I remember in the Christchurch Synod in 1884 several speakers, especially laymen, argued that great good must accrue to the Church by the Importation of two quite fresh English Missioners. These gentlemen were selected by the Arch bishop of Canterbury. They visited New Zealand and were warmly welcomed. What was the result of their mission ? I understand from several competent cor respondents and from reports in papers that they delivered able and earnest ad dresses. But, from what I heard, I believe that that mission would have been quite as usefully and ably conducted by men on the spot; that not only two but two dozen men could be named in New Zea land whose words would have been as weighty, whose methods would have been as judicious. , Let it also be borne in mind that what ever advantage might be gained by " new blood" is dearly purchased by the want of special experience which so heavily weights a new comer to the colony. The " best man " fallacy is more plau sible. "Let us disregard all selfish con siderations, and get the very best man that will accept the post." There is at first sight much force in that argument, and it must be fairly met. I reply that in the fir.t place you will not get one of the best men to accept a colonial bishopric at present. Thirty years ago it was a different thing. The work was then more of a missionary character. Now you are iv a more prosperous hut more prosaic stage of existence. There is no special reason why a man should give up work in England for work of a similar kind far from all his early associations. Tbe facts that Liddoh refused the See of Edinburgh, and that Moorhouse and-Sel wyn accepted translations to English bishoprics are full of instruction for those who think that in 1888 first rate men will cast In their 'ot with a colonial church.
