TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE EDUCATION BILL.
THE im mediate, the imperative, question for the Church of England at this moment is not whether another Education Bill was wanted, or whether it is just or unjust in the abstract to disturb the settlement effected by the Bill of 1902. A new Education Bill is before Parliament, and the country is beginning to seethe with controversy and religious strife the final outcome of which no man can yet see. At present we hear only the !mutterings of the storm, but experience teaches us that in the fierce struggle of sects and parties filled with terror for the future or with anger for the past the true interests of religion may be forgotten or cast aside, and from this unseemly warfare may be born the unmitigated evil of secularisation. The Government, it is clear, do not desire such a consummation ; their Bill, indeed, is its negation. The House of Commons does not want it. The country as a whole dreads, nay, abhors, such a solution. Yet for all that it may come, because in the controversy that is upon us rash and bitter things will be said and done on both sides which may force the politicians to declare that every other form of settlement has been rejected, and that nothing else is possible. Already the extremists among the denominationalists are planning to join forces with the secularists ; and even men of deep religious conviction, but with minds clouded by the sophistries of sectarian zeal, are talking openly of their hopes of driving the Government into secularisation. The two Members who spoke first in the debate, one a High Churchman and the other a Labour Member, clearl,y indi- cated their preference for secularisation ; and if the storm grows instead of abating, as at present seems only too likely, we may find that many men who now shrink from the prospect of universal secular education with horror will end by persuading themselves that it is the only way.
In these circumstances, Churchmen who care for the Church in her national aspect, who deem her more than an episcopal sect, and who realise what the future of the English Church may be if only she does not lose her hold on the people, have a special work to perform. They must show that at such a juncture as the present it is the supreme duty of the Church to act as the guardian of the Christian religion in its widest sense,—that it is her duty to endure everything and to sacrifice everything, rather than to permit the de-Christianising of the nation as a result of sectarian warfare. The Church must not think of her rights, of her property, of her schools, but only of the essential consideration,—what is the obligation laid upon her as a national Church. Who even now, when men's eyes are blinded by the storm of sectarianism, will deny that this obligation is to preserve in the nation the fundamental truths of Christianity, and to make men realise that it is part of the duty of the State to place those fundamental truths within the reach of all who are willing to learn them ? Beside this essential obligation other obligations fade into nothing. Yet, in- conceivable as it sounds, the voices of Churchmen are being raised in protest against the recognition of the principle that the teaching of the fundamental truths of Christianity is a matter which concerns the State. They talk as if the teaching of Bible Christianity, the reading of the Gospel in our schools, the use of prayers and hymns which are acceptable to the great majority of Christians, whatever the tenets of their special creed, were somehow an injury and an injustice to the Church of England, and as if the use of such non-denominational teaching would justify her in using all methods of resistance, and even in thrusting the Bible from the national schools. If extremists of this fanatical sort are allowed to persuade the country that theirs is the authentic voice of the Church, her national position will have been surrendered, and her right to speak as the representative of the English people as a whole in what concerns the wider aspects of religion will be for ever forfeited.
We do not desire to suggest that Mr. Birrell's Bill is in any sense a perfect Bill, or is not capable of amendment in many particulars, even if its underlying principles are accepted as inevitable. For ourselves, we should greatly have preferred to maintain the settlement of 1902, with certain modifications which might perhaps have made it more acceptable to Nonconformists. We were never able to see that the cohsciences of Nonconformists were really injured by the Act, or that it was essentially unjust, and we hold that a Bill enacting that 'the majority of the managers in non-provided schools should be popularly elected would have done all that was neces- sary to secure a fair solution of the problem. When, however, Mr. Chamberlain broke the Unionist Party in pieces we felt that a complete revolution of our system of elementary education was certain to follow. A united. Unionist Party might, even in face of the tremendous opposition of the Nonconformists, have been able to main- . tain the easentials of the settlement of 1902. To a dis- united and shattered party the task was clearly impossible.. A new attempt at a settlement of the education question, therefore, became imperative, and a Parliament was sent to Westminster pledged to a settlement on particular lines. Those are facts which have to be faced, however disagreeable. In view of this situation, the main duty of the Church of England, as we have said above, and have - said, indeed, ever since the new Parliament was elected, is to use her power and influence to prevent a settlement which shall either adopt secularisation or smooth the path.
to secularisation. That is the prime consideration. Next to that, the efforts of the Church should clearly be directed to amending the Bill in such a way as to make its provisions just and reasonable in detail, for there are assuredly many of its provisions which will arouse, and rightly arouse, no little opposition.
First among the proposals which we hold to be open to strong objection, even if the principle of the Bill be accepted as now inevitable, we would place the proposal to prevent the teachers in transferred non-provided schools giving religious instruction, even though the denomina- tion to which facilities are afforded during two days in - the week desires to engage their services. Many of the masters and mistresses who will be transferred with the schools will be qualified to give the teaching in question, and it seems to us cruel and unreasonable to muzzle them and say that they, of all people in the world, are not to give denominational instruction. They may well be men and women who have a real love of such teaching, and whorn will feel their faculties in this respect starved if they are peremptorily forbidden so to exercise them. It is ridiculous to act as if they would be somehow unfitted for the work of general instruction by giving denominational lessons • twice a week. • No one would think of forbidding them to teach on Sundays in a denominational Sunday-school. Why, then, should they be muzzled on weekdays ?
Another matter which should be carefully reconsidered also concerns the question of facilities. Why should facilities on two days a week be given, not in all provided schools, but only in those which can produce a certificate of origin that they were once Voluntary schools ? Surely when all schools become, as they are to become, provided schools, facilities should be given in all of them. We dare say that in the majority of cases facilities would not be applied for, because we believe1bat the Bible Christianity taught in the vast majority of provided schools is perfectly satisfactory. The right to demand facilities on two days a week might, however, prove • a useful reserve power in the general interests of religious instruction. In the rare cases where an education authority tended to neglect the regular daily religious instruction, the denominations might then claim facilities. The right in the background to demand facilities would, however, we believe, in most cases keep the education authority up to the mark.
In the case of extended facilities—i.e., in the instances in which four-fifths of the parents are to be allowed. to redenominationalise a provided school—we are strongly of opinion that a wrong system has been adopted. We , warmly, approve of the liberty given to the education authorities to afford the extended facilities, but we dislike the mechanical test of four-fifths, and the con- , sequent counting of heads, and beating up of parents to . declare that they desire extended facilities. We would . far rather enact that when the local education authority were convinced that to give a school in a particular dis- trict extended facilities would be just to the people of the denomination concerned, and would inflict no injury on the minority, owing to the accommodation available elsewhere, they should be empowered to do so without any' actual counting of heads. There could, in addition, be a right of assent or veto placed in the hands of the Education Office.
Again, we object to the proposal to deal with Wales separately by creating a Welsh Council, and so to relieve Wales in a great measure of the supervision of the Education Office. That seems to us a wholly un- necessary proposal, and one which will very naturally arouse anxiety and. suspicion in the minds of the minority in Wales. The fact that there is so overwhelming a majority in Wales on one side, and so much theological hostility, makes it not less but more necessary to maintain the unimpaired supervision of the Education Office, which, whatever else it may do, does not take sides in religious controversy.
While dealing with the controversy which is bound to arise over the measure we cannot help mentioning our regret that Mr. Birrell confined his expressions of sympathy to the noble and sell-sacrificing work done by the .Roman Catholics in supporting their special schools. We do not grudge them their meed of praise, but surely the sacrifices made by the clergy of the Church of England should not be forgotten. We are too apt to talk about the riches of the Church of England, and to imagine rows of opulent laymen only waiting to be asked to pro- duce heavy subscriptions for Church schools. As a matter of fact, hundreds of cases could be mentioned where clergy- men of the Establishment have pinched themselves and their families while making efforts, which can only be called heroic, to keep their schools alive. Men have denied to their, own sons the public-school education which they might otherwise have given them in order to provide money for their schools, and examples have been given where the money spent by the parson on the upkeep of the schools has reduced his income below that of the National-school master. If ever men deserved praise for self-sacrifice and devotion in the cause of education, they are to be found among the clergy, rural and urban, of the Church of England.
Before we leave the subject of Mr. Birrell's Bill there is one point on which we must say a word. We feel convinced that, in spite of the wild expressions of certain extremists, the clergy of the Church of England will obey the law, however distasteful it may be to them, and however deter- mined they may be to v to get it repealed. The wise and statesmanlike words of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his letter to Mr. Talbot last February gave clear leading on this point, and we feel sure that the temptation, strong as it may be in some cases, to follow the evil example set by the "passive resisters" will be resisted. Nevertheless, many of those who thoughtlessly and reck- lessly encouraged "passive resistance" to the Act of 1902, and insisted that each man must judge for himself what were the circumstances which would justify him in declaring that his conscience would not allow him to pay rates, must now be wondering anxiously what explanation they are to give if the Bill they support is met with "passive resistance.' Though they would have none to thank but themselves if "passive resistance" thus came home to roost, we are glad to think that there is no risk of a result so disastrous. That the Church of England or any of her leaders will ever sanction such action is unthinkable.
Churchmen, we believe, will set in the future, as in the past, the example of good citizenship. That there are cases when resistance to the law and rebellion in arms can be justified and should be employed we do not deny for a moment, but they have not rightly arisen, and could not rightly arise, in regard to an Act like that of 1902, or that now under discussion. A conscience which is active in regard to rates, but inactive as regards taxes, provides nothing but a foundation of paradox upon which it is im- possible to build a sound structure. That Churchmen who have been for years supporting undenominational education by rates as well as by taxes will suddenly dis- cover that their consciences will not allow them to continue doing so is a supposition which has only to be stated to be overthrown.
Previous page
