The debate on Tuesday evening was memorable owing to the
excellent speech made by Mr. Lough against Mr. Maddison's amendment in favour of secularisation, For himself, he deplored Gambetta's phrase that " Clericalism is the enemy." How did they know that Clericalism was
the enemy? Ho could not agree that religious teaching might be safely left to the Sunday-school and the influ- ence' of home discipline. Then followed an admirable defence of the duty of the State to take thought for religious instruction. " They might as well put aside humbug and admit that- in a great many of what were called the homirs of the country there was no facility what- ever for giving religious instruction." He went a long way with those who said the State ought to come in and supply the gap if' the" parents desired it. No child was' properly equipped for the battle of life who did not get somewhere simple religious instruction. He did not think that simple Bible reading would do, nor did he think that the moral lesson would do either. The religious motive must be present, and the question was whether they could secure this in the unsectarian way, as the Government proposed to do by the Bill. It was perfectly practicable. The difficulty had been solved in the secondary schools. We need hardly say that we agree with the spirit of Mr. Lough's speech, and we believe that the Government might perfectly well accept amendments of the kind that have been proposed in the Spectator without injuring the principle of their Bill. If such amendments are refused, we believe that the Ministry will find that they have very much mistaken the feeling of the country in the matter.
Previous page
