LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE EDUCATION BILL AND "SUITABLE PRO- VISION " FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."'

Si,—The policy of the Education Act of 1870 and of the present Bill regarding the attitude of the State towards the voluntary schools seems to me to be in danger of being mis- understood. It is one so eminently marked by common-sense and the desire to do justice that it may be worth restating. The Act of 1870 requires that there shall be provided every- where "efficient and suitable" provision for elementary educa- tion, any deficiency being made good by the public authority. It is obvious that the voluntary schools, if taken as part of this provision, must be made suitable as well as efficient. Pro- vision was made by sec. 23 for the alternative of their transfer to School Boards. The difficulty lay in their trust-deeds. They were held upon trust for elementary education, but also the ordinary trust-deed of the National Society required religious teaching in accordance with the Church of England. In connection with these transfers under sec. 23 it was held in

"The National Society v. The London School Board "(Law Rep. 18 Equity 608) that the reservation of power to give religious instruction during certain hours on two days of the week was sufficient to satisfy the trust so far as religious teaching was concerned. On the other hand, it was decided by the Education Department that as the schools were, in legal phrase, infected by a trust for elementary education, and this trust was undertaken by the Board to which the school was transferred, the transfer must be for a nominal considera- tion only. In the "Instructions" issued by the Department in 1871 is the following :— " (a) The Board must not undertake to pay any consideration other than a strictly nominal one (say five shillings) whether such consideration consists of a price or a Rent."

And in the circular letter of the Department (January 1st, 1872) it is explained that- " If an elementary school (s. 3) is vested in certain persons as trustees, and these trustees have no power, independently of Section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, to sell, lease, transfer, or deal with such school, then if the school is to be transferred to a School Board recourse must be had to such sec- tion. It provides the means by which a proposed transfer can be effected, and it should be observed that were it not for that sec- tion the managers of a school might be compelled, if subscriptions should fail, to retain a school-house without teachers and without scholars, whereas by taking advantage of that section the managers in such an emergency are enabled to transfer their inhool to the Board, who have power (s. 18 and 19) to enlarge or improve it and keep it in a state of efficiency."

Then follows this further pertinent statement :—

" (3) But farther, according to the construction of sec. 23, adopted in the Minute July 17, 1871, the managers have power to transfer their school only in order to relieve themselves from the responsibility of maintaining it, and for no other purpose. IC was not the purpose of the Legislature to enable trustees or managers to obtain money for property held by them in trust or for the discharge of debts for which they have made them- selves personally responsible."

When it is considered that probably most of the voluntary schools have received building grants as well as maintenance

from the public purse, it will hardly be disputed that the view thus taken by Mr. Forster in 1870 was just and consistent with common-sense, and at the same time inspired by a clear prevision of 'permanent public interests and intention to safe- guard them. The present Bill makes no change in these

principles of action, and it would manifestly be a fatal mis- take to depart from them and to attempt by compulsory

purchase to reverse the process, and to incur a cost which makes it quite outside the range of practical politics.

There remains the question how the voluntary schools can be made suitable under the altered circumstances of more complete maintenance from the public purse. That something more than the Conscience Clause is required is admitted in the Bill itself. But before considering the additional provisions of the Bill, let it be remembered that in Mr. Forster's mind the suitability of a school depended upon a common-sense view of the circumstances of each school district. Obviously, to put an extreme case, in a parish where there are no Roman Catholics it would be absurd to say that a Roman Catholic school would be made " suitable " to the parish by the mere action of the Conscience Clause. And equally obvious would be the opposite supposition of a Protestant school in the Irish quarter of Manchester or Liverpool, or any other distinctively Roman Catholic district. On precisely the same grounds, if in all the eight thousand parishes of England where there is but one school the religious teaching were found to be, let US say, of an extreme High Church character, and a distinct partiality were shown to the children who succumbed to the High Church arrangements and spirit, it could not possibly be considered from a national point of view that the schools as only" schools would be "suitable." The result would really be one so manifestly unfair to a large section of Churchmen and non-Churchmen that it never could be dreamed of as within the range of practical polities. It must be admitted that to some extent the converse is true. To the extremist on both sides the absence of the teaching of his own dogma may be a red rag almost as distressing as the red rag of directly opposing dogma. And perhaps to a majority of thoughtful parents the absence of all religious teaching would make a school unsuitable, inasmuch as even to the parent whose own religious views are uncertain the teaching of the "three R's" is but a small part of education, and the formation of moral character by far the greater part of it, viewed as education ought to be viewed, as the equipment for the battle of life given by one generation to the next. How, then, is the only school to be made suitable? No one has expressed his views in Parliamentary debate more logically and clearly and charitably from the denomi- national side than Lord Hugh Cecil. In his view, religious teaching is essential, and to him the particular dogma of each sect cannot be separated from the basis of religious con- viction held in common by Churchmen and Nonconformists. He holds that it is of immense importance that the child should pass from the school into communion with some de- nomination. There ought to be, he thinks, a door from the school to the church or the chapel. Hence, in his view, there should be separate schools for the children of Church- men and the children of non-Churchmen. This might be logical, but it would surely satisfy the ideal neither of Churchmen nor of Dissenters. It throws over the possibility of the only school being made "suitable." It would accentuate the social grievance of Nonconformists, divide society more distinctly than ever in the rural parishes into two hostile religious parties, and degrade national education into a fight for the children. The practical impossibility of the duplication of schools in the eight thousand parishes of rural England will probably save us from this result, but I can hardly believe that the other alternative which has been proposed by Lord Hugh Cecil and others would be any less hateful or more possible. It is proposed that during the hours covered by the Conscience Clause the ministers of various sects should have power to enter the schools and separate the children of their denomination from the others and separately teach them. That is to say, that the distinction between the children of one denomination and another is to be marked in the school itself. And when is the sectarian strife to end in the school ? Suppose that the school is under a strongly Evangelical clergyman, are the parents who are Ritualistic in their views to call in the aid of a Ritualistic clergyman to teach their children in the school? And the reverse ? And what about the semi- political sectarian who may have followers in the parish ? In all seriousness, I cannot believe that such a result is one which, when calmly considered, can commend itself to Noncon- formists or Churchmen. Such a school would not be a

" suitable" school in any national sense of the word. Viewed

from the point of view of the children, they may be re garded in most rural parishes as of three classes : the children of Churchmen, the children of Nonconformists, and the children of Parents of no denomination. Cannot the " only " school in most eases be made "suitable" for them all? It cannot be denied that further steps towards making the voluntary schools suitable are taken by the Bill. The local authority is to appoint one-third of the managers. The local authority is to have full power over the secular teaching. The consent of the local authority is to be required to the appointment of teachers, but this consent is not to be withheld "except on educational grounds." _ These are honest steps towards making the schools suitable. The difficulty has hitherto resulted in extreme cases from sectarian Pigotry and the absence of that common-sense and feeling of honour which would secure that the children of non- Churchmen should be treated in a Church school with special dp ference and kindness in accordance with' the spirit of tl2ie Education Act. These exceptional cases are not the result oi the Education Acts, but of infringement of them ; and Viandd such eases arise after the passing of this Bill, it would _auoth_ o.13;ityhe the business of the manager appointed by the local

to report the ease to the authority, whose duty it be to put a stop to a course of conduct equally distaste- xtu to the reasonable Churchman and Dissenters. A teacher

under whose rule the spirit of the Act was evaded would not be a suitable teacher from an educational or any other point of view, and it would be the business of the local authority to require his removal from a post for which he was unfitted. If by these or any other reasonable precautions the existing schools can in most cases be made suitable, it surely would be better than to multiply unnecessary denominational schools in the rural parishes or to accentuate religious and social differences by bringing religious strife and separation into the schools them- selves. And yet there must be exceptional cases. Viewing the whole matter, as I have tried to do, from a broad and common- sense point of view, I confess that there will probably be cases requiring the careful judgment of the local authority. Following throughout the necessarily elastic and varying meaning in each district of the word " suitable "—on which the whole matter hinges —I venture to suggest that, as even from a Protestant point of view it would be manifestly unsuitable for a distinctively Protestant school to be the "only "school in a Roman Catholic district, so there may be districts—let us say in Cornwall and Wales—in which the largeness, and even preponderance, of the Dissenting element must make it hardly possible that a Church school could be "suitable" as the only school, however considerate the disposition might be to make it so. In these cases recurrence must probably be had to Clause 9 of the Bill, which allows of rival denomi- national schools being founded, with the wise restriction, "unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that some other kind of school is better suited to meet the wants of the districts." If it be not sufficiently clear, let it be made clear in the Bill that it rests with the local authority (in rural districts the County Council and its Committee) to see that. the school provision is, as far as possible, suitable to each district ; and then surely it will be recognised that better protection will be given to all classes than could be given by any hard line of uniform legis- lation. The common-sense and good feeling of the local authority, combined in most cases with the same feeling on the part of the managers of the voluntary schools, and backed, let us hope, by the best voice of the Churches, must after all be relied on to secure the good working of any Bill which it is possible for Parliament under existing circumstances to pass.

—I am, Sir, Ste., F. SE EBOH M. The Hermitage, Hitchia.

[It is a great pleasure to us to publish Mr. Seebohm's tem- perate and suggestive letter. As coming from a member of the Society of Friends, its sympathetic attitude towards the cardinal principle of the Bill deserves special attention.

—Ed. Spectator.]