BY STEWART SLATER

It is, these days, a truth universally acknowledged that an institution in possession of a fortune must be in want of someone to give it away to.

Just over a week ago, the Church Commissioners adopted what we might term the Mick “Crocodile” Dundee approach to reparations for slavery, arguing that the £100mn set aside for the task was “not enough” and a figure of £1bn would be a better starting place. The Church itself has not yet accepted the figure, but, looking at its recent performance, it would be a brave man who would bet against it doing so, Archbishop Welby seemingly never having met a progressive cause he did not want to genuflect towards.

There were also calls to apologise for “deliberate attempts to destroy diverse African religious belief systems”. I am no theologian but having comfortably exceeded the third in Classics which was, by the wags at my old University, deemed the equivalent of a first in theology, I feel comfortable in suggesting that if Christianity is a proselytising religion (which it is) and if it believes that it is Christian faith which grants access to heaven (which it has for most of history – only two pagans make it into Purgatory in The Divine Comedy and one of them was widely believed to have been a secret convert), destroying rival belief systems should not be a source of shame, but rather a point of pride.

Slavery is wrong and the Church benefited from it both directly (through owning shares in the South Sea Company) and indirectly (donations from slave-holders) but what does that mean it should do now? One solution would be to give compensation to the descendants of those from whose enslavement the church profited but there would be obvious practical issues given the length of time (the South Sea Company, for example went bust in 1853) and the likely number of claimants involved.

It is presumably because of this that the recommendation is for an investment fund to give the money to minority businesses and charities to alleviate the “racial disadvantage originating in African chattel enslavement.” There is, however, an element of causation missing here. We can accept that Africans were enslaved and we can accept that their descendants in Britain today are relatively disadvantaged, but we cannot necessarily say that one is a consequence of the other. The group in Britain today which has the highest eligibility for free school meals is Travellers of Irish heritage – who were not enslaved. Bangladeshi and Pakistani households have average incomes 10-20% lower than those of Black African, British and Caribbean ancestry but again, they were not enslaved. Immigration seems to be a more important cause of deprivation than historical slavery.

It would, of course, be surprising if members of minority immigrant populations were not relatively deprived, for it generally takes time for a recently arrived population to ascend the commanding heights of its new country. Singapore today is dominated by the Chinese but, having arrived in the middle of the 19th century, for the next several decades they were mainly employed in menial jobs while the country was run by British expats. It was only in 1962 that the Chinese became eligible to join the Tanglin Club, whose members would regard themselves as the country’s elite. Why do the Church Commissioners believe that, absent historical slavery, the descendants of those subject to it would have bucked what appears to be a human universal?

Such considerations will not, in all likelihood, stop the CoE reaching into its pocket. The Established Church has remained so due to its skill in adapting to the secular faith of the time. Paying reparations is a way for its leadership to feel that it (unlike the knuckle-draggers who clog its pews) is on the right side of history, so pay reparations it almost certainly will.

But if it is, perhaps, too keen to give away its cash, another institution, similarly famed for its longevity and adaptability is proving rather keener to keep hold of its.

For, at the time of writing, the Conservatives are refusing to return a donation from Frank Hester who was discovered to have, in 2019, made disobliging remarks about Diane Abbott. Remarks which were, on any reasonable understanding, racist.

There may be a political motive for the government here – £10mn is a big hole to leave in an election war chest and, given the polls, might not be easy to replace. There may be political motives to the opposition uproar – £10mn is a big hole to leave in an opponent’s war chest and, given the polls, might not be easy to replace. But, as so often with the political animal, baser instincts wear the garb of virtue.

Hester is a racist, therefore, his money must be returned because racists can have no role in politics – Lib Dem (I was about to add “busybody” but realised that, having already written “Lib Dem”, it would be redundant) Daisy Cooper has contacted every Tory MP urging them not to take “tainted” money.

It is hard not to detect echoes here of pre-modern ideas of moral pollution. An individual has sinned, thereby making himself unclean. As a consequence, everything he touches becomes unclean. He must be expelled from the body politic to avoid further contagion. That the Church’s money is the wages of sin (absent slavery, there would be no money) and the Conservatives’ the wages of a sinner (Mr Hester’s remark was wrong but played no role in his making the money which he then donated) matters not. Both are equally tainted.

But societies which believed in moral pollution developed methods for curing it. Rituals could be undertaken which would cleanse the individual and allow them to retake their place in society. The slate could be wiped clean. This, it appears, we lack. The Tories will remain tainted by association even if they return the money, and what about Mr Hester? What can he do to redeem himself? Or is he to remain forever beyond the pale?

He has apologised but, despite this having been enough for the Labour Party to urge everyone to “move on” when Azhar Ali was found to have made his unfortunate remarks in Rochdale, it appears for some reason to be inadequate in this case.

Charitable donations have long been seen as a way to regain grace – one of the institutions which did its best to educate me was founded as a way for a warlord to regain a bishop’s favour. Perhaps giving the Conservatives another £10mn would be sufficient to cleanse him.

Or, perhaps not. For, as we grasp our way towards a new belief system, it seems clear that it will be tribal, not universal. Call for a female politician to be shot and you will, if you are on the wrong team, be unpersoned. Call for a female politician to be lynched and you will, if you are on the right team, be supported. Make remarks about Islamists and you will, if you are on the wrong team, be banished to the political wing of a provincial golf club. Call Hamas “freedom fighters” and you will be an honoured donor with access to the top table.

If we have no rituals for atonement anymore, it is because the system does not want them. Once, politics was downstream of morality, now morality is downstream of politics. What is a grievous sin when they do it is perfectly fine when we do it, the determining standard political advantage. There can be no way for Mr Hester to come back because he is on the wrong team. If he were redeemed, he might give the enemy more money. Money they might use against the good guys. (Equally, in the interests of fairness, there are many Tories who believe John McDonnell should be barred from public life).

This may be no way to run a railroad, but it appears to be the way we have chosen. Morality no longer being a tool to organise society, but a cudgel to gain political advantage. Let’s see how that works out for us.

Stewart Slater works in Finance. He invites you to join him at his website.