am stood for the Selwyn type of clergy. Sir William
Martin's thoughtful face was absent, but his views would be voiced by
his friend Mr. Swainson, the former Attorney-General. Now that the
Church was to be separated from the State, and organised on a voluntary
basis, it is somewhat surprising to find the government of the day so
strongly represented. The Premier (Stafford), the Attorney-General
(Whitaker), and Mr. H. J. Tancred, the Postmaster-General, are all
there. To balance these new men, we see the missionaries Maunsell,
Brown, and Kissling. But still something is needed. Where are the
leaders of former days? A sense of satisfaction is experienced when at
last the brothers Williams enter together and take their seats. "All
were very kind," wrote Archdeacon Henry, "and we were much pleased with
the benevolent countenance of the Bishop of Christchurch."

The sittings of the conference lasted for five weeks. The long
preliminary discussions had cleared up most of the points in advance:
there was no question as to the desirableness of laymen taking an equal
part with bishops and clergy in the proposed synods, nor was there any
hesitation in pronouncing unalterable the provision which exempted the
formularies of the Church and the Authorised Version of the Bible from
synodical handling. But there were two points on which opinions differed
widely. Canterbury insisted on diocesan independence, and the power of
managing its own property. This claim was not thoroughly dealt with by
the conference, and was destined to give trouble in the future. The real
struggle lay between the group of Auckland laymen and the president, on
the qualification to be required of those who should represent the laity
in synods, and of those who should select them by their votes.

Two views were held, then as now, on this important matter. One side
would limit the Church to such as are in full communion with her, and
are actively interested in her welfare. The other would embrace within
her fold as many as possible, even if their churchmanship and their
Christianity should be but nominal. Bishop Selwyn took the former view,
and in this attitude he would doubtless be supported by the missionary
representatives, who were accustomed to a strict discipline in the Maori
Church. Canterbury also stood on the same side. Godley himself had been
its ardent advocate, and on this point at least his principles were not
abandoned after his departure. They had