THE ANTI-RITUAL CRUSADE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2360, 18 May 1899, Page 27

THE ANTI-RITUAL CRUSADE.

THE DISCIPLINE BILL

REJECTED.

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS.

LONDON, May 10.

In connection with the proceedings against the Rev. Messrs Westall and Ran, the Archbishops snubbed Mr John Kensit, the well-known anti-Ritualist, by refusing to receive his protest against the proceedings.

The House of Commons rejected the Discipline Bill by 310 votes to 156. The Government's amendment not accepting the Discipline Bill, but foreshadowing legislation in the event of the episcopal authorities failing to speedily secure obedience to the laws of the church, was adopted.

Sir Richard Webster characterised the bill as unjust, unworkable, and not controlling common informers, while prejudicial to peace and uniformity.

Sir W. V. Harcourt said the attitude of the House had strikingly changed within a few months. Both the bill and amendment asserted that the Crown and Parliament were supreme, but the Archbishops at Lambeth were seeking to evade the Privy Council. Unless something was done now it would be impossible to maintain the '< establishment.

Mr Balfour said the church, established or disestablished, -would retain great majorities only if it remained the church purified by the Reformation.

Most of the Irish members and 25 Libelals voted with the majority on the Discipline Bill.

Sir H. C. Bannerman, Messrs Morley, Asquith, Bryce, and 14 followers abstained from voting.

Lord Cecil considered the amendment neither dignified nor courageous. The bill would have necessitated the prosecution of seven thousand clergymen and have caused a disruption of the church. Parliament, in keeping the gates of God's vineyard, ought to reject and prevent an inrush of bitterness and bigotry.