THE PRAYER BOOK

Hokitika Guardian, 9 February 1928, Page 2

THE PRAYER BOOK

OPPONENTS PREDICT REVERSI IN COMMONS.

(Australian A N.Z. Cable Association.)

LON’DON, Feh. 7

AYhat may be called a second reading stage of the new Prayer Book resulted in an overwhelming affirmative ol votes in the House of Bishops and Clergy, but the debate in the House ol Laity was not concluded. It will be resumed to-morrow. Each House sat separately. The bishops voted general approval bv thirtv-five to five, the minority consisting of Bishops Norwich, A\oroestoi. Birmingham. Exeter, and St. Edmondbury. The House of Clergy carried approval by 217 to lib. There was.a genera! 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 clmos and bring disaster upon the chilli h. Though a new amendment arising out of tlm House of Commons rejection of the last book, is not yet considered in detail, the movers of the pro-book resolutions are all raiclul to point out that there is no resentment owing to the Commons’ rejection, and it was conceded that the Commons acted entirely within tlmir powets. The Bishop of Chelmsford, in moving approval by the IloUso ol Bishops, deprecated the tendency shown m some quarters to find fault with the Commons, wlm represented Hie nation, so long as Hie church remained a nal ionn 1 - I’ureb. The Bishop of Norwich washed his hands of the book, lie said la- tefus-. cil responsibility for it because it did untiling to restore discipline. Bislmp Barnes declared Hint Hie Prayer Bonk would noi produce peace and unity, lie also predicted that the 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. X. ’lhickucss. of St. Paul’s, in moving an amendment- for postponement, which was ddeated, urged that there was no chance of the Commons passing the Book, and the results in tliai case would be incalculable. H would at least- produce a serious situation as between the Church and the State. Several speakers in the House of Laity advocated a round table conference'in the hope of producing an agreement upon the Prayer Bool; before risking an adverse vote in the <■ om-

mmis. Doctor Stone moved a futile amendment in the House of Clergy for rejection of the Book because it did not represent a general agreement among Church people. While the houses of Bishops and Clergy discussed the Book in genera! terms, from the viewpoint of pear", unity and discipline, the House "I Laitv discussed its provisions in much greater details. Opponents of the Book concentrated their arguments upon the reservation of the Sacrament. most of them asserting that while reservation remained, there was no chance oT the Commons passing the Book.

The Solicitor-General. Sir Thomas 1 lisle ip. 'moved the rejection of the Book, because it provided lor perpetual reservation. Sir Thomas lnskip added that while reservation remained. general approval was impossible. sir George ConiThope, a member of Iho Commons for live division of Sussex. said he had never experienced such pressure from his constituents as had been made over the recent Prayer Book prior to the debate in the (om-

Major Bin-hall. Labour Commoner for Northeast Leeds, said In* had voted for the book lasi session, bill there was no chame ot ii being passed while it. contained provision lor the perpeiI resoi'vnlion in which the majority of chnrcinnen were certainly opposed. Rev. Herbert Upward, Editor of the Church of England newspaper, said that j 1 ii* perpetual reservation was practised a I present in hundreds of churches, with the consent of the bishops. If tlu* reservation was rejected, these people would be turned out of the church. Tlu* Rev. Athelstan Riley, a leading high churchman, favoured the postIHiiieuient. of the Book for three years, because he was extremely doubtful if it would pass tho present House ol Commons. If the Assembly insisted upon proceeding with the present Prayer Book, it would risk disestablishment, diseiidowmeiit and disruption. He added that tlu* whole of the High Church party would revolt against tlu* Bonk. Dame Briilgeman predicted that it the measure was postponed, a cry ol •■No Ropery” would he raised at tlie general election, which would bring about an unparalleled national disaster.