METHODIST INDEPENDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14392, 10 June 1910, Page 7

METHODIST INDEPENDENCE.

THE NEW ZEALAND CHURCH. SEPARATION FROM AUSTRALIA DISCUSSION AT THE CONFERENCE.

Australian papers to hand yesterday contain fuller reports than have been cabled of the discussion at the Methodist Conference in Adelaide on the proposal for an independent conference for New Zealand. The Rev. S. Lawry (N.Z.) moved: "That this conference agrees to the recommendation from the New Zealand Conference that it should be constituted an independent, self-governing conference, subject to the working of the scheme being subsequently approved by this general conference.". He said the question had been talked about by the Methodists of Now Zealand for 40 years. It used to be discussed in his father's house when he was a boy. In 1881 the resolution was adopted by the New Zealand Conference in favour of separation by 31 votes to nine. Among the chief reasons were the distance of the. Dominion from Australia and the desire to have a supremo court there. In 1886 the proposal was reaffirmed by a .practically unanimous vote, and it had been frequently endorsed since. In quarterly meetings 73 per cent, and in synods 68 per cent, of the people who voted were in favour of it, and at the recent annual conference 76 per cent, voted for it. If the request were not granted that day, it would come up again and again. There was no personal feeling in the matter, and tho New Zealand Church only desired to. separate because they felt it would enable them to do better work for the Master. Only by granting the request could Methodist union be effected in New Zealand, for the Primitive Methodists would not come into the union until the New Zealand Conference was independent. Mr. J. A. Flesher (New Zealand), who seconded the motion, said tile granting of independence would complete Methodist union in the Dominion. if the request of New Zealand were granted, it would be of the utmost value to the Dominion Church.

Dr. Fitchett rose to move an amendment. " These good fellows," he said " have been battling for separation for 40 years, and that shows what a bad case they have." Ho moved aft amendment: '•That in view of the community of interests, and in view of the responsibilities of the great missionary enterprises in the South Seas and India, which New Zealand and Australia accepted in common, the conference declines the request, believing that separation would destroy the unity of Australasian Methodism and gravely affect its power to carry out missionary work." Dr. Fitchett said that, ecclesiastically Australia and New Zealand had always been united. There was nothing but a paper bond. The conference would tear it up, and let New Zealand go. He was astonished to hear the monetary question raised. . The union was worth the cost to New Zealand, as a mere business transaction, but the union in work and sentiment was of the utmost value. They had charge of the ecclesiastical affairs of nearly 700,000 people, and was that not worth something? It was their glory that God had kept them all together, in order that they might do what they could not do if they were divided. 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 effected. 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' New 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 businers firm on a dissolution of partnership liabilities should be distributed before the old sign was taken down. Nothing of that kind appeared in the working scheme, j He urged the conference to parry the amendment. (Applause.) The Rev. J. J. Lewis (New Zealand) spoke strongly in advocacy of the separation, and emphasised the practical unanimity which had characterised the discussion of the question. In New Zealand the movement was a democratic one, and although lie 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. He asked them to agree to the motion. The Rev. W. Baumber (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, but he would much prefer to remain, associated with the large conference. Mr. J. C. Stephens (New Zealand) said the question of separation was one very dear to the hearts of New Zealand laymen. There could be no doubt public sentiment on the question of separation had undergone a radical change in New Zealand of recent years. New Zealand desired to retain its national independence, and for that reason desired severance in ecclesiastical matters from Australia. 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 introduced into the Church policy. Such fears were groundless. The motion in favour of separation was carried by 116 to 13. 4> - ■• ..■■ CONFERENCE NOTES. BY A NEW ZEALAND DELEGATE. Adelaide, May 28. Adelaide at last, hurrah for Adelaide ! was the feeling uppermost in the minds of the Maorilanders when the train ran into the station at this fair city. The station was crowded with ladies and gentlemen, who had come to receive and escort their guests to their various homes. The private welcome in the morning was followed by a public welcome to the, city and its Methodism in the Town Hall in the evening. This proved to be a very brilliant function.' The Town Hall, which is a fine building, was elaborately decorated for the occasion. With its festoons- and electric lights everywhere it appeared a veritable fairyland. The president and secretary of the South Australian Conference, with their wives, on behalf of the State clergy, and Right Hon. Sir S. J. Way, Bart., and Lady Way, on behalf of the laity, received tne guests. It was a full' dress parade of Adelaide Methodism, and did not need the presence of the members of the General Conference to give it distinction. Yet it was in their honour that it occurred. While the gathering was largely of a, social character it would have lost its Methodist character if the reception at the dais had been its special feature. When the ceremony of presentation was over a number of brief speeches-were made, both of .welcome and . reply. The New Zealand speaker gave his country away utterly. After praising all he had seen and heard of Methodism from the time he had landed in Sydney until he stood in that meeting, he told a yarn which left the impression that he' thought the. Methodism of Australia and New Zealand were as widely separated as heaven and the other place, and that it was not the New Zealand Methodism which was heavenly and made him proud of it. /

Adelaide is certainly a city to be; proud of. It is well laid out "with wide street© and plenty of open spaces. It is also well built. There is hardly a wooden house to be seen. anywhere. Stone, which is of a cream colour, outlined with red brick, is the popular building material, and the homes so built have a very attractive and handsome appearance. Inspection also shows the verandahs to be laid with varied coloured tiles, with a broad band of blue elate like stone for a margin. The city has, of course, some fine public buildings, of which the Town Hall may be taken as a very fair sample. It has a rather imposing front with a lofty tower, and is ornate in its internal structure. The public reading-room, library, museum, and art gallery form a fine suite of buildings in another part of the city, and present a more worthy appearance. They are separate buildings, quadrangular in form. The library and gallery are of stone, and the museum of brick. The internal arrange-' ments of the reading-room were a great disappointment. The number of papers and the arrangement of them was altogether "out of date. Towns like New Plymouth have better reading-rooms. The only New Zealand paper of any kind to be found was the Auckland Weekly News. This dearth of New Zealand papers might not be so striking if there were any New Zea-landl-news to be gleaned from the ordinary Commonwealth press, but that, is not so. One small item in the South Australian Register is the sum total of all that the writer has seen during the eight days he has been on Australian soil.

The position of Methodism in the State is unique for the whole of Australasia. One in every five throughout the State claims to belong to the Methodist Church. The significance of this is apparent everywhere. Its churches in the city and suburbs, are many and handsome, and the social standing of its people is everywhere recognised. Nowhere else has the Governor paid the Church the compliment that Sir Dort Bosanquet has done here. Through Sir S. J. Way he informed the Conference of his intention to be present in his official capacity at the Conference Church when the president delivered his official sermon.

If the "reception" to the visitors on the night of their arrival was a parade occasion, with dainty toilettes for the ladies and swallow-tail coats for the men, another gathering of a different nature was held in the Town Hall a couple of nights afterwards. It was called "A Methodist Family Gathering," and it proved to be a fairly large family. It began to gather outside the hall for an hour before the doors were opened, and when once admission was possible the place was crowded long before the time for commencing operations. The President of the Conference, who was in charge, told a story of Methodist family life at his own expense. He had been addressing a Sunday-school in the Far North, for he is a Queenslander, a while ago. The next day, in the parsonage, where he was a visitor, he heard a mite of a child ask its mother who. the man was that talked to them in the Sundayschool, and the mother answered, "Dr. Youngman." "Hum," the child replied, "he's an ugly old man." When the mother heard what was coming she tried to hush the child, but the child would not be hushed till she had had her say. The doctor then added that he was, a short time afterwards, escorting an" old lady to her home, and on the way told her the story of what the child had said. "Yes," said the old saint, "children always speak the truth." Methodist parsons are great at telling yarns. The master of Queen's, the Rev. E. H. Sugden, M.A., B.Sc, who had a chat about Methodist hymns, kept the ball rolling. He told the story of one old Methodist lady who was a martyr to rheumatism, and who said she found great help and comfort in the hymn "Jesus Regards the Joint Complaint." : . But the family gathering had its serious as well as its lighter strain. The Rev. P. J. Stephen stirred tEe pulses of the household as he recounted what was being done to strengthen the family ties in Sydney. Dr. Fitchett was another speaker at this memorable gathering, and said many a thing that thrilled the hearts of those present. In congratulating the President on the honour put upon him by his brethren, he reminded ' him of , the Church's indifference to titles. He would not be known as the "right reverend," the "most reverend," the "very reverend," nor even;,; the "rather reverend." He was simply the first among equals, but no archbishop, nor even the Pope of Rome, would have a more loyal following, or be more lovingly remembered by the people in their prayers. .; The practice of Methodism is to hospitalise the representatives whenever the courts of the Church are in session, and at that time no Methodist cares to call his house his own. He simply lays himself out for entertainment. Everyone that can possibly do so receives and honours a guest. If they do not entertain angels unawares, they try to think they do, and they certainly act as if they thought so. Every evening there are scores of little tea parties in progress. During the brief respite between the afternoon and the evening sessions the ladies crowd their drawingrooms with visitors, and certainly present a delightful contrast to the gladiatorial contests of Conference work. At the annual conferences the Homes Committee has sometimes had to notify representatives that homes could not be found for wives as well, but Adelaide sent out special invitations to the ladies. Many wives are, therefore, present, and the whole of the great? family life is much brightened as a consequence. '