[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR. "] Suc,—Yon ask in the
Spectator of May 26th why, if Church- men disapprove of the Cowper-Temple Clause, they did not oppose it in the Bill of 1902 ? The answer is obvious, that it was tolerable while half the schools were denominational, but is intolerable if there is to be no variation from it. The system of learning by rote without comment, for that is what undenominationalism really is, has been given up in every other branch of education by all competent teachers. Does any one seriously propose to teach history undenomination- ally ? Churchmen do not claim any special privilege for themselves, but wish that all denominations should have facilities for meeting the wishes of parents. Better that this should be done by private enterprise than me at all.—I am,
[We cannot admit that the religious education given under the Cowper-Temple Clause is merely "learning by rote with- out comment." It may be so in a few exceptional areas, but it is not so in London, in Surrey, in Hampshire, or, indeed, in any county where there is a well-drawn-up syllabus.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
