METHODIST IDEPEND= ENCE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 838, 9 June 1910, Page 2

METHODIST IDEPEND= ENCE.

THE GREAT DEBATE. IN GENERAL CONFERENCE. HOW SEPARATION. WAS CARRIED. The following roport of tho discussion in the General Conference on the motion to make New Zealand Methodism indopondent of the 'connexion in Australia is abridged from the Adelaide "Register's" report:— The Rev. S. Lawry (Christchurch) moved that the General Conference should agree to the New Zealand Conference's recommendation that the time had arrived when independent and self-govern-ing powers should be conferred upon the Methodist Church in New Zealand. Mr. Lawry traced the history of the movement and said that tho reasons advanced ill support of it were the distance of New Zealand from Australia, excessive time and money involved, the need for having a supreme court of Methodism in the Dominion, the general desire for an independent conference among their New Zealand people, and confidence that it would enable them to do better work for Christ in Now Zealand. This was no sudden desire, but had been fairly constant for 30 odd years, and from time" to time had been submitted to the Church courts. The large proportion in favour of the change was striking proof that there was no prospect of anything else satisfying the Church in New Zealand. (Hear, hear.) If the desire was not granted now it would be brought before tho General Conference again and again until it was granted. Not a Question of Pique, In asking for independence, they did not do so because of any quarrel. There was.no question of pique, and there was no feeling whatever in their request. They desired to go .out with-the blessing of the old home, and to continue to vigorously work for the furtherance of Methodism generally. Mr. Lawry outlined the scheme as drawn' up by the New Zealand annual conference which has been already published in Tnß Dominion. Reasons which Weighed. The necessity to attend a General Conference in Australia involved New Zealand in a heavy expenditure, _ lor which they had never been able to discover any adequate return. This General Conference was involving them, in an outlay of over JISOO. New Zealand had needs and aspirations of her own. Permissive legislation only served to emphasise their need. It was, too unsympathetic; ami they could not extend permissive legislation indefinitely without gravest 'danger to the Church. He had'noted with mixed feelings of pleasure and anxiety their expresident's statement of the closeness of the unity of tho v Australian ■■ Methodist Churches. The more closely they united in Australia the wider apart New Zealand drifted. ("No, no.") "But it is; and members cannot help it." Practically they wore widening the Tasman Sea. Only by granting their request could complete Methodist union be brought about in New Zealand. The Primitive Methodists would ' not throw in their lot with them until separate legislative powers were granted. Those in favour of the movement were equally distributed all over New Zealand. The minority opr posed to it had for the most part accepted the verdict ot the Church courts, and would be loyal to the movement now it was adopted. A gentleman who had been perhaps tho keenest of nil its opponents had stated to him, "Well, you have had a good vote, but independence is coming, and I have given my last vote against it." There were probably a few who still stood out, but if the question wore again submitted to the New Zealand Conference they could practically be counted on the lingers of one's/hands. The' time was ripe for granting the request. •Ho . asked' foi' the putting aside of all prejudice and sentiment,, and that the matter should be treated On its merits with a view'to the future of New Zealand, as' well as of Australia. (Applause.)'. Mr. J. A.-Flc'sher (Christchurch), in seconding tho motion, isaid- that Methodists were the only Church, apart from tho' Salvation Army, that was not outside Australian control. The geographical position of New Zealand, mado its people''distinct to-day, and would niako them more distinct in future.

Dr, Fitchett's Amendment. Dr. Fitchott tho speakers intimated that they had been asking for in- • dependence i'ot 40 years. What a bad caso they must have had. He moved as 1111 amendment:— "1. That in view of tho community of history, of faith, or ecclesiastical system, and of .Methodist Church government, and work which links Methodism in Australia and New Zealand into unity; and, further, in view of the responsibilities for great missionary enterprise, in the South Seas and India, which they have accepted in common, and for which they are equally responsible, this conference declines its .assent to tho separation of NewZealand, believing that this would destroy tho unity of Australasian Methodism, and gravely affect its own power to enrry on the work of God in those mission fields which aro by Providence assigned to it. ! "2. If the New-Zealand Conference, of : — by resolution desires the question to bo raised and considered afresh, this conference directs (a)' that a statement of the whole position from the view of the interests and duties which the Stato Conferences have in common,, be distributed by a committee to lie named, by tho president of the General Conference; (b) that the legal position df the question of separation be considered by a committee of legal experts, to lie.named in like mauucK "3. That the reports of both committees be printed, and be circulated by means of the presidents of tho State Conferences through all the, quarterly meetings, and synods in. such conferences, and a vote be taken on the question-of .separation,'tho results of suph voting, with tho recommendation of the State Conferences, to be laid before the General Conference of ." Plodged in Advance. 11l the course of criticism of the procedure adopted by the New Zealand delegates' in bringing the matters 'of secession or independence before the General Conference,. Dr. Fitchett said those gentlemen had to speak and vote under orders from the Dominion As.sonibly. Tho stand they had taken was a, sin against the dignity of conference. It was tho Labour party's policy over again—domination by caucus. New Zealand churches had como to a decision. They were in a - minority. Like tho Labour party; they camo to Parliament —to conference—pledged in advance. .There were representatives from NewZealand in that room at that moment who did not believe in the thing, but they were going to vote for. it. (A voice: "No") But there is one at least. Let him quote his opinion in a letter to the Dominion press in November last-. It was the best utterance on the whole situation, and gave a true sense of the relative sizes of 'things. Dr. Fitchett quoted the letter in question, 'and said: Yet tho writer of that letter camo to the conference, an'd was under orders to voto for separation! ' An -Australian Question.

A New Zcalander: We plead for a cause. •

Dr. Fitchett: And we stand for a cause. Wo plead also for a cause. (Hear, hear.) Some of their Dominion friends did not ser-m to see or think that it was a matter for Australia as well as New Zealand. But New Zealand was not built on to Australia by a paper document. (A voice: "Yes it was.") No, it was not. It was n matter of history. From tho very first Great Britain' had governed both Australia and New Zealand. If it were a. paper bond they would tear it up and let New Zealand go. Even if tho New Zcalauders had advanced any good reason for separating ho would have been inclined to voto for lliem. But all they said was that conference cost them .£l7O a year. Just think of it—that from a people who had 118,000 members. If. they set up a supernumerary office of their own it would

cost theni more than that. He maintained conference was worth something to New Zealand. As a mere business concern it was worth something. Ho rejoiced that they (the Methodist churches) represented tho highest development of ecclesiastical organisation. There was no other Church like them in Australia. It was ill their discussion—in their honour —that they were big. These surprising gentlemen said they gained nothing. Partnership in a big enterprise was nothing! It was playing it very lowdown. A man would be a fool who foregathered with them and then said he had gained nothing. No, not a fool, but belong to the Bourbons—they had forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Ho reminded them that it took a man longer to go from Western Australia to Melbourne than from Auckland to Melbourne. They would bo prepared to go to Now Zealand as well as for New Zcalanders to come to Australia.

A New Zealnndor: Yes; once to our four times in Australia.

"Well,' they must remember 100 men went to New Zealand from Australia to 22 who came from New Zealand to the. Commonwealth. If New Zealand was not independent, neither was Victoria, South Australia, nor any of the other States. 11l matters of administration they were as free as Australians. In the whole working of the system New Zealand was as free as themselves. All boasted equal rights and equal freedom. They had 'not been told what would be accomplished if they got separation. (A voice: "Methodist union.") ''They had not even heard that they would secure Methodist union. They had been told that if they got separation the Primitive Methodists would be prepared to negotiate for union—on terms. (Hearhear.) 'If .they wanted union with tho Primitive Methodists they would have to become Primitive Methodists. All ho could see counted that way. Altogether ho would regard separation as a disaster and a loss of spiritual aim to their cause and the cause of their mis- I sions. There had not been any sustained demand for separation. There had been years of peace when it was rejected again and again by New Zealand Synods and conferences, and when it came to tho vote the numbers in favour were less than in ISSS. The question arose that the- conference had ' not power • ,to grant, separation without an Act of Parliament. Australian Methodists must have an Act as well as New Zealand. 4 vote should be taken of the quarterly meetings and Synods in Australia. Every argument used for New Zealand separa-. tion could be turned against Australian Methodism. They were asked, in a sense, to commit suicide, and to endorse arguments which, if applied to all the States, would break up the General Conference. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. H. England, B.A. (N.S.W.), seconded tlie amendment. Ruled by Outsiders. The Rev. P. W. Fairclough (Dunedin), m supporting the motion, hoped the representatives wuiild riot be led away by the.persuasive manner, of Dr. Fitchctt. The motion expressed the intense earnestness of the New Zealand Conference on the question. Those living in the Dominion constantly felt the arguments for it in their work, and the public opinion that surrounded them in and out of church. It whs a commonplace saying thai;-it was better for a country to bo worse' governed by themselves than somewhat better by outsiders. (A voice: "Are we outsiders?") He thought they were a very long way outsiders. The Rev. E. H. Stigden, M.A., B.Sc., (Victoria and Tasmania), said the discussion, was interesting'and irrelevant—very much irrelevant. Ho would like to know exactly what New Zealand had to gain by separation.

The Rev. J. J. Lewis (Nelson) said the question: "What was New Zealand to gain?" was answered in the one word-self-government. He had listened attentively to Dr. I'itchett, and had concludedthat ear pads would have been advantageous at times in his discourse.

The.Rev. Vv\ Baumber (Timaru) spoke against tho ' proposal. oh behalf of tho minority of 30 per cent, in the Dominion who did not desire to separate.from, the Australasian Conference.

Mr. J. C. Stephens (Dunedin) spoke in support of separation, and on the second day that the matter was discussed the Rev. C. H. Laws, president of the New Zealand Conference, made a powerful and impressive appeal in support of the proposal. ' ■

The Rev. Dr. Morley, who supported the proposal when he was in New Zealand, and opposes it now that lie is in Australia, said that the Dominion was Hearer to Australia to-day than it ever was before, because of tlie facilities of steam accommodation. Difficulties that would result in regard to the supernumary fund could be surmounted.

The Rev. W. J. Williams (Oamaru) supported the motion. Aftor further discussion, Dr. Fitchett's amendment was put to the meeting, and lost. Tho president then put the motion affirming the general principle of separation; This was carried by 106 votes to 13.