INDEPENDENCE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 831, 1 June 1910, Page 5

INDEPENDENCE.

THE METHODIST CONFERENCENEW ZEALAND ASKS FOR SELFGOVERNMENT. CAUSTIC CRITICISM. MOTION FOR SEPARATION CARRIED «y TeletruDli-Press ABSociation-Copyrlgm. Adelaido, May 31. At tilt Methodist ConW-ence the Bev. J. Liiwry moved a motion to confer independent ami self-governing powers oil the New. Zealand Church. He said; "The movement is not a new one; it has been discussed for at least forty years." The icasous advanced for it were the distance of New Zealand from Australia, the excessive time and money involved, and the need for having a supreme court of Methodism in the Dominion. If the desire was not granted now, it would be brought forward again and again until it was granted. In asking for independence Xew Zealand did not do so because of any quarrel. There was no question of pique. The necessity for attending tho conference in Australia involved them in heavy expenditure, for which they had never been able to discover auy adequate return. Mr. Flesher (New Zealand) seconded the motion. "Domination by Caucus." The Kev. Dr. Fitchett moved as an amendment:— "That in view of community of interests, and in view of the "responsibilities of the great missionary enterprise in .the South Seas and India, which New Zealand and Australia accepted in common, this conference declines the request, believing that separation would destroy the unity of Australasian Methodism and gravely affect its power to carry out missionary work."

Br. Fitchett made a caustic criticism of the procedure adopted by the New Zealand delegates. He said they had to speak and vote under orders from the Dominion Conference. That was the Labour party's policy over again—domination by caucus. There were representatives of New Zealand there who did not believe in the thing, but they wero going to vote for it. (A voice: "No.") If New Zealanders had advanced any good reason" for separation he would have been inclined to vole for them, but all they bad said was that the conference cost them £110 per year. If they set up a supernumerary office of their own it would cost them more than that. These surprising gentlemen said that partnership in a big enterprise was nothing; the conference had not been told what would be accomplished if they got separation. (A voice: "Methodist union.") They, had nqt even heard they would secure Methodist union. He would regard separation as a disaster. The vote .for separation last year was greatly less than in ISB7. His own impression was that a little fictitious agitation had been got up. (Kec. May 31, 6 p.m.) National Spirit. The Rev. Mr. Rowe (Queensland) said the question of separation was a national rather than an ecclesiastical question. He supported the motion because he believed it was va'in to go against too national spirit of any, country. The Eev. Mr. Lewis (New Zealand) strongly advocated the separation movement. It was, he said, a democratic one. Hβ did not say that the voice of the democracy was always right, but he believed in this instance the popular vcice was the voice of God because it would make for the advancement of His Kingdom. . ■ i The Eev. W. Baumber (New Zealand) said he was sorry to vote against his colleagues, but there was a minority of thirty per cent, in the Dominion against separation. The first objection of the minority was that they did not wish to break off the historic connection. Mr. Stephens (New Zealand) said there were growing up in Australia and New Zealand two different national sentiments, and without decrying the Australian sentiment, it was indifferent to New Zealand interests. The Dominion, therefore, desired national independence. There might be fear 6 that with independence New Zealand might introduce radical changes of policy, but such fears werfc groundless. THE VOTING. MOTION CABBIES BY 'A MAJORITY OF 93. (Eec Juno 1, 0.40 a.m.) Adelaide, May 31. The Methodist Conference carried tho motion in favour of New Zealand's separation from Australia, the voting being as follows:— For the motion 106 Against 13 Majority 93 HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT. EFFORTS TO SECURE CONSTITUTIONAL EEFORMS. . . In an article in tho "Methodist Outlook" last year, the liev. S. Lawry writes on the history of the independence movement. The proposal appears to have been first brought forward in 1881 in the General Conlerence, and was then declared to bo premature. Mr. Lawry writes:— The New Zealand Conference- of 1883 appointed a committee to prepare "a plan or constitution," the same to be submitted to the next district meetings and conlerence. The same conference also expressed itself in favour of Methodist union, and appointed a committee to confer with committees of the other Methodist Churches, to consider a basis of union, and to report to the next district meetings and following conference. The plan for an independent conferenceand for Methodist union were the same. On this basis all the Methodist Churches of New Zealand, including the Primitive Methodists, wero ready to unite. The proposals included separation from Australia. These were recommended by our conference of 1884. The General Conferenco of that year met in Christehurch, and declined our request for separation for various reasons, but "especially on the plan proposed." This blocked Methodist Union, and delays it in Now Zealand to this day; it thwarted the hopes of the majority of New Zealand Methodists, and still leaves us with most of tho reforms then asked for unrealised. The New Zealand Conference- of 1885 passed a resolution in which it expressed its judgment that the recommendations rejected wero "matters of great importance and vitally affecting the efficient prosecution of the work of God, and very deeply regrets that the decision was adverse to the matured judgment and strongly expressed wish of tho Church in this colony." In 18SG the conference recorded "its unaltered conviction of the importance of Now Zealand being constituted a separate and independent conference." And in 1887 tho conference remitted the question to the quarterly meetings and district meetings for consideration and ! report. The quarterly meetings considered the question of independence, and 60 did the district meetings.' The result was that tho conference ot ISSB resolved:

"That in view of the resolution adopted by the conference in ISBC, a resolution which was endorsed by so large a majority of Hie members of the- quarterly meetings in September Inst, Hie riToinuirmlntion made in ISSI and ISSI that Xα , " ''.calaud bu constituted u separate

and independent conference be repeated, and that the General Conference be ' urged to giyo effect to this recommendation." Again the General Conference declined oar request; and instead of giving us independence, adopted the plan of "permissive legislation" by annual conferences. That this was not considered, satisfactory by tho New Zealand Conference is evident from the fact that in 1890 recommendations were made- which, if adopted would have given the annual conferences oven greater legislative powers than the General Conterence, with the right of vetoing any General Conference legislation for (Shree years. Of course this proposal was rejected. In 1891, and right down to 1904, we have asked that lay representatives have equal \ rights in conference with ministers, except in dealing with ministerial character. In the General Conference of 1301 our request was refused discussion on tho ground that it was unconstitutional. True, we have gained something by our importunity. The itinerant time limit has been extended by two years, basis of membership has been broadened, laymen are on the Stationing .Committee, and a few other things of minor iniportance have been conceded. But it has taken us .35 years to get these reforms. If we arc to improve on this snail's pace, we must have tho power in our own hands. The powers of lay representatives in conference are still unreasonably restricted; the constitution of the district synods is almost ludicrously exclusive and antiquated, and their powers unnecessarily limited; the Church members are still without the power to elect' the ■local church officers; and our Sunday school rules are such that we never try ' to work them. The history of our efforts to secure constitutional reforms shows that at least we have the gift of pertinacity, and some measure of tho grace of patience. Apparently our Australian brethren do not desire .these reforms, and so we have had to go without them. Apart altogether from the other reasons which have been urged, this should appeal to all who look for progress in thi3 direction. These reforms are not desired merely by a few, but have been recommended by our Church courts again and again. It is now a question of what is the best way to get them.