THE LOSS OF THE EDUCATION BILL.
[To FRE EDITOR OF DRS SPECTATOR1
Sea,—Although I fear I cannot expect you to sympathise with my views on the education question, I ask the favour of a small space in your columns—so hospitable to all opinions— in order to enter a respectful protest against some of your comments in the Spectator of December 22nd, 1906. I am not going to enter upon the laborious task of arguing whether or not the Government Bill, as amended in the House of Lords, and reamended by the Government there, would or would not have been a satisfactory settlement. I confine myself to the single point of the rural school teachers and their liberty to teach, and upon this I will say two things. First, those who know the condition of our rural schools know how important it is that those who are accustomed to teach in them, and who love their work, should continue to give the simple but definite religious teaching, which in the vast majority of such schools has been given time out of mind with- out the slightest friction or objection. Upon this, may I "pray in aid" of my own convictions the weighty letter from Mr. Taylor, Diocesan Inspector of Truro, which appears in your columns of December 29th? Let me quote a single sentence. "If," says Mr. Taylor, "Lord Crewe's compromise' had been accepted, not a single trained or untrained school teacher in the hundred and fifteen rural parishes in Cornwall would have been permitted to give any denominational teaching." If this be true, and if a similar statement could be made for all the counties of England, and if we remember the solemn trust under which the large majority of such schools have been founded within the last fifty years, is it a " narrow " issue for which we have contended ? And secondly, I would say that if the point is so "narrow" as the Spectator seems to think, the Government would hardly have wrecked the Bill upon it. But my main reason for writing to you was not to argue this question, upon which I fear we must be content to differ. I wished mainly to protest against the assumption you make that Mr. Balfour's conduct in the matter has been based upon party motives. You say on your first page, December 22nd :— "We do not think that we are doing him [Mr. Balfour] an injustice when we say that the advice which he tendered to the Peers, and which they unhappily accepted, was given as Leader of the Opposition, and with a view to embarrass the Government and place them in a difficulty, rather than as the friend of the Church of England, or of religions education in its widest and best sense."
I have watched Mr. Balfour's career for many years, and I do not affect to conceal my loyalty to him in his general policy ; but if there is one matter on which I have felt absolutely con- vinced of his depth of conviction, it is his determination to maintain the foundations of religious education, and, coupled with this, his refusal to allow injustice to be done to any religious convictions. Through the arduous struggles of 1902, and again through the weary debates of the past year, to my mind this has been his constant attitude, even when some of his followers would have preferred an easier path. Whether any "party gain," such as you suggest Mr. Balfour to have aimed at, will result from the recent proceedings remains to be seen. Party leaders must, of course, desire party gains, and rejoice when they obtain them. But on this question, which you and I agree in considering of the first importance, I, differing from you, shall continue to maintain, judging from long experience, that Mr. Balfour's prime motive was to secure justice and liberty, and to protect the rights of those who desired to preserve the religious education which they had long secured for the children of the Church.—I am, Sir. &c., JOHN G. TALBOT.
Falconhurat, Eden Bridge, Kent
Previous page
