WAS HOLMES A CHRISTIAN ?

Observer, Volume 7, Issue 229, 31 January 1885, Page 3

WAS HOLMES A CHRISTIAN ?

I think I can satisfactorily settle this question, on the evidence of Mr Walsh, who had known the deceased for upwards of thirty years, and from whom I obtained the following particulars :— Mr Holmes was educated at Harrow, and came to Melbourne from the Royal Academy in the year 1854, niter spending: some time on the Continent in the study of the great masters. He was engaged with Messrs Fry aud Opi to paint the scenery for the Theatre Eoyal, by the proprietor, Mr John Read. While the first scene of the second act was proceeding, four painters were engaged on another scene. The scaffolding was in the theatre at four o clock, but as the clock struck eight it was pulled down. This was done in pursuance of a wager. After a long engagement in Melbourne, Mr Holmes visited Ballarat, Sydney, and other parts of Australia. At this time he was a very gentlemanly person of steady habits, but owing to domestic troubles he fell into habits of intemperance, and lost the high position which his undoubted talents as an artist had gained him. He came over to New Zealand, and at any time during the last twenty years he could have taken a foremost position as an artist.

Mr Walsh assures me that to his certain knowledge Mr Holmes was a member of the Church of England. He was married in that church, and his children were baptised in it. On one occasion in Melbourne a party of gentlemen, among whom were Messrs Holmes and Walsh, were discussing the various rites and ceremonies of the different Christian churches, and someone present declared himself a sceptic. Mr Holmes remarked, "Of course, there is a good deal of mere formality and ceremony about all religions, but it is these little formalities in life that make it endurable. But w'th all its faults I love the Church of England—the church I was brought up in." This ought to be conclusive evidence as to the late Mr Holmes' religious professions. In any case, I think the conduct of Mr McKinlayand his coadjutors deserves the stongest reprobation. Whatever claims he may have had upon poor old Holmes when living, he had none upon his corpse ; and, if lam rightly informed, he received a very fair quid j>ro quo in the shape of services rendered for any trifling acts of kindness he may have done for him. At any rare it was caddish to rake up these matters at the grave's side. Nor could the Freethinker's have any claim io dictate as to the manner of the funeral on the ground that they had collected the subscriptions to defray it; inasmuch as these subscriptions were obtained from members of various sects, principally Christians. Altogether I think the conduct of a section of the Freethinkers on this occasion was disgraceful and shocking in the extreme, not calculated to reflect any credit on their cause, and i am pleased to notice that their action is repudiated by the nationalistic Association.