THE QUESTION OF UNITY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 135, 9 June 1910, Page 6

THE QUESTION OF UNITY.

Dr. Fitelrett said his impression was that if they -wanted union with the primitive Methodists in. New Zealand, they ■would -have to become Primitive Methodists themselves. It -would be a great loss to the cause of God if the separation were affected. They -were- told if separation -was not granted, there would be irritation, but Miv La wry had written that the flood tide had followed the Tβfneal of 1890. At the New Zealand conference held! lately, it was impossible to secure a vote in favour of separation. In 1906 the total votes cast against the proposal exceeded the total in favour.' According to the same authority little factious agitation had now been worked up. In 1907 the proposal was only saved from defeat toy one vote. The last conference did not consider the matter. They were not interested. (Laughter.) There had been no sustained objection to unity, no general demand, nothing to show thai if separation was not granted, N-ew Zealand would suffer some spiritual calamity. The general conference had no power to grant separation without an Act of Parliament in the Commonwealth. So said Sir Samuel Way, the greatest authority they knew. If JTcw Zealand went out they left Australia with a large mass of liabilities, for they had helped to enlarge mission work in India, and the South Seas, and they were going away. In a 'business firm on a dissolution of partnership, liabilities should be distributed before the old sign •wae taken down. Nothing of that kind appeared in the working scheme. He urged the conference to carry the amendment. (Applause.)

Rev. G. E. Ro-we (Q.) said the question was a national more than an ecclesiastical one. The people of New Zealand wished to have an independent church, altogether free from outside control, provided the conditions were satisfactory. He supported the principle of separation, because he believed it would be vain to try to go against the national spirit of any country, the spirit which should be used for the advancement of Methodism.

Rev. J. J. Lewis (New Zealand) spoke strongly ia advocacy of the separation, and emphasised, the practical unanimity which had characterised the discussion of the question. In Xew Zeakuid the movement was a. democratic one, and although he did not say the voice of democracy was always right, he did believe that in this instance the popular voice was the voice of God, because it was the wish of ■the people and the desire of the Church, and -because it would make for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. Hβ asked them to agree to the motion. NEW ZEALANDEE. DF PROTEST." Rev. W. Batnnber (New Zealand)- said he was sorry to vote against -his colleagues, but there -was a. minority of 30 per cent in the Dominion against the proposed separation. He did not feel bound by the instruction of the New Zealand Conference. The first objection of the minority was that they did not wish to break off the historic connection between Australia and New Zealand, nor did they desire to sever their association with the Australasian funds. He and his brethren who opposed the scheme felt it was .a grand thing to be associated with a Church which, was Imperial in its scope, and to have a share in shaping the Methodism of Australasia. If separation was granted, he would be as loyal to his Church as ever; bat he would much prefer to remain associated with the large conference.

■Mr. J. C." Stephens (N"ew Zealand) said the question of separation was one very dear to the hearts of New Zealand laymen. There could be no doubt public sentiment an 'the question of separation had undergone a radical change in New Zealand of recent years. N«w Zealand desired to retain its national independence, and for that reason desired severance in ecclesiastical matters from Australia. Australia in 'the not far distant future would have a much larger population than at present. When that time came Australia would have her hands full. There would be many social problems 'to face and settle. New Zealand, who would have no share in these problems, feared she "would be pushed out into the cold. One argument which he imagined might operate against the granting of New Zealand's ■wish was the fear that, with independence, radical changes might be intro(duced into the Clrnxch policy. Such feaTS were groundless.

The motion in favour of separation, wae <a,Tiied by 116 to 13.