METHODISM IN AUSTRALASIA.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXI, Issue 15332, 15 June 1910, Page 8

METHODISM IN AUSTRALASIA.

NEW ZEALAND'S SEPARATION

THE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE.

ENABLING LEGISLATION REQUIRED.

The triennial General Conference of tho Methodist Church of Australasia has been held in Adelaide, and of tho delegates sent from Christchurch to represent New .Zealand three returned to the city last evening, tho Rev C. H. Laws, president of tho New Zealand Conference, the Rev W. A. Sinclair, and Mr J. C. Prudhoe. This was the third General Conference held in Adelaide, the first having been m 1881, when New Zealand lost two of her clerical and two lay representatives through the wreck of the Tararua, off Waipapa Point. At the recent Conference the burning question submitted to the consideration of the delegates from the six State Conferences was the proposal that New Zealand should have a separate and independent Conference, with as well as administrative powers. That proposal was supported by a large majority of the delegates; and the preliminary steps wore taken to sot in motion the machinery that will bring it into operation. The three Christchurch delegates who returned last evening were interviewed by a " Lyttelton Times" reporter. 'Speaking of the personnel of the Conference, the Rev C. H. Laws said that it comprised 142 members, equal numbers of clergymen and of laymen representing the six constituent Conferences, Victoria and Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and New Zealand. Of that number New Zealand sent twelve clerical and twelve lay members. The delegates included many men of note throughout Australasia. The president was the Rev Dr Youngman, of Queensland, and the secretary the Rev J. E. Carruthers, of Sydney, a brother of the. ex-Premier of New South Wales. Dr Fitchett, of literary fame, Dr Brown, a well-known missionary, Dr Moiley, formerly of New Zealand, and many men prominent in State legislatures, including the Hon W. Robson, of New South Wales, and the Hon J. Garrard, an ex-Cabinet Minister, were members of tho " Methodist Parliament," as the Adelaide newspapers styled it. The lay members were men of standing and / ability, and included several medical men, others prominent in scholastic professions, and several members of the legal profession, prominent among whom was Sir Samuel Way, the ChiefJustice of South Australia. Referring to the question of the separation of the New Zealand Conference, Mr Laws explained that since the Methodist Church in Australasia had assumed control of its own affairs, which were previously governed from England, Methodism m Australasia had been controlled by a General Conference, which, was a legislative body, and met triennially, the first conference having been held in Melbourne in 1875. A conference of which the authority was only administrative was held annually in each of the Australian States, Victoria and Tasmania having one conference, and in New Zealand. At the General Conference the New Zealand delegates had asked for separation, so as to give their conference powers similar to these possessed by the present General Conference. The Rev b. Lawry, 'of Christchurch, had proposed a motion that the New Zealand Conference should be made independent and self-governing, and that motion had been seconded by Mr J. A. Flesher, of Christchurch. It had excited a very, keen debate, in which most of the representatives of the dominion had participated. At the close of the discussion New Zealand's recommendation had been carried by 106 votes to 13. The New Zealand branch of the church supported its request for autonomous control on several important grounds. The principal argument was the existence cf a growing national sentiment in the dominion, which was reflected in the life of the Methodist Church, and resulted in a strengthening of the oosire for independence. In© o-reat ocean separating the two countries formed an impediment to the management of the affairs of the church in the dominion, and constituted the source of a heavy expenditure of time and money upon the representation ol the dominion at the General Conference. Ministers and laymen appointed to rerepresent New Zealand required to devote about four weeks to the conference, and this fact might prohibit the conference from securing the best representation, as many laymen were unable to arrange tor so lengthy an absence from their business to attend the General Conference. Another argument in favour of separation was the growth of the dominion and of the Methodist adherents among its people. Since the previous request for separation, which was made in 1888, the population of'New Zealand had increased bv 70 per cent, while the Church had doubled the number of its ministers and more than doubled the number of its members. Its adherents had increased in number during that period from 49,000 to 80,000, its foreign mission income had increased from £365 to £2400 per annum, while its homo missions income had increased from £2382 to £SOOO per annum, which included the suuport of the Maori missions, costing "over £2OOO per annum. In 18S8 there were only fifteen ministers in the New Zealand conference in active work who had over twenty years' standing, and there wore fifty-five at present. In 1856, when Australasia secured its separation from England, there were only twelve ministers in tho whole of Australasia of over twenty years' standing, who were actively engaged, in European work under the Methodist Church. When the principle of separation had been endorsed, continued Mr Laws, a large and representative committee, including several representatives of New Zealand, with Dr Morley as chairman, was appointed to devise a working basis for separation. The desire that the scheme should be as perfect as possible appeared to be unanimous, and on the motion of Sir Samuel Way, tho committee's report was adopted without a single voice in dissent. It was decided that for the present New Zealand should continue to support the foreign mission work of the Australasian Church, forwarding its contributions to the Foreign Missions Board in Sydney, and the dominion was given tho right to representation on the board by threo j

members. Provision was made for th» allocation of a separate foreign mission field at some future date. A separate supernumerary fund would be established, and tho consent of each ministor affected would have to be obtained before his interest in the fund could be transferred. Arrangements were also mado for ministerial interchanges between the two countries, subject to the consent of the conferences concerned. Daring the discussion it was found that the General Conference had no legal authority to grant separation, and this came as a surprise to the New Zealand delegates, who had been advised otherwise. The decision of the General Conference, Mr Laws said, had to be endorsed by each constituent conference, and a special Act passed in each of the Australian States and in New Zealand. Although there waa only one conference for Victoria and Tasmania, an enabling Act would have to be passed in both States. Thera did not appear to be any likelihood of any of the conferences withdrawing it? consent, for the vote of the General Conference had been most emphatic, and the prominent members who haa opposed the proposal had afterwards assured tho New Zealand representatives that they would use every influence to secure the passing of the necessary resolution by their conferences. A strong legal committee, on which the dominion was represented, was instructed to prepare a resolution for submission to each of the annual conferences, which would be held in February, and to draft a Bill for presentation to each State legislature. At the request of the New Zealand delegates the cost of the necessary legislation would be borne by the New Zealand Church. The exact date when separation would come into effect would be fixed by the president of the General Conference in consultation, with the president of the New Zealand Conference, after the various Bills had been passed. It would probably ba early in 1912. Speaking of the probable effect of the change in government on tha Methodist Ohuroh in. New Zealand, Mr Laws said that he anticipated it would be attended by a quickened sense of responsibility and ; an increased activity and development in every branch. For many years its connection with Australia had been a barrier in the way of a union with the Primitive . Methodist Church. When separation was effected the way would be open for consideration of measures to be taken to secure one Methodist Church for the dominion. He referred to the opinion expressed in Sydney by the Rev J. Prescott, president of the New South Wales Conference, that the decision of New Zealand was to be regretted, and said that while the New Zealand Church was confident that it had adopted the right policy, which would bring many benefits in its train, its was insensible to the ties that had bound the Methodism of Australia and of New Zealand for many years, and it was hoped that the good feeling existing between the two countries would continue.