Peace and Unity

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 274, 9 February 1928, Page 11

Peace and Unity

NEW PRAYER-BOOK’S EFFECT BISHOPS AND CLERGY PASS SECOND READING By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. LONDON, Tuesday. What may be called the second reading stage of the new Prayer Book resulted in overwhelming affirmative votes in the House of Bishops and of Clergy, but the debate in the House of Laity was not concluded. It will be resumed to-morrow. Each House sat separately. The Bishops voted their general approval by 35 votes to five. The minority consisted of the Bishops of Norwich, Dr. Bertram Pollock; of 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. Although the new amendments arising out 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. WASHED HANDS OF BOOK The Bishop of Norwich said lie 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 roundtable conference, in the hope of producing an agreed-upon book, before risking an adverse vote in the House of Commons. The Houses of Bishops and of Clergy discussed the book in general terms from the point of view of peace, unity and discipline. HOUSE OF LAITY DISCUSSION The House of Laity discussed the provisions in much greater detail. The opponents of the book concentrated their arguments upon the reservations 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 Inskip, moved the rejection of the book. Sir George Courthope, M.P., said he had never experienced such pressure from his constituents as he had dona over the recent book, prior to the debate in the House of Commons. Major J. D. Birchall, M.P., said there was no chance of its being passed while it contained provision for perpetual reservation, to which the majority of churchmen were certainly opposed. Mr. Herbert Upward, the editor of the “Church of England Newspaper,” said perpetual reservation was practised at present in hundreds of churches with the consent of the bishops. If reservation were to be rejected these people would be turned out of the Church. Mr. Athelstan Riley, a leading High Churchman, favoured the postponement of the book for three years. If the Assembly insisted upon proceeding with the present book it would entail the risk of disestablishment, disendowment, and disruption.