WELCOME TO EMPIRE PREMIERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18323, 13 August 1921, Page 14

WELCOME TO EMPIRE PREMIERS.

JIB CHURCHILL ON MR MASSEY. A WORLD “ SUPER-UNIT.” i “ EACH FOR ALL.” (Fbou Oca Own Correspondent.) LONDON, June 16. At the House of Commons last night a dinner was given by the Empire Development Parliamentary Committee to Prime Ministers from the dominions and to representatives of India who are hero in anticipation of the conferences. Mr A. Bigland (chairman) presided, and Mr Winston Churchill delivered an address of welcome on behalf of the Government. Sir Janies Allen was there. Addressing each of the chief guests by name, Mr Churchill remarked that they had travelled long distances to reach England, / and every M.P. felt the greatness and the grandeur of the responsibility entrusted to them here. When last they came they brought with .them the legions of the British Empire, splendid and determined armies, which in the clash and shock of Armageddon held a place unsurpassed in every clement of martial prowess and soldierlike chivalry among all the lighting races of the world. They hare not brought their legions with them to-day, Mr Churchill continued, hut we know now what before the war the great thinkers and dreamers of the British Empire only dared to hope: Wc know that should the danger threaten, should the storm burst, should the hour of imminent peril for the British Empire strike, should in another generation or another century the same kind of vital issue arise os arose on August 4, 1914, other represent stives of those four great dominions would come to this centre, or whatever was the threatened centre, with their valiant legions behind them. —(Loud cheers.) And wo, on our part, in the Motherland, will not bo behindhand in giving an equal measure of support, wherever the danger may come; in any part of the British Empire we shall bo ftuind reedy when the time comes to do our duty, and to do it as thoroughly and as faithfully as we have don© it in the late war. Each for all and all for each is the strong Union of the British Empire. Why. if we only keep tho firm hand grip which we locked in the Great War we are bound to become a unit in the world eo powerful as to be safe, so strong ns to avoid the danger and the menace of violence. We shall bccoms a power, an organisation not second to any combination of men, and capable of dealing with our cousins and our brothers in llie U.S.A. on terms of even araitv and equal friendship.— (Cheers.) That is the larger synthesis, that is tho super-unit, that is the dream, beyond the projects and aspirations which wc have before our eyes, which would, indeed, secure tho peace and safety of nil who apeak the English tongue, which would, indeed, secure to those great communities a halcyon r.eriod of securitv. prespenty, and glory, which no other combination in the whole world would dare to interrupt or molest." —(Cheers.) PERSONAL REFERENCE'S. The Secretary of State for tho Colonies welcomed with "the utmost cordiality the representative of Canada. Many thoughts flocked to mind when Canada; was mentionc-cl, but most of all of tho Vimy Heights. 1 hen there was Mr Massey, an old friend; no fair-weather friend. “Wc knew him when the storm raged and tho waves ran high; we saw him here, always resolute, always cool, always confident. And those who knew whet tho New Zealand Division did m tho war—a single division, kept always at the fullest strength, pushed continually into tho fiercest battles—knew that- it gained a reputation second to none.’' —(Cheers.) As for Sir i» Smartt, "I was much in disagreement with him 15 years ago, both on tho question of Imperial preference, on which 1 have changed my views—(loud cheers) —and on the quostion of the Transvaal Constitution, on which he has changed his views.”—(Laughter.) S.r T. Smartt has been endeavouring to advarco tho cause of the British Empire in South Africa, end the British Empire as a whole. Then came Mr nughea. He was in tho mill ci the war and his heart suffered intensely. He wrestled with those terrible, agonising, baffling problems', and at the moat critical times it was Mr Hughes who pronounced always the words/ .of unflinching courage and perseverance. —(Cheers.) That loyal comradeship not only was tho comradeship of a' great ruian, but the comradeship of a great continent and 4 great race. — (Cheers.) . CONFIDENT OF THE FUTURE. Mr Churchill asked; To what do we welcome our guests? Labour difficulties, shortage of cash, heavy taxation, by-elections ? To take that is to take a very short view. “I am absolutely confident that our troubles are only of a transitory, a, local, > and a temporary character. They in no way alter the fundamental results of the great war. \Ve can recover far batter than our ancestors of 100 years ago; we can do it with our modern resources in half the time. 'the country has "never failed. As Lord Fiiber said, "England never succumbs." We shall have long and anxious consultations for the promotion, of trade between d.fferent parts of ths Empire. Let us endeavour to bmd the British Empire together by a flow of business in hdcr-lmperial channels. Let us endeavour to bring the Crown colonies within its ambit. Let us improve the communications of the British Empire by sea, by land, and by air. Let ns consider all ways ot annihilating the distances which have hitherto obstructed us. Let us have all spread out valiant manhood over the British Empire in the greet dominions of the Crown. In this way we shill facilitate that steady growth of intcr-Imperial sentiment and common interest which al>ovo all are necessary to occupy the efforts of the next decade. There is another part of tho Empire which is becoming independent—the great dominion State of India coming into our affairs and councils as a powerful partner. Wo well know how tremendous was the contribution which India made in the war. We look forward confidently to the future of Indian Government in the belief that tho Indian Government and people will assume luily and completely dominion status.” ONE OUTCOME OF THE WAR.

Mr A. Bigland (chairman of the Parliamentary Committee) said they had come together to show the visitors that in the House of Commons there was a strong and powerful group ready to assist them in the direction c( development, and that not merely from patriotic motive nor selfish motives. We had lost many markets in the world through the war, and this committee was tho outcome cf the war. More titan ever now they realised how great the interests of the Empire lay in tho possibility of what tho empire itself could give and produce. In respect of finance they were ready to give whatever active assistance they could to plans and schemes submitted to Parliament if they felt they were really for 'be upbuilding of the Empire. —(Cheers.) As to establishing an Empire bank, the gold reserve of the Empire was such that, he thought wo might well follow (he example of the United States, the policy of which in establishing such a bank resulted in tho fact that on a given 'amount of gold reserve their commercial credits were increased six times. That was a line of advance which might well be followed in the British Empire—(Cheers.) He hoped also to see something more done in the way of irrigation and in development of beetroot growing. THE DAIRY FARM OF THE EMPIRE. Each Premier in turn responded. Mr Massey said ho welcomed Mr Chr.rclbll on the penitent form—(laughter).—and lie was sure the people in this country would willingly march forward with him for the glory of the Empire and its fellow-citizens. Canada, he believed, was going to be tho granary of the Empire, New Zeeland the dairy farm of the Empire, and Australia would produce more wool than any cf the other parts of the world, while South Africa would export principally gold and diamonds. —(Cheers.)

SOME CHURCH PROBLEMS COLLUSION IX DIVORCE. WOMEN AND THE MINISTRY. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, Juno 2. Some interesting points have been under discussion at the London Diocesan Con ence, including the ministry of women ana the growth of divorce. The Bishop cf London presided, and in his opening address ho described himself as being terublj i disgrace with women; they used to he levin me, but now they don’t.” 11ns anent th vexed question of women in the pulpit. j all means, he said, let women give their addresses from the chancel steps. That V as far as public opinion in the church was prepared to go. He pointed out that for women to speak at all was a tremendous change in Catholic custom, and they could not expect the whole thing to be changed in a few years. It was still his opinion tnat the great mass of women in England were opposed to other women haranguing mixed congregations in church. —(Hear, hear.) One might add, men, too, would be in opposition to this great innovation, though it is almost be von d ddubt that a, consideiable number of church people would he glad that women should be able on occasion, and upon subjects which are peculiarly their own, to speak in church. ~ It is the view of the Daily Telegraph that the claim of women to'" minister in the services of the Church of England is undoubtedly supported with much zeal by a certain number of both sexes, and opposed with no less earnest. conviction by a party at least equally numerous. "Hut that anything like a majority of church people. consider the question as offering a live issue, or expect that the raising cf it wifi have any considerable effect, we have no evidence. The full demand of the advocates cf the ministry of women has been put in the negative form of ‘repudiating 'ho assertion that any Christian soul is considered on grounds of sex incapable of receiving any Christian gift or grace.’ This principle plainly requires the admission of women to the ranks of clergy. The Lambeth Conference of Bishops was not prepared to go os far as that. The majority recommended the establishment of an order of deaconesses, abd unanimity was secured for the proposal that women qualified and approved should be allowed to speak in church.” AN ADVERSE VOTE. When the subject was discussed the other day the Rev. C. J. Sharp (St. Mary’s, Ealing) moved: That ■ this conference agrees with tho decisions of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops relating to the position of women in the councils and ministration of the church. The majority o( bishops, he saiu. came to the conclusion that there should be an order of deaconesses, and they agreed unanimously that other women besides deaconesses sliould lie allowed to speak in churches. That was highly sensible. When the Rev. G. W. Hudson Shaw, rector of St. Botolph, Hishopsgate, mounted the platform fo second the motion a member of tho conference rose and asked: "My lord, did this clergyman disobey your direction last Gtod Friday," and, if so, I wish to move that he lie not heard."’ The intenuption was received wuh loud and prolonged cheers. After soma moments the bishop rose and said; “I should like to make a personal appeal that he should be heard.” Mr Shaw stated that ho had not disobeyed any order of his bishop. "When the bishop inhibited him two years ago he obeyed. This year ho had received no inhibition. Tho bishop expressed to him a strong dcsiro that he should withdraw' an invitation he had given to Miss Maude Hoyden. It was rash, he knew, for him to second this motion, because he was looked upon aa a rebel. During the 36 years that he had been in Holy Orders he had never disobeyed any order of his bishop. There were, .however, rights of incumbents as well ns rights cf bishops, and on Gocd Friday he stood on a lawful right. The Rev. Prebendary Boyd moved as an amendment: ‘"That it is generally inexpedient and contrary to the in'erests of the church that women should publicly minister in consecrated buildings.” The proposal that had been made would, ho felt, create division in tho church, and would introduce a stronger feeling than that introduced by any theologies! opinion. The Rev. Prebendary Thicknesse (Westminster), in seconding the amendment, paid if this wore granted, to women it would be impossible to resist their claims to priesthood. On a division th® amendment was carried by 195 votes to 111, the announcement of th® figures being received with cheers. The amendment was then put as a substantive motion and carried. “The opponents appear to have relied upon that familiar argument—objection to tho thin end of the wedge,” says the Daily Telegraph. “If the Lambeth recommendations were acted upon, it was said, th© claims of women, to priesthood could not be resisted. Accordingly, th© majority of the conference pronounced ‘that it is generally inexpedient and contrary to the interests of the ehuroli that women should publicly minister in consecrated buildings.’ They may certainly claim complete agreement with St. Paul whose principle was, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to bo in silence.’ But the Bishop of London, though he has lost the confidence of some women, is more of a feminist than the Apostle or than the majority of his conference, for he was ready to ‘let women give their addresses from the chancel steps.’ He will give them . nothing more, and even of this he is rather nervous as a ‘tremendous change in Catholic custom.’ ” THE MARRIAGE TIE. Touching cn the law of divorce, the Bishop said the diooese of London had been carried on on the principle of the indissolubility of marriage, and they did not marry anyone who had a husband of wife living. a nis question was on© of the most difficult with which they were faced. A great many people, had been puzzled by tho action of the bishops, and particularly of tho archbishops, in the House of Commons. When the Bills relating to the law of divorce were before the House of Lords the archbishops led the bishops into th© lobby against any proposed additions to tho grounds for divorce; but what th® archbishops did not oppose was an extension of the grounds for nullity. As soon as the Bill was changed, and an extension of the grounds for nullity was altered to an extenoion ci the grounds for divorce, they opposed the Bill. The storm centre was the question of th© innocent party, and hr was told there was a growing feeling of rebellion against |he principle which had b®cn carried on in the diocese, and that seme of the clergy felt that an innocent party should be allowed to be married in the church. Quitch true, there were two sides to the question; but, in spite of all he had read, he still believed they were right in following their present policy. There was so much collusion that heaven alone know who was th© innocent party. A WAVE OF PAGANISM. Mr H. W. Hill (Kenningtcn Rural Deanery) moved —" That this conference pledges itself to adhere to the principl® cf the indissolubility cf Christian marriage.” He described himself as a layman who believed that th® Church was a keeper of Holy Writ, that it had ever held that marriage was indissoluble. The Church had always acted on that principle, and he, from his old city experience, remembering th* Englishman's love of tho sacredness of the pledged word and contract, had little patience with eccelsiastios who wished to find a way out from the course the Church had pursued through the ages. One heard “ Lack at the East,” but in tbis respect he did not turn to the East.—(Laughter.) There was an idea that there should b: Church law for Church people, but he hoped no delusions would bo harboured on that, for that meant that after all the centuries of privileged position, establishment, and endowment, Ihay confessed themselves so weak that they had not the courage to stem the tide of Paganism. They owed this trouble, in the early 'fifties and to-day, to two eminent judges, who were both sentimental. Sentimentality in a-lawyer was nod a good thing, certainly not in judges. A judge had a hard case which led to a Royal Commission, and. in 1857, the Divorce Act Its story was well known. How did it work? Lord Chancellor Campbell said, after two or three years’ experience of its working. that he was afraid cf the monster he had created What would people think 100 years hence if the speech tho other day on the third rending of the Bill by tho Bishop of Durham was held up to represent the current Church on this matter to-day? A wave of Paganism was spreading over the Western world. They had seen tho House of Lords' caat aside th® Christian tradition. They bus', not allow themselves 1© suffer from any delusion, or it would mean the confession that they had not the courage to try to stem that tide of Paganism. BELGRAVIA—NOT BETHNAL GREEN

As seconder of the motion, th© Rev. A. V. Magee (St. Mark's, Upper Hamilton Terrace), ■described America as the happy hunting ground and home of divorce,” and thought a lesson might I>® learnt from there, where there were over 109,000 divorce© a year, ons home in 10 being annually wrecked. Th* causes for divorce there were many, some of them such that it would merely result in laughter if he cited them. Here the number of divorce© waa on the increase. Four judges were attending to undefended suits, and there wa© a bill for ” divorce while yon wait end marriage cn tried for six months,” a term he was prepared to defend as a correct description. Insanity was math a ground for dissolution—incipient mental unsoundness 011 the day of tho wedding to develop within'six months. If such a term he saw the old “incompatibility of temper” under a new phrase. America, n past master in the art cf divorce, had begun to retrace her footsteps, and there were States which had cancelled insanity aa a cause. Insanity, from a medical point of view, was a disease,

and if the door were opened to one disease it must b® kept open for others. Under the section venereal disease was a ground, that tho infected person having got rid of on© partner was free to take another. The real remedy was a certificate of health before the wedding took place—(Cheers.) Sometimes it was raid -.hat tire poor wanted divorce. That wins a lie. — (Cheers.) It was not Bethnal-Green, but Belgravia. Mr Banks, K.C., had told them of th® number of reconciliations among the poor, aided ny the police court missionary’s moral suasion. Legislation was based upon a radically false principle that marriage was a moral contract. Church people knew it wos a sacrament instituted by the Lord. They were told that hasty marriages made speedy divorce, but in their opinion speedy divorce ma .0 hasty marriages.—(Cheers.) TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. ‘ Sir Edward Clark©, K.C., denied the existence of such ft principle as they were asked to support, and declared that any such princinle would be directly contrary to the explicit teaching of Christ. What were the teachings of the church? They all knew the passage in St. Matthew in which the Lord said that, in the case of adultery of the wife, a man should put her away.—(“No.”) The English phrase was perfectly well known, and was explicit that the man was to put his wife away. For any other cause, save that one, because he married again he was guilty of adultery. The saying was as much a part of the law as any other part. Bishop Gore attempted to exclude that . text by saying it was not properly a portion of the Gospel, but he changed his mind. Over 200 years ago the question of divorce was dealt with by the House of Lords as a judicial tribunal, and it was only by an Act of Parliament that a divorce could be granted whore the adultery of the wife was proved Those Acts were passed, and although tno bishops sat in th© House of Lords all the time there was no protest.—(“Shame! ’) They inserted a clause from time to time providing that tho guilty person should not remarry, but it was always struck out by the Commons and then passed by fhe bishops. —(“Sham©!”) Sir Edward showed how the need arose for a> simpler system, and declared that divorce had been accepted and carried out by the church.—(Cheers.) The Bishop of London raid there was :• full-dress debate 20 years ago/ and they decided by an enormous majority that neither husband nor wife, if the other were living, should b© married in tho London diocese In the course of the present discussion it had been urged that the voting should be a guidance as to whether that decision «a to be adhered to ip th© future. There was an amendment to omit the woff.s after “adhere,” substituting to the tcachin of Jesus Christ conc-’rnmg Christian maxriago.” A vote by orders resulted:— Clergy For 23, against 91: laity—for u 5. against 126. Th® original resolution was then put ana carried. CHEAP MINISTRY. In his opening address the Bishop of London, said he was .not yet converted to tho desirableness of the unpaid deacon with a red tie. He could not yet see that it was "ood to have innumerable deacons ordained and going about in their ordinary retire. There must Ix> no yielding to the temptation to get. tho ministry on th© cheap, in these strenuous times there was the great danger of considering the Sunday du*y th® onlf duty which mattered; whereas what in reality mattered most was what was done on week-davs. Whenever ho asked for time off his old vicar used to say: “We can amays spare you on Sunday.—(Laughter.) It is on week-days that we cannot spare you. Were they quite sure that laymen wished to receive the Holy Communion on Sunday from a brother-layman whom they' would meet re business in tho City on Alonday. And wuh the exception of administering the Sacrament there was nothing which it was suggested that the unpaid deacon should uo which the lay reader could not do now. !F Turning to another subject he said ho had been asked why ho was leaving his own flesh and bicod in order to travel for five weeks throughout th© country. Because he found the church almost powerless on the question cf drink, and its rescue and preventive work was beyond contempt. He honoured the Salvation Army, but if the church had done its work there would b® no need for the Salvation Army. It was because ho felt that on these two questions the Church of England was largely asleep that he intended to go through tho country. UNDERPAID CLERGY. Lieutenant-general Sir A. E. Codrington moved a resolution declaring the urgent necessity of supplementing tho- stipends of th® clergy, and pressing upon the laity of the diocoso the duty of providing the funds required for that purpose. Lord Justice Bankcs, in secondh g the resolution, said of th© 600 odd parishes in the diocese of London, in 252 at least the income was under £4OO if tho house allotted to the incumbent was rate free. Of these 262, in five oases th© income was under £2OO a year; 86 wore under £300; end 169 were under £IOO. Tho result was that th© work was crippled, as work must always be crippled under pressure of great financial stress. And what was the position of the wife She was compelled to live in a houeo far larger than she required; without a servant, often without the occasional "char”; the calls of the parish to be • attended to, and in th£ evening she maintained 0 patient and courageous spirit to help her overworked husband. It was not dignified, it was not right, to have to beg for what was due to the clergy. It was estimated that it would take £22,000 to bring up the benefited clergymen to a minimum of £4OO net. “Wo want you to scrap th© idea,” continued Lord Justice Bankcs, “that because tho church is endowed the clergymen are sufficiently provided fcr. Scrap the idea that when money is required it can b® found by large donations from a comparatively few rich people. Riches have passed from the class whoso habit it was to give large sums to the church; they have passodi into the hands of those who have not been educated to th© same extent.”—(Hear, hear.) A SUGGESTED "POOL.”

Th© Ray. W. H. Aglienby (St. Michael's Shoreditch) moved an amendment urging tho more highly-paid incumbents to pay into the Diocesan Fund th© whole of their official incomes over and above £760 per annum. In the London diooese, he said, there were 42 livings of £IOOO a year or over, and 38 of between £750 and £IOOO. In other words, 80 London parishes enjoyed between them something like £31,000. The amendment was opposed by tho Rev. C. E. White (Holy Trinity. Sloano street), who said he had an income over £750, and was in that wicked frame of mind that, even if tho amendment were carried, he would exercise his right to dispose of his surplus income as he thought fit. and he hoped th© church would not thereby suffer. H© did not, want th® conference to look foolish in tho eye© of the public, but this was borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and if they took away a man’s endowment, why not take away the money of a man who happened to bo married to a well-endowed wife —(Cheers and laughter.) The Bishop of London said he would bo sorry if tho amendment were carried. Many of the clergymen who apparently had large incomes could hardly pay their way, end when they had paid for' their houses and other charges had very little left for tliemselves.*> Tho amendment was negatived andl tho motion carried unanimously.