Mr. Richard opposed the Bill on Tuesday, on the old-fashioned
ground that compulsion in matters of either religion or education is intrinsically undesirable ; but much more strongly on the Dis- senters' ground that, at all events, compulsion is undesirable while its tendency is to sweep Dissenters into Church schools, perhaps even High-Church or Ritualistic schools, with no better defence than the Conscience Clause. Mr. Richard, like the Dis- senters generally, ridicules the protection afforded by the Conscience Clause ; but the truth is that the protection is most efficient for those parents who really care about it, and we do not know why we should protect those who do not. No doubt, in nine cases out of ten, Dissenting parents not only like their children to learn the Church Catechism with the rest, but are exceedingly proud when they find them taking the prize, as they often do, for "religious knowledge." Of course that is very weak-kneed Dissent. But though it is the duty of the State to protect the consciences of sincere Dissenters, it is nobody's duty, that we know of, to keep half-and-half people out of the way of backsliding,—whether the backsliders be nominally Dissenters, or Churchmen, or Roman Catholics. Mr. Richard was beaten by a majority of 218,-017 to 99).
Previous page
