"ONE RESULT OF DISESTABLISHMENT.-That disestablishment distinctly brings the Episcopal Church into closer and more fraternal relations with other Protestant communions there is abundant witness in the Colonies. All barriers are not at once removed, but the fact that all Churches are on the same footing in the eye of the the State does tell. At the present time this more friendly relationship in both America and Australia is tending strongly towards reunion. At the recent Church Congress in Melbourne, representing the whole of Australia, proposals were made for coalition with the Presbyterians. Dr. Lowther Clarke, Archbishop of Melbourne, who presided over the Congress, was also president of a subsequent conference which discussed not merely a union of Anglicans and Presbyterians, but a union of all Protestant bodies to found a united Church of Australia. The Archbishop, writing hopefully of this in a letter to England, remarks that Anglicans live on the most friendly terms with all the other religious bodies (except Rome), and do much common work.' He points out how much freer and stronger the Church is in Australia because it is not established and has the power of self-government."

They were animated by the same natural | patronage. She would have the right All this sympathies as themselves. It would not to manage her own affairs. be found in the religion which they could only tend to greater purity professed. They must seek the reason and usefulness of the Church. That had in the institution, and the State Church been proved by the case of the Irish had been an institution for the sanction Church. Lord Plunkett, Bishop of Meath, of political injustice and for the perpetua- and afterwards Archbishop of Dublin, tion of political abuses. Therefore he had said of the Irish Church that the contended that on the grounds of very disaster which threatened their national unity and national progress it downfall had been overruled for their must be clear that religious inequality good; and if further evidence was required! as represented by an Established Church of the benefits of disestablishment it had been a failure and a hindrance. could be found in the opinion exHe desired to say a word on the disendowpressed by many Churchmen, as the ment part of the Resolution. He had come following quotation from the Christian across many Churchmen who would agree World of 31st January would show— with disestablishment but drew the line at disendowment. When they attacked the Establishment they were said to be laying sacrilegious hands upon the National Church, and when they spoke of the appropriation of the money they were said to be confiscat ing private property and the funds of a private corporation. He must not enter upon the nature and origin of Church property. That had been settled by the precedent of the Irish Church. That Act settled the fact that the property of a Church in connection with the State might be dealt with by the State and applied to such public uses as the State might determine. The fact was the State had always dealt with endowments. That principle had been accepted in the case of charities; of endowed schools, in cases connected with the Ecclesiastical Commission, and in cases of changes made in trusts upon which funds were held. The State had never abrogated its right in this respect, and whenever the nation should decide that the existence of the Church as a department of the State ought to cease, then the nation would have the clear right to say to what other public and national purposes the property which the Church now enjoyed should be appropriated. Of course all private benefactions would remain untouched and all life interests safeguarded and respected. He did not believe that disestablishment would be harmful to the Church. On the contrary, he believed the gain would be considerable. She would have time to deal with the alleged wrong practices of which they heard so much, and she would also gain by doing away with the source of many scandals, such as the sale of livings and the right of private Mr. Goddard.

It was because he believed that by greater freedom the Church would be

come

because the establishment of the principle a greater force for good, and of religious equality would promote national unity and national progress, hat he seconded the Resolution.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the interests alike of religion and the nation, it is desirable to disestablish and disendow the Church of England both in England and Wales." — (Mr. Everett.)

*SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton) said he desired as an Amendment to leave out all words after "that" and substitute, "In the opinion of this House, the passing of any measure to

destroy the national position which the | took place than the Crown or ParliaChurch of England has held for so many ment. The phrase "Church of England centuries, and to secularise her ancient as by law established" did not mean endowments, would grievously impede that she was created by the State or by her great and growing work for the any human law whatever. It only meant spiritual and social welfare of the people that her constitution, doctrine, and and would be a serious blow to the cause liturgy, having been drawn up and agreed of religion and morality in the nation." to by her own representatives, received It was because he believed those words the sanction of the State. Parliament from his heart that he put down the has settled what ministers shall be allowed Amendment. No question could have to hold livings, what oaths they shall more far-reaching effects for good or take, and on what conditions individual evil than the proposals submitted to the clergymen shall be allowed to receive House that evening. The hon. Member institution to temporalities. As to the for Woodbridge had proposed the dis- property of the Church, there had been establishment and disendowment of the no simultaneous endowment of Church national Church. He could not dismiss property. The property of the several the question with the brevity which local churches were given by one and the hon. Member suggested, because a another individual at various times. very serious question had been raised, Regarding tithes there was an impression a question with regard to which that they were voted by Parliament to much misunderstanding prevailed. The the Church, but tithes were payments hon. Gentleman made a very startling of very ancient times appropriated by statement when he spoke of funds different landowners to different churches which belonged to all being appro- in which they felt interested. Parliament priated by Parliament. The idea never created tithes, never imposed them. seemed to be that Parliament was She did not impose them or collect them. the mover. It was the idea of Shortly, there was never any particular Mr. Miall whose Motion in that moment when the State endowed one House he heard thirty-six years ago. That Gentleman objected to the Church as being an institution set up to Christianise the people of the country, one which aimed at securing a national unity of belief, uniformity of worship, and identity of religious teaching by the clergy, and claimed the exclusive right to appropriate the national resources. The idea was widely prevalent that at some time or other the State established the Church and devoted public funds for the purpose. Since Mr. Miall moved his Motion a great deal of light had been thrown on the question by Professor Freeman. He had clearly shown that the Church had a history before the Crown was settled, before the British Constitution was formulated, and before Parliament existed, and that the Church was, for centuries, the sole representative and exponent of the Christianity of the people of this country. She never became Roman. She was corrupted by contact with Rome, and after the Reformation she returned to the old paths. She was the same Church as regarded identity, continuity, and succession as before, and was no more affected by the changes that then

general re'igious body calling itself the Church of England. Still less was there any idea of the State taking property from one Church body and handing it to another. If then Parliament never established the Church in the sense of singling it out from others for its especial favour, if it had simply recognised it as the historical and mother Church of England; if it had never appointed its clergy, provided its places of worship, or voted funds for its in to pull down that which it had maintenance, where did the right come never set up, and to appropriate endowments given by private individuals ? They disputed the right of Parliament to do such a thing as that, but they did not dispute its power.

But Parliament had never interfered and did not interfere with trust property unless that trust property had ceased to perform the which objects for trust was created. Could that be said in the case of the Church? Could it be said

the

that the Church had been resting on its oars and enjoying its endowments, and doing nothing in the great work of the nation? It was alleged that the Church

was not carrying out her trust, but the these cases were few in number comreturns showed that the voluntary offer- pared with the whole body of the ings of her members for Church purposes Church, and they came unanimously to amounted to £7,768,410 last year. That the conclusion that the evidence gave no was the dying Church! That sum excluded reason to doubt that in the large majority missionary work, Bible Society work, and of parishes the work of the Church was other work; and, in spite of the lurid being quietly and diligently performed by picture drawn by the seconder of the clergy who were loyal to the principles of Motion, they were working with their the English Reformation as expressed in Nonconformist brethren on the great the Articles of the Book of Common Sunday and other questions. From the Prayer. Much was being done which figure he had given was of course excluded could not find its way into the newsall the grants made by the Ecclesiastical papers, but in regard to the practices to Commissioners. There was also the expenditure on schools and rescue work, Episcopate was succeeding in doing a great which he referred, the firm hand of the and he could assure the House that it deal. It was suggested that it was for was not merely in spiritual but in the the benefit of the Church that she should temporal matters of the people and in be disestablished and disendowed-that the social work of the day that the Church practically she should be turned out into was actively engaged. He instanced the the cold. But although the Commission funds collected in London for Hospital found that the position of the Church was Sunday-£35,472 given by the Church too narrow for the religious life of the out of a total of £44,633. The hon. present day, they ventured to indicate Member for Ipswich had stated that how, while maintaining the control of the Church was opposed to education. Parliament, some self-adjustment might Since the foundation of the National be secured. He was happy to think that Society £47,000,000 had been raised by the Church for the purpose of education. Was it not the fact that many men in that House, but for the Church would not ⚫ have had schools to which to go? The Church was the founder of schools, and she was never more capable of carrying on the work nor more full of devotion to it, though she was not so rich and comfortable as the hon. Member had said. Never was she so deep in the affections of the people as at the present time. Even the Founder of our religion was not able to do all that he wished, and because the Church had not made the nation wholly religious, was it to be said, therefore, that she had failed in her work? The same might be said of any other Church. Then came the question as to the discipline of the Church. He had the honour of serving on the Commission which had inquired very closely into the question of the practices of omission and commission, and no doubt they had been bound to report that there were clergy who refused to obey the law. There were churches in which the services were very little distinguished from those of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the congregations who supported them. But what he was happy to think was that the opinion of the Commission was that Sir John Kennaway.

His Majesty's Government had realised the reasonableness of the suggestion which had been made to them, and that they had granted Letters to Convocation to see if any agreement could be come to which might be submitted to Parliament. The serious thing was that, supposing the Church were disestablished and disendowed, how were they going to fill the gaps which would be made? The hon. A ember for the Woodbridge Tivision had pointed with great pride to the number of Sunday schools which, no doubt, were a strong feature of Nonconformist bodies, and whose work was of the highest character. But how stood Nonconformity among the poorer portions of the population now? He would mention an instance given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who took the poorest parts of South London In three deaneries there were 137 resident clergy. There were alongside of them only thirtytwo chapels with thirteen ministers. In the parish of Bermondsey there was for some time not a single resident Nonconformist minister. In country places, if they destroyed the Church or crippled her so that she could not be carried on, how were the gaps to be filled? In Somersetshire, out of 520 parishes there was no public worship, except in the

Church of England, in 195, and in 400 of to be understood that he was not rethem there was no resident ministers sponsible for its terms, and did not except Church of England clergyman. acquiesce in all the arguments of the Wales was included. They declined to hon. Baronet. It was on motives of make any difference between the Churches deep principle rather than details that of England and Wales, and they would he proposed to address the House. resist to the utmost any attempt to lop The question they had to consider off part of the Church. They were very was whether it was desirable to terminate much indebted to hon. Members opposite the institution of the Church as a portion for the Commission granted by the of the national heritage. He acknowGovernment to inquire into the Welsh ledged the failure of the Church to be a Church, for that inquiry was showing leader of political liberty, and perhaps the enormous increase of Church life in one explanation of that fact was Wales in every sense. He entirely that the Church had been deserted by repudiated the statement of the hon. many of the best people who might Member for Ipswich that the Church was otherwise have kept it right. But that opposed to everything good, and he had nothing whatever to do with the hoped the hon. Gentleman would read the principle whether it was wise for the Archbishop's refutation of almost every nation to retain the National Church. word he had said. They little thought Some hon. Members on his side argued how big a thing they asked to be that the Church was favoured by being undertaken. Mr. Gladstone said what a National Church, while others said an enormous effort it Was to dis- it was a drawback to be a National establish the Church of Ireland, and Church. Something might be said for he pitied the man who undertook the both propositions; but both could not disestablishment of the Church of be argued at once, and his hon. friends, England. They were asked, in these to use a sporting phrase, should declare days of the worship of materialism with which horse they meant to win. and the spread of new theologies, and The duty of a National Church-he of popular aspirations which needed did not say it was always done, that guidance, to hamper, harass, and cripple was another matter was to be the Church, which was pre-eminently the institution which offered the ministraChurch of the poor, in the sense that the tions of religion to all without forcing poor man had the right to her service them upon any. It was an offering without payment. They were asked to institution. It was like a public foundeal a blow at the parochial system, of tain: they might drink or not just as which Mr. Booth said, "The churches they chose for nothing. The first conmost successful are most parochial." dition of such a Church was that it They were asked to deal a blow at a must carry with it a certain amount of system which gave to every man, woman genuine national sentiment. That was and child in the Kingdom the right to why he had strongly advocated the disspiritual ministrations without payment. establishment of the Church in Wales Action of this sort would be a blow to and in Ireland. In England the EstablishChristianity not only in this country, but ment did carry with it a certain amount in every part of the world. He would of national approval. It did not follow conclude by quoting words of one of the that it should have a majority of the ablest and most liberal of Prelates, nation as worshippers. Judged by that Bishop Lightfoot, of Durhamtest, all the churches now would cut rather a sorry figure. Therefore it was not a question of whether it would be good for the Church to be disestablished; he was thinking of the nation. That the Church would prosper if separated from the State he had no doubt, but a larger and more important question was what would happen to the religious life of the nation outside all the churches?

"Nonconformists would gather very little of the spoils, but irreligion and atheism would be the real gainers ;"

and of Lord Selborne. who said that disestablishment might not be national apostacy! but it would work serious national mischief.

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton) in seconding the Amendment, said he wished it