quotation from St. Augustine--Contra partem donati.* [Footnote: * See following paragraph.] It was apt enough, but did he really suppose that such people would be smitten with remorse by being compared to the Donatists? Their skins rivalled their heads in thickness.

* 'Fecerunt quod voluerunt tune in ilia caecitate.
Non judices consederunt, non sacerdotes de more;
Quod solent in magnis causis congregati judicare,
Non accusator et reus steterunt in quaestione;
Non testes, non documentum quo possent crimen probare:
Sed Furor, Dolus, Tumultus, qui regnant in falsitate.'

'At this time they did what they wanted in their blindness.
Neither the judges nor the priests sat according to custom,
assembling to give judgment as is usual in important cases.
Neither plaintiff nor defendant appeared at an investigation;
No witnesses, no evidence by which they could investigate the charge:
but Rage. Trickery, Confusion, which hold sway in falseness.']

Would this controversy go on for ever? At a meeting of Bishops held at Lambeth in February 1873, a committee was appointed, consisting of Dr. Jackson, Bishop of London; Dr. Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester (he was killed in July 1873 by a fall from his horse and was succeeded by Bishop Harold Browne in the See and in the enquiry); and Dr. Selwyn of Lichfield. It was the task of this committee 'to consider and draft an answer to the Bishop of Christchurch on the matter of Bishop Jenner and the Dunedin Bishopric.'

The Bishops realised that much was at stake including relations of the Mother Church with the Church of New Zealand and, by inference, with the other daughter churches. They worked on the documents of the case with great care and not until the 20 May 1874 were they ready to report to Dr. Tait, the Metropolitan. We may be grateful that, on this occasion at least, the English Bishops were clear [219/220] and uncompromising. The letter stamped 'Addington Park, Croydon' is before the writer, and the letter is in Dr. Jackson's hand:

'Seeing that Dr. Jenner was selected by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Longley) with the consent of the Crown to be Bishop of Dunedin and was consecrated at the request of the Primate of New Zealand for the Bishopric of Dunedin; that he was recognised, as appears by the letters before us, as Bishop of Dunedin both by the Bishop of Christchurch and by the Ruridecanal Board of Otago; that he made to the Archbishop of Canterbury the declaration required by the Synod; that the declaration was received without remonstrance or objection by the Standing Committee of the General Synod; than an endowment fund to the amount of £1,300 was raised in his name and for his use as Bishop of Dunedin in the colony itself and that the interest of this Endowment Fund was paid to Bishop Jenner from the day of his consecration to the time of his resignation of the See of Dunedin; the Bishops of the Church of England do not see how they can, consistently with the facts of the case, refuse to recognise Bishop Jenner as the first Bishop of Dunedin.'

It was somewhere about this time that Bishop Nevill was in England. He turned up for the consecration of a Bishop, wearing his episcopal robes. Archbishop Tait would hold no communicatio in sacris with him and sent him word to say that, while he would be pleased to see him in the congregation, he could not allow him to take any part in the consecration. He then sent the story through his nephew, George Fortescue of the British Museum, to Henry Jenner the Bishop's son, intending it to be told to the Bishop. The Sixth General Synod of the Province met on 2 Sept. 1874 and took note of the findings of the English Church:

'It having been brought to the notice of this Synod that the Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain Bishops of England, have formally recognised Dr. Jenner, as the first Bishop of the See of Dunedin, apparently in disregard of this Synod formally pronounced on Dr. Jenner's claims, this Synod, in exercise of its undoubted authority, having carefully examined the circumstances under which Dr. Jenner claims to be regarded as having been the first Bishop of the See of Dunedin, declares that Dr. Jenner, not having been appointed to the See of Dunedin, in accordance with the laws of the Church in New Zealand, ought not to be recognised as having been such first Bishop, and this Synod doth hereby recognise the Rev. Samuel Tarratt Nevill, D.D., as the present and first Bishop of Dunedin.'

Bishop Nevill now brought Henry Sewell* [Footnote: *See paragraph below] into the controversy and the subtle Sewell wrote Jenner on 15 June 1875, when he happened to be in London:

[221] 'I very deeply regret the prospect of a prolongation of the Controversy, which seems to me to widen with larger questions than the one immediately affecting your Lordship's position.

To what extent is the Colonial Church competent to decide authoritively the matters affecting her internal discipline and order?

How far is the Episcopate of the Parent Church authorised to overrule or disregard Acts of the Colonial Church done within the limits of her jurisdiction?

Greatly lamenting as I do the occasion which has given rise to the present Controversy and strongly sympathising with your Lordship in the original casus queretoe I cannot admit that we have been guilty of Setting at naught rules sanctioned by Catholic Authority nor venturing to write on behalf of Bishop Nevill can I admit that that prelate is in a hopelessly schismatical position. If the General Synod of New Zealand has fallen into error in its Judgment in your Lordship's case, that does not I respectfully submit constitute an Act of Schism. It is a misfortune incident to all human tribunals Civil and Ecclesiastical.

By claiming the right to decide such questions definitively and without appeal, we do not set up a claim to infallibility in any other sense or to any greater degree than is asserted by all Courts of competent authority in civil no less than Ecclesiastical affairs.

Judged according to the strict letter of the Canon-law of the Colonial Church I cannot admit that the decision of the General Synod is wrong. I do not ask your Lordship to accept that view only. I do ask that respect shall be paid to the decision of the highest authority in such matters, recognised by the Colonial Church however feeble it may be (and I am not presuming to place it upon a level with the Parent Church) it is indispensably necessary that it should maintain that authority in matters of discipline and order which properly belongs to it as a Provincial branch of the Catholic Church.'* [Footnote: * MS letter, Jenner Collection.]

[Footnote from page 220 above: * Henry Sewell was the first premier of New Zealand, 1856; Attorney-General 1861-2, Minister of Justice 1864-5 and 1869-72. He returned to England in 1876.

'. . . Mr. Sewell was not able to secure public confidence. His nature was supple and sinuous; it was not robust enough to stand alone, but clung to natures of stronger fibre and of firmer [220n/221n] growth. His mind had breadth, but it was slippery, and unable to grasp closely great principles; its strength was dissipated on small things. He never took a step forward without first planning within himself how he could, in case of change of mind, go back again. There was in him no fixity of purpose. The political stage was to him what the warren is to the rabbit: he was ever dodging in and out of holes. There was an utter want of repose in his temperament. He was fussy, restless. too easily impressionable, and full of false alarms. Probably this natural disquietude taught him to be, what he certainly was, fertile in resource and skilful in evasion.'

New Zealand Rulers and Statesmen, William Gisborne, 1886, pp.88/9.]

Jenner could not agree that the controversy could be settled in such a manner and on the 17 June he replied to Sewell and announced his plan for forcing a final decision agreed both in New Zealand and England:

'At the Pan-Anglican Synod+ [Footnote: + i.e. The Second Lambeth Conference as it came to be called, 1878.] I intend (if I am spared) to claim to sit and vote and sign the ' Actae' as late Bishop of Dunedin. I shall announce this very formally early in the session. If my claim is unchallenged, I shall consider that [121/122] my position is secure. Any challenge will of necessity lead to an investigation of the claim, which will suit me all the better, as conducing to a more definite settlement of the question.'

What a fool to show his hand! He had done it again, this time fatally. When Archbishop Tait convened the Second Lambeth Conference in 1878,

'the difficulty was happily evaded by the invitations to attend the Conference being confined exclusively to Bishops charged with the actual superintendence of Dioceses.'* [Footnote: * 'New Zealand'--Dean Jacobs, S.P.C.K. 1889 p.355 note.]

For some years after the New Zealand debacle Bishop Jenner was a very disappointed man. He felt that the great gift which God had bestowed on him in his consecration was, by malice and neglect, made unfruitful. As we have seen he would have liked Mauritius. The offer would be made, by the way, in 1872 to Dr. Mitchinson, Headmaster of Canterbury School. He turned it down, as there being no letters patent, no security could be given him that he should not meet with the same treatment as Bishop Jenner at Otago.+ [Footnote: +John Bull.] Commenting on this The Guardian felt that sufficient publicity had been given to the mistakes of Dunedin to make a repetition of them impossible.# [Footnote: The Guardian, 10 July 1872, p.887.] No further offer of a Bishopric, Diocesan, suffragan or colonial was ever made to Dr. Jenner by the Anglican Church. This neglect hurt him more than anything which happened in New Zealand. The English Bishops had protested so vigorously about the New Zealand Church, but when it was in their hands to give him an appointment they did absolutely nothing about it.

Bishop Jenner, like so many of his school, was deeply anti-Roman. The promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility shocked him. He realised and accepted that the Bishop of Rome had a special place in the Church in the West and he vigorously opposed a nascent movement to elevate Canterbury into an Anglican patriarchate, an opposition which probably did little to endear him to Archbishop Tait. But, even-so, his reading of early church history persuaded him that the events of 1870 went beyond legitimate development. He was attracted to that eloquent preacher Pére Hyacinthe Loyson and, encouraged by a number of Anglican Bishops, and being a good French speaker he often preached for him in Paris.

In July 1876 Father Hyacinthe addressed meetings in London on three several Wednesdays. The Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Harold [222/223] Browne, presided at the first meeting and the Dean of Westminster said the Lord's Prayer. There was a good attendance of influential people and the speaker weaved such a spell that the numbers were greatly increased in the following week, when the Duke of Argyle occupied the chair and the Bishop of Carlisle prayed. Mr. Gladstone came in after the lecture had begun and was greatly cheered. Father Hyacinthe dealt with the corruptions of the Latin and Greek Churches. The audience seemed moved by the novelty of it all as if unfamiliar with the declarations of the XIXth Article! At the third meeting Mr. Gladstone himself presided--

'My first and agreeable duty is to make an announcement on the part of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, that had it not been for a peculiar and special engagement connected with the discharge of his high office he had earnestly hoped and had intended to be present on this occasion.'

The Pope, the good father said, held the sword of Damocles over England. He might at any moment publish the decrees of Trent here and every protestant marriage would be nullified. The minority of the priesthood kept their vows of chastity, the majority did not. No one seems to have asked him about his own life vows, for he had for many years been a Carmelite, perhaps because he was accompanied by his lady, Madame Loyson, an American of some wealth who had encouraged him to break them.

There were many Anglicans of all parties who saw in Pére Hyacinthe an opportunity for setting up a series of Reformed National Churches in Europe and thereby confining the activities of the Great Whore to her native hills. These Churches would be Catholic, of course up to the Seventh General Council. In the meantime Pére Hyacinthe wanted a Bishop--and here was Jenner going spare. The Bishop of Winchester wrote him:

'I feel that if any Anglican Bishop is to assist Mons. Loyson, one, like yourself, unattached is the properest person to do so, but I presume that he wants but little help, about one confirmation a year, and probably the ordination of a colleague, as deacon or priest, now and then. It would seem very right that you should thus assist him. Yet I hardly know how you are to be asked to do so. I am not on the Committee of the Lambeth Conference with reference to this work, and I am a little shy of moving in the matter, because I have all along held that it is desirable to support Loyson, but not desirable that the English Church should formally send a Bishop of her Communion to him. If, however, I can help you with others, I will gladly do so.'* [Footnote: * MS Jenner Collection--10, i. 1880.]

Hope flickered for a bit. Bishop Jenner might be a Bishop yet in very deed, and confuse his critics who thought him disloyal to the Reformation settlement. Despite all the public protestation of support for [223/224] Loyson, the Archbishop was no fool and he invited Bishop Jenner's son, Henry Jenner, to supper at Lambeth.

'. . . the Archbishop had a long and very serious private conversation with me on the inadvisability of such a step and strongly urged me to try and dissuade my father from it. He was very nice and kind about it and saw the whole point of the question very impartially, and I think that and the opposition which my father got from us all, for we none of us liked the idea, decided him not to venture.'* [Footnote: * Unfinished MS Autobiography--Henry Jenner.]

Now and then there would be a rumour that Jenner was to be offered a colonial bishopric. The Bishop of Barbados would have been glad for him to have had Jamaica--

'I am writing to my Lord of Cant by this mail, but I fear your chance is but slight in such hands.'+ [Footnote: + MS Letter Jenner Collection-4 May 1879.]

Sometimes it was suggested that one of the English Bishops would take him as an assistant, but there was always an excuse, an Archdeacon to be rewarded or the like. He took confirmations in his own little church every year and he took confirmation in neighbouring sees on very rare occasions--pathetically grateful for the opportunity. The catholic movement had itself gone on and left him standing. He was shocked at the ceremonial which accompanied the laying of the Foundation Stone of Truro Cathedral in 1880, although he does not specify of the liturgical or masonic variety. He suffered by being in his younger days before his times, in his latter by being behind them--a martyr without a stake and a Bishop without a throne!

He retained his great vigour to the end. He was seventy-eight years of age and until the last few days of his life might still be seen pedalling his tricycle with all his accustomed energy. Rigorous in fasting, instant in prayer he faithfully discharged the duties of his tiny parish and greatly was he beloved. The event of each year was his visit to Harrow, where successions of boys loved him almost to idolatry. He was loved for what he was, a gifted, devout, scholarly and hard working Christian gentleman. He died on 18 September 1898.

[225-228] INDEX [omitted]

Project Canterbury