KNEELING IN PRAYER

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 382, 16 June 1928, Page 9

KNEELING IN PRAYER

Crowds Await Debate’s End

REJECTION OF PRAYER BOOK

Deep Public Interest Roused

British Official Wireless Reed. Noon. RUGBY, Friday. THE deep public interest roused by the Prayer Book debate was shown by the large crowd which awaited the result in Parliament Square. While the debate proceeded, numbers of people knelt in Westminster Abbey (which remained specially open) offering prayers for the approval or rejection of the new Book. A large meeting of the Protestant Alliance, which opposed the measure, awaited the result, kneeling in silent prayer.

Tlie rejection of the measure is the culmination of a work of revision which has occupied the attention of the Church authorities foj' 22 years. Further developments remain in doubt. Sir William Joynson-Hicks, one of its leading opponents, is credited with the suggestion that the revised Prayer Book, with the contentious rubrics deleted, should be presented as an agreed measure. This hitherto has found no favour with the book’s supporters, but now it is obvious that in its present form acceptance by the Commons is out of the question. END OF THE DEBATE THE CLOSING SPEECHES TIDE SETS AGAINST BOOK (United P.A. — By Telegraph — Copyright) (Australian Press Association) LONDON, Thursday. The House of Commons to-day rejected the measure to authorise the use of the revised Prayer Book. An analysis of the voting shows that 191 Conservatives voted for the measure and 162 against; 28 of the Labour Party for and 75 against; two Liberals' for and 28 against; one Independent member for and three against. The Conservative vote for the measure was increased by 24, and the Labour vote against it by 21, compared with the voting in December. It became apparent early in the course of the debate that the tide was again setting against the book. It was a battle of giants, with all the party camps divided. Hundreds of clergymen were gathered in the lobbies to hear the resujt and a crowd of 500 persons outside Parliament House cheered to the echo when the figures were known. The debate was continued by the Rev. PI. Dunnico, Labour member for Consett, Durham, a Baptist minister. Pie said that as a Nonconformist he wished to give the Church the book she asked for. ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S VIEW The Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Inskip, said that if the measure were rejected it could not be said that its rejection was due to any hostility to religion. The interest taken in the debate was due to the fact that the Established Church was more established in the heart of the nation than many suspected. He was not impressed by the opinions that if the book were rejected the Church was likely to be disestablished or that chaos would follow. The House was part of a machine deliberately created for dealing with

this and similar questions. The Scottish Church was able to free itself to some extent, but the laity had means for seeing that the services of her ministers were conformable to their views. Personally, he said he had no desire to drive the Anglo-Catholics from the Church, provided they agreed to confine themselves within proper limits. It was a curious merit of the new book as a peace-producing instrument that it offended the Evangelicals as well as the Anglo-Catholics. The promise of acquiescence in the discipline of the bishops in future seemed unreal, unless one was satisfied that the Anglo-Catholics were genuinely convinced that in the past they were wrong in supposing that adoration was due to the reserved elements. The opponents of the measure had informed the Archbishop of Canterbury that they were prepared to assent to the measure being passed provided it did not include perpetual reservation, which was its fundamental and vital error. BALDWIN ENDS DEBATE The Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, followed, and was received with loud cheers. He said the vast majority of the members of the House had already made up their minds, but a fraction might have a sincere difficulty in deciding whether to abstain from voting, or on which side to vote. To these members he, with no special learning in theology, and belonging to no organised party in the Church, might be of some help. In their arguments several speakers j had suggested that the passage of the j measure would set back, and possibl}’ j

destroy, the prospect of Christian reunion. Dr. A. E. Garvie, principal of New College. London (Congregational); Dr. Scott Lidgett, a former president of the Wesleyan Conference, and secretary of the National Council of Evangelical Free Churches; Professor Carnegie Simpson, of Westminster College, Cambridge: Dr. W. B. Selbie, principal of Mansfield Coll£?ge. Oxford: and Dr. Vernon Bartlett, of Mansfield College, had all said they would like to see the Bill passed. The first three of these had been engaged for four years on the Lambeth Conference on Reunion. If these gentlemen were supporting the book, why should the passing of the measure imperil reunion ? Mr. Baldwin said there was always a lack of enthusiasm for a compromise. Enthusiasm naturally belonged to those who did not want the book, that was. a portion of the Evangelicals and a portion of the Anglo-Catholics. The Church always contained these two distinct streams of spiritual life, which helped to keep each other pure and sweet, and ensured spiritual progress. It was when the Church lost her elasticity and sympathy that disaster had come. In these times she lost John Wesley nnd Cardinal Newman. She persecuted Bishop Colenso. and instituted prosecutions under the Public Worship Regulations Act, which had been the greatest stimulus to ritualism. “I want to see those two streams go on.” said Mr. Baldwin. Dealing with the lack of discipline he said the Church was bound hand and foot by a Prayer Book dating from 1662. What they wanted was a book drawn up more in accord with the spirit of the age. The whole work done in the new book was of a liberalising nature. The Church had an enormous membership. The Empire overseas was looking with grave anxiety to the attempts being made at Home to restore discipline and to give to the Church a service book adapted to the times. SHOUTED VOTES Unity at Home was combined in a way it never had been before with unity overseas. If the Bill failed to pass it would weaken the hands of those in authority, and g:ive an immense impetus to the very forces which those opposing the book desired to curb. Disestablishment would be brought nearer to the political sphere. (Cries of “No!”) Mr. Baldwin concluded by asking whether the House would say to those in authority in the Church: “We do not trust you,” or would it say, “We accept your word and wish you God speed in the work to which you have set your hands.” (Cheers.) When the question was put there were loud shouts of “Aye!” and No!” but the “Noes” seemed to be greater in volume, and the opponents of the Bill greeted the result with loud cheers.

GRIEF-STRICKEN PRIMATE

WENT WITH B 0W r ED HEAD DEJECTED BISHOPS (Australian P.A.~-~Uni'.ed Service) LONDON, Thursday. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops walked out of the House quietly after the division, with a dejected air. It was obviously a severe blow to the primate. On hearing the result he bowed his head, as though stricken with grief. Among the voters in favour of the measure were Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Minister of Health; Mr. Arthur Henderson, Home Secretary in the Labour Government; Captain F. E. Guest, Liberal member for North Bristol; and Mr. G. Lansbury, Labour member for Poplar. Among those who voted against it were Mr. P. Snowden, the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Lloyd George, Sir John Simon, Captain D. H. Hacking, Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Trade; Sir William Mitchell-Thompson, Postmas-ter-General; Sir Vivian Henderson, Under-Secretary of the Home Office; and Sir Hamar Greenwood, Conservative member for Walthamstow East. Of those who were known to be in favour of the measure, Mr. W. C. Bridgeman, First Lord of the Admiralty, and Messrs. D. Kirkwood, Oswald Mosley, Ramsay MacDonald, and Miss M. Bondfield (all Labour), did not vote. ARCHBISHOP’S STATEMENT Immediately after the vote the Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued the following statement: —“Some who eagerly supported, the Prayer Book measure, as being a right step on the road to orderliness and harmony and new freedom for active service at home and overseas, may be led by disappointment and irritation to advocate irregular action. We plead for quietness, patience and abstention from angry and unkindly words. “The responsibility laid on the bishops by the vote is very grave. They are alive to this and will, with the leg.st delay, give the required counsel and direction. This must take a little time. Meanwhile, prayers will not be lacking that they may be guided to : interpret aright God’s will and pur- I pose for the Church.” The “Morning Post” says that whatever is the outcome of the Prayer Book issue, the Archbishop of Canterbury's resignation will most likely be rendered at an early date. The “Daily Express” says many of the most brilliant speakers in the j Commons threw in their weight in I favour of the book, but Mr. Winston j Churchill’s rhetoric, Sir Robert Horne’s ; logic. Lord Hugh Cecil’s refined dialec- < tics and Mr. Baldwin’s sentiment, were I all only straws in the current of fear j of priest-craft and ritual.” The “Daily Telegraph” says the issue was again narrowed down to the question. “Does the revised book j jeopardise the Protestant character oi

the Church?” The debate made it plain, the paper says, that the House of Commons still takes Queen Victoria’s view, that the Anglo-Catholics "are not an allowable party.” No doubt the House of Commons reflects the feelings of the generality of the English people. Whatever sympathy the Anglo-Catholics find among the bishops, the House of Commons still regards them with grave distrust. The House of Commons throughout demonstrated its conviction that the claim of the Church to the allegiance of the nation consists in her unmistakable Protestantism. VIEWS OF “THE TIMES” “The Times” says the attack on the Prayer Book measure has changed less since December than has its defence. The attack was again directed against two main points, neither really relevant to the dispute, but calculated to spread an atmosphere of double suspicion. These were, first, pre-re-formation superstitions, with hints of the extravagant ritual now isolatedly practised; secondly, the supposed unpopularity of the measure in the constituencies. The former, says the paper, was really the strongest argument in favour of the measure, because illegalities cannot be restrained if the Church is denied the right to define illegality in the light of modern thought. The second is a matter of opinion, for nothing is easier than to organise a campaign of propaganda by correspondence.

WAIKATO BISHOP’S VIEW

REJECTION WILL PLEASE EXTREMISTS (From Our Otcn cui ,pondent) HAMILTON, To-day. The rejection of the revised Prayer Book measure by the House of Commons was referred to by Bishop Cherrington. In his opinion, he said, the vote was a triumph for its supporters. He traced the history of the movement for revision of the Prayer Book, and said the result of the Parliamentary vote would probably be that everyone would go on doing just what he was doing before. The bishop said the new rejection of the book by Parliament would please the extremists on both sides. People who had not read it thought it an Anglo-Catholic Prayer Book, but the Anglo-Catholics, so far as he knew them, did not want it, chiefly because of the restrictions on the reservation of the Sacrament. Most of the soberminded Evangelicals liked the revised book. He did not know what it was that the extreme Protestants unless it was that they thought the book allowed practices that were r. t allowed by the book of 1C62. It was impossible to say what would happen, concluded Bishop Cherringto ' but the rejection of the measure \va« l new proof of what religiot!3-m:r. I • people had been saying, that Parli ment was not a fit and proper body to deal with religious questions.