PRAYER BOOK DEBATE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 33, 9 February 1928, Page 9

PRAYER BOOK DEBATE

TWO HOUSES APPROVE LAITY STILL DIVIDED ~—■ i (A.P.A. and "Sun.") LONDON, 7th February. What may be called the second reading stage of the new Prayer Book resulted in overwhelming affirmative votes in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy, but the debate in the House of Laity has not concluded. It ■will be resumed to-morrow. Each House sat separately. The Bishops voted a general approval by 35 votes to 5, the minority consisting of the Bishops of Norwich, Worcester, Birmingham, Exeter, and St. Edmondsbury. The House of Clergy carried approval by 247 votes to 35. There was a general resemblance in the speeches for the Prayer Book, the speakers in every House contending that the book represented the best means of securing peace and unity, and that rejection would produce chaos and bring disaster upon the Church. Though the new amendments arising out of the House of Commons' rejection of the last book have not been considered yet in detail, tho movers of the pro-book resolutions were all careful to point out that there was no resentment owing to the Commons' rejection. It was conceded that the Commons acted entirely within, their powers. CHANCE OF REJECTION. The Bishop of Chelmsford, in moving the approval of the House of Bishops, deprecated the tendency shown in some quarters to find fault with the House of Commons, who represented the nation so long as tho Church remained a national Church. The Bishop of Norwich -washed his hands of the book. He said he refused responsibility for it, because it did nothing to restore discipline. Bishop Barnes declared that the book would not produce peace and unity." He also predicted that the House of Commons would again reject the book, adding that the previous rejection was the most popular thing the Commons had done for many years. Similarly, Prebendary F. N. Thicknesse, of St. Paul's, in moving an amendment for postponement, which was defeated, urged that there was no chance of the House of Commons passing the book, and the Tesults in that case would be incalculable. It would at least produce a serious situation as between the Church and the State. EFFORT FOR AGREEMENT. Several speakers in the House of Laity advocated a round-table conference, in the hope of producing an agreed-upon book before risking an adverse vote in the Houso of Commons. Dr. Stone moved a futile amendment in the House of Clergy for rejection of the book, because it did not represent a general agreement among the Church people. While the Houses of Bishops and Clergy discussed the book in general terms from the viewpoint of peace, unity, and discipline, the House of Laity discussed tho provisions in much greater detail. The opponents of the book concentrated their arguments upon the reservation of the Sacrament, most of them asserting that while the reservation remained there was no chance of the Commons passing the book. The Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Inskip, moved the rejection of the book, because it provided for perpetual reservation. Sir Thomas Inskip added that while the reservation remained general approval was impossible. . Sir George Courthorpe, M.P. for the Rye Division of Sussex, said that he had never experienced such pressure from his constituents as he had done over the recent book prior to the debate in the Commons. RESERVATION ISSUE.' Major Birchall, M.P. (Lab.) for North-east Leeds, said that he had voted for the boyk last session, but there was no chanie of its being passed while it contained a provision for perpetual reservation, to which a majority of Churchmen were certainly opposed. Mr. Herbert Upward, editor of the Church of Eugland "Newspaper," said that perpetual reservation was. practised at nresent in hundreds of churches with tlie consent' of the bishops. If reservation were rejected, these people would be turned out of the Church. Mr. Athelstan Riley, a leading High Churchman, favoured postponement of the book for three years, because he was extremely doubtful if it would pass the present House of Commons. If the Assembly insisted upon proceeding with the present book it would risk disestablishment, disendowment, ■ and disruption. He added that the whole of the High Church Party would revolt against the book. Dame Bridgeman predicted that if the measure were postponed the cry of "No Popery" would be. raised at the General Election, which would bring an unparalleled national disaster.