The Bishop of London's New Year's letter to his diocese
was published on Thursday. The Bishop, who, we are glad to learn, is recovering from his recent illness, makes a notable reference to the Education Bill. As regards the question of "wear and tear," he justifies his position by stating that "rightly or wrongly, I have always taken the line from the first that our poorest schools would perish if they were responsible for all their repairs." Even more important is his very frank declaration with regard to the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. He disposes of the charge that it was framed by the Bishops by stating that it took him as a complete surprise, and that, backed up by almost the whole Episcopate, he fought for the " right of superintendence, subject to appeal," and voted against the clause. He goes on, however, to say that it would be most unfair to speak as if the Government had " deceived or cajoled us," and that the notion of a bargain is a " figment of the political imagination." As far as this clause was concerned," there was a perfectly honest misunder- standing, which we fought our hardest to set right at the last moment and failed." But even if the arrangement remains unaltered in the London Bill, he has no misgivings as to the result. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he feels sure that the clergy " will he accorded as a natural thing the superintendence of the religious teaching in their schools "; and be adds that he will be " much disappointed if the London diocese does not take the lead in taking the Bill, so far as it applies to London, and working it in a generous and public spirit for the good of the children of the nation." This loyal acceptance of a fait accompli may be contrasted with what we believe to be the misguided, if sincere, attitude which finds expression in Mr. Lathbury's article in the Nineteenth Century.
Previous page
