“CHAOS AND DISASTER”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 230, 17 December 1927, Page 9

“CHAOS AND DISASTER”

REJECTION OF NEW PRAYER BOOK GRAVE APPREHENSION EXPRESSED CHURCH DISESTABLISHMENT PREDICTED By Cable. —Press Association. — Copyright. Received 10.11 a.m. LONDON, Friday. THE House of Commons division list shows that the figures * of the voting on the new Prayer Book were erroneously announced. The correct totals are 238 for and 205 against. Chaos is predicted as the result of the decision. Many think that it will lead to the disestablishment of the Church.

\ FTER the division, when the tellers appeared at the clerk’s table, and it was seen that the measure was rejected, there was a wild outburst of cheering from the opponents of the Bill. Some Liberals stood up and shouted and waved their order papers, and q Labour member waved his hand kerchief. The din was so great that the figures could not be announced for some minutes. The House then adjourned. Extraordinary scenes were then witnessed in the lobbies and corridors of the House. The members rushed excitedly hither and thither, congratulating or condoling with one another. Supporters and opponents of the measure remained long after the House had risen, discussing the consequences. Sir Thomas Inskip, Conservative member for Central Bristol, said the next step would, he thought, be that the Church Assembly would take the book back and pass it as a whole, ex- * r-K * Hr &

a: rh r.‘- fit yh rl? rr. -j- -f- 7r Tit cept the alternative Communion service. Although there was a good deal of the other part of the hook that he disliked, he would personally do all he could to put It through. FINISH OF STATE CHURCH Commander J. M. Kenworthy, Labour member for Hull, who was a teller for the measure, said “I a n hot really surprised. The case presented for the new book was appalling. There was no one concerned in its presentation who could grip his audience. At 4 p.m. we had reckoned on a clear majority of 75. The next step will be disestablishment. It is the finish of the Church of England as a State Church." Sir John Pennefather, Conservative member for the Kirkdale division of Liverpool, who was a teller against the measure, said the result showed that the House of Commons, in spite of everything, is Protestant. CHAOS AND DISASTER The Rev. James Barr, Labour member for Glasgow, Motherwell division, said “I voted against the motion, and was pleased at the result. When the Church accepts State privileges and endowments under express conditions, this House has a right to insist that the obligations shall be observed.” “The Times” says the rejection must mean chaos and disaster. The: best that can happen is that the House of Commons at some future date may realise that it has blundered, and may reverse the present decision, which can help forward neither Protestantism nor peace. It is generally agreed that the case for the new Prayer Book was ineffectively put. Mr. Bridgeman’s opening was dull. It is described as being like a sleepy country squire reading a speech prepared for him by his curate. Nor were the later advocates much better. ALL PARTIES SPLIT The voting split all parties. The ayes Included Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr. George Lansbury (Labour), while the noes found associated Sir Douglas Hogg, Sir Philip Sassoon. Admiral Hall. Viscountess Astor, Mrs. Hilton Philipson (Conservative), with Mr Lloyd George who said he had changed his mind after hearing the speeches, as at first he had intended to abstain from voting). Sir John Simon, Mr Charles Trevelyan, Mr. J. H. Thomas. Miss Lawrence. Mr. Stepher Wr |h (Labour), Viscount Curzon, Captain G. M. Garro-Jones (Liberal), and Mr. Saklatvala (Communist). “Does this mean disestablishment, was the question most frequently beard after the division. “It will mean chaos in the Church.” said the Dean of Westminster, Dr. Foxley Norris.—A. and N.Z.-Sun.

“DEFEND THE RAMPARTS”

CALL TO THE COMMONERS CHEER PRESAGES DOOM j LONDON, Friday. | Toward the end of the debate. Sir | Thomas luskip reduced the issue to j a narrow limit. Did the Commons j think, he asked, that this book went too far toward Rome in its restricted use of the reserved Sacrament? He called the members to defend the ramparts of the national faith. The cheer which followed presaged the doom of the measure. Speaking to the motion of the Rt. ! Hon. W. C. Bridgeman, who opened in support of the revised Prayer Book, Sir John Simon, Liberal member for Spen Valley, Yorkshire, said he was regretfully compelled to oppose the measure. The only defence for continuing the establishment of the Church was that it provided for uniform worship in

AGED ARCHBISHOP HEART-BROKEN LONDON. Friday. r Y*HE aged Archbishop of Can- * terbury is heart-broken. He was in tears as he went from the House of Commons on the arm of the Archbishop of York, after eight hours of anxious waitino and watchino. Not unnaturally the suggestion of the early retirement of the Archbishop of Canterbury has been revived. The “Daily Express“ says it is anticipated he will resign early in the New Year. It is expected that a statement regarding next week’s meeting of Convocation which will be issued from Lambeth Pal-ace to-day, will provide an indication of the Archbishop’s future plans. — A. and N.Z.-Sun.

every parish in the country. “That is the meaning of the Book of Common Prayer. As trustees of the constitution we must hold the Church of England to that bond. The alternative services are a breach of that bond, and will inflict grave injury to the vital beliefs of the great body of citizens.'

Lord Hugh Cecil, Conservative member for Oxford University, said the issue was not disestablishment, but giving the bishops for the first time a definite standard by which unseemly wrangling could be cast out from the Church. Lord Cecil added: “The revised book is a Protestant reformed book. The Church of England is Protestant. I do not want to think twice of it as a Society for the Better Contradiction of the Pope.” Mr. Stephen Walsh, Labour member for luce. Lancashire, said he opposed the motion on the ground that the measure would. result in the disruption, if not the destruction, of the Church. FOR AND AGAiNST Lieut.-Colonel R. V. Applin, Conservative member for Enfield, said he believed that if they passed the new Prayer Book with its two doctrines, it would be like taking a sword and splitting the Church from top to bottom. Mr. John Buchan supported the measure, which he declared was in accordance with the right of the Church of England to change. He did not believe the House would deny to the Church that liberty of government which the Commons always claimed for the nation. The Attorney-General, Sir Douglas Hogg, said there might be a majority in the House for the new book, because of the disadvantages that might follow its rejection, but he was certain there was no majority, either in the House or in the country, which desired the changes found in the new book. To him, arid to thousands of others, the book was a profound breach of faith. It was true its rejection w-ould be a disaster, but its acceptance would be a far greater one. The Rev. H. Dunnico, Labour member for the Consett Division of Durham, said that speaking as a Nonconformist, he thought rejection would violate the principles upon which the Free Churches were based, and he expressed the opinion that the old book was more sacerdotal than the new. MR. BALDWIN’S SUPPORT The Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, began by saying: “I propose to vote in favour of the measure. I was born and baptised a member of the Church of England, but I belong to no party in the Church. I nave had nothing to do with the preparation of the new book. I only ask myself what course taken by the Commons will best serve the religious life of the nation.” There had always existed from Reformation days a double stream of opinion regarding the Sacrament. It would be a tragic day if the Church ever became so narrow that ‘hose streams could not flow side by side. “A Church that has cherished freedom of thought must suffer from ineffective discipline at times,” said Mr. Baldwin. “Harassed internally, the Church has come to the House of Commons with her leaders pledged to do their best to remedy certain disorders. Is this House going to say, ‘We do not trust you. We do not believe you?’ ” (Cries of “No,” and cheers.)

“If this measure is defeated, those }in rebellion alone will rejoice. Pari liament will be taking all £ | fiority from the bishops at one fell swoop.” Mr. Baldwin said he believed cnaos would result if the measure were re- ( jected and the question of disestablish--1 ment would be brought very much to i the front. “WRITING HISTORY” Sir Thomas Inskip, Conservative member for Bristol Central, said: “The House cannot simply be a microphone for another assembly. The real tug-of-war is not with regard to 99 per cent .of the new Prayer Book, but ; with regard to the reservation of the Sacrament. This House has no right to give to the Archbishop of Canterbury a control which belongs to posterity, and to the nation. We are writing history, and I pray God that the members of the House of Commons may not be found wanting.” Viscount Wolmer, Conservative member for Aldershot, in concluding the i debate, said surely the House v*as enI titled to accept the authority of the bishops on the doctrine of the (. tiurch. If the new Prayer Book was a compromise, so M*as the Prayer Book of 1662. —A. and N.Z.-Sun. CHURCH IN INDIA QUESTION OF AUTONOMY BILL IN THE COMMONS ~ Reed. 10.22 a.m. LONDON, Friday. In the House of Commons, Earl Winterton, Uuder-Sec.ret.ary for India, moved the second reading of the Indian Church Bill, dissolving legal union with the Church of England and giving the Anglican Church in India autonomy similar to the Churches of the Dominions. Mr. E. Thurtle, Labour, moving the rejection of the Bill, objected to the very name of the Indian Church for an alien religion, with only half a million followers out of India’s 300 millions. He was most strongly opposed to the assigning of £300,000 from Indian revenue for the maintenance of chaplains and churches for British subjects. Lord Hugh Cecil: Last evening we were told we ought to have disestablishment. This measure of disestablishment, whatever the Church Assembly does, seems wrong. If it tries to adjust its affairs to establishmeut it is wrong; if it tries to separate the Church of India from the State it is wrong. Earl Winterton, replying, said the Indian Government assisted the Mahommedan and Hindu religions as well as the Anglican, by exempting mosques and temples from land tax. The Bill was read a second time without a division.- —A. and N.Z.-Sun.