Mr. Lovett moved "That the trustees of Church property be authorised to expend from the income of tho Episcopal Estate a sum sufficient to effect the necessary repairs to Bishopscourt." He explained that the repairs were exceedingly necessary, and this was the only way, in his opinion, to do so.

The Bishop desired to be assured how far the legal aspect of the question had been considered, and regretted the absence of legal members.

Mr. Lovettt said he was afraid the trustees had not considered the legal aspect of the question, but he presumed it was in the power of the Synod to authorise the expenditure, as there was a precedent for it.

Archdeacon Hales thought the matter was entirely in the Bishop's hands, and if he gave his consent that would dispose of the legal difficulty.

The Rev. J. M. Norman considered that the property at Bishopsbourne was held under a separate and distinct trust from the property at Bishopscourt.

Mr. Lovett said the trustees were prepared to take the responsibility.

Mr. B. T. Solly moved as an amendment, "That the question of the legality of such appropriation be referred by the trustees to the law advisors."

Alter some further discussion, Mr. Lovett intimated that it was only contemplated to spend £100, upon which the Bishop said that altered the whole question, though he did not think that sum anything like sufficient to effect the repairs that were necessary. Tho Chancellor and Mr. Lucas submitted that there was not sufficient information before Synod at to what was intended to enable a consideration of the question.

Mr. Bradon and Mr. Lovett suggested that the amendment should be added to the motion as a rider, and Mr. Solly consented to this being assured that the trustees would take the advice of a professional architect before expending any sum in repairs. Mr. F. H. Wish complained that in dealing with money matters the members of Synod were placed in a very disadvantageous position on aocount of the slipshod manner in which they were brought forward. He had par-ticularly experienced this on the preceding day with reference to Mr. Cox's gift, and now the estimate of the amount required to give effect to the present motion varied from £100 to £1,500.

Mr. Barnard then moved a second amendment, referring tho question to a Select Committee, consisting of Archdeacon Hales, Messrs. Beadon, Lovett, Sharland, and the mover, to report upon what course it was desirable to adopt with regard to Bishopscourt. This suggestion met with the approval of Archdeacon Davenport, who seconded it, and of Mr. W. C. Sharland, wno pointed out that after proper consideration it might be found desirable to sell the property and purchase or build another episcopal residence. Canon Archer also supported Mr. Barnard's amendment, as it opened up a larger question, and he had doubted the propriety of re tabling the name of Bishopscourt for such a place as they had unfortunately purchased.

Mr. Lovett then agreed to amend his motion to provide that the expenditure should not exceed £150, and that legal and professional advice should first be obtained. He pointed out that the trustees were empowered to sell the property, but the present was not a desirable time to sell the ground, which was valuable and likely to become more so. A proposal to sell the lower por-tion of the ground had been considered, but the difficulty was that the position of the house prevented getting any approach. He defended the trustees from the reproaches of those who considered them culpable for tlie present condition of Bishopscourt, by pointing out that they had no funds to effect repairs. But the temporary repairs now proposed were absolutely necessary, and he hoped they would be consented to without referring tho question to a Select Committee. After still further discussion Mr. Lovett's motion, with the amendment assented to by him, was carried, and the Bishop intimated that he would not signify his consent, but reserve the question for further consideration.

Comment