Anglican University in Dublin, a Roman Catholic University in the same city, and a Presbyterian University in Belfast, appears to us to be midsummer madness. Is the State, we ask, under the control of the Churches? I am not concerned with the rightness or wrongness of our view. We may be altogether wrong in exalting the State over the sectarian institutions of the nation, but we do it. If we had to settle the Irish University question, I believe it would be on some such lines as the following: We should follow the plan of the Queen's Colleges. We should establish a degree-granting University, and perhaps there would be sufficient funds granted to this University of Ireland to enable it to grant scholarships to students who could attend any colleges affiliated to the University. There would then be established in the north, the south, the east, and the west teaching University colleges free from Church control. The University and colleges would be under separate management. The University would be managed by a Senate, partly appointed by the Government, partly by the graduates, and partly by the affiliated colleges. The Senates of the colleges would be partly appointed by the Government, partly by the graduates who had studied at the college, partly by the professors and lecturers, and partly by the local bodies in the district-the County Councils and City Councils. At none of the colleges would theology be taught, and the Churches would have to institute their own theological colleges without Government aid. Trinity College would become the University College for Dublin; part of its endowments, now being used for theological teaching, would be given to a theological college if the Irish Church established one. and colleges would receive such endowments as their necessities required, and in time new and other colleges might be required in other centres. Under such a University system Catholic need not vex Protestant, nor Protestant Catholic, and there would grow up, perhaps, a true national feeling of brotherhood, that seems as lacking in Ireland as in many other countries. It would be a State system and based on citizenship, not on Church membership or Church organisations. And as the Imperial Parliament has declared that Ireland does not require a State religion, can it be said that she requires a University system based on Church organisations?

The University

No

This is the point of view of the majority of the colonists. The Church and State are kept apart, and we believe that that is the only policy that can give us freedom and true equality as citizens. one says that our University system has weakened the power of the Churches over their own church members, or that we are less touched with religious emotion than our kin across the seas. We have erected magnificent church buildings, we have quite an army of ecclesiastics, and our Church organisations are active, strong, and zealous. And the State has gained by the separation of Church

from State, for we have relegated theological discussions to the Churches. They are outside of politics.

May it not be necessary to strengthen the affection of the people for the State so that the perennial struggle in older lands between Churches and the State may cease? The colonists, as has been said, are being trained to look to the State for most things which they require. This may be a phase of our evolution. The time was when the Church loomed largest in the ideas and imaginations of the people. With us the State holds that position. Humanity, it has been said, cannot get on without institutions. Is the State to take the place of the Church? If it is to do so, it must become altruistic and dispense favours. This may explain why it is that in the colonies the functions of the State have been greatly extended in all directions. But who knows but that this increase of State duties and worship of the State may not be a phase of our growth and pass away, just as the domination of the State by the Church is passing away in all nations? The growth of the power of the State has its dangers; but such a power centred in one organisation, and that under democratic control, may prove much less mischievous than power centred in sectarian organisations, which tend to separate citizens and destroy true brotherhood.

These few observations are not offered as a defence of, or apology for, our point of view. This point of view of the State's position and functions exists. It is the stage in politics that we have reached— whether it shows progress or retrogression it is not for me to say. The liberty of the individual is not so sacred in some directions as it was, but it is more so in others. There is a tolerance of opinions, and there is an altruism and a growing civic conscience, that will compensate to some extent, perhaps, for the curtailment of freedom of contract, and for the interference between employers and employees.

Many explanations may be given for our point of view. It has to be remembered that in starting a new colony there is no co-operation amongst the immigrants. The Government is their co-operative association, and it is some time before private associations or companies can be formed. Individual effort can do little without co-operation, and the early immigrants were not capitalists. The Government must perforce do many things that in older countries are left to private enterprise. And as the government of the colony is in the hands of the people of the colony there necessarily is developed this feeling of the power, the wisdom, and the benevolence of the association called Government. And bit by bit its power has extended until the Government has come to occupy a position and importance entirely disproportionate to the position occupied by Governments in the opinion of people in other countries. But, whatever the genesis of this feeling, it exists, and it has to be

reckoned with by colonial statesmen and understood by our foreign critics.

Whether our experiments have any lessons for our Mother-land, or whether they can help to point a way to solve her burning questions, it is difficult at this distance to say. To appreciate our attempted solutions, however, it is necessary to understand our point of view. And perhaps it is necessary also to remember our environment. We have many advantages. We are possessors of a country having fivesixths of the area of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with a climate of great variety, extending from the sub-tropical North to the temperate South, with no extremes of heat and cold, and without the droughts or floods of Australia or the hurricanes or blizzards of North America. The scenery of our country cannot be excelled, and its productions are varied and abundant. We are also the healthiest country in the world, for our death-rate is often under 10 per 1000 in a year. Our people are few-under 800,000-and we lack and shall lack great cities with their inevitable slums, or great concentration of people. Our manufactures are small, and our labour troubles can, consequently, never be very acute. Situated as we are we must escape, in their accentuated form, many of the troubles of the older land, though the recent decrease in our birth-rate would seem to show that we, as well as the inhabitants of Europe, have an economic problem. There is, however, no sign amongst our New Zealanders of physical, intellectual, or moral decadence. Our young generation can hold their own and compare favourably with their fathers and mothers. But our time has been but short. One of our colonies-Canterbury—only celebrates its jubilee next year. It may take us fifty years more before we can see the effects of our experiments. If they fail with us they must fail every where, for our lines have been cast in pleasant places. And if we succeed, perhaps our success may be due as much to our environment and to the qualities of our race as to our laws. Some of us may have our doubts whether in other lands differently situated our experiments can be models for universal adoption.

ROBERT STOUT.

A NATIONAL CHURCH FOR INDIA.

IT

T seems strange that, whilst in England there has been great rejoicing over the celebration of the Centenary of the Church Missionary Society, in India the Church in its various operations has been, and is being, subjected to a criticism more or less severe, the leading Anglo-Indian journals having freely opened their columns for the discussion of this subject. I shall here deal with only one phase of this discussion—namely, that referring to the mischievous effects of sectarianism in the diffusion of Christianity, and in the serious obstruction which it constitutes to the consolidation of the Indian Christians into one compact body bound together by ties of love, charity, and sympathy towards each other, and capable as a united community of promoting their common interests. It is a significant fact that the brunt of this criticism has been mainly directed against the clergy of the Church of England, and a more or less unfavourable opinion expressed both as to the qualifications of the missionaries to carry on the work of evangelisation, and the manner in which their operations with this object in view are being carried on. Be this as it may, for there is much to be said on both sides of the question, it is yet a coincidence that cannot fail to be noticed that just at this juncture these same missionaries should by their united action, to some extent at least, have refated the charge that they were lukewarm or indifferent in furthering the cause for which they came out to this country, and should have shown the world that they are not quite oblivious of what is passing around them, and is hindering the progress of the Church, and, so far as lies in their power, they are prepared to remove these hindrances, and to place the Indian Church on a more satisfactory footing.

For some time past it has been the practice of the missionaries

connected with the Church Missionary Society working in different parts of India to meet every five years to confer together as to the best method of carrying on their work. The last Quinquennial Conference was held in Allahabad in the month of December 1898, and was signalised by the passing of certain resolutions, which, as it were, mark an epoch in the history of the Church in India, and which indicate that the Conference has at last had brought home to it the conviction that the affairs of the Church were not on quite so satisfactory a footing as was to be desired, and that the time had arrived when a fresh departure was necessary to ensure its future well-being. These resolutions were unanimously passed, and that they were by no means premature is evidenced by the fact that a distinguished missionary in China resigned his position in the Society as a practical protest against the evils which these resolutions are intended to remedy. And this was followed by thirteen resolutions being passed by the Chinese Missionary Conference, having for their object the removal of those denominational differences which have divided Western Christians and were being transplanted to the young Christian Church in China, and the promotion of missionary comity and co-operation. But the Quinquennial Conference of the Church Missionary Society's missionaries in India has struck out a bolder line. It advocates the constitution of a self-supporting, self-governing, and independent Church, free from European control. The resolutions passed on this particular head are so important that they deserve to be quoted in full:

"1. That this Conference places on record its opinion that the future outcome of the Church Missionary Society's Native Church Council system should be the formation of an independent Indian Church, governed by its own Synods, under an Indian Episcopate, and in communion with the Church of England.

"2. That, bearing in mind the fact that all the clergy, whether European or Indian, are now bound by the laws and regulations of the English Church in India they may as individual presbyters take their share in diocesan organisations, so far as their own standing as clergy of the diocese is concerned.

"3. That the Indian Christians as a body should not be committed to any policy which may fetter their action in the future, or in any way hinder the independence, self-support, and self-development of the Church in India.

"4. That, as the English Church in India must of necessity always consist mainly of Europeans who are not permanent residents in the country, and as it is difficult for it to adapt itself to the needs of the Indian Church, it is not desirable that for all time it should be the supreme ruler over the Indian Church, nor that the Church should be bound by laws and Acts of Parliament framed for a totally different state of society, and under national, political, and other considerations which do not prevail here.

66

5. That this Conference requests the parent committee to confer with the directors of the large Missionary Societies carrying on work in India, in order that some united policy may be adopted in their respective Indian missions with reference to the questions of self-support in the Indian