WESLEYAN CONFERENCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 14003, 11 September 1909, Page 3

WESLEYAN CONFERENCE.

WOMEX'S.TRHrMI'J r. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . r . ' 'J he... Wesley an Conference in its representatjru . session-• at- Lincoln; •JCiiiriand, oil July 2Ulh, voted by a large majority in .favour* of the ; admission ot women to >,the conference; The iiev. S. ,li. Iveeble* moved that the time Jiad come when duly qualified find elected women should he welcomed as lay representatives to the conference, and asking the - conference to remove the veto upon such elections by the district synods. Three synods —llie, Liverpool,' Birmingham-' and Halifax and Bradford—had asked for . the removal of the veto, and seventeen ' representative circuits had similarly petitionee!, while 1102 persons had signed a memorial 'on'tlio saiiie behalf. Some til teen years ago a conference committee reported in favour of the change; but in the open conference it was defeated by 18 votes. Since then a great change had come about, and womei\. were more largely taking their part in Church work. As a Church, he said, they, were illogical. Women were admitted-into the local courts-l-and the synods—why stop at' the conference? In their schools and other departments they had great numbers of girls and women, and yet they bad no voice in the management. The: Rev. E. J. Brailsl'ord seconded the proposal. He believed the veto to be injurious. ' \ '■ The Rev. H. J., Chapman.' moved tlie previous question. If they passed the resolution it. would doubtless be associated with the '"pestilential propaganda" certain women were carrying on outside, who had forsaken reason for violence. Air Keeble protested that there was no connection between the two. ■ Mr Chapman was in favour of tlie admission, ofi women, but to. admit them now would be disastrous to tlie morals of the Church. , Mr Thomas Pratt (Bradford) objected to the presence of women in a legislative tassembly, (although they had their fitting place in courts of administration. The previous question waa lost, 'whereupon the Rev. Owen Watkins moved that, tho whole question be referred to a special committee to report at tlie next conference. The Rev. J. Scott-Lidgett (ex-presi-dent) urg<>-d the conference not to follow the course advocated by Mr Watkins. It only led to confusion to send to a committee matters on which the

conference had not expressed its geno- | ral view. . ] To associate this appeal with certain | 'movements outside was, lio said, to | cast'a-stigma upon their women ,which, I ■ cast a stigma upon their women, which | was utterly undeserved; It was not- a question l of- counting; tho . heads of | women and enquiring whether so many i did or did not ask for admission to the i conference. It was . a question of thej good of the Church, and whether the ability of the women could help in the work of tho Church. . . , I The amendment was lost by a large.; majority, and tho proposal was carried, 224 voting for and 136 against. Tho question will now -go \ down to.ihe synods. . v ■ . . \i * ! The conference offered a protest against " the rrtpid.lv. increasing: spread of dioramie;; cinematograph,. an<jl similar forms of • Sunday entertainment-,of a low order, which w ere .attended with disastrous moral consequences to many young people." The conference also passed a resolution hoping, that the Government would grant facilities .for the passing of . the Bill foT tho Sunday closing of publichouses A 'protest was also jnade, against the growing tendency to. Sunday golf. s 1