WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 115, 14 May 1912, Page 4

WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.

I The controversy over the proposed disestablishment and disendownicnt of the Anglican Church in Wales has already grown fierce and bitter at Home, and it is possibly difficult for colonial readers to comprehend the intensity of feeling displayed on both sides. But a careful examination of the facts set forth by Mr. McKenna in his description of his Bill suggests that some of the opposition to it is due to misapprehension. The Bill does not appear to be a particularly complicated measure. But as even the Archbishop of Canterbury has evidently fallen into serious errors in discussing it, it may be fairly assumed that at this distance many people interested in the question are also subject to some misapprehension about the character and purpose I of the Bill. A few weeks ago the i Primate delivered a charge on the subI ject of Welsh Disendowment, in which he made at least three serious mistakes. He declared that after a few months the Anglican Church in Wales would have lost practically the whole of its endowments; that endowments for the upkeep of buildings would be taken away; and that the income of the Church would be reduced to 1/6 in the £, as compared with the present scale It is easy to show, and it has been shown, that in all these particulars the Archbishop is entirely mistaken, and we may reasonably presume that the ignorance of the facts of the case displayed in such high quarters is largely shared by a majority of the opponents of the Bill. First, as regards the upkeep of the cathedrals and church buildings, it is specifically stated in one of the clauses cf the Bill that the Church shall retain "all funds or endowments specially allotted to the repair, restoration or improvement of the fabric of any such church or ecclesiastical residence. 11 Here the Archbishop's version of the Bill is manifestly in error. Again the Primate stated that "some provision" is made for "the life interests of one section of past occupants."' But the Bill explicitly reserves all life interests of every kind, i lay as well as clerical, and even compensates -private patrons rt the extent of one year's -income for the benefices that concern them. But by far the most serious mistake made by the Primate concerns the revenue that will be refained by the Church after disendowment. At present the endowment income of the Church in Wales amounts to £250,000. After the Bill passes, Mr. McKenna calculates that the Welsh Church's income will -be £140,000, which would mean that the Church will retain about 15/9 in the £ of her present income instead of the paltry sum of 1/6 as maintained by the Archbishop. This point is so interesting and important that it is worth setting out in detail The Bill leaves to the Church (1) the life interest on the old benefactions (before 1662), which give an income of £180,000. At 12 years' purchase this would amount to quite £2,000.000, or an income of at least j £60.000 in perpetuity; (21 the later j benefactions (since 1662), valued at ' £20,000 a year; (3) the English Con- ! tribution to the Church funds, worth at I least £60,000 a year. This amounts in , all to £140,000, which, subtracted from I £260,000, the present income, leaves

£120,000. But, in addition, the Church will, of course, retain all its "free will offerings," which come to nearly £300,000; and as the redaction in income cannot affect these, the loss is, proportionately, very much smaller than the Archbishop of Canterbury has calculated. As a matter of actual figures, the Church stands to lose by disendowment not IS/6, as the Primate claims, but 4/3 in the £- It may further be pointed out that the endowments have done a great deal of harm to the Anglican Church in Wales in the, past by discouraging private contributions. There are about 1,100,000 Nonconformists in Wales, who subscribe £SIB,OOO a year to their churches. This works out at about 14/10 per head. There are 785.000 Churchmen in Wales, and at present they subscribe to the Church only at the rate of 6/8 a year. If they contributed to their Church funds on the same scale as the Nonconformists, the "free will offerings" would rise at once from £296,000 to £580,000, which is more than the entire income of the Church, with endowments included. Surely, when all these facts are taken into account, it is difficult to find any trace of injustice or tyranny in the scheme of Disestablishment that Mr. McKenna and Mr. Lloyd George have i devised for Wales. I