WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3017, 10 January 1912, Page 89

WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.

DR GORE’S OUTSPOKEN VIEWS. CFbom Ora Own Cobrkspondeht.V ® LONDON, November 24. The Representative Church Council held a meeting this week on the subject of Welsh disestablishment, when the new Bishop of Oxford (Dr Gore) put forward the view that they could not have a State ■ Church against the -wishes of the majority of the people. The Council is composed of the members of both Houses of the Convocations of Canterbury and York and of the Houses of Laymen of the two provinces. The meeting took place yesterday in the great hall of the Church House. The Bishop of London moved —“That the Representative Church Council hereby records its protest against the proposal to disestablish and disendow the Church in the four Welsh dioceses, and deprecates as an unjust and wrongful act such dismemberment of the National Church and such confiscation for secular uses of property given to, and urgently needed for, directly religious purposes.” The Bishop of Oxford moved as an amendment to omit the words ‘ ‘ disestablish and,” and to substitute for them “so thoroughly to disendow,” etc. He said the object of his amendment was to raise as simply as possible the question whether it was either right in principle or wise in policy for the Church to array herself against the proposal of disestablishment. It seemed .to him that there was one proposition absolutely incontrovertible in the matter. Did they think it lawful and moral to retain the establishment of a certain religious doctrine and institution against the wishes of the majority of the people of the country?. If they did he ventured to advise them to keeo their opinions, as far as the political world was concerned, to themselves. He could not dispute the proposition that the establishment of any particular religious body was only justifiable if it had behind it the clear majority of the people of the country. Sir Alfred Grippe had urged that nuestions of right and wrong could not he settled by majorities. Did he understand that those who shared that opinion, were in favour of maintaining the establishment of a certain religious doctrine and institution against the wishes of the majority of the people in this country?—(“Yes.”) It was,; he thought, unwise for them to oppose the proposal for disestablishment in Wales. The auestion was whether Wales could be treated in this respect as an integral country which could be dealt with alone, and he did not see how a Liberal Government could act against the extremely persistent and almost unanimous claim of the Welsh people. —(“No; no.”) He was in agreement with what had been said with regard to the cruelty of the disendowment proposals, and was prepared to do all in his power to oppose them. Lord Halifax appealed to the Bishop of Oxford to withdraw his amendment, which he characterised as misleading and absolutely unpractical. The Bishop of Birmingham (Dr Russell Wakefield, the lately-elected successor to Bishop Gore) said that before any decision was come to by Parliament the matter ought to have a more prominent place in the electoi'al campaign than it had at the last general election. As a Liberal he opposed disestablishment and disendowment because he could not bear the idea of taking away property which the State had not given and which was being well used in the hands of those who now possessed it. The Bishop of Hereford said it was no use arguing the question of disendowment when they had not the Government s proposals before them, and he had authority for saying that the bill was not yet drafted. He thought there was no question that they held their endowment by parliamentary title.—(“Oh!”) Parliament had a right to deal with such endowments, being as they were trust endowments. What had been given to the whole people of Wales was now monopolised by a very large minority. They would do better it they approached the Government with reasonable proposals for securing the ancient endowments of the Church.

Only four voted for Dr Gore’s amendment, and the original motion, with the substitution of the word “ condemns” for “ deprecates,” wag carried with two dissentients, a rider being added on the motion of Sir A. Griffith-Eoscawen, M-P.> urging Churchmen to use all legitimate means to prevent the proposed measure from becoming law, and asking the archbishops and bishops, as the leaders of-the Church, to take such steps as appear to be best to defeat the bill.