The two most vital questions are concerned, it would appear,
with the right of the head-teacher in single-school areas to give, if he or she so desire, denominational teaching, and the power of the local authority to deny the right of entry to the denominations. It should be added that the foundation of • the suggested compromise is that in future all schools shall become County Council schools, in which simple Bible- teaching shall be obligatory and provided and paid for by the State, and denominational religious teaching shall be given at the expense of the denomination to children whose parents desire them to receive such instruction. There seems likeli- hood that the question of the head-teacher can be got over by a refusal to put the existing head-teachers under a ban or to subject them to what would in effect be religions disabilities. A little reflection will show the impossibility of such action. Many head-teachers may be said to have entered the profession impelled by a deep desire to give religious instruction. To enforce a disability to give religious instruction on such persons would be an act of spiritual tyranny. This is so widely felt that compromise here would seem to be inevitable. We trust that it may turn out that the power of County Councils to veto the right of entry to give denominational• teaching in what are now Provided schools will not be insisted on. In our opinion, the Westminster Gazette and the Daily News are quite right in saying that if the County Councils may, but not shall, grant the right of entry, we are likely to see the religions question raised •at all local elections, which, would be an immense evil.
Previous page
