TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. BIRRELL AND THE EDUCATION BILL.
.TT is naught, it is naught, saith the buyer : but when he JL is gone his way, then he boasteth." In other words, when men are nearing the critical stage in a bargain the air is sure to be full of such expressions as—" This is really too much " ; " The suggestion is absolutely inadmissible " ; " It cannot be considered for a moment " ; " If the other side continue to be so greedy and exorbi- tant, all we can do is to break off negotiations " ; "It would be far better for us to leave things exactly as they are than to adopt such extraordinary proposals " ; " How any sane man can have brought himself to make them passes all comprehension " ; and so on, and so on. This being the normal rhetoric of bargaining and com- promise-making, which is only bargaining under an alias, we are not surprised either at the tone of the Government Press in regard to the Education Bill or at the strong language contained in Mr. Birrell's speech at Bristol. If, however, bargaining were not in the air, and it were not obviously politic for the buyer—that is, the party who initiates action—to scream at his loudest " It is naught, it is naught ! " we should. be forced. to rub our eyes with astonishment at the exaggerated tone adopted by the Minister of Education. One would. imagine from the more vituperative portions of his speech that nothing had ever been so monstrous or so oppressive as the amendments to the Education Bill passed by the House of Lords. But when we bear in mind that bargain and compromise are in the air and that we are nearing the critical stage, and then look into the details of Mr. Birrell's objections to the Lords' amendments, we find that in reality there is little in the action of the Upper House to justify the heated expostulations to which it has given rise. Their amendments may not be perfect, and in many cases they may have been ill-drafted and ill-conceived, and on one or two points it may be impossible for the Government to yield without abandoning essential principles. To suggest, however, in cold blood that they are absolutely subversive of the whole idea of the Bill would be a very great exaggeration. But then, as we have said, the bargaining mood is not one of cold blood.
Mr. Birrell's first point against the Lords is certainly one which is not likely to excite the country very deeply. The Lords, it will be remembered, have not altered the first and fundamental provision of the Bill, but have merely added. to it words which will make it necessary for the local authority to set apart some portion of the school hours every day for the purpose of religious instruction. This, as we have already explained, is in reality the estab- lishment of " Cowper-Templeism " in all ordinary Provided schools. Mr. Birrell tells us that he does not himself object to this, but on the contrary has always regretted that "all our educational authorities " have not thought fit to provide religious instruction on Coivper-Temple lines. But he goes on to point out that in England, out of 5,796 schools, there are only seven Provided schools which do not give religious instruction, and out of a thousand and four schools in Wales, only a hundred and fifty-eight in which there is neither religious instruction nor religious observance. No doubt that is very satisfactory ; but if the schools which are neglectful of what we consider to be their duty are so few, there surely can be no objection to laying upon them the not very burdensome obligation proposed by the Lords. Mr. Birrell, it is clear, shrinks from coercing the local authorities. If he had to coerce a thousand in England and seven or eight hundred in Wales, we could. understand his objection. As it is, his argument as to the smallness of the problem tells, not in his favour, but against him. To establish a principle of such immense value as that which declares that it is part of the essential duty of the State to provide that all children, unless their parents object, shall receive religious education, it is well worth while to put pressure upon seven schools in England and a hundred and fifty-eight in Wales. Mr. Birrell's argument, at any rate, shows that the Lords are acting in consonance with the vast preponderance of public opinion throughout the country. Mr. Birrell's next objection relates to the amend- ments to Clause II. He is very much annoyed here because the Lords have used the word " shall " in regard. to " the great local authorities." He thinks it monstrous that the local authority should, if required by the owners, continue any existing Voluntary school as a school provided by them. But though the " shall" in the abstract rouses his indignation, he is still more angry because the Lords whittle away their " shall," and make it in effect depend upon the will of the Commission of three appointed. by the Act. In further derogation of the right of the Voluntary schools to force themselves on the local authority, the Lords' amendment provides that such local authority may appeal to the Board of Education, and that the Board, after considering all the circumstances of the case, may appoint a date at which the school shall cease to be recognised. In other words, Mr. Birrell is angry with " shall " because it is too impera- tive, and also angry because it is not imperative enough. Apart from this, we are willing to admit that he makes a good point in declaring that it is possible that seven thousand appeals in regard to schools might be made to the Board of Education, and that this would throw an intolerable burden upon his office. Granted, however, that this point is, as we have said, a good one, a remedy can surely be found for cases where local authorities might oppressively or out of spite refuse to take over Voluntary schools, though those Voluntary schools were perfectly suitable and cost a very large amount of money to the denominations by which they were owned. If the Lords had inserted. an absolute " shall," we could understand very strong objection being made to the clause. As it is, the worst that can be said about the Lords' amendment in this respect is that the necessary modification is of a clumsy and cumbrous kind.
In regard to Clause III., Mr. Birrell complains that the Lords insist that the denominational facilities shall be given for not less than a clear half-hour every day in the week. Here again he makes what seems to us a good point in objecting to appeals going to the Board of Education in respect of disputes about the granting of facilities. But here also there is plenty of room for compromise, and no reasonable person can assert that the Lords have struck a fatal blow at the principles of the Government Bill. As for Clause IV., Mr. Birrell objects to the amendment making it mandatory. That seems to us unreasonable. If the clause is to give the protection which the Government say it is meant to give to denominations which have a very great preponderance in particular schools, it is surely wise to give it to them as an absolute right, and not to allow that right to be defeated by the whim or prejudice of a local authority. The fact, which we fully admit, that very few authorities are likely to " turn nasty " about extended facilities seems to us not an argument against, but an argument for making the clause mandatory. Why should we preserve to a very small number of ill-conditioned people statutory powers for defeating the intentions of the Bill ? Once more, however, Mr. Birrell's objection to the clause giving an appeal to the Board of Education strikes us as not unreasonable. At any rate, the matter is one which ought to be discussed at a conference between the two Houses. Taking Mr. Birrell's objections to the appeals together, we certainly think that it looks as if the Lords had over- loaded the Education Office, and as if their policy in this respect required reconsideration.
With regard to Mr. Birrell's raising of the bogey of secular education, we cannot profess to be greatly impressed. We feel confident that if this Bill were withdrawn, and at any future time a Bill establishing secularisation were to be introduced, such a Bill must be referred to the country at a Dissolution before it could become law. But the result of such a reference would be its rejection. Therefore, though we give Mr. Birrell every possible credit for the earnestness with which he has insisted on maintaining Christianity as part of the school curriculum, we cannot go with him in thinking that there is any danger of the country estab- lishing non-Christian education in the schools. Any party which made itself responsible for such a solution would be excluded from political power for a generation. We may say incidentally that with Mr. Birrell's complaint that he did not receive from the Opposition the support he deserved for his championship of religious education we have every sympathy. The attacks upon Cowper- Temple religious instruction have been, in our opinion, most injurious to the best interests of religion, and have brought great discredit upon the Anglican extremists who indulged in them, both iuside and outside the House of Commons.
Before we leave the subject of the Education Bill we desire to state that, though it remains our opinion as before that it is wrong to place the ordinary teachers under a disability in regard to the giving of religious instruction, we do not think that this is a matter upon which it would be right for the House of Lords to insist at all costs. We admit that those teachers who are not only willing but anxious to give denominational religious instruction will be very un- fairly treated by being deprived of this right.--There are many men and women in the teaching profession who regard the right to give such instruction as a personal spiritual privilege.—We do not feel, however, that it would be wise to wreck the Bill on this point if the Government are determined to make it their sine qua. non. We are further impelled to advise compromise by the conviction that it will be impossible in the future to maintain the statutory disability which the present Government are apparently determined to impose upon the teachers. History shows that such statutory disabili- ties cannot be maintained in a free country ; and we feel sure that if, after a few years' working of the new Bill, any large number of teachers petition the House of Commons to be relieved from their disabilities, and ask to be allowed to enjoy a right enjoyed by other members of the com- munity, they will receive satisfaction. In the calmer, saner, and more tolerant atmosphere which we trust will prevail after a settlement of the education question has been reached, the intolerance connected with the imposition of religious disabilities by law will not be maintainable.
In spite, then, of the pessimism and exaggeration of Mr. Birrell's speech, we cannot help being still hopeful that the Lords' amendments will be made the basis of a reason- able compromise. To obtain this reasonable compromise, however, both sides, though they may indulge in plenty of rhetorical declarations that they will never yield on this or that point, and that such-and-such matters cannot even be discussed, must in reality enter on the final stage of discussion with free minds, and with a genuine desire to reach a national settlement, not by trampling upon the rights and feelings of their opponents, but by endeavouring to find means by which bond-fide objections can be met and relieved. Fortunately, the House of Lords possesses in one of its Members a statesman exactly fitted to lay down the lines of such a compromise. We believe that if it were possible for the Duke of Devonshire to sit as an arbitrator between the contending parties, to hear both sides, and then to give a final award binding upon both, that award would be entirely satisfactory to nine-tenths of the nation, and would not be the cause of any substantial grievance to the dissentient one-tenth. It is impossible, of course, in form to appoint the Duke of Devonshire as such an arbitrator ; but we sincerely trust that when the confer- ence takes place—as we presume it must—between the two Houses, the Duke will in effect be given that position, and that both parties will listen to his voice as the voice of moderation, common-sense, and justice.
Previous page
