WESLEYAN CONFERENCE.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 474, 24 May 1890, Page 4

WESLEYAN CONFERENCE.

SITTINGS IN SYDNEY. LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE OF NEW ZEALAND. STATISTICS OF AUSTRALASIAN WESLEYANISM. Returns of the state of the Wesleyan Church in Australasia were presented bo tho General Conference, which lately commenced its sittings in Sydney. Including tho ministers and supernumeraries attached to the various missions, the total number of preachers in the church is 618—476 ministers, 63 supernumeraries, and 79 ministers on trial. The total number of members is 73,363 ; persons on trial for membership, 7,307; and junior members, 8,530. The total attendants at public worship in the various colonies and missions is as follows :—New South Wales, 66,199; Queensland, 12,370: total, 78,569. Friendly Islands, 2,241 ; Samoa, 5,671 ; Fiji, 103,755 ; New Britain, 4,794; Chinese in New South Wales, 150 : total, 116,611. Victoria, 105,451 ; Chinese mission, 435 ; Tasmania, 14,853 ; total, 120,739. South Australia, 49,199 ; Western Australia, 3,215 : total, 52,414. New Zealand, 49,321 ; Maori mission, 3,021 : total, 52,342. General summary, 420,675.

LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF ANNUAL CONFERENCES. The Rev. J, J, Lewis, President of the New Zealand Conference, moved— That with a view of securing independen action for the New Zealand Conference on lines that will enable us to co-operate with our Australian brethren we recommend as follows : 1. That tho legislative powers within the limits set out in par. 299 of the ‘Book of Laws,” and subject to the power of disallowance vested in the general conference (par. 300, subsection 10, of the “ Book of Laws”), should be conferred on the annual conferences. 2. That in the event of such powers being given to the conferences, the number of the representatives to the General Conference be in the proportion of one to every 12 members of the Annual Conference and that par. 302 of “Book of Laws” relating to the time of meeting of the General Conference be amended so as to read, “Shall meet once in four years.” 3. That no rule or law made or enacted by the General Conference shall come into operation until after the next Annual Conferences have been held. 4. That should any now rule or law made or enacted by the General Conference be objected to by a majority of two-thirds of an Annual Conference next following, on the ground that such a regulation is not suited to that Conference, or that the enforcement of such a regulation would injuriously affect the work of God within its boundary, that Annual Conference shall have power to suspend the action of such regulation within its boundary, until the General Conference. He supported the claims made by the New Zealand Conference, and pointed out the vast work which the conference had to do altogether outside that done by other colonies. They had no desire to break from the General Conference, but desired independence of action. It had been said the New Zealand Methodists were too radical in their tendencies, but such was not the case. They had no doctrinal differences, as both in heart and head they were all loyal to Methodism. It was a libel to suppose that they were inimical to the class meeting. AH they wanted was the power to act independently, and if this was conceded it would be a gold ring uniting New Zealand to Australia; but if it were refused there was a danger that the flag of separation would be again unfurled. Mr William Moxham (N.Z.) seconded the resolution, prefacing his remarks by saying that for the past 54 years he had done service in the old Church, which was dearer to him to-day than it had ever been before. With regard to New Zealand a modification was necessary. Gradually but surely the system of local government was extending in politics, and the general tendency was to give this to those who needed it, both in the old country and in Australia, and he could not see why the same principle should not be applied to church government. They desired to maintain union with the General Conference, but at the same time to have tho power of self-government. They clung to the itinerancy, but desired a change in the term, as had been done by evasion in England in the establishment of special missions. The sister churches had local government, and why should they not have it ? The Rev. E. W. Nye (Vic.), as an amendment, moved :

Resolved—That the General Conference as at present constituted is a necessary part of our Church system, and its maintenance in unimpaired efficiency is essential to the unity of Methodism throughout Australasia, and to the successful discharge of that work among the heathen races of the South Seas which God has committed to us. This Conference, therefore, protesis against any change in the constitution and powers of the General Conference which Will abridge its authority, i educe its representative value, strip it of its legislative functions, and widen the intervals betwixt its times of assembling, believing that such changes will weaken the bonds which bind the whole Methodism of Australasia into unity.

He could not see, save in the matter of distance from the main continent, that there were difficulties in New Zealand different to those which existed in other colonies. They asked that they should be granted legislative powers within certain limits. In a lengthy speech he maintained that neither legally'nor by any moral right had the New Zealand Conference any claim to make the request they did. The Rev, W. H. Fitchett (Vic.) seconded Mr Nye’s amendment, and strongly contended that it was altogether antagonistic to the spirit of Methodism for the New Zealand Conference to ask for independence and separation. Hobbs had defined death as “ a leap in the dark,” and if the Conference were to agree to the proposition made by Mr Lewis, they would be making a magnificent leap in the dark. They held a great legacy from the past and a great trust in the future, and they were asked now to revoke all that had been held sacred. He maintained the Conference was a morally educational force, and he feared that Borne of the brethren needed to be educated, and he could not understand why any portion should wish for any separate independence. They should one and all be proud to be united and in a great church. The New Zealand Conference owed its very existence to the General Conference. He

affirmed that the minutes of the New Zealand Conference showed that they wanted to totally revolutionise the very basis of Methodism—to change the system of the itinerancy, to make the ministers and the laymen equal in every particular, and to create a hybrid Methodism which never yet had an existence. The trend of English thought was not towards disintegration but towards federation, and if the Church went on any othor lines it would lose touch with the rest of the world. They, as Methodists, had a great past, and unless they wanted to become weak and powerless they must maintain tho unity of the Methodist Church of Australasia. The Rev. George Martin (N.S. W.), whilst deprecating some of the remarks which had been made by Mr Fitchetb, agreed with him that at all hazards they must seek to maintain the unity of the General Conference and to preservo the oneness of the Australasian Wesleyan Methodist Church. Ho admired the New Zealand Conference. They wanted first of all union, but after that they wanted freedom in each one of the confeiences. If the General Conference was to override them all and nob give the annual conferences freedom of action in their own particular spheres, then it would become a tyranny. The movement of the day was in the direction of federation, but it must be remembered it was federation in connection with individualism. They in Australia did nob want an autocracy, but they wanted a tederation which was in harmony with individual freedom and progress. The Rev. B. Butchers (Vic.) said that so soon ns the British Government granted Home Rule to Ireland the conference might agree to the proposals made by the members of the New Zealand conference, as the two cases, lie argued, were nearly analogous. He belonged to a great church and he would regard it alike as an ecclesiastical and national calamity if there should be any severance. In political circles the great question of the day was that of federa tion, and he urged that a section of the Methodist Church should not seek to take a course antagonistic to popular feeling which was endorsed by every true patriotic man. The resolutions he considered would be prejudicial to Methodism generally and also to theinterestsof New Zealand Methodism. The Rev. Joseph Berry (N.Z.) defended the recommendations made by the New Zealand Conference, which he said did not emanate from New Zealand, bub from New South Wales, and strongly combatted the argument which had boen advanced on the other side. They as New Zealanders were men who had the interests of Methodism at heart as much as any others, bub they did not want to be patronised. He supported the resolutions in the interests of the General Conference. Mr James Campbell (Vic.) regarded the resolution as a condemnation of tho General Conference. He altogether failed to see any valid reason for tho request made by the representatives of the New Zealand Conference. He could not see that the New Zealand Conference was affected by tho present constitution in any different manner than the other colonies. .He deprecated either isolation or separation, and could nob understand why the New Zealand Conference had submitted these resolutions, which, if carried into effect, must mean one or the other or both. He would say to the brethren in New Zealand, “ Don’t go from us, but keep with us and help us to found a great federal Australasian Church.” The Rev. Alfred Rigg, Secretary of the Victorian and Tasmanian Conference, regretted the resolutions brought forward by the New Zealand Conference, drawing special attention to the proposal for the abolition of the class meeting as a test of membership. He feared their union was terribly in jeopardy. He would prefer entire separation rather than accede to the resolutions proposed by the president of the New Zealand Conference. After some further discussion the debate was adjourned until Monday afternoon. The discussion upon the motion of the Rev. J. J. Lewis (president of the New Zealand Conference) to grant legislative powers to that body while still maintaining a nominal unity with Australia was resumed.

The Rev. W. H. Fitchett (Vic.) thought a compromise was possible. The problem was how to maintain liberty and unity, and the following scheme had been drawn up: 1. Whereas the General Conference is a necessary part of our church system, and its maintenance is essential to the unity of Methodism throughout Australasia, and to the successful discharge of that work among the heathen races of the South Seas which God has committed to us, this General Conference therefore declines to make any change in its constitution and powers which will abridge its authority or strip it of its legislative functions, believing that such changes will weaken the bonds which bind the whole Methodism of Australasia into the General Conference, recognising that diversity of circumstances both justifies and demands diversity of methods, records its willingness to delegate to the annual Conferences a discretionary power to deal with in constitutional lines according to their own requirements with such matters as are from time to time forfthis purpose specifically remitted to them. 3. That the General Conference hereby empowers each of the Annual Conferences to frame for itself according to its own requirements regulations dealing with the following subjects: (a) The constitution and operation of its stationing committee, but retaining the principles of its present constitution ; (b) the order and form in which the business committed to such conference shall be transacted ; (c) the constitution of the quarterly meeting, but on lines which harmonise with our general principles; (d) the management of its Sundaytchools; (e) the term during which a minister may be appointed to labour in one circuit, subject to the following conditions no minister shall be appointed to one circuit for more than five successive years, (2) no minister of less than 15 years’ standing shall remain in the same circuit for more than three years, (3) each such appointment beyond the present term of three years shall be made only upon the request of a three-fourths majority of the September quarterly meeting preceding, and by a tlirec-fourths majority of the conference, (4) no Annual Conference shall exercise the power thus conferred upon it until it has taken upon approval legal advice, the steps necessary to make such appointment legal. 4. The regulations framed by any Annual Conference, by virtue of these resolutions upon the subject herein specified, shall be held to be the not of this General Conference within the bounds of such Annual Conference. The plan had been brought under the notice of leading members of the Conference and had met with approval. _ It brought a new and important element into the policy of the Church in proposing to delegate powers to the Annual Conferences to deal with legislation. The Rev. J. J. Lewis (N.Z.) did not think he had been treated properly, as he had not been consulted on the subject. In its present form the scheme would not euit the requirements of New Zealand. The Rev. W. H. Fitchett (Vic.) explained that the scheme had only been prepared that morning. The Rev. Dr. Watkin (Vic.) thought the suggestion valuable. The Hon. J. F. Campbell seconded. The resolution was agreed. to, and the following committee wa3 appointed, on the nominations of the presidents of the various colonies:—Revs. W. Clarke, J. B. Waterhouse, Messrs VV. B. Robson and James McGill (N.S.W.); Revs. E. W. Nye and W. H. Fitchett, Mr H. Bath and the Hon. J. Campbell (Victoria); Revs. J. J. Lewis, W, Morley, J. Berry, and Mr J. Grace (New Zealand); Revs. H. T. Burgess, J. Nicholson, J. B. Stephinson, and John Hill (South Australia).