CHURCH & PROHIBITION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8874, 27 October 1914, Page 6

CHURCH & PROHIBITION

MOTION OF SUPPORT

DEFEATED BY AUCKLAND ANGLICAN- SYNOD.

AUCKLAND, October 26.

At the Anglican Diocesan Synod, Bishop Averill presiding, a debate on prohibition took place on the Rev. C. A. B. Watson's motion—“ That this Synod earnestly reaffirms • its resolution of 1908 urging the church people of tho diocese to support no-license at the coming poll, and now that this issue and tiie larger' one of national prohibition are before the electors urges the church people of the diocese to support both issues, being convinced that in so doing they will render inestimable service to the Empire, especially at this time of national crisis.” Tho mover, in the course of his remarks in support of the motion said the Anglican Synod should declare itself on this question. “I do not go so falas to say that prohibition is a perfect remedy; but I hope it will be, and in tho present state of the law no other remedy is offered to the people of the Dominion.”

The Rev. A. H. Colville deprecated the introduction at the present time of a motion of a distinctly provocative character, calculated to arouse passionate resentment in many who conscientiously objected to what they considered intolerable tyranny. Prohibitionists apparently failed to recognise that the opponents of prohibition were not all personally interested. “Moderates” were lumped together, and labelled “liquor party.” The 1908 resolution had aroused resentment in many churchmen, and had he then been a layman or on© of the unregenerates he would have felt inclined to shake his fist in the face of anyone who attempted to dictate to him in that way.' He deprecated the use of patriotic feeling at the present time for the purpose of the motion, for he felt that if prohibition were carried when the minds of the people were concentrated elsewhere it would be long resented. He was glad that branches of the Moderate League had been formed throughout the Dominion. National prohibition might suit people like the Germans, but Englishmen were not ready to submit to vexatious, irritating, and (to him) unnecessary prohibition. Tho Rev. E. Ohitty objected to the passage of a resolution influencing churchmen in respect to their votes. The Rev. W. C. Wood gave a number of reminiscences of Invercargill under no-license, and stated that his experience there had convinced him of the complete inefficacy of the system. Canon Williams said they were all agreed Upon the evil of drunkenness, but not upon the remedy. He could hot see that prohibition was a remedy at all. He had lived for a time in a place where there was no liquor, and the result of. such a state of affairs was that Holy Communion was degraded. One of the reasons why he would vote against prohibition was that its supporters declared that the means taken by Jeshs Christ to convey His highest grace to man was unclean. He had no doubt that if total prohibition were carried priests would in due course bo compelled,.to Use instead of wine for Holy Communion, some such substitute as cold tea, which he had seen used in Queensland. The Rev. W. H. Wilson remarked that the 1908 resolution had been misrepresented by no-license speakers as a unanimous one, and as urging church people to vote for no-license.. He hoped that on this occasion a division would be taken so as to prevent misrepresentation.

The Rev. C. A. Tisdall said that although he had supported no-license for many years ho could not now support the resolution.

At this stage Mr John Batger moved “the next business,” and this was carried by 51 votes to 37, both clergy and laity having a majority in its favour. ■