AMENDED PRAYER BOOK

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 112, 9 February 1928, Page 11

AMENDED PRAYER BOOK

APPROVED BY HOUSES OF BISHOPS AND CLERGY DEBATE BY THE LAITY NOT CONCLUDED ARGUMENTS UPON RESERVATION OF THE SACRAMENT The House of Bishops gave a general approval to the newly-amended Prayer Book by 35 votes to 5, and the House of Clergy carried approval by 247 votes to 35. The debate in the House of Laity has not concluded. The opponents of the book concentrate their arguments upon the reservation of the Sacrament.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.—Copyright.

(Rec. February 8, 8.10 p.m.)

London, February 7.

What may be called the second reading stage of the new Prayer Book resulted in overwhelming affirmative votes in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy, but the debate in the House of Laity has not concluded. It will be resumed to-morrow. Each House sat separately. The Bishops voted a general approval by 35 votes to 5, the minority consisting of the Bishops of Norwich, Worcester, Birmingham, Exeter, and St. Edmoudsbury. The House of Clergy carried approval by 247 votes to 35.

There was a general resemblance in the speeches for the Prayer Book, the speakers in every House contending that the book represented the best means of securing peace and unity, and that rejection would produce chaos and bring disaster upon the Church. Though the new amendments arising out of the House of Commons’ rejee fion of the last bock have not been (onsidered yet in detail, the movers of the pro-book resolutions were all careful to point out that there was no resentment owing to the Commons’ rejection. It was conceded that the Commons acted entirely within their powers. The Bishop of Chelmsford, in moving the approval of the House of Bishops, deprecated the tendency shown in some quarters to find fault with the House of Commons, who represented the nation so long as the Church remained a national Church.

The Bishop of Norwich washed his hands of the book. He said he refused responsibility for it, because it did nothing to restore discipline. Bishop Barnes declared that the book would not produce peace and unity. He also predicted that the House of Commons would again reject the book, adding that the previous rejection was the most popular thing the Commons had done for many years.

Similarly, Prebendary F. N. Thicknesse, of St. Paul’s, in moving an amendment for postponement, which was defeated, urged that there was no chance of the House of Commons passing the book, and the results in that case would be incalculable. It would at least produce a serious situation as between the Church and the State. ROUND-TABLE CONFERENCE ADVOCATED. Several speakers in the House of Laity advocated a round-table confer-

ence, in the hope of producing an agreed-upon book before risking an adverse vote in the House of Commons.

Dr. Stone moved a futile amendment in the House of Ciergy for rejection of the book, because -it did not represent a general agreement among the Church people. While the Houses of Bishops and Clergy discussed the book in general terms from the viewpoint of peace, unity, and discipline, the House of Laity discussed the provisions in much greater detail. The opponents of the book concentrated their arguments upon the reservation of the Sacrament, most of them asserting that while the reservation remained there was no chance of the Commons passing the book. The Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Inskip, moved the rejection of the book, because it provided for perpetual reservation. Sir Thomas Inskip added that while the reservation remained general approval was - impossible. Sir George Courthorpc, the member of the House of Commons for the Rye Division of Sussex, said he had never experienced such pressure from his constituents as he had done over the recent book prior to the debate in the Commons.

Major Birchall, Labour member of the House of Commons for North-east Leeds, said he voted for the book last session, but there was no chance of its being passed while it contained a provision for perpetual reservation, to which a majority of Churchmen were certainly opposed. Mr. Herbert Upward, 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 rejected, these people would be turned out of the Church.

Mr. Athelstan Riley, a leading High Churchman, favoured postponement of the book for three years, because he was extremely doubtful if it would pass the present House of Commons. If the Assembly insisted upon proceeding with the present book it would risk disestablishment, disendowment, and disruption. He added that the whole of the High Church Party would revolt against the book.

Dame Bridgeman predicted that if the measure were postponed the cry of “No Popery” would be raised at the general election, which would bring an unparalleled national disaster.—A.P.A. and “Sun.”