PRAYER BOOK

Hokitika Guardian, 17 December 1927, Page 3

PRAYER BOOK

FAILS TO PASS COMMONS. {Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.] LONDON, Dec. 15. Tli ore was an unusually la rye attendance in tin 1 Commons during the Piaver Book debate. The galleries were crowded, those present including many clergymen. The Archbishops of Cnnterlniry and York were in the Peers Gallery. Mr \Y. C. Bridgcman, submitting a similar motion to the Primate’s in the Ixirds, said as a man in the pew lie was in the first place opposed to revision, lint had been convinced, after careful study, that it was wise and necessary. Sir Jovnson Hicks, opposing the measure, said he never had had a greater sense of anxiety and responsibility. Me had boon concerned with the subject since he had given evidence before the Koval Commission in 1005. Mr C. 0. Ammon, as a Nonconformist, expressed the opinion that whatever the result of the vote, it would bring disestablishment immeasurably nearer. Air Roslyn Mitchell said the House was really asked to vote upon the doctrine of trnnsiibstnntiation, the main dividing principle between the Churches of England and Rome. Once tile dividing line was crossed, it became possible to reunite with Rome, but it was Impossible to unite with any Protestant Church. If the Church wanted that, let her take it. Tf not, tlio Commons must reject the measure. The House rejected the Prayer Book by 2-17 to 205. LONDON, Dec. 15. The voting s/iiit all parties. The ayes included Lord Hugh Cecil and George Lnnsbury, while the noes found associated Sir Douglas Hogg, Mr Phillip Sax-on, Admiral Hall, Lady Astor, Mrs Philipson, Mr Lloyd George (who said he changed his mind after hearing speeches as he at first intended to abstain from voting). Sir .folin Simon, Mr Charles Trevelyan, Mr ,T. H. Thomas, Air Saklatvaln, Mr Stephen AYalsli. Vi.s'connt Oureon, Mr Garro Jones anti Miss Lawrence.

“Does this mean disestablishment” was the question most frequently heard after the division. “It will mean chaos in tlie Church’’ said the Dean of "Westminster. The fact is, no one knows what it means except that there have been twenty years of waste effort. Everybody anticipated the Bill would pass especially after the Lords approval.

Tlie newspapers had prepared an article on how the New Prayer Book was to he used, and the Convocation of Canterbury and York next week would have decided the Sunday on which the Prayer Book would come into use. There is no precedent for guidance anywhere until tlie Ecclesiastical lawyers get to work to the present contingency, and to indicate the ]>ossibillies. Only one thing is certain, the aged Archbishop of Canterbury is heartbroken.

LONDON, Doe. 10. It is generally agreed that the case for the Prayer Book was ineffectively put. Mr Bridgenmn’s opening was did. He is described as having been like a sleepy country squire reading a speech prepared for Him by a curate, nor were the later advocates much hotter. It was the opponents, rather than the supporters, who were stirred to eloquence.

Brigadier-General Warner concluding the debate said : “Surely the House was entitled to accept the Bishop on the doctrine of the Church. If.the new Prayer Book was a compromise, so was the Prayer Book of 1062.’’ When the tellers appeared at the Clerk’s table and it was seen that the measure was rejected, there was a wild outburst of cheering from opponents of the Bill. Sonic Liberals stood up shouting and waving order papers, and a Labourite waved a handkerchief. I he din was so great that the figures could not he announced for some minutes, when it was found there was a majority of forty-two in favour of rejection. The House then adjourned.

Following on the rejection of tho measure, extraordinary scenes were witnessed in the lobbies and corridor*, memliers rolling excitedly hither and thither, congratulating or condoling one another.

The Arehhihop of Canterbury spent with‘the long period of watching, tho progress of the debates, extending ovoi eight hours, was seen in tears, going out on the arm of the Archbishop of York.