THE CLERGY AND RATE-AID. T HE letter from Archdeacon Smith, which
we print in another column, enumerates in a concise and intelli- gible form the objections to the proposal to grant rate- aid to voluntary schools. It is a convenient occasion, therefore, to say what weight these objections appear to us to possess. For a reason which will appear by-and-by, we shall leave over the Archdeacon's first objection until we have considered the remainder ; otherwise we shall take them in order.
"It would. be impossible," says Archdeacon Smith, "to protect the religious independence of voluntary schools supported by rates from the administrative interference, direct or indirect, of the ratepayers." Surely the Arch- deacon underestimates the power of Parliament. Pro- bably, if the proposal to aid voluntary schools from the Parliamentary Grant were now made for the first time, we should be told that it would be impossible to protect the religious independence of voluntary schools supported by grants from the administrative interference of the tax- payers. Yet we know that no difficulty has arisen on this head. The Government Inspectors concern them- selves with the secular instruction, and with that only ; and .1 they, or the Department they represent, were to attempt to interfere with the religious instruction, they would soon and easily be brought to book. Where is the difficulty of passing an Act of Parliament which shall limit with equal stringency the inspecting powers of the local School Board?
"A claim given to voluntary schools to support out of the rates would dry up the sources of voluntary subscription." But such an Act of Parliament as that we have in view would make it perfectly clear that if the voluntary subscriptions went, the support from the rates would go too. The arrangement would, be strictly one of mutual contract. The ratepayers would take over the payment for and control of the secular instruc- tion, and in consideration of being relieved of -this burden, the subscribers would maintain the buildings. If, there- fore, the subscriptions fell away, the buildings would go out of repair, and would be no longer passed by the Education Department. But where, it may be asked, would be the inducement to the subscribers to continue their payments ? It would be just where it is now. What is the object of Churchmen in keeping their own schools going ? It is not the secular education of the chil- dren, for if every voluntary school were closed, that would be provided for just the same. The sole reason why a Churchman, as such, subscribes to a Church school is that he wishes the children of poor Churchmen to be taught their religion in the place and way in which it can be taught most regularly and effectively. How will this motive be weakened by the acceptance of rate-aid ? "A claim given to voluntary schools to support out of the rates" will do nothing for religious instruction as under- stood by Churchmen. That will not be provided out of the rates ; it must either be dropped altogether, or paid for as it has been paid for in the past. And if Church- men continue to value religious instruction, the sources of -voluntary subscription will be no more dried up then than they are now.
The proposal would involve levying, for the first time, a substantial school-rate in ten thousand parishes in which at present there is no School Board,—a long step in the direction of universal School Boards and universal Board- schools, and a most unwelcome addition to the burden of local rates." We might deny this, and plead that the power of levying and allocating the rate could be given to the District Councils, and so the expense of a distinct rating organisation be saved. It is more candid, how- ever, to say that we agree with our contemporary, the Guardzan, in looking upon the creation of universal School Boards as a material part of the consideration which Churchmen would have to pay in return for rate-aid. The extension of School Boards has always been greatly desired by educationalists of the type of Mr. Lyulph Stanley, and even if it came burdened with the duty of. paying for the secular instruction of all children alike, it might still have some value in their eyes. No doubt this would be "an unwelcome addition to the burden of local rates," — what addition is not un- welcome? But, in some form or other, that addition is inevitable. The children are there to be taught, and with occasional exceptions the demand of the working man will be that they shall be better taught. Indeed, we shall have good cause to be thankful, if all the additions to the rates made at his instance give us equal value for our money. But though universal School Boards will in all probability accompany the concession of rate- aid to voluntary schools, we do not think that uni- versal Board-schools would necessarily follow. On the contrary, we believe that School Boards, when they had the control of the secular instruction, would often be content with the voluntary schools in their district. Again, it would, as was pointed out in the declaration of the Roman Catholic Bishops, be an essential part of any satisfactory settlement that new schools might be opened by any one who was prepared to erect the necessary buildings, if he could show a certain small minimum of expected attendance ; and under shelter of this permission, Churchmen might be willing to make better provision for the religious wants of children belonging to the Church who are now being educated in Board-schools. The diffi- culties raised by competent experts like Archdeacon Smith sometimes excite a suspicion that in their hearts they do not believe that the mass of lay-Churchmen care very much about religious teaching in elementary schools. Certainly they care very little about religious teaching in the schools in which their own children are educated, so that we should not be greatly surprised to learn that they are equally indifferent to it in the case of schools for the poor. But if this be so, voluntary subscriptions will eventually come to an end, no matter what plan may be adopted.
Under a system of secular instruction such as we have now, there can be no lasting motive for subscribing to voluntary schools, except the desire that the children shall be taught their religion. If this is not recognised already, it will soon have to be recognised, and, we should say, the sooner the better.
"Any aid from the rates in relief of the pres- sure of demands for improvements in the fabrics of volun- tary schools, would give to the ratepayers a permanent lien on these buildings." That is true ; but then we do not contemplate any such aid. If the ratepayers pay the whole cost of the secular instruction in voluntary schools, it is not too much to ask that the subscribers to these schools should build, and maintain the fabrics.
And now we return to Archdeacon Smith's first objec- tion. "It would be highly impolitic," he says, "to reopen the Parliamentary settlement of 1870, by which the religious independence of voluntary schools is guaranteed, and under which Church schools have practically doubled in number, scholars, and income, while they have enor- mously increased in efficiency." We may say at once that we should never dream of reopening the Par- liamentary settlement of 1870, unless educationalists generally had arrived at a preliminary understanding as to the terms of a better settlement to take its place.
But we quite admit that if Church schools have not only thus prospered under the Act of 1870, but are likely to go on prospering under it in the future, there is no need whatever to entertain any such proposal as that we have been defending. We incline, moreover, to go further, and say that a lay journalist had better retire from the controversy until the clergy can agree on one or two rudimentary facts. From the point of view of mental independence, it may be a very fine thing that each of them should have his psalm or his doctrine. But from the point of view of practical politics, it would be more convenient if they were in a position to say, with some degree of unanimity, what it is they want. One thing, at all events, we will make bold to tell them. Until they can make up their minds whether Church schools are in a bad way or a good way, they will do well to say nothing about them.
Previous page
