REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19866, 9 February 1928, Page 10

REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

AMENDMENT APPROVED.

fM SHOPS AND THE CLERGY.

% LAITY STILL IN SESSION.

f main issue reservation.

J3y Telegraph—Press Association— Copyright. (Received February 8, 6 p.m.) «nd N.Z.-Sun. LONDON. Feb. 7. What may be called the second reading Stage of the new Prayer Book resulted in overwhelming affirmative votes in the Houses of Bishops and of Clergy, but the debate in the House of Laity was not concluded. It will be resumed to-morrow. Each Honso sat separately. The Bishops voted their general approval by 35 votes to five. The minority consisted of the Bishops of Norwich, Dr. Bertram Pollock; o: Worcester, Dr. E. H. Pearce; of Birmingham, Dr. E. W. Barnes; of Exeter, Lord William Gascoyne-Cecil; and of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Dr. W. Whittingham. The House of Clergy carried approval by 247 votes to 33. There was a general resemblance in the Speeches for the new Prayer Book. The speakers in each of the Houses contended that the book represented the best means for securing peace and unity, and that it, s rejection would produce chaos and bring disaster upon the Church. Although the new amendments arising ©ui of'the rejection of the prior book by the House of Commons have not yet been considered in detail, the movers of the resolutions to adopt the new book were all careful to point out that there was no resentment owing to the action of the Commons. It was conceded that they acted entirely within their powers. The' Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr. Guy IWarman, in moving the motion of approval in the House of Bishops, deprecated the tendency shown in some quarter# * to find fault with the House of Commons, which represented the nations so long as the Church remained the National Church. Bishops in Opposition. The Bishop of Norwich said ho washed his hands of the book. He refused responsibility for it, because it did nothing to restore discipline. Dr. Barnes said the book would, not produce peace or unity. He also predicted that the House of Commons would again reject the book. The previous rejection was the most popular thing the Commons had done for many years. Similarly the Prebendary of St. Paul's, Rev. F. N. Thicknesse, in moving the amendment for the postponement of the measure, which was defeated, urged that there was no chance of the Commons passing the book. The results in that case would be incalculable. It would, at least, produce, a serious situation as between the Church and the State. 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 House 6i Commons. The Principal of Pusey House, Oxford, Dr. Darwell Stone, moved a futile amendment in the House of Clergy for the rejection of the book, on the ground that it did not represent a general agreement among Church people. The Houses of Bishops and of Clergy discussed the book in general terms from the point of view of peace, unity and discipline. Question ol Reservation. The House of Laity discussed the provisions in much greater detail. The opponents of the book concentrated their arguments upon the reservation of the Sacrament Most of them asserted that while reservation remained there was no chance of the Commons passing the book. The Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas In&kip, jn°ved the rejection of the book because, he said, it provided for perpetual reservation. Sir Thomas' said that while reservation remained, general approval was impossible. Sir George Court-hope, Conservative member of the House of Commons for the Rye Division of Sussex, said he had never experienced such pressure from his constituents as he had done over the recent book, prior to the debate in the House of Commons, t Major J. D. Birchall, Conservative member of the House of Commons for North-east Leeds, said he voted for the book last session, but there was no chance of its being passed while it contained provision for" perpetual reservation, to which i the majority of churchmen were certainly opposed. Mr. Herbert Upward, the editor of the Church of England Newspaper (formerly Church Family -Newspaper), said perpetual reservation was practised at present in hundreds of churches with ir<e cuasmb of the bishops. If reservation wero to be rejected these people would be tensed out of the Church. Mr. Athebtan Riley, a leading High Churchman, favoured the postponement of the book for three years. He was extremely doubtful if it would pass the present jEfouser of Comnsoan. If the Assembly nrlsiad upon proceeding with the present oook it would utail the risk of disestablishment, disendowment, and disruption.