nd bishops for having
caused the rebellion.' These persons are now so still and quiet you may
hear a pin drop, even in the bush.... Nothing is now heard but 'the dear
Maoris; who would hurt a hair of their heads?'"

The brief period of peace in the north brought troubles of its own to
Bishop Selwyn and the Church. The second General Synod was summoned to
meet at Nelson in February, 1862. On the day appointed for the opening
of the assembly there were not enough members to form a quorum. For
several days this deficiency continued, and the synod could not be
properly constituted. The members occupied themselves with passing
resolutions which were validated at the end of the period, when at last
a quorum was secured.

The chief reason for the smallness of this gathering was the attitude of
the diocese of Christchurch. This important part of the Church was in a
state of rebellion against the constitution. None of its principal
clergy had attended the synod of 1859; no representative but the bishop
came to that of 1862. Its grievances were of various kinds: it found
fault with the "property" element, and the "mutual compact" idea, and
the unalterable fundamentals, and all the other features upon which the
Auckland laity had insisted. It seemed as though the spirit of Godley
had returned in all its trenchant and uncompromising churchmanship. But
the most definite of all the Canterbury grievances arose from the claim
of the General Synod to own and administer all the church property in
the country. Bishop Selwyn had handed over to the first synod more than
seventy trust properties, which had been hitherto vested in himself as
corporation sole: he expected the diocese of Christchurch to do the
same. But this the Canterbury churchmen would never do. Rather than do
it, they resolved to secede from the Church of New Zealand, and to
reconstitute themselves on a diocesan basis. They appealed to the
primate to "throw over" the constitution altogether, and to start afresh
on what they considered more churchlike principles.

Such was the ecclesiastical situation for the next three years--1862 to
1865. The position was serious, and there was just the possibility of a
schism. But it was hardly more than a possibility. Selwyn seems not to
have disquieted himself very greatly about the matter. For there was one
saving feature in the case. Christchurch could hardly set up for itself
on a diocesan basis without its bishop; and Bishop Harpe