took the place of "Primate," and later still, that of "Archbishop," "Primate" was the original title of the presiding Bishop, and, as such, was selected in the case of the Church in New Zealand. Perhaps it especially suits the Church, as in New Zealand there are four principal cities, none of which can claim the title of Metropolis. Moreover, the title Archbishop is usually connected with one special see, and city, whereas, in the New Zealand Church, the Primacy is a personal title, belonging to the Bishop who happens to be elected to the office by General Synod. If it were attached to one special see, any vacancy in that see would necessitate the newly elected Bishop being also constituted Primate.
So much for our title of Primate. In this particular election things occurred which were matters of much regret. The canon which regulates the election provides that any Bishop is eligible for the office, but there is to be no proposal of anyone as candidate. No speeches are to be made; voting is to be by ballot; any Bishop who obtains more than half the votes of each order of Bishops, Clergy and Laity, becomes the Primate. If no majority is obtained, a second, and third, ballot takes place; if no election then, the office devolves on the senior Bishop.
On this occasion there was no majority in the first and second ballots. Then Synod, in my opinion, made a grave mistake. In order to secure an election, the Bishop of Melanesia suggested, and Synod accepted, a resolution that the results of the ballot should be disclosed, with the names of the Bishops, and votes recorded for each. This, to my mind, was a violation of the spirit and letter of the canon, which was intended, by means of ballot, in the interests of the
