An Independent Conference for New Zealand.

Evening Star, Issue 7449, 18 February 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

An Independent Conference for New Zealand.

INTKKVIKW WITH Till-: WKSI.EVAX I*UESIDENT, At the. late sitting of tho Wesleyan Conference iu Wellington, just closed, tho moat important subject discussed was that of au independent Conference for New Zealand. This, though no new subject amongst Wcsleyans in New Zealand, created great interest, being nothing more uor less than a demand for local self-government. Tills being so, a member of the staff of the 1 Press ’ recently had au interview with the Rev. W. J. Williams, of East Belt, the President of the Conference. Tho object of tho interview was to ascertain the grounds upon which those who have battled so stoutly for independence rested their claims, aud also tho objections raised by those who opposed the proposal. The Rev. Mr Williams most courteously afforded every information on these two points, and the result of the interview is given below, It may be as well to explain now that the Australasian Conference possesses legislative powers, whilst that of New Zealand has onjy administrative. It is now sought tp place Now Zealand on the same footing as the Australasian Conference. “For ten years,” says Air Williams, “ we in New Zealand have been striving to obtain independence. Our people have over aud over again, through their representatives, declared most strongly in favor of it, and yet to-day we arc still in a position of subordination, as regards legislating for our own wants, to Australia. This position is the more anomalous when it is understood that separation from Australia does not mean disruption. We shall still he members of the one Church and Society, but, for reasons which I will explain to you, it is only justice that we should h,e allowed to separate as we desire. In the first place there is our geographical situation, and the distance from Australia. Then there is the large cost which these animal conferences in .Australia entails upon our people. Now, at the coining Conference iu Melbourne, there arc twentyfour representatives of the various circuits entitled to attend. We have come to the conclusion that the results derivable from the Conference are not commensurate with the outlay. Besides this, we consider that New Zealand, so far as Methodism is concerned, has passed the stage of infancy, and is now in a vigorous manhood. Let mo quote you one or two statistics. I am not giving you the exact figures, hut iu round numbers wc have now 50,000 persons adherents of the Wesleyan Church and ninety ministers. We look around us aud see that we are the only ecclesiastical hotly which is not independent and self-governing. Wc have grown up into this condition for many years, but we now think it is time for us to run alone, It may be said that we have representation at the General Conference, and can therefore influence the legislation ; but I would point out that we arc practically outvoted on every occasion, as it is three conferences to one. Indeed, as was aptly put during the debate, the position which New Zealand would have occupied had she taken any part in the proposed Federal Council is exactly ours in relation to General Conference. We have brought forward several propositions, but we have not carried any. This request for separation is an instance. It has been supported by overwhelming majorities in our district meetings, but the General Conference has persistently refused to grant it. As to the objections, they are peculiar. One of these is that the proposal is a somewhat radical one, and that if it is agreed to we shall be likely to be overwhelmed with a wave of Radicalism. This is the reason which finds support even in our own Colony, and the feature of the late debate at Wellington was that some of those who were foremost in favor of independence were on

tiie opposition side. Then it is urged that to sever our connection witli Australia is to lose the prestige of forming part of_ one grand whole. The answer to that is, I think, conclusive that granting our independence does not sever our conneetion with the Alethodist Society, and that we shall still form part of the whole with an extended sphere of usefulness. Then, again, there is far more sympathy amongst us here with English Methodism rather than with Australian, as the majority of us come from England. There is no doubt about this, that one of the important reasons why the proposal nas been opposed in the General Conference is that we are not agreed unanimously amongst ourselves. But still I think there is a growing feeling in Australia in our favor. One important point is that when the question was remitted to our Quarterly Circuit Meetings in September last live-sixths of the officials w’ere in favor of it. At our last Conference in Wellington it was carried by 39 to 20. The president of the Conference did not vote, and there were some who were in favor of it who were not present. The leader in favor of independence was the Rev. W. Morley, of Dunedin, whilst the opposition leader was the Rev. K,. Bavin. The whole of the larger circuits are in favor of the proposal, such as Durham street, Weilinaton, and Dunedin, In Auckland there is a division of opinion, some being opposed to the proposal. The subject will come up for discussion at the General Conference to be held in Melbourne in May next, and we hope for a favorable result. However that may be, you will see by the facts I have given you that whatever may be the opinions of the representatives iu Conference, au overwhelming majority of the Methodists of New Zealand are in favor of an independent Conference.—‘ Press.’