Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

people have not only stolen the land, but also oppressed the people that cultivate it and live on it; that a vast portion of the gain of the land is grasped by these lords, and spent on frivolous and sinful pleasure, and that the country is thus greatly impoverished. Why do we allow so much wealth to be stolen by the lords, who spend it on frivolity, degrade society, and prevent progress everywhere? We cannot afford to keep them. We harm ourselves by keeping them, and it would be an infinite blessing to get rid of them.' ,米

Already the attempt has been made to introduce a Land League, and the practice of boycotting, among Welsh farmers. The attack upon the tithe was, as the following extracts prove, only used as the thin end of the wedge, applied at what was supposed to be the weakest point.

'We confess that the unfaithfulness of farmers to each other is a very exceptional thing in Ireland. More the pity; in Wales this is a common evil. In the "Emerald Isle," the landlord's oppression and "boycotting" have wonderfully cemented the tenants together; at the same time there are a few examples to the contrary even there, and the Tory papers make a great stir about them as independent and fearless people. Traitors and servile followers, rather like their Welsh brothers.'†

'This week we will only suggest the following changes. That the scope of the league be enlarged. Now only the tithe is taken into account. But could not many other important questions connected with the land be taken up, and that too without relinquishing anything as to the tithe? We believe it can be done. If so, would it not be prudent henceforth to use this name and call it the Land League.' +

'Farmers ought to have their farms for half their present rents. "He that denies this, let him deny that the sun rises." Also there is need for more unity amongst us as farmers. We ought to stand out for a general reduction in our farms. And if any "Judas" happens to come to sight, he ought to be chased out of the country.' §

'A few days ago the "United Ireland," a newspaper on the Irish side, published "a new scheme for compelling the reduction of rents," and already this scheme has been successful beyond all expectation. We do not think any better or more effectual scheme has been ever contrived. Having seen the success of this scheme in Ireland, we should not be surprised if it were adopted in Wales. In the present war against the tithe, we should not wonder at all if the scheme came into general use. The only difficulty with regard to Wales is that the agricultural class have not been educated thoroughly enough in the affairs that

* Y Genedl,' March 14, 1893. Ibid., July 13, 1887.

+ Y Baner,' December 11, 1886. § Ibid., August 31, 1887.

combine

combine with the profits, and it is with a good deal of difficulty that more than a very small number of farmers brave enough to plead for their rights can be obtained. In a word spiritless timid ones, ignorant, fearful, yes, and worse than all, traitorous, are the very great number of them. If the farmers of Wales were more intelligent and more courageous, and above all more like men and less like unconfiding pigmies, the question of the land and of the tithe in Wales would have been settled in a very short time.' *

Appeals to the people of Wales to band together for the expulsion of the landlords as the English garrison, and of the clergy as English spies, have been assiduously propagated throughout the country for the last ten years. No pains have been spared to represent the Church as the barrier which severs the labourers from the land. One instance must suffice::

'But the majority of them oblige us to regard the Church as a mere political organ, and the clergy as nothing but tools to forward the advantage of the landowners. . . . We do not hesitate to declare openly that the greatest enemies of the farmers and labourers of Wales are the priests of the parishes, and we could bring forward a legion of witnesses to prove our assertions. Taking them together, we have no hesitation in saying that there is no class more ungodly and hypocritical in the country than the officers of this worldly Church. . . . It is difficult to believe that any men are more guilty of the worst sins, oppressing the working class by trying to keep them underfoot, keeping the farmers in terror by menacing them with the landlords, &c.' †

6

The Home Rule policy, with its plan of separate disestablishment, its attack upon the English garrison' and the 'English spies,' and its bribe of the possession of the land, is the main source of the agitation against the Church. In the English House of Commons the Welshman is sufficiently astute to keep his ulterior designs for the present in the background. In Wales, under the comparatively safe disguise of the national language, Welsh Home Rule is put in the forefront of the battle; it is discussed in the vernacular press; it is preached from Nonconformist pulpits; it inspires the eloquence of members and candidates on political platforms; it ministers the real strength to the attack upon the Church. Even in Parliament the truth comes out. Mr. Lloyd George and his friends did not argue Disestablishment and Disendowment as a religious question; but they stated that the Church was an 'anti-national' institution, the engine for crushing the spirit, stifling the language, and breaking the hearts of the Welsh

*Y Genedl,' December 8, 1886.
†Y Werin,' January 29, 1887.

people,'

people,' engaged in an 'implacable warfare against Welsh nationality,' following an essentially Anglicising policy,' and officered by Bishops who are 'policemen and spies on the Welsh people.'

It is, however, only rarely that the veil is thus lifted. The Welsh separatists cannot rely any longer on the cry of an intruded, exotic Church, because it has been absolutely shattered by Mr. Gladstone. They dare not avow the meaning that they themselves attach to the phrase an alien Church,' because the avowal would endanger their success. They, therefore, present another case to England, and in Sir George Osborne Morgan they find an admirable mouthpiece. Like his'alien' predecessor in the nominal leadership of the Welsh party, Sir George is not colloquially acquainted with the vernacular language, and, unlike him, it is not probable that he will be raised to the peerage. How far he is conversant with the ulterior designs of his Welsh-speaking colleagues, it would be impertinent and immaterial to enquire. It is enough to know that he is entrusted with the reconstruction of that portion of the 'alien' case which is designed for English use.

The whole case may be condensed into the narrowest possible limits. Welsh national feeling, it is alleged, is overwhelmingly and irreconcilably opposed to the Church, because it is the Church of the stranger, of the rich, and of the minority. Unless, therefore, it is proved that the great preponderance of the inhabitants of Wales are invincibly hostile to the Church, there is absolutely no case at all. To the advocate of Disestablishment and Disendowment, the question of numbers is the one, allimportant, essential point. But before we discuss the numerical argument, which is repeated, it may be noticed, as one of the three causes of the national hostility, it will be well to notice briefly the two other reasons which are alleged for the assumed invincible repugnance of Wales to the Church.

The first explanation is that the Church is the Church of the stranger.' Historically it has been demonstrated that this charge was without foundation till fifty years ago. Nor is it better founded now, except by a juggle of words. The language census proves that 961,000 inhabitants of Wales are only able to worship in English, or prefer to do so. The one institution which, practically speaking, ministers to the spiritual wants of these people is the Church. It cannot, therefore, be called the 'Church of the stranger,' unless the cry of Wales for the Welsh' is triumphant, and more than half the population of the Principality are branded as aliens.

The second explanation is that the Church is the Church of

the

the rich.' In discussing this point Sir G. Osborne Morgan says that, though the members of the Established Church' certainly do not comprise one-fourth of the population of the whole country, they probably possess more than three-fourths of its wealth.' The first part of this statement is, on the evidence of the polls at Parliamentary elections on which Liberationists almost exclusively rely, inaccurate; the second part is a guess, which is more haphazard, but equally incorrect. The wealth of Wales lies partly among the great landlords, who are for the most part Churchmen, and who have suffered heavily from commercial and agricultural depression, and partly among the middle classes, who are for the most part Nonconformists. Among the Churchmen wealth is concentrated; among the Nonconformists it is disseminated. But, in the aggregate, the latter are probably as rich as the former. To say that three-fourths of the wealth of Wales belong either to the landlords or to the middle classes would be equally untrue. The truth is that it is divided. It would not be unfair to say that the pecuniary support given to the Church mainly comes from the rich few, and that that which is given to the Chapels comes from the well-to-do many.

[ocr errors]

Starting from a statement which his own figures prove to be inaccurate, and a guess, which is as incorrect as it is haphazard, Sir George proceeds to contrast the amount of money raised by the liberality of Churchmen with that raised by Nonconformists from their poverty,' 'without extraneous aid.' The attempt to import prejudice into the contrast is not successful. The first statement that Nonconformists contribute from their poverty' is, as we have said, based upon a random and incorrect guess. The second statement, namely, that they raise money' without extraneous aid,' is notoriously inaccurate. With praiseworthy assiduity, and with perfect justice, Nonconformists seek and obtain extraneous aid. Thus in their official Report for 1889 the Calvinistic Methodists appeal for help to all Christians in England, Scotland, and even Ireland. It may be further added that there are few. Nonconformist Chapels in Wales which have not drawn, at some time or other, upon the generosity of Churchmen. Parliamentary candidates of the moneyed classes subscribe liberally to the chapels of their constituencies. Many landlords who are Churchmen have given sites, and often contribute more largely to the chapels than to the churches on their estates. Bazaars again, which form a considerable source of chapel incomes, are generously supported by Churchmen, Considerable amounts are collected from Church people in small sums by the importunate and ubiquitous mendicants who are sent out with collecting cards, Vol. 179.-No. 357.

M

concert

concert tickets, tea tickets, and other devices for raising money. Such a condition of things may be creditable to both sides ; but it demonstrates the incorrectness of the statement that the Nonconformists do not appeal for and obtain 'extraneous aid.'

On this basis of mis-statement and random guess-work, Sir George builds an argument in favour of a voluntary system. He concedes that Churchmen contribute largely to Church purposes; but in reasoning from this concession, he makes an assumption, which a little enquiry, or even a little thought, would have shown to be unfounded. He says that, when the endowments are small, the voluntary offerings are large. On the contrary, the size of the endowment does not determine the destination of the voluntary offerings. Money contributed for Church purposes is distributed according to the requirements of the population and the consequent need for the development of ecclesiastical machinery. Church offerings are thus irrespective of endowments, and are not, as Sir George implies, a business transaction by which each man pays for his own religion. The voluntary system, carried to its logical extreme, produces complete religious selfishness. Its result is summed up in no pay, no spiritual ministrations.' But in the Church, where a mixed system prevails, voluntary offerings are destined as much, if not more, for the donor's neighbours than for himself.

Sir G. Osborne Morgan holds out to the House of Commons the promise that, at some future time, he will discuss the relative amounts which Churchmen from their wealth,' and Nonconformists from their poverty,' contribute to religious purposes, and, we will add, to educational and philanthropic objects. The convenient season which Sir George expects may But, meanwhile, we will furnish him beforehand

never come.

with some figures.

In

It is impossible to determine with any accuracy the relative sums of money contributed to religious purposes by Churchmen and Nonconformists. The voluntary offerings contributed by Churchmen to Church work in Wales are indeed known. 1893 they gave the sum of 247,9881. 2s. 2d., an amount which exceeds the net Clerical Income (185,4517. 14s. 2d.) by more than 60,000l. On the side of Nonconformists no reliable figures are forthcoming. Two facts are, however, beyond dispute. In the first place, the debt on the chapels of Calvinistic Methodists, as stated in their last official Report, amounts to 280,4897. 9s. 4d. In the second place, while Churchmen have largely assisted Nonconformists, the latter contribute nothing to the aid of any religious denomination, except that to which they individually belong.

« AnteriorContinuar »