PRAYER BOOK REJECTED

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 16 June 1928, Page 5

PRAYER BOOK REJECTED

A BATTLE OF GIANTS. CROWDS CHEER DECISION. J HE ARC! IBIS HODS’ APPEAL .i in le<i Press Association—By Electric Telegrapli Copyright.) (Australian Press Association.) LONDON, J une 15. 'ilia Archbishop on Canter Duty and tne Pisnqps watKeu out quietly from the House or cloxmnons on seeing the rejection of tne revused Prayer Book. They appeared dejected, it was obviously a severe toow to tire Plrimiate. Oil* lxe*a-ririg; the. result, lie bowed Ills head as though .stricken with grid.

' Immediately alter the result was known the- Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued thus statement: “Borne who eageiliy supported the Prayer Book measure as a right step on the roadway to orderliness and harmony and new freedom for active service at homo and overseas may' be let! by disappointment ami irritation to advocate rash and irregular action. We plead for quietness', patience and abstention from angry and unkindly words. “Hie resposibiiity ‘Laid op the bishops by the vote is ot the gravest. They ’ are alive to tins and will, with the least delay, give the required: counsel and direction. This must take a little time, and meanwhile prayers should not be locking that they moy be guided to interpret aright God’s will and purpose for the emurch.” ...... The “Alorning Post” soys that whatever is the outcome of the Prayer Book issue the Archbishop of Canterbury’s resignation will most likely be,rendered at an early dote. PARTY CAMPS DIVIDED.

It became apparent early in the debate tluat tne tide was again setting against the revised Boole. It was a battle of giants with all the party camps divided.

The “Daily Express’’ says : “Many of the most hriLhant speakers in the House of Commons threw in their weight in favour of the Book, but Mr Churchill’s rnetoriic, Sir Robert Horne’s logic. Lord Hugh Cecil’s refined dialectic, and Air Baldwin’s sentiment were all bat 'straws in the current of fear of priestcraft and ritual.” Hundreds of clergymen were gathered in the loibbiesi to hear tire result, and a crowd of 500 outside Parliament House ' cheered to the echo when the figures were known. -

Voters in favour of the measure included Messrs Neville Chamberlain (Minister Of Health), Arthur Henderson and Ponsonby, Captain Guest and Air Lansbury. Among those against it were Alessrs P.. Snowden, Lloyd George, Sir John Simon, Captain Hocking, Sir W. Mitaheiil Thomson, Sir V. L. Henderson, and Stir Homer Greenwood, Of those who were. known to be in favour of the measure;, Alessrs Bridgeman, Kirkwood, Alosfey, Rfeansay AlaeDonald, and Mrs Bondfield, did not vote.

THE MAIN ISSUES. There are few editorials iri the papers owing to the lateness of the hour at tvhicn the division was taken. The “Dally Telegraph'’, says: ‘•'The issue was again narrowed down to the question: ‘Does the revised Book jeopardise the Protestant, character-of the Church?’ The debate made it plain that the House of Commons still takes Queen Victoria’s view that Anglo-Cath-olios are not an allowable party, and we have no doubt the House of Commons reflects the feelings; of the generality of English people. Whatever \ sympathy the • Anglo-Cut holies .find among Hie bishops,. Hie House of Commons still regards them with grave distrust. The House of Commons throughout lias demonstrated the conviction that- the church’s claim to the allegiance of the nation consists in her unmistakable Protestantism.”

“The Times” sayis:- “The attack on the Prayer Book has changed less since Decemiber than its defence. The attack was again clirooted against two main points, neitlffer really relevant to the dispute, but calculated, tq, spread, an atmosphere of doubt and suspicion, fnexe were first pre-Reformation superstitions with hints of extravagant ritual now isoilatedly practised; and' -secondly, the supposed unpopularity of the measure in the constituencies. The former was really the strongest argument in favour of th© measure, because ille_gullities cannot be restrained if the church is denied the right to define illegality in the light of modern thought, ihe second is o matter of opinion, for ■nothing is easier than to organise a campaign of propaganda by correspondence.”

THE DEBATE CONTINUED. CHURCH AND DISCIPLINE. MEMBERS- EXPRESS THEIR. VIEWS. LONDON, June 15. Continuing the debate, the Rt. Hon. Y ins ton Churchill said that a great religious community asked) them, by the recognisedi means, to- co-operate in the expression of a wider interpretation of their freedom in spiritual matters. The onurs of proof lay with those. who invited the House to refuse. The primary presumption must obviously be against a denial of liberties whicli were lawfully demanded. As a member of'Parliament he felt bound to accept and to co-operate with the expression of the wish of the church, os representing the main mind of the church, and 1 especially of those responsible for carrying on its future life. Personally he could not see overwhelming objections against the grant of wider religious liberty. Par--1 lament had tp use its constitutional right with tolerance and moderation. The .rejection of the measure would inaugurate a period of chaos, lyhicn period would only he corrected by disestablishment. There were cries of “No,” inducing Mir Churchill to shrug, his shoulders: and remark: “Of course nobody agrees with anybody.” (Loud; laughter.)' “I personally do not wish the mitred front of one of the great remaining Protestant cliarches in Europe to be irretrdev- ' ably broken into discordant fragments.” . - George Thorne (Labour) said that Non-conformists had paid the price for their nonconformity. Let those contrary to the fee’ings of the church pay the same price. (Applause). Those who could not Che" the church' should have a. church of their own,.Lord Hugh Cecil said that there was ■■.-m'v little in Sir William JoynsonHioks’ -soseek which had any bearing on the measure. If the speech were * llv pm-sued, it would lead to the •4rjvTn<s out* of the whole of tho HifcH Ori" ,, rch party from the church. If •Mvybodv were to leave, would it be the Home Secretary, lrecau.se he was the

person who did not agree with the church. herd Cecil', emphasised that the alterations of the measure were to meet the criticisms made in December. Thus the inclusion el the black rubric averted any danger to those who had tears regarding transu bstantration. Lord Cecil emphasised that the policy of the bishops was the only possible one, aii-cl the provision of an appeal by the laity to the bishops was a valuable isiafeguard. 'Mr A. Ponsonby (Labour) urged that as the Church Assembly had passed the book by a considerable majority, the House was wrongly discharging its duties by entering Into a discussion upon those most sacred mysteries. Sir Robert Horne, as a member of the -Church of Scotland, was unprejudiced to some extent. The bishops had brought trouble on their own heads beea,lisle they had not taken taction upon very definite offences which the Royal Commission had pointed out, hut it was no 'longer possible to base a. prosecution upon the Old Prayer Cook. If the new were rejected there would be no authority on which the b shops could proceed, and two thousand Anglo-Oatholios would be left in absolute freedom to do what they wished.

The Rev. J. Barr (Labour) re-told the story of Oranmer’s martyrdom and concluded: “I see the burning hand of Cnanmer in the Lambeth flames, becoming a compelling and irresistible gesture to this House.”

Mr _G. Lans'bury (Labour) did not find! justification for the assumption that there was anything in the book which would lead the church to Romish practices.

The Rev. H. Dunnioo (Labour), said that as a non-conformist ihe wished to give the church the Book it asked for.

The Attorney-General (Sir T. Inskip) said that if the measure were rejected it could not be said the rejection was due to any hostility to religion. The interest taken in the debate was due to the fact that the established dbuirch was more established in the hearts of the nation than many suspected. He was not impressed by the opinions that if the Book were rejected the church was likely to be disestablished, or that chaos would follow. The House of Commons was part of the machine deliberately created for dealing with this and similar questions. The Scottish Church was- able to isee to itself to some extent, but the laity had means of seeing that the -services of her ministers were conformable to their views. Personally he had no- desire to drive Anglo - Catholics from the church, provided they agreed to confine themselves within proper limits. It was a curious merit of the new Book, ajs a peaceproducing instrument, that it offended evangelicals as well as Anglo-Clatliolios. The promise of acquiescence in the discipline of the bishops in future seemed unreal until one was satisfied that Anglo-Catholics were genuinely convinced th)at in the past they had been Wrong in -supposing that adoration was due to reserved elements. Opponents of Lhe measure had informed the Archbishop that they were prepared to assent to the measure passing provided it did not include perpetual reservation, which was its fundamental and vital error.

The Prime Minister (Mr Stanley Baldwin (followed and was received with loud cheers. He said the vast majority of the members of the House • bad ialready made up their minds, but a I fraction might have sincere difficulty in : deciding whether to 1 abstain from voting or ou which side to vote. To these members he, witli no- special learning in theology and belonging tq- no organised party in the church, might be of some help. In the argument several speakers had suggested the passage of the measure would set hack and possibly destroy the prospect of Christian re-union but Principal Garvie, Dr. Scott L-idgett, Professors Carnegie, Simpson, Salhie Vernon and Bartleet, bad all said they would like to- see the Bill passed, and the first three of these had been engaged for four years on the Lambeth Conference on reunion of the churches. If these gentlemen were supporting the Rook, why should the passing of the measure imperil reunion? Air Baldwin said there was always a tack of enthusiasm for a compromise. Enthusiasm naturally Belonged to those who did not want the Book, that was, a portion of the evangelicals and a portion of the Anglo-Catholics. The church had always contained these two distinct streams of spiritual life, which helped to keep each other pure and sweet and ensured spiritual progress. It was when the church lost her elasticity and sympathy that disaster had come in. It was in these times she had lost Wesley and Newman, she had persecuted Colenso and instituted prosecutions under the Public Worship Regulations Act-, which had been the greatest stimulus to ritualism. “I want to see those two -streams go on,” said Mr Baldwin.

Dealing with the Jack of discipline, the Prime Minister said the church was hound hand and foot by a Prayer Booh dating from 1662. Wlhat they wanted was a Book drawn up more in accord with the spirit of the age. The whole work done in the new Book was of a liberalising nature. The church had an enormous membership in the Empire overseas, which was looking with grave anxiety to the attempts being made at Home to- restore discipline and give the churc-h a service Book adapted to the times. Unity at homo was combined in a way it had never been before with unity overseas. If the Bill failed to pass it would weaken the hands of those in authority, give ian immense impetus to the very forces which those opposing the Book desired to curb, and disestablishment might be brought nearer to the political sphere. Cries of “No!”

Mr Baldwin concluded: “Would the House say to those in authority in the church, ‘We don’t trust you,’ or would it say, ‘We accept your word and wish you God speed in the work you have set your hand to?’ ” (Cheers.) There were immense shouts of “Ayes” and “Noes,” but the “Noes' seemed in greater volume and the opponents of the Bill greeted the result of the voting with loud cheers.

OBJECTIONS FROM WAIKATO. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, June 16. The opposition of n section of the Anglicans in the Waikato diocese to the revised Prayer Book was voiced in a cablegram .sent by the members of the Cathedral chapter .to Sir William Joynson Hicks. The message reads: The majority of the lay members of the Cathedral Chapter of tbe Waikato diocese, and many people congratulate you on your past successes and are fully with you in opposing the revised Prayer Book.