HC Deb 15 July 1873 vol 217 cc424-46
MR. CHARLEY

rose, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the Ecclesiastical Policy applied by Her Majesty's Government to the Windward Islands and to Trinidad; and to move "That this House disapproves of the Ecclesiastical Policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Windward Islands and in Trinidad." The hon. and learned Member said, that Her Majesty's Government since 1869, had been engaged in disestablishing the Church of England in the West Indies, and his first object was to show that in carrying out that ecclesiastical policy, they had violated the principles which they had themselves laid down upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford for the disestablishment of the English Church. Her Majesty's Government had also been engaged in endowing the Church of Rome in the West Indies; and his second object was to show that in carrying out that ecclesiastical policy, they had violated the principles which in 1868 carried them to place and power. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) not long ago said, that concurrent endowment was dead; but at that time the despatches of Lord Kimberley had not been laid on the Table; and he (Mr. Charley) submitted that concurrent endowment still survived and flourished under the auspices of the Colonial Office. He confined his Motion to the Windward Islands and Trinidad, because it was difficult to gather from the Returns which had been presented what had been precisely the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the other West Indian colonies. The most important of the Windward Islands was Barbadoes, and it was the seat of the Bishop of those Islands. In 1869, Lord Granville, then Colonial Secretary, instructed the Governor of those Islands to disestablish the Church of England in Barbadoes. Governor Rawson was surprised at the revolutionary policy of Her Majesty's Government, and wrote a despatch to Lord Granville, in which he said it was no light task which had been imposed upon him; that he approached it under a great sense of responsibility, and that the people of Barbadoes were almost exclusively members of the Church of England.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. CHARLEY,

resuming, said, that Governor Rawson gave some interesting statistics founded upon the religious Census of 1861; from which it appeared that the population of Barbadoes consisted of 152,727 persons, of whom. 135,000 were members of the Church of England; 10,500 were Wesleyans; 3,000 were Moravians; 230 (chiefly military) were Roman Catholics having a military chaplain; and 30 belonged to other denominations. In his despatch, alluding to the intention of the Government to disestablish the Church of England in the island, Governor Rawson said— I see no reason for making any change in the existing arrangement. The supremacy of the Church of England ought not to be theoretically or practically interfered with in this island, and he added that the Wesleyans very generally brought their children to the Church to be baptized, claimed the offices of the clergy of the Church at the burial of their dead, and many of them attended the services of the Church as well as their own religious meetings. It appeared from the Returns before the House that on the 6th of July, 1871, a conference of the clergy and laity of the Church was held in Barbadoes, at which, among other things, they recommended that a Petition should be presented to the Legislature, praying that it should contribute to the salary of the Bishop of Barbadoes. Lord Kimberley seemed to have been greatly shocked at that proposal, for in his despatch to the Governor, he directed him to make it clearly apparent to the Legislature that to contribute to the salary of the Bishop would not be in accordance with the principles on which Her Majesty's Government desired to act in reference to the ecclesiastical affairs of the West India islands; and that whatever aid the Legislature desired to extend to the Church should be paid in a bulk sum to the Church Body. On the 10th of October, 1871, the Governor replied, stating that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government would make so entire a change in the ecclesiastical condition of the island, and. would uproot the foundations of a system which had been cemented by ages, and yet showed no signs of decay, that he thought it prudent before communicating with the Legislature to consult his Council. Having consulted his Council, the Governor found them unanimously opposed to the change.

They expressed their opposition in a document, which was set forth in the Papers in which they said they were aware of what had occurred with respect to the Irish Church. They noticed, they said, with great satisfaction the distinction which the Prime Minister drew between the Irish Church and the Church of England, the one being the Church of the minority and the other being the Church of the great majority of the people; and they respectfully but confidently claimed the benefit of the distinction thus drawn for the Church in Barbadoes, and on similar grounds. There was scarcely a word which fell from that distinguished champion of the English Church which would not apply to the Church in that island, and with the more point and greater force, because of the greater unanimity which prevailed respecting it among the people. Indeed, such was the harmony that existed there on the subject, that it was questionable whether even among the comparatively small body of Nonconformists, to whom there was every desire to do justice, a Mr. Miall could be found to propose its disestablishment. They added that it was connected with their early history; that it was interwoven with the social and political life of the people of the island; that it was one of the permanent institutions of the country; that the carrying out of the policy of Her Majesty's Government would create great and inevitable confusion. Such was the opinion of the Governor, the Council, the Legislature, and the people of Barbadoes. Her Majesty's Government had since consented to the payment of a salary of £1,000 a-year to the Bishop but that graceful act did not in his opinion at all derogate from the feeling with which their deliberate attempt to disestablish the Church of Barbadoes should be regarded, an attempt founded on what principle he could not conceive, but should like to be told. He passed on to Tobago, and asked on what principle the Government proposed to disestablish the Church of that island? With respect to that island, 9,000 of its 16,000 inhabitants were members of the Church of England. There were three rectors in the island, each with charge of about 3,000 Churchmen, and each having a salary of £320 a-year with an allowance of 2100 a-year for a curate, payable from the Legislature. The Governor proposed that the revenue of the Church should be reduced from £1,060 to £800, but the Earl of Kimberley insisted that there should be a strictly proportionate concurrent endowment, and that the Church of England should only have £625, the exact proportion to which it was entitled as calculated upon the number of its members. That was what was done in islands with only a small Roman Catholic population, and he now came to islands on which the Roman Catholics were in a great majority. In St. Lucia, where there was a majority of Roman Catholics among the population, a despatch of Governor Rawson's, dated October 30th, 1871, stated that— There had been no complaint or jealousy on the part of the Roman Catholics, neither had there been any religious dissension or dissatisfaction. The members of the several Churches have for a long time lived together in uninterrupted harmony. A spirit of discontent, however, was infused into the island by the attempt to introduce the principle of proportionate concurrent endowment, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop wrote to Lord Kimberley insisting that the principle should be thoroughly carried out according to the respective numbers of Roman Catholics and Protestants, when the former would receive £1,600 and the Protestants £100.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members being found present.

MR. CHARLEY

resumed:—The attempt by Lord Kimberley to extend to Her Majesty's subjects in St. Lucia the principle of religious equality, had simply introduced discontent among Roman Catholics who were perfectly contented before, though their endowments had meanwhile been increased. In Grenada, where there was also a majority of Roman Catholics, the Legislative Council proposed to give £1,000 to the Church of England and £1,000 to the Roman Catholics, instead of giving £2,000 to the former. The Governor reported that there was no on the part of the Dissenters to the Church; but Lord Kimberley, however, would not hear of the arrangement, insisting that no grant should be given to any religious body which was out of proportion to its numbers, and that the scheme of proportionate concurrent endowment should be carried out. The Legislature thereupon passed a resolution declaring that they would disestablish the Church of England as soon as possible, but afterwards they changed their minds, and resolved that the present religious position of the several Churches should continue as at present. A Church Disestablishment Bill was subsequently introduced into the Legislature by the Lieutenant Governor and was rejected, being blow No. 2 to the Earl of Kimberley. Governor Freeling then wrote a despatch in which he stated that it was useless to press the subject of concurrent endowment further at that time. Governor Rawson, however, on the 9th of May, 1873, penned an extraordinary despatch to the Earl of Kimberley, in which it was proposed that mass meetings should be held, and a newspaper established in the island over which he presided, in support of disestablishment, and, curious to say, Lord Kimberley favourably entertained that proposal. In the island of St. Vincent there were 17,000 Anglicans and 17,000 Dissenters, including Roman Catholics. The Government insisted upon disestablishment there, and required that when vacancies occurred in livings the amount of the incomes was to be handed over to other religious denominations. In Trinidad the Church of England was disestablished in 1870 by Lord Granville. At that time the revenue stood thus—The Church of England had £5,136 income, and the Church of Rome £5,300; and when a despatch was sent to the Governor by Earl Granville to know what changes he would suggest, the reply was that no changes were required. The Earl of Kimberley, however, in a remarkable despatch, dated the 6th of January, 1871, laid down the general principle upon which he desired the Governors to act. On a Roman Catholic incumbency becoming vacant the last stipend should be paid to the Roman Catholic Body; but when a Church of England incumbency became vacant, two-thirds of the last stipend should, until equality was arrived at, be paid to the Roman Catholic Body. The Archbishop of Port-au-Spain, not satisfied with that slow mode of carrying out the object in view, and wanting the money down at once, wrote a despatch to the Earl of Kimberley, in which he expressed his wishes very forcibly, and the noble Earl at once acceded to his request, and concurrent endowment was carried by main force through the Legislature of Trinidad. In conclusion, he called upon all hon. Members of the House who were opposed to disestablishment to vote in favour of the Motion which he had brought forward, whatever might be their views with regard to concurrent endowment. He also called on all hon. Members who were opposed to concurrent endowment, whatever their views might be with regard to Establishment, to vote in favour of his Motion, because they could not be in favour of a system of concurrent endowment which had been well described as a system which obliged almost everyone in the community to contribute to the Support of one or more religious systems which he deemed entirely incorrect. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,

in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had made out a case which required explanation from the Government. It appeared from the Parliamentary Papers which had been issued, that there had been not only au unprecedented tampering with the free legislation of the Colonies, but that there was some influence at work upon the Ministry, not apparent, adverse to the Church of England and violently stripping her in the Colonies of the revenues she derived from local resources. That influence had, it appeared, been brought to bear upon the Government immediately after the disestablishment of the Irish Church, pressing them to disestablish the Church in the Colonies; but although the idea was mooted it found no sympathy in that House. It had apparently, however, taken effect upon the Government, being admitted by them as a necessary corollary to the disestablishment of the Irish Church. He believed, however, that the House, if it had known the steps taken, would never have supported the course which the Government had consequently pursued, and the subject was one of the gravest possible kind in its constitutional as well as in its religious and moral aspect. Formerly, the Colonial Church was supposed to form a portion of the Established Church of England; but it having been formally decided to the disadvantage of the Colonial Church that such was not the case, the latter Church was entitled to any advantage in its favour that that decision might afford. He wished to know, after that decision, what business an English Minister had to meddle in the concerns of the Colonial Church? Most of our colonies had representative Legislatures, and neither Queen nor Parliament had certainly any right to interfere with their local matters without the concurrence of the local Legislature; and even in the Crown Colonies local matters should only be dealt with by the Representative of the Crown on the spot, in accordance with local public opinion. In no case was the Crown entitled to arbitrarily control colonial local affairs, still less, as in this case, to interfere in a manner contrary to the expressed local will. In the present case the Crown had initiated a scheme of concurrent endowment in the colonies, which was directly opposed to their feelings. Ministers founded on vague principles, arbitrarily laid down, a theory of religious disendowment, with a sole alternative of concurrent endowment, which they had proceeded to force adversely upon the local Legislatures. Lord Derby's Administration had wisely discontinued the grant, amounting to about £220,000 per annum, which had been charged on the Consolidated Fund to the Colonial Church of the West Indies, on the ground that it was an unjust tax upon the British taxpayer, and, now that its temporary object had been attained, was equally opposed to the interests of the Colonial Church. In ecclesiastical as well as in civil and military matters, it was better that every country should be self-dependent. About the same time the Jamaica Clergy Acts expired, and the result of the action of the Government had been that the Jamaica Church had consequently been stripped not only of its English subsidy, but of its own revenues. The very able Governor, Sir John Grant, had, in contemplation of the Clergy Acts expiring, drawn up a scheme for a new arrangement of the local resources of the Jamaica Church under its now circumstances, which he had sent home for approval. Lord Granville, however, instead of sanctioning that scheme, which had received the support of the local Legislature, had said that the moral and religious culture of the subject-race was to be the Governor's object, and not the ascendancy of any particular religious communion. He was not prepared to admit the antithesis. Even if religion were only for the "subject-race," there was no such race in Jamaica; but he thought that the moral and religious culture of the upper classes should be regarded equally with that of the lower classes. As more influential it was even morn important, and certainly quite as necessary. The free Legislature of Jamaica had devoted £30,000, out of a total revenue of £300,000, to religious purposes, and had thus clearly expressed its views with regard to what it considered its ecclesiastical requirements; but Lord Granville, in issuing his ukase, had forced the Governor to alter his scheme against his own wishes, and to establish a new system against those of the local Legislature. The Baptists of Jamaica, finding their own offerings falling short, desired a level field and no favour, but that was not the general wish of the oldest and freest of our West India Colonies in its representative days, nor was it now. The Jamaica Church was now, as a voluntary society, to be incorporated by a charter, even the cost of which incorporation it had been required to pay. The whole proceeding was very characteristic of the colonial policy of the party opposite, who were always endeavouring to force doctrines fresh from their experiments in this country down the throats of our Colonies. Sir John Grant wrote to Lord Granville— I was offering a scheme, but as not in accordance with your instructions it must be dropt. I will draft another on your basis of religious equality. Barbadoes had a population of nine-tenths Anglican Church, but the advantages of national worship must be sacrificed to this inexorable theory. General Rawson— found them even more unanimous than he had anticipated against the change, and not at all prepared to break up the foundations of their Church, cemented by age. As a similar instance, it would be recollected that in Ceylon, Lord Grey created a rebellion by forcing upon the island, unprepared, and in a state of panic, the just-adopted principle of free trade. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who was unable to be present, had placed in his hands a Paper which he had received from the West Indies, in which the writers said that to force upon the West Indian Colonies an ecclesiastical policy which might suit other colonies was a very arbitrary way of dealing with their interests. To say that they would throw upon voluntary resources the Church of the West Indian Colonies was to forget that the peasantry in those islands, upon whom the burden would have to be thrown, were only a generation removed from slavery. Again, there was great inequality between the effects of this treatment on Church and Dissent. The Dissenters had their own congregations in particular places, who collected amongst themselves a sort of joint-stock by voluntary contributions; but the Church had its agencies in all parts, and sought to evangelize the whole of the population without distinction of particular localities. It had to set up its agency often, and especially, where there were none to contribute. Further, the writers of the Paper to which he was referring contended that the disestablishment of the Church in the Colonies was uncalled for, as against the almost unanimous feeling of the people concerned. On the whole, it seemed to him that unless some explanation could be given of the facts which had been set forth, it was a ease in which Her Majesty's Government had violated all the constitutional principles of colonial self-government by having, in a most unprecedented and unwarrantable way, forced their own nostrums and doctrines where they had no business to intrude them at all, and appropriated revenues over which they had no control, and imposed force on an unwilling people, exerting the Imperial power in opposition to popular freedom.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House disapproves of the Ecclesiastical Policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Windward Islands and in Trinidad."— (Mr. Charley.)

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

had heard with some degree of regret the speech of his right hon. Friend who had just sat down in which he had charged Her Majesty's Ministers with having "violated every principle of constitutional Government," and of having "forced measures down the throats of Colonial Legislatures contrary to their opinion." Such, he had said was "the general policy of the party opposite." But his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) regret was tempered by the reflection that, in spite of this sweeping charge, the fact remained that since he had occupied the position he then held, upon every single question of colonial policy, Her Majesty's Government had received the cordial and generous support of his right hon. Friend, and by the consequent hope that his withdrawal of that support upon the present occasion was only temporary. His right hon. Friend had spoken of the policy of Her Majesty's Government as having been dictated or suggested by some of the enemies of the Church of England. He, for one, was no enemy of the Church of England, but he was not sure that those were the best friends of the Church who endeavoured to maintain her supremacy in localities where she was in a small minority, and would keep her in such a position before the eyes of the people as to render her unpopular, and so diminish her strength and usefulness. It was urged that the policy of which complaint was made was not a corollary of the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland. He would appeal from the right hon. Gentleman who urged this argument to Gentlemen belonging to his own party, and inform them and the House that the policy complained of was not originated by Her Majesty's present Government, but was, if not actually originated, at any rate taken great part in, by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Member. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Bill brought in in 1868 by the Government of which he was a Member had nothing to do either with the question now before the House or with the disestablishment of the Irish Church. It was very good generalship of his right hon. Friend to introduce this statement, knowing as he must have done that this Pill would be brought up against him in such a debate as the present. But he maintained, on the other hand, that the Bill of which the Duke of Buckingham moved the second reading in 1868 rendered it impossible not to adopt some such policy as had since been followed by Her Majesty's Government. The Duke of Buckingham, in moving the second reading of a Bill to relieve the Consolidated Fund from the annual payment of £20,300 for purposes connected with the Church of England in the West Indies—a grant made on the proposition of Mr. Canning in 1824—stated that the House of Commons was "evidently of opinion that the grant had done its work and was no longer necessary;" and Lord Cairns, speaking on the same occasion, stated his opinion that the colonies were prepared to provide the cost of maintaining their own Churches. Again, on the same occasion, the Earl of Carnarvon said that in his opinion there was a great deal that was parallel between the case of Ireland and the Church of England in the West Indies. He said that in the West Indies the Established Church, as in Ireland, was the Church of the rich few — a Church whose educated clergy, scattered in the midst of a far less educated race, stood very much in the same relation to the population as did the clergy of the Established Church to the population of Ireland. After the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and when speeches like these were made in the Imperial Parliament, and reported in the colonies, was it to be supposed that the matter could rest where it had rested heretofore, or that the whole question must not have been opened up and fairly placed before the colonists themselves as to the position in which they wished the Church of England hereafter to stand in relation to them? He did not know why his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) should have objected to religious equality, for he believed they were all in favour of that principle as long as it was not opposed to religious liberty; and if religious equality could be attained without inflicting wrong on any portion of the community, it was a thing to be desired. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had stood up and was prepared to stand up for the Church of England in this country. But he had always held that there was nothing abstractedly right or wrong in establishment and endowment or the reverse. The question of disestablishment and disendowment must be considered relatively to the real circumstances and position of the particular community with which they had to deal; and it was quite possible to support the establishment and endowment of the Church of England, and yet to think that her establishment and endowment in other countries was not desirable either for her own interest or for those of the population generally. How did matters stand in Trinidad and the Windward Islands before the policy of Her Majesty's Government was brought forward in re- gard to them? Why, the small minority belonging to the Church of England was endowed, whereas the large majority was not endowed at all. It was true that at Barbadoes the Church of England had a very large majority of the population; but, as to that island, although the policy of the Government had been distinctly placed before the Legislature of Barbadoes, yet when the Legislature objected to the principle which was proposed, no attempt was made to force its adoption upon it; and it had been confessed by the Mover of this Motion that the Government had performed a graceful act in advising Her Majesty to confirm the Barbacloes Bishop's Act. As to what had been said about Jamaica, if they considered the position of that colony before the disendowment of the Church and its position after that event, they could not fairly come to any other conclusion than that the work which had been done was a good and a wise work. What was the previous condition of Jamaica? Speaking from memory, he believed about.£36,000 was contributed from the revenue to the Church of England, who numbered 25,000 persons as against upwards of 80,000 belonging to Nonconformist bodies. Was this a system which could be defended? Now, let him quote from that Jamaica despatch of Lord Granville's of which his right hon. Friend complained. Lord Granville said— Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the moral and religious culture of the subject-race, and not the ascendancy of any one communion, ought to be the object of your Government. His right hon. Friend, quoting this despatch of Lord Granville, said that the moral and religious culture of the lower classes and the subject-race was not so important as that of the upper classes. He could not admit that proposition, but maintained not only that the moral and religious culture of one class was as important as that of the other, but that if either should be the special care of the State, it should be that poorer class which was least able to help itself. But what were the principles that had been laid down by the Government? Why, that in those islands, in some of which the Church of England was in a. majority, and in some in a small minority, it was desirable that instead of letting that Church remain the only endowed religion, it should be proposed to those various colonies that they should either disestablish and disendow all, and leave all to stand on their own merits, or that some concurrent endowment should be adopted consistently with religious equality. And there was a second principle laid down by Lord Granville in a despatch of the 16th November, 1869, in the following words:— With less than one third part of those who effectively belong to any Christian communion attached to the Church of England, and with nearly two-fifths of the population never attending any religious services, it would be unjust to devote the proceeds of taxes levied from the whole population, to a body to which so small a portion of that population belongs. The Government did not, as had been said, impose restrictions on the colonists endowing their own Churches, but it had set its face against the idea that it was right for them to raise taxes from the large body of poor people who did not belong to their communion at all, and to employ those taxes in converting them to their religion. To accuse Lord Kimberley of harshness in that matter was only to show an ignorance of his character, and an unacquaintance with his administration of the colonies, which he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) ventured to say had been marked with an ability which had raised both him and his administration in the good opinion of the world. In St. Vincent's, where it was alleged they had treated the Church of England so badly and reduced her emoluments, 17,000 of the population belonged to that Church, 14,000 to the Wesleyans, and 3,000 to the Roman Catholics. And here the hon. and learned Member for Salford had shown the cloven foot—"What chance," said he, "would those 3,000 Roman Catholics have had of obtaining a share in the endowment, but for the interference of the Government?" Hinc illœ lachrymœ. But where was the justice of the hon. Gentleman? Would he have left things as they were, the Anglicans receiving near £2,200, the Wesleyans .£250, the Roman Catholics nothing? What the Government said was that if there was to be concurrent endowment, instead of everything being given to the Anglicans and nothing to others, something more indeed ought to be given to the Anglicans than to the others; but there should also be given to the other religious denominations a fair proportion of the whole grant. In Tobago, the Anglican Church had 9,000 adherents, the Moravians 3,600, the Wesleyans 330. Was it fair that the former should have everything and the others nothing? Was the condition of things previously existing in St. Lucia equal and just? After what we had done in Ireland, would it have been satisfactory to leave things as they were in that island, where there were some 30,000 Roman Catholics and under 2,000 Protestants, the former receiving £900 per annum and the latter £800 supplemented until lately by £200 per annum from the Consolidated Fund? In Trinidad, with 64,000 Roman Catholics to 26,000 members of the Church of England, there were in the local Legislature eight votes to three against disendowment and in favour of concurrent endowment, so that it was untrue to say that concurrent endowment had been forced down the throats of the people. Since then a Petition had reached the Colonial Office in England, signed by upwards of 200 persons, in favour of total dig-endowment; and it was not improbable, if that principle made progress, that disendowment might eventually be adopted. He might go at great length through all the cases, but he had stated what he believed to be the main reasons for the action of the Government. His own difficulty was to see what different policy the Government could have adopted; and he felt very sure that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in power, and his right hon. Friend at the Colonial Office, his fair judgment and candid mind would have led him to adopt that very policy which he repudiated to-night. He could not follow the hon. Member for Salford when he spoke of Governor Rawson as being an honourable man who had been cleverly manipulated; he could only take exception to the use of such an expression; and as to the Government "descending into the gutter," he did not know what it meant, but if it implied anything dishonourable on the part of the Government he could only repudiate the suggestion. He could not see any reason to condemn Governor Rawson for having stated that the Roman Catholics had held a public meeting, and were about to establish a newspaper to advocate their claims. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that dissension had been created. But what was the meaning of the action noted by Governor Rawson? Simply that the Roman Catholics having long been content to rely upon the justice of the Legislature of the Governor and of the Home Government, had found the delay in recognizing their claims so long that they had deemed it desirable to resort to measures which were perfectly legitimate for the furtherance of those claims. Why should the hon. and learned Gentleman object? If he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was not mistaken, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself frequently made use of public meetings to advance his views, and possibly at some time or other he might have had some connection with newspapers. Why, then, should he blame the Roman Catholics of Grenada for following so good an example?

MR. CHARLEY

explained that he meant to say that Her Majesty's Government had fostered agitation in the Island of Grenada against the local Legislature.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, that every interruption only strengthened the case of the Government, and that there was nothing whatever in this or any other despatch to indicate that Her Majesty's Government had taken any part in agitation against the local Legislature. It was true that the latter had changed and re-changed its views, and possibly the action of public meetings and newspapers might, not for the first time, have influenced such change. But Her Majesty's Government had neither the power nor the will to force the Legislature of Grenada to act in this matter against its will. In all these cases, what the Government had done was to place its own views of ecclesiastical policy fairly before the local Legislatures, but in no case had undue pressure been used. In all that he had said, he had advanced nothing which required him to explain or retract expressions which he had used elsewhere in defence of the Establishment of the Church of England in England, and which he was prepared, when necessary, to use again. There were cases in which a great National Church, rooted in the hearts and affections of the people, could not be uprooted and disturbed without doing violent injury to the social, political, and moral welfare of the community; but these considerations did not apply in communities where the majority was of one religious persuasion, and the whole endowment was given to the other. In such cases there could be but one result, the weakening of the moral influence of the endowed religion, little by little, and the spread of principles opposed to religion altogether. Believing that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was founded on truth and justice, and that no Government could have acted on any other principle, he asked the House not to assent to the condemnation of it proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Salford, a condemnation which he was sure would be disapproved by every thinking man in the House, and by the great majority of the people of this country.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was of opinion that anyone who had read the Blue Book on the Table must have come to the conclusion that the meddling of the Earl of Kimberley had interfered with the religious peace of the islands, and that now there were those ecclesiastical disturbances and a state of things which everyone must deplore. In one island — the Island of Grenada—they had the satisfaction of knowing that the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Lieutenant Governor were putting their heads together for the purpose of circumventing and overruling the wishes of the local Legislature. In another case, the local Government declined to proceed in the course suggested, but after a little judicious manœuvring, one or two Members of the Council were induced to stay away, and by a majority of 1, the policy of Her Majesty's Government received the sanction of the Legislature. Those were circumstances which might be fairly brought before the House of Commons, for the Government were forcing disestablishment and disendowment, or a system of concurrent endowment—a policy which would scarcely have been expected from a Government that had said so much against concurrent endowment in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his defence of the Government said, that that policy originated in 1867, when a Conservative Government relieved the Imperial Exchequer of the payment of a sum of £20,000 for the endowment of the Church of England in the West Indies. The necessary result of that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was that religious equality was to be produced either by disendowment, or by concurrent endowment. He was surprised that the Prime Minister did not run out of the House when he heard the Under Secretary for in the Colonies defending concurrent endowment, considering how he had spoken of that means of establishing religious equality in Ireland. The Imperial Parliament had never sanctioned the disendowment of any one of the branches of the Church of England in the Colonies, and in the Act of the English Parliament of 1867–8 there was not one word said either about endowing other denominations, or of disestablishing the English Church in any one of the islands, but it was left entirely to the Colonial Legislatures to say what they would do in support of the local Churches. Her Majesty's Government, however, when they came to deal with the question in 1870, issued a Circular to all the colonial Governors, in which they stated that the principle they had determined should be carried out in the West Indian Islands was perfect religious equality, and they thought the best way to accomplish that was by concurrent endowment. Now, he would ask what liberty, or what freedom was left to the Colonial Legislatures when they were told that a thing had been determined in Downing Street, and done it must be? That was Lord Granville's mandate; but the Earl of Kimberley following him, descended to the most minute particulars, and enforced the sacred principle—that the members of one denomination should not be called upon to pay for the endowment of any other denomination. He would ask the House how that statement could be reconciled with the fact that in one or two colonies, where it was known to the Government that certain religious denominations would not receive any endowment, they were disregarded, and the money was handed over, as in the case of Trinidad, where the Baptists and Presbyterians refused to receive it to the general Exchequer of the island. In that manner it was thought that concurrent endowment might be reconciled with the conscientious scruples of those who would not take any public money, and who thought it the height of in-justice that they should be taxed for the support of any other sect. It seemed to him most marvellous that when Government was denouncing all those who were suspected of having a latent leaning towards concurrent endowment in the case of Ireland, they should themselves be forcing it upon the West Indies. Why, even in the present Session, in the debate upon University education in Ireland, the Prime Minister, catching at some words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), notwithstanding that his right hon. Friend had said the thing was dead, charged him with still entertaining it as a living idea, and of hoping some day or other to make it a practical reality. That was, he thought at the time, a most unjust charge to make, and it seemed most extraordinary that at the very period when the Prime Minister was making that unfounded charge against the right hon. Gentleman, he was himself endeavouring to make the concurrent endowment which he denounced a practical reality in the West Indies through the instrumentality of his noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley. However, having read the Book now on the Table, and seen how, for the last two years, Her Majesty's Government had been systematically engaged in forcing on concurrent endowment, he could understand what was meant by the charge against the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. To return to the question of colonial freedom and local self-government, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies told them that Lord Kimberley acted towards the Colonial Legislatures in the kindest and blandest possible manner, and merely reminded them of the moral duty which was incumbent on them not to tax the members of any one denomination for the endowment of another. Well, as respected that he (Lord John Manners) had already shown how his Lordship disregarded that principle in respect to the Baptists and the Presbyterians, who refused to have any endowment whatever, and when defeated in argument by Governor Rawson, he receded from his position, it was only for a moment, still leaving the colonies under the conviction that sooner or later the policy of Downing Street of endowing the different seats in proportion to their numbers, would be forced upon them. If, however, that numerical principle were to be acted upon, what was to be done in one or two of the islands where a largo proportion of the inhabitants were not Christian at all? There it was to be permitted to insert the word "Christian" before the word "denomination," and thus the question was brought to a complete state of absurdity. He must also recall to the recollection of the House that which had been so well put by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), the possible future application of that principle which the Government had been pressing on the Governments of the colonies, urging them either to adopt the principle of concurrent endowment or the principle of total disendowment. He (Lord John Manners) asked what application all that must have to future questions which had to be submitted to the consideration of that House? He feared no other than a mischievous one. In the case of Barbadoes where there was no contest at all upon the subject, the Church was established and endowed in the reign of Charles II., and it was therefore an older establishment than the present Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which was established in the reign of William III. Now, what was its position in Barbadoes? He had no doubt it would be found that the Church of England had done its work there in a way that would afford no justification to the Prime Minister for proposing its disestablishment. The Church of England in Barbadoes, he believed, was not at all in the same position as the Church of England in Ireland. He believed that the Church of England in the Island of Barbadoes was the Church of the great body of the people. In Trinidad, again, there were three dominant religions as there were three dominant religions in Ireland. He would ask why it should not be suggested to them to apply the Trinidadian experiment with regard to any surplus that might remain, in the case of the Irish Church? If the policy of disestablishmeut and concurrent endowment in the West Indian Islands was the natural child of the Irish policy of 1868–9, what in five or ten years might not be the views of the present Government of the result of the combined disestablishment of the Irish and the West Indian Churches? He recollected the vehemence which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had de- nounced the idea of concurrent endowment, and yet they saw with what pertinacity the policy of concurrent endowment had been forced down the throats of the Colonial Legislatures, and against the advice of Colonial Governors. He hoped that that view of the case would not be disregarded by a discerning House of Commons. He would vote for the Motion, because the policy it condemned was in direct opposition to the principle of colonial self-government which he thought had been established years ago; and because he believed it was forcing the Colonial Legislatures to do that which they did not wish to do.

MR. MACFIE

thanked the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) for bringing forward the question, because it showed a series of grave transactions which had been carried out by the Government without asking the opinion of that House, and upon which it had never pronounced its judgment. He felt it was a grievous mistake that great affairs connected with the outlying portions of the Empire should be transacted by the Government without consulting the House of Commons. Here was an important policy being carried out in an important island, and which, if carried to its legitimate consequences, would be undoing the policy which that House had laid out for itself since 1868, and preparing the way for concurrent endowment in Ireland. He could not vote for such a policy, lest his constituents might call him to account, and say he was preparing the way for that which they sent him to that House not to favour, but to oppose. He hoped the Government would be able to give some explanation to ease their minds on the subject, and justify the trust they had hitherto reposed in them.

MR. NEWDEGATE

What the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Macfie) has said, Sir, is much to the purpose. I cannot listen to the discussions between the right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the two front benches without feeling that the policy of this country upon ecclesiastical questions has been cast loose ever since the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Ireland, which is now very generally admitted to have been a mistake; but it appears that that measure was not intended to be an isolated policy for Ireland, but that that policy has been pursued in the Colonies. I cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that if this country is to have a decided policy, it must be decided by the people, and not by the politicians of this House. We have now had this illustration—that although in Barbadoes an enormous majority of the people are attached to the Church of England, Her Majesty's Government were not in the slightest degree biassed by that circumstance, but sought by all means to disestablish the Church to which the majority of the people are attached. That cannot be denied. It may be called very liberal to make such a suggestion to the people of Barbadoes, and we may be told that the people of Barbadoes have exercised their choice, and that nothing could be more satisfactory than their decision that they will not part with their Established Church. But this controversy has another result. The Government have wrung out of this policy of disestablishment an endowment for the Roman Catholic Church; they have established in Barbadoes the principle of concurrent endowment, although they failed in their attempt to disestablish the Church of England in that colony. Now, Sir, it is perfectly manifest upon the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that Her Majesty's Government have no policy upon these subjects, except that of obedience—where they cannot help it—to the majority of the people. Let us consider these two principles—disestablishment and concurrent endowment. It seems evident that the way to concurrent endowment is through disestablishment. I stated my conviction that that would be discovered when the proposal was before the House for the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland; and what is the fact even in Ireland already? Why, that the convents and priories of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland are virtually endowed, through the administration of the grant for national education. That is the fact. If the majority of this House object to the principle of concurrent endowment, they made a mistake in adopting the principle of disestablishment. The point you have reached is this—that the opinions and the position of every denomination are valued by the politicians of this House exactly in proportion to the political power which each denomination happens to possess.

That, Sir, is the lesson that I have long sought to impress upon the Protestants of this country. I tell them that they are slumbering in an unsafe position; that they are deluded into a false security; that if they suppose that the political power of more active denominations will not increase through their inaction, they are deceived. I warn them not to look for security to any political or partizan connection. There is but one security for them—political action! In that is their only security for the retention of their religious establishments and their own religious freedom. That is the lesson which the discussion of this night is calculated to enforce; and I trust that it will not be thrown away upon the people of this country. They have this illustration in the Colonies—that by their having unfortunately sanctioned—and I hope that what I now say will reach the ears of the people of Scotland—by their having unfortunately, and by mistake, sanctioned the principle of disestablishment, they have given an impetus to a principle that leads directly to concurrent endowment — the very principle to which they are opposed. That is the political lesson which I derive from the discussion this night, and I shall tell every Protestant that I have the honour of meeting or addressing, that he must look to political action alone if he desires to preserve the religious institutions he values, or even to be permitted a fair hearing in this House.

SIR ROBERT TORRENS

said, he had entertained the opinion that concurrent endowment was an excellent thing in those new countries where there was a scattered population and great difficulty in supporting a resident clergy. He had seen, however, from his experience in Australia, in cases in which such endowment had been done away with, a greater amount of zeal and energy exhibited by the Church of England than she had ever previously displayed. He had thus become a convert to the principle of abolishing all endowments from the facts which had passed before his eyes.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 83: Majority 14.