Poll: The People in the Pews don’t Support Reparations

Nigel Biggar book Slavery

by Nigel Biggar, The Biggar Picture

Most Anglicans do not support the Church of England’s plan to allocate funds to slavery reparations. A new poll of Anglican churchgoers reveals that:

  • 81% expect the Church to support local parishes rather than use financial resources on reparations,
  • 64% believe it is “not the role of the Church Commissioners, using funds in their care, to atone for previous injustice such as slavery”, and
  • 61% would switch their giving to alternative charities, if the Church proceeds with its policy.

The background story is this. In November 2022 the Church Commissioners for England, a charity which administers a fund to support the Church of England, made a commitment to make reparation for its involvement in transatlantic slavery, via ‘Project Spire’, to the tune of £100 million. This commitment was made in response to historical research that appeared to show that the Queen Anne’s Bounty, an 18th century forerunner of the Commissioners’ endowment devoted to supplementing the income of poorer clergy, had “links” with African chattel enslavement, mainly through investments in the South Sea Company.

Without any further or wider deliberation, the Commissioners set up an ‘Oversight Group’ to work out how reparation should be made. When the group presented its 41 recommendations, the Commissioners—who included both the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and the present Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell— endorsed them fully.

Then the trouble began. After examining the historical evidence, the emeritus professor of international banking at Southampton University and author of a book on the South Sea Company, Richard Dale, concluded that the Commissioners had misinterpreted it. Their statement that “a significant portion of the Bounty’s income during the 18th century was derived from sources that may be linked to transatlantic slavery, principally interest and dividends on South Sea Company annuities”, he judged “misleading on several fronts”. As he explained,

Read here