METHODISM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9788, 3 March 1910, Page 1

METHODISM.

INDEPENDENT CONFERENCE FOR NEW ZEALAND. PROPOSAL CARRIED BY THE DUNEDIN CONFERENCE. AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. [Per Press Association.] DUNEDIN, March 2. The Methodist Conference this afternoon was occupied with the subject of an independent conference for New Zealand. The working scheme, as suggested by the Conference Committee, was approved after lengthy consideration, on the the Rev S. La wry. . The debate was opened by the Rev S. Lawry, who moved "That the proposal for an independent conference for New Zealand having been approved by 73 per cent 'of those who recorded their votes in the quarterly meetings to which the question was submitted and by 156 out of a total of 228 who voted on it in the district synods, this Conference declares its conviction that the time has arrived when independent and selfgoverning powers should be conferred on the New Zealand Annual Conference and the General Conference is recommended to accept the accompanying ' Working Scheme' and to pass the legislation necessary to give effect to the same." In the course of an able address Mr Lawry gave the following reasons: —(1) It was increasingly evident that Australia and New Zealand could not be treated as a single entity. (2) Ecclesiastical independence was a natural and necessary evolution. (3) An independent conference was needed to place the Methodist Church on an equality with other selx-governing Churches in New Zealand. (4) It was needed in order to secure the legislation which had ijeen desired for the last thirty-five years. (5) The General Conference was not an ideal legislative council. (6) The connection with the General Conference prevented the freedom of action which ought to be inherent in the Church. (7) There had been no adequate return for the time and money spent on General Conference. (8) No effective representation in the chief legislative court. (9) Independence was essential to completion of Methodist union in New Zealand. (10) An independent conference was ultimately inevitable.

Mr J. C. Stephens seconded the motion. For the last twelve years, he said, he had supported this action. He had been converted to separation by the General Conference itself. Ho at- ; tended the Conference for inspiration, but failed to receive any. He saw that Australia was invariably opposed to reform suggested by New Zealand. The General Conference was essentially conservative In itself. • By its union New Zealand had lost both men and money. H© deprecated the thought that this was a covert attempt to carry legislation. He was persuaded that this movement was for the good of the Church. The Rev W. Baumber said he felt that this action in seeking separation from the General Conference was a mistake in the interests of the Church. He felt that this was no burning question with the people generally. The growth in favour, he felt, was a forced and not a natural one. He did not doubt the ability of New Zealand to manage its own affairs, but it would weaken rather than strengthen them in their work to separate. He did not support the motion on the ground of economy. The increased cost in working a New Zealand Conference would be greater than the present one. Neither did he support it on the ground of efficiency, ilo also felt the loss to be sustained by separation from the gi'eat historic Church. Mr J. A. Fleslier said he felt that the quarterly meeting was the true voice of the Church. He did not think the cost would be worth' consideration, it would be so small. He was sure the New Zealand Conference would have a greater influence upon the Church in Australia if separated than now, just as the dominion had in practical politics. It would complete Methodist union in New Zealand. The Rev C. H. Garland opposed the motion. He deprecated the thought that he was conservative. His motto was liberty and reform. He contended that a wide legislative area, with a narrowed administration, was the most efficient one. He felt that they ought to do the greatest good they could in the widest area they could command. He held the Conference had been helpful to the Churches of Australia by its connection with the General Conference. With regard to the supernumerary fund, two offices could not be managed as economically as one. Mr J. C. Prudhoe argued on the supposition that the supernumerary fund could be administereo. on a sound and economical basis. He quoted several authorities in support of this. He felt there was a weakness in a large fund. The smaller one under separation would be safer and sounder. There would be a transfer of about £70,000, which could be easily invested in Mew Zealand. The interest in Australia was 4 per cent. He was sure it could be more profitably invested in the dominion. The work could be done by the connexional secretary, with an advisory board. . The Rev T. N. Griffin pointed ou£ that a first proposal, if separation were carried, was to borrow £2OOO for connexional offices, that the work ot the supernumerary office might be facilitated. This was not a more economical arrangement than at present. He had not experienced any disability in carrying on his work, nor had he heard in his circuit any mumunng notes owing to the union with Australia. He believed in the larger area for seivice inspiration, and hoped separation would not be consummated. The Rev J. J- Lewis supported separation because of the vote of the quarterly meetings. He took the voice of the people as the voice of God. He felt that if their Presbyterian friends were able to manage their own affairs they could also do so. They might be prompted by sentiment, but sentiment ruled the woi'ld. Mr Ambury, Auckland, said that through conviction he was going to BU !KvT. Fee said that he failed to see any disability under union, still he felt that as the people had expressed themselves so emphatically he was no longer going to oppose the moveRev W. Ready said he rejoiced in the conversion of the Revs J. J. Lewis and T. Fee, and trusted the vote would be unanimous. He was converted to separation by his visit to the Brisbane Conference. It was chaos and disorder. The legislation done was panic legislation. The Australian Church seemed to him to forget New Zealand. . The Rev S. Lawry, in his reply, said he felt his task was easy. He was sure of the interest of the people. Church could best serve Australia by giving an object lesson. He earnestly appealed for the withdrawal of all opposition, that further agitation might be unnecessary. The voting resulted as follows: —For the motion 99, against 31. The following motions were carried on the voices:—"Thai. ±\a General

Conference be requested to appoint a select committee at an early session to consider the proposed ' working scheme' and to report thereon when the question is brought up for discussion. That our representatives be instructed to support the foregoing recommendations, and to vote for them in the General Conference." The debate was marked by much ability and the utmost friendliness, and was listened to with great interest by the Conference and the visitors present.