BY NARROW MARGIN

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 381, 15 June 1928, Page 1

BY NARROW MARGIN

Debate in the Commons

A MOMENTOUS DECISION

Opponents Win By Six Votes

rs House of Commons, by 226 votes to 220, again threw out the revised Prayer Book. The decision is one of grave importance. It may mean the disestablishment of the Church.

British Official Wireless

Read. 10.50 a.m. RUGBY, Thursday. When the House of Commons resumed the debate on the revised prayer Book measure, the Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, opposing the measure, said he did not do so lightly. The galleries of the House were agait packed. Almost every fourth persons in the galleries was a cleric, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, bishops, and peers. He was convinced that the question at issue was not one of a few ceremonies or vestments or ornaments, but that a definite change of doctrine was embodied in this Book. Nor was this merely a domestic matter of the Church of England. Sir William reviewed the history of the Prayer Book, which, he pointed out, was originally set up and established by Parliament. It was Parliament that abolished the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome in these islands. The first and second Prayer Books of King Edward the Sixth were established by Parliament in the years 1549 and 1552. The forms of worship, the doctrines ind the discipline of the Church had all been settled by Parliament. They could not be altered without an Act of Parliament. He and his supporters asked Parliament to reject the Prayer Book, because they believed it made it es.sier rather than more difficult to swing back to pre-Reformation ideas. There was in the hearts and mind* of men, a feeling that the alterations in the Prayer Book had been made in response to the demands of the Anglo-Catholics. The reservation of the Sacrament was still the root of the whole matter, as it was when the new Prayer Book was rejected by the House last December. If they had reservation, they could not prevent adoration. During the last 25 years the number of churches In which reservation and adoration were practised had grown from 30 to nearly 700. The number would undoubtedly increase when reservation was authorised. The revised Prayer Book would not bring peace In the land. The life of the Church and the life of the nation were at stake. Mr. Cyril Atkinson (Conservative) immediately threw the House into an uoroar by stating that the campaign aitaiust the Prayer Book would go drwu in history as a classical example o! that advocacy which consisted in abuse of ore’s opponent, and misrepresentation. Here there were loud cries of “Withdraw!” Mr. Atkinson was not permitted to Pioceed owing to the rising disorder. Silence was only obtained when the B|«aker, the Rt. Hon. J. H. Whitter, »:se and appealed to the House to give t:e member an opportunity of explaining. Mr. Atkinson: I was speaking of the campaign against the Book. I do bit know u> what extent the Home secretary is responsible. I make no inarge of any want of good faith, but the campaign is based on misrepresentation.

There were cries of “No!” Thin campaign, went on the speaker, *Ae responsible for the baseless fears °i many people. Twenty-two years a BO a Royal Commission said the law 01 Public worship was too narrow, and needlessly condemned much in which thurchpeoj le believed. The Genesis 1 the new Prayer Book was this '**>"- The Book was the answer bich the Church presented to the emand of the Ro\ ul Commission, here was absolutely no doctrinal ange. The demand for reservation |ame not from the Anglo-Catholics, ut from those who wanted it for the s "* and dying. lord hugh Cecil’s views Hugh Cecil, Conservative, dethrl tha 4t was P erfectl >' clear that „ f e Waa no transubstantiation in the emh aP olc ' denied that the Book oedied new doctrines. Reservation for Sacrament had been practised lav Years, and it was untrue to iollrtj reserv ation had always been ,1, w ®d bY adoration. He denied that and * been a gain in priestcraft, laitv 8 - P r °gress made by the not i n tte Church of England could of p >ave taltt!n place in the Church Rome to-day. c»r h 8 difference between the rch of Rome and the Church' ck, n ® ,and was that one was a of authority, or, we might 1> of despotism, and the other ** a church of liberty.

“'ininT* 1 ?* 6 * >oc *Y °f the clergy of this Cathr n ’ , rom the extreme Auglohded i° 0 t * le evangelistical. were didais tu non ' es sentials, but in essenUrd were reall >’ one- [, r u Hugh said very little in Sir Wit farin' 05,1S ° n^ -Hicks’s speech had any Wer« ]n°i l measure, if the speech to drivt Pursued, it would lead Part* out the whole High Church » tra , rotn the Church. If anybody Secret- leave . would it be the Home *h 0 di f 5 ’ because he was a person Lord u a °t agree with the Church? totktion" « ec H emphasised the al--08 of the measure to meet the

criticism made in December. Thus, the inclusion of a black rubric averted the danger from those who had fears regarding transubstantiation. The speaker emphasised that the policy of the bishops was the only possible one, and the provision of appeal by the laity to the bishops was a valuable safeguard. Major J. D. Birchall, Conservative member for North East Leeds, claimed that the measure was supported by a

majority of the laymen of the Church of England. (Cries of “No!”) They believed that unless changes were made they would not have peace and happiness. If only the Anglo-Catho-lics would drop the use of the word "mas 3” it would be a gesture that would go a long way toward preventing misunderstanding. Many people were opposing the measure through groundless fears. BACK TO REALITIES Lady Iveagh, Conservative member for Southend, asked members to get back to realities. The young people of the country were looking to religion for guidance. As a result of A NARROWER MARGIN

Wednesday, December 17„ 1927, the House of Lords assented by 242 votes to 88 to the revised Prayer Book. A few days later, the House of Commons rejected the original revision by 247 votes to 205. Now the Commoners have thrown out the further revision by 226 votes to 220. this controversy the young would turn away disappointed, and say religion was only a wrangle over formalities. What matters, she said, was to spread the Kingdom of God upon earth. Sir Archibald Boyd-Carpenter, Conservative member for Coventry, said that if the measure were passed it would cut off from the Church many earnest men, and there would be a far greater demand for disestablishment. He asked if the promoters of the new book could not withdraw from the position they had taken up over the Sacrament, in attempting to define the indefinable. Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Conserva-

live member for Lambeth, said he belonged to neither of the extreme schools of the Church of England. The Prayer Book had served the purposes of centuries so completely that anyone who laid hands on that book was undertaking a task fraught with the greatest danger. It was clear that the revision had done nothing to meet the objections voiced in December. NO BACKWARD STEP The Duchess of Atholl, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, said she wished to approach the

question from a different angle. Believing that Scotland could give definite guidance in the matter, she asked the Scottish members to recall their own National Church and her great freedom, and to think twice before they made it impossible for the National Church of England to obtain the liberty that the Church of Scotland enjoyed. There was no attempt to go back upon the priceless gains of the Reformation, which were the open Bible, the English Prayer Book and an audible service. Moreover, doctrine was safeguarded by the prayer after the administration of the elements. A dispassionate examination showed that the Church did not accept the doctrine of the carnal presence. With these safeguards, what did vestments matter, or whether the elements were reserved in the form of simple bread and water? Mr. George R. Thorne (Liberal) said the Nonconformists paid a price for their nonconformity. Let those contrary to the feelings of the Church pay the same price, (Applause.) Those who could not obey the Church should have a church of their own. Mr. Arthur Ponsonby (Labour) urged that as the Church Assembly had passed the Book by a considerable majority, the House was wrongly discharging its duties by entering into discussion upon most sacred mysteries. BISHOPS TO BLAME Sir Robert Horne said that as a member of the Church of Scotland he was unprejudiced. To some extent, the bishops had brought the trouble ou their own heads, because they had not taken action upon the very definite offences which the Royal Commission had pointed out. But It was no longer possible to base prosecution upon the old Prayer Book. If the new Book: were rejected, there would be no authority on which the bishops could proceed. Two thousand AngloCatholics would be left absolute freedom to do what they wished. Sir Robert, for his part, declined to say what form of worship the members of the Church of England must use when they went on their knees before their Maker. MR. CHURCHILL FOR BOOK

Mr. Winston Churchill, Chancellor of the Exchequer, wished to examine the question from a definitely more secure angle. Personally, he did not like the new Prayer Book, and would feel bound to vote against it if it were presented separately, and he could dc so without injury to the Church. Moreover, from sentimental grounds, he regretted the departure from the archaic wording to which he had been accustomed since childhood, especially the marriage service. (Laughter.)

On the last occasion, he abstained from voting, but the development of the controversy had raised issues of a larger and graver character, outweighing his personal feelings. Mr. Churchill said the greet religious community asked, by the recognised means of corporate expression, for a wider interpretation of their freedom in spiritual matters. The onus of proof lay with those who invited the House to refuse. The primary presumption must obviously be against the denial of liberties which were lawfully demanded. As a member of Parliament, he felt bound to accept the corporate expression of the wish of the Church as representing the main mind of the Church, and especially of those responsible for carrying on its future life.

Personally, he could not see overwhelming objections against the grant of wider religious liberty. Parliament had to use its constitutional rights with tolerance and moderation. The rejection of the measure would inaugurate a period of chaos, which period would only be corrected by disestablishment.

Cries of “V j!” here induced Mr. Churchill to shrug his shoulders and remark: “Of course, nobody agrees with anybody.” (Loud laughter.) “I personally did not wish the mitred front of one of the great remaining Protestant churches of Europe to be irretrievably broken into discordant fragments,” he added. The Rev. James Barr (Labour) retold the story of Cranmer’s martyrdom, and concluded: “I see the burning hand of Cranmer in the lambent flame, becoming a compelling and irresistible gesture to this House.” Mr. George Lansbury (Labour) did not find justification for the assumption that there was anything in the book which would lead the Church to Romish practices. The Book was rejected by 226 votes to 220.